IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jemstr/v22y2013i3p445-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Search Quality and Revenue Cannibalization by Competing Search Engines

Author

Listed:
  • Greg Taylor

Abstract

Consumers are attracted by high‐quality search results. Search engines, though, essentially compete against themselves because consumers are induced to substitute away from advertisement links when their organic counterparts are of high quality. I characterize the effect of such revenue cannibalization upon equilibrium quality when search engines compete for clicks. Cannibalization provides an incentive for quality degradation, engendering low‐quality equilibria—even when provision is costless. When consumers exhibit loyalty there is a ceiling above which result quality cannot rise, regardless of what the maximum feasible quality happens to be. Seemingly procompetitive developments may exert downward pressure on equilibrium quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Greg Taylor, 2013. "Search Quality and Revenue Cannibalization by Competing Search Engines," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 445-467, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jemstr:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:445-467
    DOI: 10.1111/jems.12027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jems.12027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandre Cornière & Greg Taylor, 2014. "Integration and search engine bias," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(3), pages 576-597, September.
    2. Yongmin Chen & Chuan He, 2011. "Paid Placement: Advertising and Search on the Internet," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 309-328, November.
    3. Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Prominence and Consumer Search: The Case With Multiple Prominent Firms," MPRA Paper 12554, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mark Armstrong & John Vickers & Jidong Zhou, 2009. "Prominence and consumer search," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(2), pages 209-233, June.
    5. Matthew Ellman & Fabrizio Germano, "undated". "What Do the Papers Sell?," Working Papers 149, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Bernard J. Jansen & Mimi Zhang & Carsten D. Schultz, 2009. "Brand and its effect on user perception of search engine performance," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1572-1595, August.
    7. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
    8. Benjamin Edelman & Michael Ostrovsky & Michael Schwarz, 2007. "Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second-Price Auction: Selling Billions of Dollars Worth of Keywords," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 242-259, March.
    9. Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 1.
    10. Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2010. "The Race for Sponsored Links: Bidding Patterns for Search Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 199-215, 03-04.
    11. 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, April.
    12. Varian, Hal R., 2007. "Position auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1163-1178, December.
    13. Michael Arnold & Eric Darmon & Thierry Penard, 2012. "To Sponsor or not to Sponsor: Sponsored Search Auctions with Organic Links," Working Papers 12-04, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    14. Pollock Rufus, 2010. "Is Google the Next Microsoft: Competition, Welfare and Regulation in Online Search," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-31, December.
    15. Sha Yang & Anindya Ghose, 2010. "Analyzing the Relationship Between Organic and Sponsored Search Advertising: Positive, Negative, or Zero Interdependence?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 602-623, 07-08.
    16. Bagwell, Kyle, 2007. "The Economic Analysis of Advertising," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1701-1844, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alaoui, Larbi & Germano, Fabrizio, 2020. "Time scarcity and the market for news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 173-195.
    2. Burguet, Roberto & Caminal, Ramon & Ellman, Matthew, 2015. "In Google we trust?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 44-55.
    3. Alexandre Cornière & Greg Taylor, 2014. "Integration and search engine bias," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(3), pages 576-597, September.
    4. Cédric Argenton & Jens Prüfer, 2012. "Search Engine Competition With Network Externalities," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 73-105.
    5. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    6. Hagiu, Andrei & Jullien, Bruno, 2014. "Search diversion and platform competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 48-60.
    7. Ravi Bapna & Robert Day & Sarah Rice, 2020. "Allocative Efficiency in Online Auctions: Improving the Performance of Multiple Online Auctions Via Seek‐and‐Protect Agents," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(8), pages 1878-1893, August.
    8. Alexandre de Cornière, 2016. "Search Advertising," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 156-188, August.
    9. Foucart, Renaud, 2020. "Metasearch and market concentration," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Joan Calzada & Nestor Duch-Brown & Ricard Gil, 2021. "Do search engines increase concentration in media markets?," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2021/415, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. Paul Belleflamme & Martin Peitz, 2018. "Inside the Engine Room of Digital Platforms: Reviews, Ratings, and Recommendations," Working Papers halshs-01714549, HAL.
    13. Ravneet Singh Bhandari & Sanjeev Bansal, 2019. "An Analysis Between Search Engine Optimization Versus Social Media Marketing Affecting Individual Marketer’s Decision--Making Behavior," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 8(1), pages 78-91, June.
    14. Nagpal, Mayank & Petersen, J. Andrew, 2021. "Keyword Selection Strategies in Search Engine Optimization: How Relevant is Relevance?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 746-763.
    15. Michael Luca & Timothy Wu & Sebastian Couvidat & Daniel Frank & William Seltzer, 2015. "Does Google Content Degrade Google Search? Experimental Evidence," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-035, Harvard Business School, revised Aug 2016.
    16. Tavalaei, M. Mahdi, 2020. "Waiting time in two-sided platforms: The case of the airport industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    17. Jens Prüfer & Christoph Schottmüller, 2021. "Competing with Big Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(4), pages 967-1008, December.
    18. Ji, Sung Wook & Choi, Young-jun & Ryu, Min Ho, 2016. "The economic effects of domestic search engines on the development of the online advertising market," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 982-995.
    19. Ron Berman & Zsolt Katona, 2013. "The Role of Search Engine Optimization in Search Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 644-651, July.
    20. Ravneet Singh Bhandari & Ajay Bansal, 2018. "Impact of Search Engine Optimization as a Marketing Tool," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 7(1), pages 23-36, June.
    21. Mohammad Zia & Ram C. Rao, 2019. "Search Advertising: Budget Allocation Across Search Engines," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1023-1037, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. White, Alexander, 2013. "Search engines: Left side quality versus right side profits," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 690-701.
    2. Fei Long & Kinshuk Jerath & Miklos Sarvary, 2022. "Designing an Online Retail Marketplace: Leveraging Information from Sponsored Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 115-138, January.
    3. Burguet, Roberto & Caminal, Ramon & Ellman, Matthew, 2015. "In Google we trust?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 44-55.
    4. Alexandre Cornière & Greg Taylor, 2014. "Integration and search engine bias," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(3), pages 576-597, September.
    5. Chen, Yongmin & Zhang, Tianle, 2018. "Intermediaries and consumer search," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 255-277.
    6. Carlo Reggiani & Alejandro Saporiti & Lois Simanjuntak, 2018. "Social Information and Consumer Heterogeneity," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1813, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    7. Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "What is Different About Online Advertising?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 115-129, March.
    8. Alaoui, Larbi & Germano, Fabrizio, 2020. "Time scarcity and the market for news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 173-195.
    9. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti, 2010. "Targeting in Advertising Markets: Implications for Offline vs. Online Media," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1758, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Jan Krämer, & Daniel Schnurr,, 2018. "Is there a need for platform neutrality regulation in the EU?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 514-529.
    11. Chen, Yongmin, 2023. "Search and Competition Under Product Quality Uncertainty," MPRA Paper 116609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Li, Sanxi & Sun, Hailin & Yu, Jun, 2023. "Competitive targeted online advertising," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Tarantino, Emanuele, 2013. "A simple model of vertical search engines foreclosure," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-12.
    14. Chen Jin & Luyi Yang & Kartik Hosanagar, 2023. "To Brush or Not to Brush: Product Rankings, Consumer Search, and Fake Orders," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 532-552, June.
    15. Yang, Yupin & Lu, Qiang (Steven) & Tang, Guanting & Pei, Jian, 2015. "The Impact of Market Competition on Search Advertising," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 46-55.
    16. Chen Jin & Luyi Yang & Kartik Hosanagar, 2019. "To Brush or Not to Brush: Product Rankings, Customer Search, and Fake Orders," Working Papers 19-02, NET Institute.
    17. Kerkhof, Anna & Münster, Johannes, 2015. "Quantity restrictions on advertising, commercial media bias, and welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 124-141.
    18. Thomas Blake & Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large‐Scale Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 155-174, January.
    19. Kaifu Zhang & Zsolt Katona, 2012. "Contextual Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 980-994, November.
    20. Mark Armstrong & Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Paying for Prominence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 368-395, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jemstr:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:445-467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/journals/JEMS/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.