IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/net/wpaper/2013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Value of Data: Quantification Using Online Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Avinash Collis

    (The University of Texas at Austin)

  • Alex Moehring

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Ananya Sen

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

Abstract

We conduct incentive compatible choice experiments to measure the economic value of social media data. We focus on the value that users place on their personal data related to the three biggest social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. We find that the median Willingness to Accept (WTA) of users for the entire ``stock'' of data for Facebook and Instagram is $300 each which is 20% higher than Twitter valued at $250. We use data valuations from a recent data breach settlement by Facebook to provide information interventions. We find that reducing these information frictions about the value of data can make users revise their valuations upwards. They do not reduce their valuation if the amount is less than their initial WTA. Finally, a framing which makes the users think about giving their data up immediately makes them value it much higher. We do not find a significant impact of a potential `present bias' in users' decisions, especially relative to the immediate data sharing intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Avinash Collis & Alex Moehring & Ananya Sen, 2020. "Economic Value of Data: Quantification Using Online Experiments," Working Papers 20-13, NET Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:2013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.netinst.org/Collis_20-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    2. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "The Importance of Default Options for Retirement Saving Outcomes: Evidence from the United States," NBER Chapters, in: Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, pages 167-195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    4. Volker Benndorf & Hans‐Theo Normann, 2018. "The Willingness to Sell Personal Data," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(4), pages 1260-1278, October.
    5. Susan Athey & Christian Catalini & Catherine Tucker, 2017. "The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk," NBER Working Papers 23488, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Alessandro Acquisti & Leslie K. John & George Loewenstein, 2013. "What Is Privacy Worth?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 249-274.
    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. Tesary Lin & Avner Strulov-Shlain, 2023. "Choice Architecture, Privacy Valuations, and Selection Bias in Consumer Data," Papers 2308.13496, arXiv.org.

    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. Michiel Bijlsma & Carin van der Cruijsen & Nicole Jonker, 2024. "Not all data are created equal - Data sharing and privacy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(11), pages 1250-1267, March.
    2. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Long Chen & Yadong Huang & Shumiao Ouyang & Wei Xiong, 2021. "The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand," Working Papers 2021-47, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    4. Brynjolfsson, Erik & Collis, Avinash & Diewert, W. Erwin & Eggers, Felix & Fox, Kevin J., 2019. "GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods in the Digital Economy," OSF Preprints sptfu, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jeffrey T. Prince & Scott Wallsten, 2022. "How much is privacy worth around the world and across platforms?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 841-861, November.
    6. Michiel Bijlsma & Carin van der Cruijsen & Nicole Jonker, 2020. "Consumer propensity to adopt PSD2 services: trust for sale?," Working Papers 671, DNB.
    7. Rehse, Dominik & Tremöhlen, Felix, 2020. "Fostering participation in digital public health interventions: The case of digital contact tracing," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-076, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Yosuke Uno & Akira Sonoda & Masaki Bessho, 2021. "The Economics of Privacy: A Primer Especially for Policymakers," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 21-E-11, Bank of Japan.
    9. Fehrenbach, David & Herrando, Carolina, 2021. "The effect of customer-perceived value when paying for a product with personal data: A real-life experimental study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 222-232.
    10. Zhuo, Ran & Huffaker, Bradley & claffy, kc & Greenstein, Shane, 2021. "The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on internet interconnection," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    11. Ackfeld, Viola & Güth, Werner, 2023. "Personal information disclosure under competition for benefits: Is sharing caring?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-32.
    12. Syngjoo Choi & Bongseob Kim & Young-Sik Kim & Ohik Kwon, 2023. "Central Bank Digital Currency and Privacy: A Randomized Survey Experiment," BIS Working Papers 1147, Bank for International Settlements.
    13. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    14. Kinshuk Jerath & Klaus M. Miller, 2024. "Consumers' Perceived Privacy Violations in Online Advertising," Papers 2403.03612, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    15. H. Li & A. Nill, 2020. "Online Behavioral Targeting: Are Knowledgeable Consumers Willing to Sell Their Privacy?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 723-745, December.
    16. Beke, Frank T. & Eggers, Felix & Verhoef, Peter C. & Wieringa, Jaap E., 2022. "Consumers’ privacy calculus: The PRICAL index development and validation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 20-41.
    17. Te Bao & John Duffy & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2024. "Paying to Avoid the Spotlight," ISER Discussion Paper 1238r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Sep 2024.
    18. repec:nbr:nberch:14785 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Michiel Bijlsma & Carin Cruijsen & Nicole Jonker, 2023. "Consumer Willingness to Share Payments Data: Trust for Sale?," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 41-80, August.
    20. Tesary Lin, 2022. "Valuing Intrinsic and Instrumental Preferences for Privacy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 663-681, July.
    21. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    value of data; choice experiments; privacy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    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:net:wpaper:2013. 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: Nicholas Economides (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.NETinst.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.