File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Media Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits

TitleMedia Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits
Authors
Keywordsmultisided platform
media markets
content provision strategy
game theory
Issue Date2020
PublisherINFORMS. The Journal's web site is located at https://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/mksc
Citation
Marketing Science, 2020, v. 40 n. 3, p. 527-547 How to Cite?
AbstractSome media platforms earn their profits from both consumers and advertisers (e.g., Spotify, Hulu), whereas others earn their profits from either advertisers only (e.g., Jango, Tubi) or consumers only (e.g., Tidal, Netflix). Thus, media platforms adopt divergent strategies depending on how they allocate the limited space or bandwidth between content and advertising. In this paper, we examine media platforms’ content provision strategies and their implications for the profits of media platforms as well as content suppliers, taking into account the cross-side effects of a multisided media market and the nature of competition in the content supplier market. To facilitate the analysis, we propose a model where media platforms interact with three sides: content suppliers, consumers, and advertisers. First, our analysis of a perfectly competitive content market shows that though consumers’ desire for content raises the willingness to pay, it can hurt platforms’ profits. Second, counter to our intuition, platforms’ profits can increase with the cost of procuring content. Third, advertisers’ desire for consumers reduces a monopoly content supplier’s profits under a paid-content-with-ads strategy. Fourth, a monopoly content supplier cannot extract all the profits from competing platforms. Furthermore, competing content suppliers may even charge higher prices than a monopoly content supplier. Finally, we highlight how the nature of competition in the content market shapes platforms’ choice of a no-ad strategy.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/297150
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.0
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 5.643
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAmaldoss, W-
dc.contributor.authorDu, J-
dc.contributor.authorShin, W-
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-08T07:14:52Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-08T07:14:52Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationMarketing Science, 2020, v. 40 n. 3, p. 527-547-
dc.identifier.issn0732-2399-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/297150-
dc.description.abstractSome media platforms earn their profits from both consumers and advertisers (e.g., Spotify, Hulu), whereas others earn their profits from either advertisers only (e.g., Jango, Tubi) or consumers only (e.g., Tidal, Netflix). Thus, media platforms adopt divergent strategies depending on how they allocate the limited space or bandwidth between content and advertising. In this paper, we examine media platforms’ content provision strategies and their implications for the profits of media platforms as well as content suppliers, taking into account the cross-side effects of a multisided media market and the nature of competition in the content supplier market. To facilitate the analysis, we propose a model where media platforms interact with three sides: content suppliers, consumers, and advertisers. First, our analysis of a perfectly competitive content market shows that though consumers’ desire for content raises the willingness to pay, it can hurt platforms’ profits. Second, counter to our intuition, platforms’ profits can increase with the cost of procuring content. Third, advertisers’ desire for consumers reduces a monopoly content supplier’s profits under a paid-content-with-ads strategy. Fourth, a monopoly content supplier cannot extract all the profits from competing platforms. Furthermore, competing content suppliers may even charge higher prices than a monopoly content supplier. Finally, we highlight how the nature of competition in the content market shapes platforms’ choice of a no-ad strategy.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherINFORMS. The Journal's web site is located at https://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/mksc-
dc.relation.ispartofMarketing Science-
dc.subjectmultisided platform-
dc.subjectmedia markets-
dc.subjectcontent provision strategy-
dc.subjectgame theory-
dc.titleMedia Platforms’ Content Provision Strategies and Sources of Profits-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailDu, J: jzdu@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityDu, J=rp02423-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1287/mksc.2020.1248-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85108272709-
dc.identifier.hkuros321592-
dc.identifier.volume40-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage527-
dc.identifier.epage547-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000659449900008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats