Integration and Search Engine Bias
AbstractCompetition authorities all over the world worry that integration between search engines (mainly Google) and publishers could lead to abuses of dominant position.� In particular, one concern is that of own-content bias, meaning that Google would bias its rankings in favor of the publishers it owns or has an interest in, to the detriment of competitors and users.� In order to investigate this issue, we develop a theoretical framework in which the search engine (i) allocates users across publishers, and (ii) competes with publishers to attract advertisers.� We show that the search engine is biased against publishers that display many ads - even without integration.� Although integration may lead to own-content bias, it can also reduce bias by increasing the value of a marginal consumer to the search engine.� Integration also has a positive effect on users by reducing the nuisance costs due to excessive advertising.� Its net effect is therefore ambiguous in general, and we provide sufficient conditions for it to be desirable or not.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Oxford, Department of Economics in its series Economics Series Working Papers with number 651.
Date of creation: 26 Mar 2013
Date of revision:
Search engine; integration; advertising;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
- L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
- L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-20 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2013-04-20 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-MIC-2013-04-20 (Microeconomics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2003.
"Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis,"
Virginia Economics Online Papers
358, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
- Susan Athey & Glenn Ellison, 2011.
"Position Auctions with Consumer Search,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 126(3), pages 1213-1270.
- Jay Pil Choi & Byung-Cheol Kim, 2008.
"Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2390, CESifo Group Munich.
- Andrei Hagiu & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "Why do intermediaries divert search?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(2), pages 337-362, 06.
- Matthew Ellman & Fabrizio Germano, 2009. "What do the Papers Sell? A Model of Advertising and Media Bias," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 680-704, 04.
- Varian, Hal R., 2007. "Position auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1163-1178, December.
- Susan Athey & Emilio Calvano & Joshua Gans, 2013. "The Impact of the Internet on Advertising Markets for News Media," NBER Working Papers 19419, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Caroline Wise).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.