IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Ad-sponsored Business Models and Compatibility Incentives of Social Networks

This paper examines social networks' incentives to establish compatibility under fee and ad-sponsored business models. I analyze the competition between two social networks and show that compatibility is only possible when the two networks are ad-sponsored. I also find that even when both networks are ad-sponsored, a network with a significant installed-base advantage may choose not to be compatible when the cost from sharing the market outweighs the benefit from additional ad profits. Finally, compatibility also requires a significant number of single-homing users. The results are consistent with empirical observations of social networks and suggest that increased adoption of ad-sponsored business models may lead to many de-facto standards in high-technology industries.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.netinst.org/Zhu_08-20.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by NET Institute in its series Working Papers with number 08-20.

as
in new window

Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2008
Date of revision: Sep 2008
Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:0820
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.NETinst.org/

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
  2. Holden, S., 1993. "Network or Pay-Per-View? A Welfare Analysis," Memorandum 08/1993, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
  3. Josh Lerner & Feng Zhu, 2005. "What is the Impact of Software Patent Shifts?: Evidence from Lotus v. Borland," NBER Working Papers 11168, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
  5. GABSZEWICZ, Jean J. & LAUSSEL, Didier & SONNAC, Nathalie, . "Programming and advertising competition in the broadcasting industry," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1873, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  6. Ulrich Kaiser, 2007. "Do Media Consumers Really Dislike Advertising? An Empirical Assessment of a Popular Assumption in Economic Theory," CIE Discussion Papers 2007-08, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
  7. Crémer, Jacques & Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 1999. "Connectivity in the Commercial Internet," IDEI Working Papers 87, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 2000.
  8. Jiawei Chen & Ulrich Doraszelski & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2008. "Avoiding Market Dominance: Product Compatibility in Markets with Network Effects," Economics Working Paper Archive 537, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
  9. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1992. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 9-35, March.
  10. Clements, Matthew T., 2004. "Direct and indirect network effects: are they equivalent?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 633-645, May.
  11. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, 06.
  12. Beebe, Jack H, 1977. "Institutional Structure and Program Choices in Television Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 15-37, February.
  13. Doyle, Chris, 1998. "Programming in a competitive broadcasting market: entry, welfare and regulation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 23-39, March.
  14. Jean J, Gabszewicz & Didier Laussel & Nathalie Sonnac, 2004. "Does Advertising Lower the Price of Newspapers to Consumers ? A Theoretical Appraisal," Working Papers 2004-40, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
  15. Claude Crampes & Carole Haritchabalet & Bruno Jullien, 2005. "Advertising, Competition and Entry in Media Industries," CESifo Working Paper Series 1591, CESifo Group Munich.
  16. GABSZEWICZ, Jean J. & LAUSSEL, Didier & SONNAC, Nathalie, . "Competition in the media and advertising markets," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1872, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  17. Doganoglu, Toker & Wright, Julian, 2006. "Multihoming and compatibility," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 45-67, January.
  18. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2003. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," Virginia Economics Online Papers 358, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
  19. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-40, June.
  20. Economides, Nicholas & White, Lawrence J., 1994. "Networks and compatibility: Implications for antitrust," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 651-662, April.
  21. GABSZEWICZ, Jean J. & LAUSSEL, Didier & SONNAC, Nathalie, 2000. "TV-broadcasting competition and advertising," CORE Discussion Papers 2000006, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  22. Spence, A Michael & Owen, Bruce, 1977. "Television Programming, Monopolistic Competition, and Welfare," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 103-26, February.
  23. Esther Gal-Or & Anthony Dukes, 2003. "Minimum Differentiation in Commercial Media Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 291-325, 09.
  24. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. " Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-28, Summer.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:0820. 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: (Nicholas Economides)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.