IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/300272.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Not as good as it used to be: Do streaming platforms penalize quality?

Author

Listed:
  • Gambato, Jacopo
  • Sandrini, Luca

Abstract

In this study, we analyze the incentives of a streaming platform to bias consumption when products are vertically differentiated. The platform offers mixed bundles of content to monetize consumer interest in variety and pays royalties to sellers based on the effective consumption of the generated content. When products are not vertically differentiated, the platform has no incentive to bias consumption in equilibrium. With vertical differentiation, royalties can differ, and the platform biases recommendations in favor of the cheapest content, hurting consumers and high-quality sellers. Biased recommendations, if unconstrained, eliminate sellers' incentives to increase the quality of their content, but if constrained, may lead to the inefficient allocation of R&D efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Gambato, Jacopo & Sandrini, Luca, 2024. "Not as good as it used to be: Do streaming platforms penalize quality?," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:300272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/300272/1/1895456800.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2013. "Product Innovation Incentives: Monopoly vs. Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 513-528, September.
    2. Hannes Datta & George Knox & Bart J. Bronnenberg, 2018. "Changing Their Tune: How Consumers’ Adoption of Online Streaming Affects Music Consumption and Discovery," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 5-21, January.
    3. David Ronayne & Greg Taylor, 2022. "Competing Sales Channels with Captive Consumers," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(642), pages 741-766.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2022_336 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Duncan Simester, 2011. "Goodbye Pareto Principle, Hello Long Tail: The Effect of Search Costs on the Concentration of Product Sales," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1373-1386, August.
    7. Sutton, John, 1986. "Vertical Product Differentiation: Some Basic Themes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 393-398, May.
    8. Esther Gal‐Or & Anthony Dukes, 2003. "Minimum Differentiation in Commercial Media Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 291-325, September.
    9. Aguiar, Luis & Waldfogel, Joel & Waldfogel, Sarah, 2021. "Playlisting favorites: Measuring platform bias in the music industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Cremer, Helmuth & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1991. "Location Models of Horizontal Differentiation: A Special Case of Vertical Differentiation Models," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 383-390, June.
    11. Motta, Massimo, 2023. "Self-preferencing and foreclosure in digital markets: Theories of harm for abuse cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    12. Marc Bourreau & Janina Hofmann & Jan Krämer, 2021. "Prominence-for-Data Schemes in Digital Platform Ecosystems: Economic Implications for Platform Bias and Consumer Data Collection," Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, in: Frederik Ahlemann & Reinhard Schütte & Stefan Stieglitz (ed.), Innovation Through Information Systems, pages 512-516, Springer.
    13. Nanda Kumar & Ranran Ruan, 2006. "On manufacturers complementing the traditional retail channel with a direct online channel," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 289-323, September.
    14. Hoernig, Steffen H. & Valletti, Tommaso M., 2007. "Mixing goods with two-part tariffs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 1733-1750, October.
    15. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    16. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2021. "Platforms, Power, and Promotion: Evidence from Spotify Playlists," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 653-691, September.
    17. Thomes, Tim Paul, 2013. "An economic analysis of online streaming music services," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 81-91.
    18. Anderson, S. P. & Neven, D. J., 1989. "Market efficiency with combinable products," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 707-719, April.
    19. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    20. Döpper, Hendrik & Rasch, Alexander, 2022. "Combinable products, price discrimination, and collusion," DICE Discussion Papers 377, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    21. Marc Bourreau & Germain Gaudin, 2022. "Streaming platform and strategic recommendation bias," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 25-47, February.
    22. Anil Arya & Brian Mittendorf & David E. M. Sappington, 2007. "The Bright Side of Supplier Encroachment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 651-659, 09-10.
    23. Hoernig Steffen & Valletti Tommaso M., 2011. "When Two-Part Tariffs are Not Enough: Mixing with Nonlinear Pricing," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, October.
    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. Gambato, Jacopo & Sandrini, Luca, 2023. "Not as good as it used to be: Do streaming platforms penalize quality?," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-032, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Peitz, Martin & Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "The Economics of Internet Media," Working Papers 14-23, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    3. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Changying Li & Youping Li & Jianhu Zhang, 2023. "On the regulation of public broadcasting," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 129-146, March.
    5. Döpper, Hendrik & Rasch, Alexander, 2024. "Combinable products, price discrimination, and collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso M., 2008. "Content and advertising in the media: Pay-tv versus free-to-air," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 949-965, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Marc Bourreau & Germain Gaudin, 2022. "Streaming platform and strategic recommendation bias," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 25-47, February.
    9. Martin Peitz, 2023. "Governance and Regulation of Platforms," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_480, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    10. Döpper, Hendrik & Rasch, Alexander, 2022. "Combinable products, price discrimination, and collusion," DICE Discussion Papers 377, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    11. Thöne, Miriam & Rasch, Alexander & Wenzel, Tobias, 2016. "Business models in commercial media markets: Bargaining, advertising, and mixing," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145785, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Böhme Enrico, 2016. "Second-Degree Price Discrimination on Two-Sided Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 91-115, June.
    13. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé & Michael Sinkinson, 2024. "Media Competition and News Diets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 62-102, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Feng Zhu, 2010. "Strategies to Fight Ad-Sponsored Rivals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(9), pages 1484-1499, September.
    16. Tin Cheuk Leung & Koleman Strumpf, 2024. "Disentangling Demand and Supply of Media Bias: The Case of Newspaper Homepages," CESifo Working Paper Series 10890, CESifo.
    17. Constantatos, Christos & Perrakis, Stylianos, 1995. "Différenciation verticale et structure du marché," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 71(1), pages 71-98, mars.
    18. Simon P. Anderson & Bruno Jullien, 2015. "The advertising-financed business model in two-sided media markets," Post-Print hal-02866192, HAL.
    19. Carroni, Elias & Paolini, Dimitri, 2020. "Business models for streaming platforms: Content acquisition, advertising and users," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    20. Amelia Fletcher & Peter L Ormosi & Rahul Savani, 2023. "Recommender Systems and Supplier Competition on Platforms," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 397-426.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    platform economics; media economics; content aggregator; recommendation bias; innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy

    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:zbw:zewdip:300272. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    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.