Competing for Attention: Is the Showiest also the Best?
There are many situations in which alternatives ranked by quality wish to be chosen and compete for the imperfect attention of a chooser by selecting their own salience. The chooser may be “tricked" into choosing more salient but inferior alter- natives. We investigate when competitive forces ensure instead that “the showiest is the best", that is, when the best alternative is maximally salient (and the one that gets picked most often) in equilibrium. We prove that the structure of externalities in the technology of salience is key. Broadly speaking, positive externalities favour correlation between quality and salience.
|Date of creation:||08 Apr 2014|
|Date of revision:||14 Apr 2015|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: School of Economics and Finance, University of St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL|
Phone: 01334 462420
Fax: 01334 462444
Web page: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/economics/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2005. "Advertising in the US Personal Computer Industry," Industrial Organization 0503002, EconWPA.
- Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2010.
"On the Strategic Use of Attention Grabbers,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
7863, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bagwell, Kyle, 2007. "The Economic Analysis of Advertising," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier.
- Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2012.
"Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets,"
CEEL Working Papers
1205, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
- Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2012. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," IZA Discussion Papers 6905, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Paola, Manzini & Marco, Mariotti, 2013. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-28, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
- Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2013. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics 201303, Department of Economics, University of St. Andrews.
- de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir & Rozen, Kareen, 2013.
"Competing for Consumer Inattention,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
9553, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Geoffroy De Clippel & Kfir Eliaz & Kareen Rozen, 2013. "Competing for Consumer Inattention," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000765, David K. Levine.
- Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Elias & Kareen Rozen, 2013. "Competing for Consumer Inattention," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1901, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Babin, Barry J & Darden, William R & Griffin, Mitch, 1994. " Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 644-56, March.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013.
"Competition for Attention,"
NBER Working Papers
19076, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
- Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, 09.
- repec:oup:restud:v:78:y:2011:i:1:p:235-262 is not listed on IDEAS
- Eliaz, Kfir & Spiegler, Ran, 2006.
"Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing,"
21434, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Sep 2009.
- Ron Siegel, 2009. "All-Pay Contests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 71-92, 01.
- Gerard R. Butters, 1977. "Equilibrium Distributions of Sales and Advertising Prices," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 465-491.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:san:wpecon:1403. 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: (the School of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.