IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/7863.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Strategic Use of Attention Grabbers

Author

Listed:
  • Eliaz, Kfir
  • Spiegler, Ran

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 stylized 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, 2010. "On the Strategic Use of Attention Grabbers," CEPR Discussion Papers 7863, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:7863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=7863
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    2. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    3. Mark Armstrong, 2008. "Interactions between Competition and Consumer Policy," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
    4. Zauberman, Gal, 2003. "The Intertemporal Dynamics of Consumer Lock-In," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 405-419, 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. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2018. "Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest Also the Best?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(609), pages 827-844, March.
    2. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    3. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2016. "Competition for Attention," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 481-513.
    4. Olivier Gossner & Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart, 2018. "Attention Please!," Working Papers tecipa-626, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    5. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    6. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
    7. Kaiser Karen & Schwabe Rainer, 2012. "Preference for Variety," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32, January.
    8. Kovach, Matthew, 0. "Twisting the truth: foundations of wishful thinking," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    9. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke, 2013. "Choice by iterative search," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(3), September.
    10. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2019. "Discrete choice under risk with limited consideration," CeMMAP working papers CWP08/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. 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.
    12. Sürücü, Oktay, 2016. "Welfare improving discrimination based on cognitive limitations," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 608-622.
    13. Karpov, Aleksandr, 2017. "Price competition and limited attention," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-89, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    14. 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.
    15. Dahremöller, Carsten & Fels, Markus, 2015. "Product lines, product design, and limited attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 437-456.
    16. 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.
    17. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    18. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2015. "Modelling Imperfect Attention," Working Papers 744, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    19. Suzuki, Toru, 2016. "Reminder game: Indirectness in persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 240-256.
    20. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Limited Attention in Case-Based Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 518, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    21. 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.
    22. Toru Suzuki, 2012. "Persuasive Silence," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-014, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    23. Hefti, Andreas, 2018. "Limited attention, competition and welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 318-359.

    More about this item

    Keywords

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

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory

    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:cpr:ceprdp:7863. 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: (). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.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.