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

Understanding the Internet's relevance to media ownership policy: a model of too many choices

  • Nagler, Matthew

Does the Internet provide a failsafe against media consolidation in the wake of an easing of media ownership rules? This paper posits a model of news outlet selection on the Internet in which consumers experience cognitive costs that increase with the number of options faced. Consistent with psychological evidence, these costs may be reduced by constraining one’s choice set to “safe bets” familiar from offline (e.g., CNN.com). It is shown that, as the number of outlets grows, dispersion of consumer visitation across outlets inevitably declines. Consequently, independent Internet outlets may fail to mitigate lost outlet independence on other media.

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://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2180/1/MPRA_paper_2180.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 2180.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 14 Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:2180
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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. Rochet, Jean-Charles & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," IDEI Working Papers 152, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
  2. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
  3. Anderson, S. P. & Neven, D. J., 1989. "Market efficiency with combinable products," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 707-719, April.
  4. 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.
  5. GABSZEWICZ, Jean J. & LAUSSEL, Didier & SONNAC, Nathalie, . "Press advertising and the political differentiation of newspapers," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1561, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  6. Hoernig, Steffen H. & Valletti, Tommaso M., 2007. "Mixing goods with two-part tariffs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 1733-1750, October.
  7. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, 09.
  8. Kaiser Ulrich, 2006. "Magazines and their Companion Websites: Competing Outlet Channels?," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-26, August.
  9. Jean J. Gabszewicz & Didier Laussel & Nathalie Sonnac, 2004. "Programming and Advertising Competition in the Broadcasting Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 657-669, December.
  10. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. " The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
  11. Grace, H Stephen, Jr, 1970. "Professor Samuelson on Free Enterprise and Economic Inefficiency: A Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 337-40, May.
  12. Kaiser, Ulrich & Kongsted, Hans Christian, 2005. "Do Magazines' "Companion Websites" Cannibalize the Demand for the Print Version?," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-49, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  13. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 2001. "Do Mergers Increase Product Variety? Evidence From Radio Broadcasting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(3), pages 1009-1025, August.
  14. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. " An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
  15. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
  16. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. " Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 215-31, September.
  17. Alexander Chernev, 2005. "Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(4), pages 748-759, 03.
  18. Dos Santos Ferreira, R. & Thisse, J.-F., . "Horizontal and vertical differentiation: The Launhardt model," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1216, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  19. Nagler, Matthew G., 1993. "Rather bait than switch : Deceptive advertising with bounded consumer rationality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 359-378, July.
  20. Richard Schmalensee, 1978. "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 305-327, Autumn.
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:pra:mprapa:2180. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.