IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v10y2003i3p347-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quantity and quality of radio broadcasting: are small markets underprovided?

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis Halcoussis
  • Anton Lowenberg

Abstract

Small radio markets are characterized by less format variety and lower listening shares than larger markets. It is frequently argued that lack of format variety causes low listenership and that small markets consequently are underserved by commercial radio. However, if format variety is treated as endogenous, then the relatively low numbers of formats available in small markets might reflect underlying taste or lifestyle attributes rather than market failure. We argue that residents of smaller towns actually enjoy higher quality commercial broadcasts than their counterparts in large cities because radio stations in small markets play fewer commercials than big-city stations, ceteris paribus. To test this hypothesis we develop a measure of the average quantity of commercials played per station in each market area. Our findings confirm that listeners in small markets benefit from higher quality radio services than listeners in large markets, if high quality is defined as fewer commercial interruptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis Halcoussis & Anton Lowenberg, 2003. "The quantity and quality of radio broadcasting: are small markets underprovided?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 347-357.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:10:y:2003:i:3:p:347-357
    DOI: 10.1080/1357151032000126283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1357151032000126283
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1357151032000126283?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. Robert Ekelund & George Ford & John Jackson, 1999. "Is Radio Advertising a Distinct Local Market? An Empirical Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(3), pages 239-256, May.
    2. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2000. "Market Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Craig L. LaMay & Burton A. Weisbrod, "undated". "The Funding Perils of Public Broadcasting," IPR working papers 97-11, Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University.
    4. Berry, Steven T. & Waldfogel, Joel, 1999. "Public radio in the United States: does it correct market failure or cannibalize commercial stations?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 189-211, February.
    5. Robert P. Rogers & John R. Woodbury, 1996. "Market Structure, Program Diversity, And Radio Audience Size," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(1), pages 81-91, January.
    6. Ekelund, Robert B, Jr & Ford, George S & Koutsky, Thomas, 2000. "Market Power in Radio Markets: An Empirical Analysis of Local and National Concentration," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 157-184, April.
    7. Brunner, Eric J, 1998. "Free Riders or Easy Riders?: An Examination of the Voluntary Provision of Public Radio," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 587-604, December.
    8. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 397-420, Autumn.
    9. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    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. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2005. "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(4), pages 947-972.
    2. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    3. Anderson, Simon & Waldfogel, Joel, 2015. "Preference Externalities in Media Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 10835, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Martin Richardson, 2004. "Cultural quotas in broadcasting I: a model," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2004-442, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    5. Steven Berry & Alon Eizenberg & Joel Waldfogel, 2016. "Optimal product variety in radio markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(3), pages 463-497, August.
    6. Berry, Steven T. & Waldfogel, Joel, 1999. "Public radio in the United States: does it correct market failure or cannibalize commercial stations?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 189-211, February.
    7. Simon P. Anderson & Stephen Coate, 2000. "Market Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7513, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Martin Richardson & Simon Wilkie, 2013. "Faddists, enthusiasts and Canadian divas:a model of the recorded music market," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2013-600, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    9. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999. "Mergers, Station Entry, and Programming Variety in Radio Broadcasting," NBER Working Papers 7080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Czygan, Marco, 1999. "Wohin kann Wettbewerb im Hörfunk führen? Industrieökonomische Analyse des Hörfunksystems der USA und Vergleich mit Deutschenland," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 18, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    11. Lisa George & Joel Waldfogel, 2000. "Who Benefits Whom in Daily Newspaper Markets?," NBER Working Papers 7944, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Tsuyoshi Toshimitsu, 2020. "Note on the excess entry theorem in the presence of network externalities," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(2), pages 271-282, June.
    13. Andrew Sweeting, 2007. "Dynamic Product Repositioning in Differentiated Product Markets: The Case of Format Switching in the Commercial Radio Industry," NBER Working Papers 13522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Steven Berry & Martin Gaynor & Fiona Scott Morton, 2019. "Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 44-68, Summer.
    15. Shoji Haruna & Rajeev Goel, 2011. "R&D, free entry, and social inefficiency," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 89-101.
    16. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    17. Tedi Skiti, 2017. "Entry Barriers and Technological Innovation in Broadband," Working Papers 17-11, NET Institute.
    18. Benoît Pierre Freyens & Chris Jones, 2014. "Efficient Allocation of Radio Spectrum," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, February.
    19. David M. Cutler & Robert S. Huckman & Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2010. "Input Constraints and the Efficiency of Entry: Lessons from Cardiac Surgery," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 51-76, February.
    20. Ferrari, Stijn & Verboven, Frank, 2010. "Empirical analysis of markets with free and restricted entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 403-406, July.

    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:taf:ijecbs:v:10:y:2003:i:3:p:347-357. 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    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.