IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v40y2021i3p527-547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Media Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits

Author

Listed:
  • Wilfred Amaldoss

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Jinzhao Du

    (Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

  • Woochoel Shin

    (Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

Some media platforms earn their profits from both consumers and advertisers (e.g., Spotify, Hulu), whereas others earn their profits from either advertisers only (e.g., Jango, Tubi) or consumers only (e.g., Tidal, Netflix). Thus, media platforms adopt divergent strategies depending on how they allocate the limited space or bandwidth between content and advertising. In this paper, we examine media platforms’ content provision strategies and their implications for the profits of media platforms as well as content suppliers, taking into account the cross-side effects of a multisided media market and the nature of competition in the content supplier market. To facilitate the analysis, we propose a model where media platforms interact with three sides: content suppliers, consumers, and advertisers. First, our analysis of a perfectly competitive content market shows that though consumers’ desire for content raises the willingness to pay, it can hurt platforms’ profits. Second, counter to our intuition, platforms’ profits can increase with the cost of procuring content. Third, advertisers’ desire for consumers reduces a monopoly content supplier’s profits under a paid-content-with-ads strategy. Fourth, a monopoly content supplier cannot extract all the profits from competing platforms. Furthermore, competing content suppliers may even charge higher prices than a monopoly content supplier. Finally, we highlight how the nature of competition in the content market shapes platforms’ choice of a no-ad strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilfred Amaldoss & Jinzhao Du & Woochoel Shin, 2021. "Media Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 527-547, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:527-547
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2020.1248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1248
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2020.1248?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. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    2. Elena Argentesi & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2007. "Estimating market power in a two-sided market: The case of newspapers," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(7), pages 1247-1266.
    3. Attila Ambrus & Rossella Argenziano, 2009. "Asymmetric Networks in Two-Sided Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 17-52, February.
    4. Woochoel Shin, 2015. "Keyword Search Advertising and Limited Budgets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 882-896, November.
    5. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    6. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    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. Anthony Dukes & Esther Gal–Or, 2003. "Negotiations and Exclusivity Contracts for Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 222-245, November.
    9. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    10. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    11. Yong Chao & Timothy Derdenger, 2013. "Mixed Bundling in Two-Sided Markets in the Presence of Installed Base Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1904-1926, August.
    12. Esther Gal‐Or & Anthony Dukes, 2003. "Minimum Differentiation in Commercial Media Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 291-325, September.
    13. Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2008. "A Two-Sided, Empirical Model of Television Advertising and Viewing Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 356-378, 05-06.
    14. JOHN HOROWITZ & J. LIST & K. E. McCONNELL, 2007. "A Test of Diminishing Marginal Value," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 650-663, November.
    15. Monic Sun & Feng Zhu, 2013. "Ad Revenue and Content Commercialization: Evidence from Blogs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2314-2331, October.
    16. repec:hrv:faseco:4589709 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. David Godes & Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2009. "Content vs. Advertising: The Impact of Competition on Media Firm Strategy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 20-35, 01-02.
    18. Mark Armstrong & Julian Wright, 2007. "Two-sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(2), pages 353-380, August.
    19. repec:feb:framed:0072 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Chutian Wang & Bo Zhou & Yogesh V. Joshi, 2024. "Endogenous Consumption and Metered Paywalls," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 158-177, January.
    2. Tommaso Bondi & Omid Rafieian, 2023. "Privacy and Polarization: An Inference-Based Approach," Working Papers 23-09, NET Institute.

    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. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé, 2019. "Newspapers in Times of Low Advertising Revenues," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 319-364, August.
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4edekc99or8n2bu86nu4ua8adl is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/26t617gatp86qree1dejcpchbr is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Jullien, Bruno & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2021. "The Economics of Platforms: A Theory Guide for Competition Policy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    6. Simon P. Anderson & Bruno Jullien, 2015. "The advertising-financed business model in two-sided media markets," Post-Print hal-02866192, HAL.
    7. Reisinger, Markus, 2012. "Platform competition for advertisers and users in media markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 243-252.
    8. Marco Antonielli & Lapo Filistrucchi, 2011. "Collusion and the political differentiation of newspapers," Working Papers 11-26, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    9. Wang, Jin, 2021. "Do birds of a feather flock together? Platform’s quality screening and end-users’ choices theory and empirical study of online trading platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Reisinger, Markus, 2010. "Unique Equilibrium in Two-Part Tariff Competition between Two-Sided Platforms," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 308, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    11. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    12. Attila Ambrus & Emilio Calvano & Markus Reisinger, 2016. "Either or Both Competition: A "Two-Sided" Theory of Advertising with Overlapping Viewerships," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 189-222, August.
    13. Lapo Filistrucchi & Damien Geradin & Eric van Damme, 2012. "Identifying Two-Sided Markets," Working Papers - Economics wp2012_01.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    14. Carrillo, Juan D. & Tan, Guofu, 2021. "Platform competition with complementary products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Galeotti, Andrea & Moraga-González, José Luis, 2009. "Platform intermediation in a market for differentiated products," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 417-428, May.
    16. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Jullien, Bruno & Klimenko, Mikhail, 2021. "Language, internet and platform competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cage & Michael Sinkinson, 2020. "Media Competition and News Diets," Working Papers hal-03393063, HAL.
    18. Anthony Dukes & Qihong Liu & Jie Shuai, 2022. "Skippable Ads: Interactive Advertising on Digital Media Platforms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 528-547, May.
    19. Behringer, Stefan & Filistrucchi, Lapo, 2015. "Hotelling competition and political differentiation with more than two newspapers," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 36-49.
    20. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cage & Michael Sinkinson, 2020. "Media Competition and News Diets," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03393063, HAL.
    21. Calvano, Emilio & Polo, Michele, 2021. "Market power, competition and innovation in digital markets: A survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    22. Zennyo, Yusuke, 2020. "Freemium competition among ad-sponsored platforms," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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:inm:ormksc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:527-547. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.