IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/13897.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From Mad Men to Maths Men: Concentration and Buyer Power in Online Advertising

Author

Listed:
  • Decarolis, Francesco
  • Rovigatti, Gabriele

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of intermediary concentration on the allocation of revenues in online platforms. We study sponsored search documenting how advertisers increasingly bid through a handful of specialized intermediaries. This enhances automated bidding and data pooling, but lessens competition whenever the intermediary represents competing advertisers. Using data on nearly 40 million Google keyword auctions, we first apply machine learning algorithms to cluster keywords into thematic groups serving as relevant markets. Using an instrumental variable strategy, we estimate a decline in the platform's revenues of approximately 11 percent due to the average rise in concentration associated with intermediary M&A activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Decarolis, Francesco & Rovigatti, Gabriele, 2019. "From Mad Men to Maths Men: Concentration and Buyer Power in Online Advertising," CEPR Discussion Papers 13897, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:13897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP13897
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 1994. "Sleeping with the Enemy: Should Competitors Share the Same Advertising Agency?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 190-202.
    2. Garrett A. Johnson & Randall A. Lewis & David H. Reiley, 2017. "When Less Is More: Data and Power in Advertising Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, January.
    3. Benjamin Edelman & Michael Ostrovsky & Michael Schwarz, 2007. "Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second-Price Auction: Selling Billions of Dollars Worth of Keywords," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 242-259, March.
    4. Justine S. Hastings & Richard J. Gilbert, 2005. "Market Power, Vertical Integration And The Wholesale Price Of Gasoline," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 469-492, December.
    5. Leemore Dafny & Mark Duggan & Subramaniam Ramanarayanan, 2012. "Paying a Premium on Your Premium? Consolidation in the US Health Insurance Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 1161-1185, April.
    6. Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "What is Different About Online Advertising?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 115-129, March.
    7. John Asker, 2010. "A Study of the Internal Organization of a Bidding Cartel," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 724-762, June.
    8. Thomas Blake & Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large‐Scale Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 155-174, January.
    9. Francesco Decarolis & Maris Goldmanis & Antonio Penta, 2020. "Marketing Agencies and Collusive Bidding in Online Ad Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4433-4454, October.
    10. Varian, Hal R., 2007. "Position auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1163-1178, December.
    11. Graham, Daniel A & Marshall, Robert C, 1987. "Collusive Bidder Behavior at Single-Object Second-Price and English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(6), pages 1217-1239, December.
    12. Carlos Dobkin & Amy Finkelstein & Raymond Kluender & Matthew J. Notowidigdo, 2018. "The Economic Consequences of Hospital Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 308-352, February.
    13. Carril, Rodrigo & Duggan, Mark, 2020. "The impact of industry consolidation on government procurement: Evidence from Department of Defense contracting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Jan De Loecker & Jan Eeckhout & Gabriel Unger, 2020. "The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications [“Econometric Tools for Analyzing Market Outcomes”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 561-644.
    15. Tilman B?rgers & Ingemar Cox & Martin Pesendorfer & Vaclav Petricek, 2013. "Equilibrium Bids in Sponsored Search Auctions: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(4), pages 163-187, November.
    16. Przemyslaw Jeziorski & Ilya Segal, 2015. "What Makes Them Click: Empirical Analysis of Consumer Demand for Search Advertising," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 24-53, August.
    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. Motta, Massimo & Penta, Antonio, 2022. "Market Effects of Sponsored Search Auctions," TSE Working Papers 22-1370, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    2. Shota Ichihashi & Alex Smolin, 2023. "Buyer-Optimal Algorithmic Consumption," Papers 2309.12122, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    3. Francesco Decarolis & Maris Goldmanis & Antonio Penta & Ksenia Shakhgildyan, 2023. "Bid Coordination in Sponsored Search Auctions: Detection Methodology and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 570-592, June.
    4. Wei Zhou & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Competing for Search Traffic in Query Markets: Entry Strategy, Platform Design, and Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 20-12, NET Institute.
    5. Joo, Mingyu & Kim, Seung Hyun & Ghose, Anindya & Wilbur, Kenneth C., 2023. "Designing Distributed Ledger technologies, like Blockchain, for advertising markets," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 12-21.
    6. Brett R Gordon & Kinshuk Jerath & Zsolt Katona & Sridhar Narayanan & Jiwoong Shin & Kenneth C Wilbur, 2019. "Inefficiencies in Digital Advertising Markets," Papers 1912.09012, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    7. Stephanie Assad & Robert Clark & Daniel Ershov & Lei Xu, 2020. "Algorithmic Pricing and Competition: Empirical Evidence from the German Retail Gasoline Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 8521, CESifo.
    8. Joan Calzada & Nestor Duch-Brown & Ricard Gil, 2021. "Do search engines increase concentration in media markets?," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2021/415, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Marcel Wieting & Geza Sapi, 2021. "Algorithms in the Marketplace: An Empirical Analysis of Automated Pricing in E-Commerce," Working Papers 21-06, NET Institute.
    10. Ajit Desai, 2023. "Machine Learning for Economics Research: When What and How?," Papers 2304.00086, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Zhang, Xiaoqian & Huang, Bin, 2022. "Does bank competition inhibit the formation of zombie firms?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1045-1060.
    12. Kittaka, Yuta & Sato, Susumu & Zennyo, Yusuke, 2023. "Self-preferencing by platforms: A literature review," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    13. Sviták, Jan & Tichem, Jan & Haasbeek, Stefan, 2021. "Price effects of search advertising restrictions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    14. Maximilian Schäfer & Geza Sapi, 2020. "Learning from Data and Network Effects: The Example of Internet Search," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1894, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    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. Joseph Golden & John Joseph Horton, 2021. "The Effects of Search Advertising on Competitors: An Experiment Before a Merger," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 342-362, January.
    2. Francesco Decarolis & Maris Goldmanis & Antonio Penta, 2020. "Marketing Agencies and Collusive Bidding in Online Ad Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4433-4454, October.
    3. Davydov, D. & Izmalkov, S. & Smirnov, A., 2015. "Sponsored-Search Auctions: Empirical and Experimental Works," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 56-73.
    4. Emmanuel LORENZON, 2016. "Collusion with a Greedy Center in Position Auctions," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2016-08, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    6. Che, Yeon-Koo & Choi, Syngjoo & Kim, Jinwoo, 2017. "An experimental study of sponsored-search auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 20-43.
    7. Francesco Decarolis & Gabriele Rovigatti, 2017. "Online Auctions and Digital Marketing Agencies," Working Papers 17-08, NET Institute.
    8. Stefan Bechtold & Catherine Tucker, 2014. "Trademarks, Triggers, and Online Search," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 718-750, December.
    9. Wei Zhou & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Competing for Search Traffic in Query Markets: Entry Strategy, Platform Design, and Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 20-12, NET Institute.
    10. Shijie Lu & Yi Zhu & Anthony Dukes, 2015. "Position Auctions with Budget Constraints: Implications for Advertisers and Publishers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 897-905, November.
    11. Navdeep S. Sahni & Charles Zhang, 2024. "Are consumers averse to sponsored messages? The role of search advertising in information discovery," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 63-114, March.
    12. Francesco Decarolis & Maris Goldmanis & Antonio Penta & Ksenia Shakhgildyan, 2023. "Bid Coordination in Sponsored Search Auctions: Detection Methodology and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 570-592, June.
    13. Thomas Blake & Chris Nosko & Steven Tadelis, 2015. "Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large‐Scale Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 155-174, January.
    14. Yi Zhu & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2008. "Strategic Bidding in Hybrid CPC/CPM Auctions," Working Papers 08-25, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
    15. Burguet, Roberto & Caminal, Ramon & Ellman, Matthew, 2015. "In Google we trust?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 44-55.
    16. Patrick Hummel, 2018. "Hybrid mechanisms for Vickrey–Clarke–Groves and generalized second-price bids," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 331-350, March.
    17. McLaughlin, Kevin & Friedman, Daniel, 2016. "Online ad auctions: An experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Market Design: Theory and Pragmatics SP II 2016-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Przemys?aw Jeziorski & Sridhar Moorthy, 2018. "Advertiser Prominence Effects in Search Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1365-1383, March.
    19. John Asker & Mariagiovanna Baccara & SangMok Lee, 2021. "Patent auctions and bidding coalitions: structuring the sale of club goods," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 662-690, September.
    20. Sylvain Chassang & Juan Ortner, 2019. "Collusion in Auctions with Constrained Bids: Theory and Evidence from Public Procurement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(5), pages 2269-2300.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Buyer power; Concentration; Online advertising; Platforms; Sponsored search;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    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:cpr:ceprdp:13897. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.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.