The quantity and quality of radio broadcasting: are small markets underprovided?
Small radio markets are characterized by less format variety and lower listening shares than larger markets. It is frequently argued that lack of format variety causes low listenership and that small markets consequently are underserved by commercial radio. However, if format variety is treated as endogenous, then the relatively low numbers of formats available in small markets might reflect underlying taste or lifestyle attributes rather than market failure. We argue that residents of smaller towns actually enjoy higher quality commercial broadcasts than their counterparts in large cities because radio stations in small markets play fewer commercials than big-city stations, ceteris paribus. To test this hypothesis we develop a measure of the average quantity of commercials played per station in each market area. Our findings confirm that listeners in small markets benefit from higher quality radio services than listeners in large markets, if high quality is defined as fewer commercial interruptions.
Volume (Year): 10 (2003)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CIJB20|
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.:
- Berry, Steven T. & Waldfogel, Joel, 1999.
"Public radio in the United States: does it correct market failure or cannibalize commercial stations?,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 189-211, February.
- Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1997. "Public Radio in the United States: Does It Correct Market Failure or Cannibalize Commercial Stations?," NBER Working Papers 6057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ekelund, Robert B, Jr & Ford, George S & Koutsky, Thomas, 2000. "Market Power in Radio Markets: An Empirical Analysis of Local and National Concentration," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 157-84, April.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
- Robert Ekelund & George Ford & John Jackson, 1999. "Is Radio Advertising a Distinct Local Market? An Empirical Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 239-256, May.
- Brunner, Eric J, 1998. " Free Riders or Easy Riders?: An Examination of the Voluntary Provision of Public Radio," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 587-604, December.
- Craig L. LaMay & Burton A. Weisbrod, . "The Funding Perils of Public Broadcasting," IPR working papers 97-11, Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University.
- Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2000. "Market Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999.
"Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 397-420, Autumn.
- Steven Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1996. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 5528, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:10:y:2003:i:3:p:347-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.