IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infotm/v24y2023i3d10.1007_s10799-022-00366-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic analysis of different types of subsidies by UGC platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Yonghong Sun

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University)

Abstract

In this study, we build an economic model to explore the user-generated content (UGC) subsidy issue in the context of two-sided UGC platforms. Most UGC platforms subsidize content providers to encourage them to provide more content with higher quality. However, are these subsidies effective? Which type of subsidy is more effective? Here, we examine and compare the effectiveness of different types of subsides for UGC platforms. First, although the underlying reasons are different, both quantity and attention subsidies can induce users to provide more content with higher quality. Second, given the same level of small subsidy, the attention subsidy is more effective in encouraging better UGC quantity and quality. Third, the optimal subsidy level positively depends on the content provider’s sensitivity to the subsidy. In most cases, the magnitude of the optimal quantity subsidy should be larger than that of the optimal attention subsidy. Finally, to maintain or improve UGC quality, the platform should set a threshold to restrict the amount of content accessible to viewers. Doing so can prevent content providers from offering more content at the expense of content quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Yonghong Sun, 2023. "An economic analysis of different types of subsidies by UGC platforms," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 221-231, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infotm:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10799-022-00366-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10799-022-00366-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10799-022-00366-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10799-022-00366-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yacheng Sun & Xiaojing Dong & Shelby McIntyre, 2017. "Motivation of User-Generated Content: Social Connectedness Moderates the Effects of Monetary Rewards," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 329-337, May.
    2. Levine, Sheen & Shah, Sonali, 2004. "A Framework for Collective Open Innovation," Working Papers 04-0105, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    3. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    4. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    5. Ghosh, Arpita & Hummel, Patrick, 2014. "A game-theoretic analysis of rank-order mechanisms for user-generated content," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 349-374.
    6. Monic Sun & Feng Zhu, 2013. "Ad Revenue and Content Commercialization: Evidence from Blogs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2314-2331, October.
    7. David Constant & Lee Sproull & Sara Kiesler, 1996. "The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 119-135, April.
    8. Jeffrey A. Roberts & Il-Horn Hann & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2006. "Understanding the Motivations, Participation, and Performance of Open Source Software Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 984-999, July.
    9. Jain, Shaili & Chen, Yiling & Parkes, David C., 2014. "Designing incentives for online question-and-answer forums," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 458-474.
    10. Yuewen Liu & Juan Feng, 2021. "Does Money Talk? The Impact of Monetary Incentives on User-Generated Content Contributions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 394-409, June.
    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. Xiang Hui & Meng Liu & Tat Chan, 2023. "Targeted incentives, broad impacts: Evidence from an E-commerce platform," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 493-517, December.
    2. Dandan Qiao & Huaxia Rui, 2023. "Text Performance on the Vine Stage? The Effect of Incentive on Product Review Text Quality," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 676-697, June.
    3. Jing Wang & Gen Li & Kai-Lung Hui, 2022. "Monetary Incentives and Knowledge Spillover: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3549-3572, May.
    4. Lena Abou El-Komboz & Anna Kerkhof & Johannes Loh, 2023. "Platform Partnership Programs and Content Supply: Evidence from the YouTube “Adpocalypse”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10363, CESifo.
    5. Jing Peng & Christophe Van den Bulte, 2024. "Participation vs. Effectiveness in Sponsored Tweet Campaigns: A Quality-Quantity Conundrum," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7961-7983, November.
    6. Anna Kerkhof, 2020. "Advertising and Content Differentiation: Evidence from YouTube," CESifo Working Paper Series 8697, CESifo.
    7. Balka, Kerstin & Raasch, Christina & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2009. "How open is open source: Software and beyond," Working Papers 58, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    8. Shohei Yoshida & Cong Pan, 2015. "Technology Transfer in the Market with Heterogeneous Consumers," ISER Discussion Paper 0953, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Simon Gaechter & Georg von Krogh & Stefan Haefliger, 2006. "Private-Collective Innovation and the Fragility of Knowledge Sharing," Discussion Papers 2006-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Christoph Riedl & Tom Grad & Christopher Lettl, 2024. "Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What happens when peers evaluate each other?," Papers 2404.14141, arXiv.org.
    11. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    12. Kexin Zhao & Bin Zhang & Xue Bai, 2018. "Estimating Contextual Motivating Factors in Virtual Interorganizational Communities of Practice: Peer Effects and Organizational Influences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 910-927, December.
    13. Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2017. "Understanding Voluntary Knowledge Provision and Content Contribution Through a Social-Media-Based Prediction Market: A Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 529-546, September.
    14. Joachim Henkel & Eric von Hippel, 2005. "Welfare Implications of User Innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 73-87, January.
    15. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    16. Gächter, Simon & von Krogh, Georg & Haefliger, Stefan, 2010. "Initiating private-collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 893-906, September.
    17. Jie Lou & Yulin Fang & Kai H. Lim & Jerry Zeyu Peng, 2013. "Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q&A communities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 356-371, February.
    18. Chenhui (Julian) Guo & Tae Hun Kim & Anjana Susarla & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2020. "Understanding Content Contribution Behavior in a Geosegmented Mobile Virtual Community: The Context of Waze," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1398-1420, December.
    19. Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2006. "Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm," NBER Working Papers 12148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Islam, Mazhar & Miller, Jacob & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2017. "But what will it cost me? How do private costs of participation affect open source software projects?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1062-1070.

    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:spr:infotm:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10799-022-00366-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.