IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijfss/v6y2018i4p87-d176180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook

Author

Listed:
  • Bodo Herzog

    (ESB Business School, Reutlingen University, Alteburgstraße 150, 72762 Reutlingen, Germany
    Reutlingen Research Institute (RRI), Reutlingen University, Alteburgstraße 150, 72762 Reutlingen, Germany)

Abstract

This article investigates the fundamental value of digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google. Despite the transformative nature of digital technologies, it is challenging to value digital services, given that the usage is free of charge. Applying the methodology of discrete choice experiments, we estimated the value of digital free goods. For the first time in the literature, we obtained data for the willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, together with socio-economic variables. The customer’s valuation of free digital services is on average, for Google, 121 € per week and Facebook, 28 €.

Suggested Citation

  • Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:6:y:2018:i:4:p:87-:d:176180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/6/4/87/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/6/4/87/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greenstein, Shane & McDevitt, Ryan C., 2011. "The broadband bonus: Estimating broadband Internet's economic value," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 617-632, August.
    2. Benjamin Edelman, 2009. "Priced and Unpriced Online Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 21-36, Summer.
    3. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    4. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    5. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    7. David S. Evans, 2009. "The Online Advertising Industry: Economics, Evolution, and Privacy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 37-60, Summer.
    8. David Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    9. Marc Rysman, 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 125-143, Summer.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    11. David S. Evans, 2013. "Attention Rivalry Among Online Platforms," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 313-357.
    12. Kenneth Goldin, 1977. "Equal access vs. Selective access: A critique of public goods theory," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 53-71, March.
    13. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    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. Roberto Mosquera & Mofioluwasademi Odunowo & Trent McNamara & Xiongfei Guo & Ragan Petrie, 2020. "The economic effects of Facebook," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 575-602, June.
    2. Wang, Lei & Song, Chuyu & Xian, Yue & Sylvia, Sean & Rozelle, Scott, 2024. "Willingness-to-pay for early childhood development: A field experiment in Western China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Brynjolfsson, Erik & Collis, Avinash & Diewert, W. Erwin & Eggers, Felix & Fox, Kevin J., 2019. "GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods in the Digital Economy," OSF Preprints sptfu, Center for Open Science.
    4. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    5. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2023. "Revisiting the Gap between the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Public Goods," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 413-445.
    7. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Swallow, Stephen K. & Anderson, Christopher M. & Uchida, Emi, 2018. "The Bobolink Project: Selling Public Goods From Ecosystem Services Using Provision Point Mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 236-252.
    9. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    12. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    13. Sobolewski, Maciej, 2021. "Measuring consumer well-being from using free-of-charge digital services. The case of navigation apps," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    14. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke & Raschky, Paul, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Month Is," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235377, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    16. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    18. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso, 2015. "Reassessing competition concerns in electronic communications markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 896-912.
    19. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Kutlu, Levent & Sickles, Robin C., 2018. "Pricing Inputs and Outputs: Market prices versus shadow prices, market power, and welfare analysis," Working Papers 18-009, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    20. Liang Li, 2019. "Data and market definition of Internet-based businesses," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 20(1), pages 54-85, March.

    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:gam:jijfss:v:6:y:2018:i:4:p:87-:d:176180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.