IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the strategic use of attention grabbers

Author

Listed:
  • Eliaz, Kfir

    () (Department of Economics, Brown University)

  • Spiegler, Ran

    () (Department of Economics, University College London and Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

When a firm decides which products to offer or put on display, it takes into account the products' ability to attract attention to the brand name as a whole. Thus, the value of a product to the firm emanates from the consumer demand it directly meets, as well as the indirect demand it generates for the firms' other products. We explore this idea in the context of a stylzed model of competition between media content providers (broadcast TV channels, internet portals, newspapers) over consumers with limited attention. We characterize the equilibrium use of products as attention grabbers and its implications for consumer conversion, industry profits and (mostly vertical) product differentiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2011. "On the strategic use of attention grabbers," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20110127/4787/175
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    2. Mark Armstrong, 2008. "Interactions between Competition and Consumer Policy," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
    3. Zauberman, Gal, 2003. " The Intertemporal Dynamics of Consumer Lock-In," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 405-419, December.
    4. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    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. Sürücü, Oktay, 2016. "Welfare improving discrimination based on cognitive limitations," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 608-622.
    2. Karpov, Aleksandr, 2017. "Price competition and limited attention," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-89, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    3. Edward John Dorrell Webb, 2014. "Do we see monopoly or duopoly? The influence of perception on entry deterrence," Discussion Papers 14-20, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    4. Dahremöller, Carsten & Fels, Markus, 2015. "Product lines, product design, and limited attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 437-456.
    5. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    6. Sürücü, Oktay & Brangewitz, Sonja & Mir Djawadi, Behnud, 2017. "Asymmetric dominance effect with multiple decoys for low- and high-variance lotteries," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 574, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2016. "Competition for Attention," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 481-513.
    8. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2014. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest also the Best?," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-015, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    9. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Modelling Imperfect Attention," Working Papers 744, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    10. Suzuki, Toru, 2016. "Reminder game: Indirectness in persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 240-256.
    11. Kaiser Karen & Schwabe Rainer, 2012. "Preference for Variety," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32, January.
    12. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Modelling Imperfect Attention," Working Papers 744, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    13. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest Also the Best?," Working Papers 743, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    15. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    16. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    17. Liang, Hanchao & Yang, Chunpeng & Zhang, Rengui & Cai, Chuangqun, 2017. "Bounded rationality, anchoring-and-adjustment sentiment, and asset pricing," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 85-102.
    18. Toru Suzuki, 2012. "Persuasive Silence," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-014, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bounded rationality; irrelevant alternatives; limited attention; consideration sets; preferences over menus; marketing; persuasion; conversion rates; media platforms;

    JEL classification:

    • C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • M39 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Other

    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:the:publsh:758. 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: (Martin J. Osborne). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.