IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v40y2021i5p964-984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Larger Audiences Generate Greater Revenues Under Pay What You Want? Evidence from a Live Streaming Platform

Author

Listed:
  • Shijie Lu

    (University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004)

  • Dai Yao

    (National University of Singapore, Singapore 119245)

  • Xingyu Chen

    (Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province 518060, China)

  • Rajdeep Grewal

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599)

Abstract

As live streaming of events gains traction, pay what you want (PWYW) pricing strategies are emerging as critical monetization tools. We assess the viability of PWYW by examining the relationship between popularity (i.e., audience size) of a live streaming event and the revenue it generates under a PWYW scheme. On the one hand, increasing audience size may enhance voluntary payment/tips if social image concerns are important because larger audiences amplify the utility pertaining to social image. On the other hand, increasing audience size may reduce tips if gaining the broadcaster’s reciprocal acts motivates tipping because larger audiences are associated with fiercer competition for reciprocity. To examine these trade-offs in the relationship between audience size and revenue under PWYW, we manipulate audience size by exogenously adding synthetic viewers in live streaming shows on a platform in China. The results reveal a mostly positive relationship between audience size and average tip per viewer, which suggests that social image concerns dominate seeking reciprocity. In support of herding, adding synthetic viewers also increases the number of real viewers. Social image concerns and herding together explain the finding that adding one additional viewer improves the tipping revenue per minute by approximately 0.01 yuan (1% of the mean level). Further, famous female broadcasters who use recognition-related words frequently during the event benefit the most from an increase in audience size. Overall, the results indicate that revenues under PWYW do not scale linearly and support the relevance of social image concerns in driving individual payment decisions under PWYW.

Suggested Citation

  • Shijie Lu & Dai Yao & Xingyu Chen & Rajdeep Grewal, 2021. "Do Larger Audiences Generate Greater Revenues Under Pay What You Want? Evidence from a Live Streaming Platform," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 964-984, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:40:y:2021:i:5:p:964-984
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2021.1292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2021.1292
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2021.1292?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. Scott K. Shriver & Harikesh S. Nair & Reto Hofstetter, 2013. "Social Ties and User-Generated Content: Evidence from an Online Social Network," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1425-1443, June.
    2. Minah H. Jung & Leif D. Nelson & Uri Gneezy & Ayelet Gneezy, 2017. "Signaling Virtue: Charitable Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 187-194, March.
    3. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    5. Olivier Toubia & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 368-392, May.
    6. Rachel Croson & Jen Shang, 2008. "The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 221-233, September.
    7. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    8. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-73, February.
    9. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    10. Azar, Ofer H., 2011. "Business strategy and the social norm of tipping," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-525, June.
    11. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    12. Natter, Martin & Kaufmann, Katharina, 2015. "Voluntary market payments: Underlying motives, success drivers and success potentials," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 149-157.
    13. Harbaugh, William T, 1998. "The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 277-282, May.
    14. Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "The Sound of Silence: Observational Learning in the U.S. Kidney Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 315-335, 03-04.
    15. Uri Simonsohn & Dan Ariely, 2008. "When Rational Sellers Face Nonrational Buyers: Evidence from Herding on eBay," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1624-1637, September.
    16. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    17. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2014. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving" The Effects of Advertising Content," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1940, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2016.
    19. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang, 2017. "Self-Signaling and Prosocial Behavior: A Cause Marketing Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 140-156, March.
    20. Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Feng Zhu, 2011. "Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1601-1615, June.
    21. Juanjuan Zhang & Peng Liu, 2012. "Rational Herding in Microloan Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 892-912, May.
    22. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2016. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving? The Effects of Advertising Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 849-869, November.
    23. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    24. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2011. "How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 828-842, May.
    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. Lei Yang & Cong Zheng & Caixia Hao, 2024. "Optimal platform sales mode in live streaming commerce supply chains," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1017-1070, June.
    2. Zhou, Chi & Yu, Jing & Qian, Yong, 2024. "Should live-streaming platforms nonexclusively promote brands from traditional retail platforms?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Byun, Kate Jeonghee & Park, Jimi & Yoo, Shijin & Cho, Minhee, 2023. "Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the influence of word-of-mouth on purchasing decisions?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Zhang, Xiaoping & Zhang, Shihan, 2024. "Investigating impulse purchases in live streaming e-commerce: A perspective of match-ups," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    5. Qiang Wang & Nenggui Zhao & Xiang Ji, 2024. "Reselling or agency selling? The strategic role of live streaming commerce in distribution contract selection," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 983-1016, June.
    6. Zhang, Yanfen & Xu, Qi & Zhang, Guoqing, 2023. "Optimal contracts with moral hazard and adverse selection in a live streaming commerce market," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Huang, Lingchen & Liu, Bin & Zhang, Rong, 2024. "Channel strategies for competing retailers: Whether and when to introduce live stream?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 413-426.
    8. Yi He & Lidong Chen & Jingjing Mu & Azmat Ullah, 2024. "Optimal contract design for live streaming shopping in a manufacturer–retailer–streamer supply chain," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1071-1093, June.
    9. Yin, Xicheng & Li, Jing & Si, Hongyun & Wu, Peng, 2024. "Attention marketing in fragmented entertainment: How advertising embedding influences purchase decision in short-form video apps," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Zhang, Yundi & Zhang, Tingting & Yan, Xiangbin, 2024. "Understanding impulse buying in short video live E-commerce: The perspective of consumer vulnerability and product type," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(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. Liangfei Qiu & Zhan (Michael) Shi & Andrew B. Whinston, 2018. "Learning from Your Friends’ Check-Ins: An Empirical Study of Location-Based Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 1044-1061, December.
    2. Juanjuan Zhang & Peng Liu, 2012. "Rational Herding in Microloan Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 892-912, May.
    3. Ike Silver & Deborah A. Small, 2024. "Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 392-406, March.
    4. Jurui Zhang & Yong Liu & Yubo Chen, 2015. "Social Learning in Networks of Friends versus Strangers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 573-589, July.
    5. Jin Huang, 2017. "To Glance or to Peruse: Observational and Active Learning from Peer Consumers," Working Papers wp2018_1716, CEMFI.
    6. Amy Wenxuan Ding & Shibo Li, 2019. "Herding in the consumption and purchase of digital goods and moderators of the herding bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 460-478, May.
    7. Jin Huang, 2017. "To Glance or to Peruse: Observational and Active Learning from Peer Consumers," Working Papers wp2017_1716, CEMFI.
    8. Mina Ameri & Elisabeth Honka & Ying Xie, 2019. "Word of Mouth, Observed Adoptions, and Anime-Watching Decisions: The Role of the Personal vs. the Community Network," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 567-583, July.
    9. Chong (Alex) Wang & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Il-Horn Hann, 2018. "Socially Nudged: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Friends’ Social Influence in Online Product Ratings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 641-655, September.
    10. Hinnosaar, Marit, 2019. "Gender inequality in new media: Evidence from Wikipedia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 262-276.
    11. Wei, Ju & Gong, Xiaomin & Cao, Xiao, 2024. "Operational analysis of crowdfunding on business: A perspective of product competition," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Liangfei Qiu & Arunima Chhikara & Asoo Vakharia, 2021. "Multidimensional Observational Learning in Social Networks: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 876-894, September.
    13. Ni Huang & Tianshu Sun & Peiyu Chen & Joseph M. Golden, 2019. "Word-of-Mouth System Implementation and Customer Conversion: A Randomized Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 805-818, September.
    14. Ali Mohammadi & Kourosh Shafi, 2018. "Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 275-287, February.
    15. Johannes Loh, 2022. "Selection, Consumption, and New Music Exploration in an Online Social Network: A Dyadic Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 10120, CESifo.
    16. Ye Hu & Kitty Wang & Ming Chen & Sam Hui, 2021. "Herding Among Retail Shoppers: the Case of Television Shopping Network," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 27-40, June.
    17. Zafar, Basit, 2011. "An experimental investigation of why individuals conform," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 774-798, August.
    18. Mohammadi, Ali & Shafi, Kourosh, 2015. "The contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors: Gender, Risk aversion and Observational learning," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 419, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    19. Greg Fisher & Emily Neubert, 2023. "Evaluating Ventures Fast and Slow: Sensemaking, Intuition, and Deliberation in Entrepreneurial Resource Provision Decisions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1298-1326, July.
    20. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.

    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:40:y:2021:i:5:p:964-984. 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.