IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/363.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Markets for Network Goods

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Bursztyn

    (University of Chicago & NBER)

  • Matthew Gentzkow

    (Stanford University & NBER)

  • Rafael Jiménez-Durán

    (Bocconi University, IGIER, CESifo, & Chicago Booth Stigler Center)

  • Aaron Leonard

  • Filip Milojević

    (University of Chicago)

  • Christopher Roth

    (University of Cologne, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, CESifo, & CEPR)

Abstract

Market definition is essential for antitrust analysis, but challenging in settings with network effects, where substitution patterns depend on changes in network size. To address this challenge, we conduct an incentivized experiment to measure substitution patterns for TikTok, a popular social media platform. Our experiment, conducted during a time of high uncertainty about a potential U.S. TikTok ban, compares changes in the valuation of other social apps under individual and collective TikTok deactivations. Consistent with a simple framework, the valuations of alternative social apps increase more in response to a collective TikTok ban than to an individual TikTok deactivation. Our framework and estimates highlight that individual and collective treatments can even lead to qualitatively different conclusions about which alternative goods are substitutes.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Bursztyn & Matthew Gentzkow & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Aaron Leonard & Filip Milojević & Christopher Roth, 2025. "Measuring Markets for Network Goods," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 363, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_363_2025.pdf
    File Function: Second version, 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin Katz & Hunt Allcott, 2025. "Digital Media Mergers: Theory and Application to Facebook-Instagram," NBER Working Papers 34028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    3. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    4. 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.
    5. Rehse, Dominik & Valet, Sebastian, 2025. "Competition among digital services: Evidence from the 2021 Meta outage," ZEW Discussion Papers 25-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Leonardo Bursztyn & Benjamin Handel & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Christopher Roth, 2025. "When Product Markets Become Collective Traps: The Case of Social Media," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 115(12), pages 4105-4136, December.
    7. Calvano, Emilio & Polo, Michele, 2021. "Market power, competition and innovation in digital markets: A survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    8. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    9. Susan Athey & Emilio Calvano & Joshua S. Gans, 2018. "The Impact of Consumer Multi-homing on Advertising Markets and Media Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1574-1590, April.
    10. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    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. Kevin Zielnicki & Guy Aridor & Aurelien Bibaut & Allen Tran & Winston Chou & Nathan Kallus, 2025. "The Value of Personalized Recommendations: Evidence from Netflix," CESifo Working Paper Series 12257, CESifo.
    2. Kevin Zielnicki & Guy Aridor & Aur'elien Bibaut & Allen Tran & Winston Chou & Nathan Kallus, 2025. "The Value of Personalized Recommendations: Evidence from Netflix," Papers 2511.07280, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.

    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. Argentesi, Elena & Buccirossi, Paolo & Calvano, Emilio & Duso, Tomaso & Marrazzo, Alessia & Nava, Salvatore, 2021. "Merger Policy in Digital Markets: An Ex Post Assessment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(1), pages 95-140.
    2. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé & Michael Sinkinson, 2024. "Media Competition and News Diets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 62-102, May.
    3. Wilfred Amaldoss & Jinzhao Du & Woochoel Shin, 2024. "Pricing Strategy of Competing Media Platforms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 488-505, May.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    6. Gabriela Mundaca, 2024. "Economic valuation of environmental and health impacts from mining: the case of Peru," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 2415-2441, January.
    7. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    10. Jie Zhang & Yanju Zhou & Xiaohong Chen & Maggie Wenjing Liu, 2025. "Quality investment and subsidy strategies of platforms for smart home control hub," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 3283-3324, August.
    11. Simon P. Anderson & Martin Peitz, 2023. "Ad Clutter, Time Use, and Media Diversity," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 227-270, May.
    12. Zennyo, Yusuke, 2024. "A model of mobile app and ad platform markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    14. Luca Sandrini & Robert Somogyi, 2022. "News Media Bargaining Codes," Working Papers 22-06, NET Institute.
    15. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Nilssen, Tore, 2015. "Media competition enhances new-product entry: On the market for fake observations," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 59-66.
    16. Jullien, Bruno & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2021. "The Economics of Platforms: A Theory Guide for Competition Policy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    17. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Earnings information and public preferences for university tuition: Evidence from representative experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    18. Simon P. Anderson & Øystein Foros & Hans Jarle Kind, 2019. "The importance of consumer multihoming (joint purchases) for market performance: Mergers and entry in media markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 125-137, January.
    19. Armando José Garcia Pires, 2023. "Ad-Valorem Taxes, Prices and Content Diversification in the News Market," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-28, March.
    20. Shiva Shekhar & Radostina Shopova, 2025. "The Limits of Media See-Saws: Ad-Funded Platform Mergers Can Harm Both Sides," CESifo Working Paper Series 11768, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • J15 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ajk:ajkdps:363. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.