IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2107.01629.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role of "Live" in Livestreaming Markets: Evidence Using Orthogonal Random Forest

Author

Listed:
  • Ziwei Cong
  • Jia Liu
  • Puneet Manchanda

Abstract

A common belief about the growing medium of livestreaming is that its value lies in its "live" component. We examine this belief by comparing how the price elasticity of demand for live events varies before, on the day of, and after livestream. We do this using unique and rich data from a large livestreaming platform that allows consumers to purchase the recorded version of livestream after the stream is over. A challenge in our context is that there exist high-dimensional confounders whose relationships with treatment policy (i.e., price) and outcome of interest (i.e., demand) are complex and only partially known. We address this challenge via the use of a generalized Orthogonal Random Forest framework for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. We find significant temporal dynamics in the price elasticity of demand over the entire event life-cycle. Specifically, demand becomes less price sensitive over time to the livestreaming day, turning to inelastic on that day. Over the post-livestream period, the demand for the recorded version is still sensitive to price, but much less than in the pre-livestream period. We further show that this temporal variation in price elasticity is driven by the quality uncertainty inherent in such events and the opportunity of real-time interaction with content creators during the livestream.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziwei Cong & Jia Liu & Puneet Manchanda, 2021. "The Role of "Live" in Livestreaming Markets: Evidence Using Orthogonal Random Forest," Papers 2107.01629, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2107.01629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.01629
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    2. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    3. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    4. 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.
    5. Jeffrey Pompe & Lawrence Tamburri & Johnathan Munn, 2018. "Subscription ticket sales for symphony orchestras: Are flexible subscription tickets sustainable?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 71-78, January.
    6. Murat Isik, 2004. "Does Uncertainty Affect the Divergence between WTP and WTA Measures?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-7.
    7. Mingyu Joo & Dinesh K. Gauri & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2020. "Temporal Distance and Price Responsiveness: Empirical Investigation of the Cruise Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5362-5388, November.
    8. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    9. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey, 2017. "Double/Debiased/Neyman Machine Learning of Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 261-265, May.
    10. Marta Zieba, 2009. "Full-income and price elasticities of demand for German public theatre," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(2), pages 85-108, May.
    11. Tsui, Hsiao-Chien, 2012. "Advertising, quality, and willingness-to-pay: Experimental examination of signaling theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1193-1203.
    12. Alina R. Buzanakova & Evgeniy M. Ozhegov, 2016. "Demand for Performing Arts: The Effect of Unobserved Quality on Price Elasticity," HSE Working papers WP BRP 156/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    13. Carl Shapiro, 1982. "Consumer Information, Product Quality, and Seller Reputation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(1), pages 20-35, Spring.
    14. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2011. "How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 828-842, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Ruth N. Bolton, 1989. "The Relationship Between Market Characteristics and Promotional Price Elasticities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 153-169.
    17. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2016. "Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters," Papers 1608.00060, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    18. Kirmani, Amna & Wright, Peter, 1989. "Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product Quality," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(3), pages 344-353, December.
    19. Urbany, Joel E & Dickson, Peter R & Wilkie, William L, 1989. "Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 208-215, September.
    20. Hengchen Dai & Cindy Chan & Cassie Mogilner & Darren W. Dahl & Margaret C. Campbell & Cait Lamberton, 2020. "People Rely Less on Consumer Reviews for Experiential than Material Purchases [The Role of (Dis)Similarity in (Mis)Predicting Others’ Preferences]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(6), pages 1052-1075.
    21. Qiang Zhang & Wenbo Wang & Yuxin Chen, 2020. "Frontiers: In-Consumption Social Listening with Moment-to-Moment Unstructured Data: The Case of Movie Appreciation and Live Comments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 285-295, March.
    22. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2004:i:1:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Günter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Xiliang Lin, 2019. "Prices and Promotions in U.S. Retail Markets: Evidence from Big Data," NBER Working Papers 26306, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Jonathan M.V. Davis & Sara B. Heller, 2017. "Using Causal Forests to Predict Treatment Heterogeneity: An Application to Summer Jobs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 546-550, May.
    25. Paulo B. Goes & Mingfeng Lin & Ching-man Au Yeung, 2014. "“Popularity Effect” in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 222-238, 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. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Ganesh Karapakula, 2023. "Stable Probability Weighting: Large-Sample and Finite-Sample Estimation and Inference Methods for Heterogeneous Causal Effects of Multivalued Treatments Under Limited Overlap," Papers 2301.05703, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    3. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A Naghi, 2024. "The value added of machine learning to causal inference: evidence from revisited studies," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 27(2), pages 213-234.
    4. Guber, Raphael, 2018. "Instrument Validity Tests with Causal Trees: With an Application to the Same-sex Instrument," MEA discussion paper series 201805, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    5. Ruoxuan Xiong & Allison Koenecke & Michael Powell & Zhu Shen & Joshua T. Vogelstein & Susan Athey, 2021. "Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data," Papers 2107.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    6. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    7. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    8. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    9. Yuya Sasaki & Takuya Ura & Yichong Zhang, 2022. "Unconditional quantile regression with high‐dimensional data," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 955-978, July.
    10. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    11. Jushan Bai & Sung Hoon Choi & Yuan Liao, 2021. "Feasible generalized least squares for panel data with cross-sectional and serial correlations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 309-326, January.
    12. Ricardo P. Masini & Marcelo C. Medeiros & Eduardo F. Mendes, 2023. "Machine learning advances for time series forecasting," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 76-111, February.
    13. Falco J. Bargagli Stoffi & Kenneth De Beckker & Joana E. Maldonado & Kristof De Witte, 2021. "Assessing Sensitivity of Machine Learning Predictions.A Novel Toolbox with an Application to Financial Literacy," Papers 2102.04382, arXiv.org.
    14. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Papers 2101.00878, arXiv.org.
    15. Retsef Levi & Elisabeth Paulson & Georgia Perakis & Emily Zhang, 2024. "Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Panel Data," Papers 2406.05633, arXiv.org.
    16. Abadie, Alberto & Gu, Jiaying & Shen, Shu, 2024. "Instrumental variable estimation with first-stage heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 240(2).
    17. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-001/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Su, Liangjun & Ura, Takuya & Zhang, Yichong, 2019. "Non-separable models with high-dimensional data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 646-677.
    19. Dongcheng Zhang & Kunpeng Zhang, 2020. "Weighting-Based Treatment Effect Estimation via Distribution Learning," Papers 2012.13805, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    20. Nikolaos Ignatiadis & Wolfgang Huber, 2021. "Covariate powered cross‐weighted multiple testing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(4), pages 720-751, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2107.01629. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.