IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v57y2011i5p828-842.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Tucker

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • Juanjuan Zhang

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

Abstract

Popularity information is usually thought to reinforce existing sales trends by encouraging customers to flock to mainstream products with broad appeal. We suggest a countervailing market force: popularity information may benefit niche products with narrow appeal disproportionately, because the same level of popularity implies higher quality for narrow-appeal products than for broad-appeal products. We examine this hypothesis empirically using field experiment data from a website that lists wedding service vendors. Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis: narrow-appeal vendors receive more visits than equally popular broad-appeal vendors after the introduction of popularity information. This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta, marketing.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2011. "How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 828-842, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:5:p:828-842
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1312
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1312?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. Sandra E. Black, 1999. "Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 577-599.
    2. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1995. "A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(4), pages 627-633, March.
    3. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    4. Shane Greenstein, 2008. "Economic Experiments and Neutrality in Internet Access," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 59-109, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    6. Anderson, Lisa R & Holt, Charles A, 1997. "Information Cascades in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 847-862, December.
    7. Dmitri Kuksov & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2010. "When More Alternatives Lead to Less Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 507-524, 05-06.
    8. David Lucking-Reiley, 1999. "Using Field Experiments to Test Equivalence between Auction Formats: Magic on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1063-1080, December.
    9. Celen, Bogachan & Kariv, Shachar, 2004. "Observational learning under imperfect information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 72-86, April.
    10. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "Growing Two-Sided Networks by Advertising the User Base: A Field Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 805-814, 09-10.
    11. Hahn, Jinyong & Todd, Petra & Van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2001. "Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 201-209, January.
    12. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    13. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    14. Duncan Simester, 1995. "Signalling Price Image Using Advertised Prices," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 166-188.
    15. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Michael Sinkinson, 2011. "The Effect of Newspaper Entry and Exit on Electoral Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2980-3018, December.
    16. Yubo Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2005. "Third-Party Product Review and Firm Marketing Strategy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 218-240, February.
    17. Eric T. Anderson & Duncan I. Simester, 2004. "Long-Run Effects of Promotion Depth on New Versus Established Customers: Three Field Studies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 4-20, February.
    18. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    19. AfDB AfDB, 2010. "Working Paper Series – Author Guidelines," Working Paper Series 357, African Development Bank.
    20. Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "The Sound of Silence: Observational Learning in the U.S. Kidney Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 315-335, 03-04.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Drehmann, Mathias & Oechssler, Jorg & Roider, Andreas, 2007. "Herding with and without payoff externalities -- an internet experiment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 391-415, April.
    2. repec:awi:wpaper:0420 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    4. Liangfei Qiu & Arunima Chhikara & Asoo Vakharia, 2021. "Multidimensional Observational Learning in Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 876-894, September.
    5. Jurui Zhang & Yong Liu & Yubo Chen, 2015. "Social Learning in Networks of Friends versus Strangers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 573-589, July.
    6. James C. D. Fisher & John Wooders, 2017. "Interacting information cascades: on the movement of conventions between groups," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(1), pages 211-231, January.
    7. Chong (Alex) Wang & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Il-Horn Hann, 2018. "Socially Nudged: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Friends’ Social Influence in Online Product Ratings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 641-655, September.
    8. Liangfei Qiu & Zhan (Michael) Shi & Andrew B. Whinston, 2018. "Learning from Your Friends’ Check-Ins: An Empirical Study of Location-Based Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 1044-1061, December.
    9. Juanjuan Zhang & Peng Liu, 2012. "Rational Herding in Microloan Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 892-912, May.
    10. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    11. Wang, Peiwen & Chen, Minghua & Wu, Ji & Yan, Yuanyun, 2023. "Do peer effects matter in bank risk? Some cross-country evidence," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John List, 2006. "Information Cascades: Evidence from An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," NBER Working Papers 12767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Stephanie De Mel & Kaivan Munshi & Soenje Reiche & Hamid Sabourian, 2021. "Herding with Heterogeneous Ability: An Application to Organ Transplantation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2308, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Mathias Drehmann & Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider, 2005. "Herding and Contrarian Behavior in Financial Markets: An Internet Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1403-1426, December.
    15. Tom Wilkening, 2009. "The Informational Properties of Institutions: An Experimental Study of Persistence in Markets with Certification," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1087, The University of Melbourne.
    16. Shijie Lu & Dai Yao & Xingyu Chen & Rajdeep Grewal, 2021. "Do Larger Audiences Generate Greater Revenues Under Pay What You Want? Evidence from a Live Streaming Platform," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 964-984, September.
    17. Shachar Kariv, 2005. "Overconfidence and Informational Cascades," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000406, UCLA Department of Economics.
    18. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang & Ting Zhu, 2013. "Days on market and home sales," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 337-360, June.
    19. March, Christoph & Ziegelmeyer, Anthony, 2020. "Altruistic observational learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. Sushil Bikhchandani & David Hirshleifer & Omer Tamuz & Ivo Welch, 2024. "Information Cascades and Social Learning," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 1040-1093, September.
    21. Yang Liu & Juan Feng & Xiuwu Liao, 2017. "When Online Reviews Meet Sales Volume Information: Is More or Accurate Information Always Better?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 723-743, December.

    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:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:5:p:828-842. 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.