IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v23y2004i1p120-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters

Author

Listed:
  • Yong Liu

    (School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244)

  • Daniel S. Putler

    (Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2)

  • Charles B. Weinberg

    (Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2)

Abstract

Competitive behavior in commercial television broadcasting is modeled to examine program choice and the effects of more channels being available on firm strategy. Specifically, broadcasters compete by selecting both the "type" and quality level of a program to offer, but do not compete on price. We obtain five major results. First, a comparison of monopoly and duopoly markets indicates that broadcasters in an industry with a larger number of competitors may provide programs of lower quality compared to broadcasters in an industry with a smaller number. Second, in terms of viewer welfare, having more channels available is not necessarily "better." Third, broadcasters tend to choose an intermediate level of differentiation in terms of the types of programs they provide, resulting in a "counterprogramming" strategy. In other words, avoidance of price competition is not required for competitors to differentiate themselves from each other. Fourth, if one broadcaster starts the evening with a higher-quality (higher-rated) program than its competitor, its second program should also be of higher quality. Finally, a broadcaster's first program should be of equal or higher quality than its second program. Put another way, it always behooves a broadcaster to "lead with its best."

Suggested Citation

  • Yong Liu & Daniel S. Putler & Charles B. Weinberg, 2004. "Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 120-133, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:23:y:2004:i:1:p:120-133
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1030.0042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1030.0042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:ecorec:v:70:y:1994:i:211:p:361-67 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:syd:wpaper:178 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gregory S. Carpenter, 1989. "Perceptual Position and Competitive Brand Strategy in a Two-Dimensional, Two-Brand Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(9), pages 1029-1044, September.
    4. Anthony Dukes & Esther Gal–Or, 2003. "Negotiations and Exclusivity Contracts for Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 222-245, November.
    5. Neven, D. & Thisse, J-F., 1989. "On Quality And Variety Competition," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1989020, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    6. Economides, Nicholas, 1984. "The principle of minimum differentiation revisited," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 345-368, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yong Liu & Daniel Putler & Charles Weinberg, 2006. "The welfare and equity implications of competition in television broadcasting: the role of viewer tastes," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(2), pages 127-140, September.
    2. Amit Pazgal & David Soberman & Raphael Thomadsen, 2022. "Consumer informedness: A key driver of differentiation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 356-368, April.
    3. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.
    4. Nicholas Economides & Joel Steckel, "undated". "The Max-Min Principle of Product Differentiation," Networks, Compatibility 94-16, Economics of Networks.
    5. Xianjin Du & Meng Li & Brian Wu, 2019. "Incumbent repositioning with decision biases," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(12), pages 1984-2010, December.
    6. Ravi Kumar, K. & Hadjinicola, George C., 1996. "Resource allocation to defensive marketing and manufacturing strategies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 453-466, November.
    7. Ansari, A. & Economides, N. & Steckel, J., 1996. "The Max-Min-Min Principle of product Differentiation," Working Papers 96-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    8. Alain Egli, 2007. "On Stability in Competition: Tying and Horizontal Product Differentiation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 30(1), pages 29-38, February.
    9. H. Eggert & M. Greaker, 2011. "Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 587-608, April.
    10. Alain Egli, 2005. "Hotelling's Beach with Linear and Quadratic Transportation Costs: Existence of Pure Strategy Equilibria," Diskussionsschriften dp0509, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    11. Scott Fay & Robert Zeithammer, 2017. "Bidding for Bidders? How the Format for Soliciting Supplier Participation in NYOP Auctions Impacts Channel Profit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4324-4344, December.
    12. Pierre M. Picard & Alessandro Tampieri, 2016. "Income Effects and Vertical Differentiation in International Trade," DEM Discussion Paper Series 16-05, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    13. Alexandre de Corniere, 2013. "Search Advertising," Economics Series Working Papers 649, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Fleckinger, Pierre & Lafay, Thierry, 2010. "Product flexibility and price competition in Hotelling's duopoly," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 61-68, July.
    15. Liang, Wen-Jung & Tseng, Ching-Chih & Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy, 2011. "Location choice with delegation: Bertrand vs. Cournot competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1774-1781, July.
    16. Prabirendra Chatterjee & Bo Zhou, 2021. "Sponsored Content Advertising in a Two-Sided Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7560-7574, December.
    17. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    18. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    19. Attila Ambrus & Emilio Calvano & Markus Reisinger, 2016. "Either or Both Competition: A "Two-Sided" Theory of Advertising with Overlapping Viewerships," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 189-222, August.
    20. Suren Basov & Svetlana Danilkina & David Prentice, 2020. "When Does Variety Increase with Quality?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 463-487, May.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:23:y:2004:i:1:p:120-133. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.