Regulating Advertising Quantity: Is This Policy Efficient?

Jiekai Zhang
{"title":"Regulating Advertising Quantity: Is This Policy Efficient?","authors":"Jiekai Zhang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2847856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a long debate whether TV advertising time should be restricted (as in the EU and UK nowadays) or be left unregulated (as in the US since 1982). This paper exploits a novel dataset of per hour data on 12 major TV broadcasters in France to investigate the efficiency of regulation using an empirical two-sided market model. I first estimate the demand function of TV viewers and advertisers, in order to account for the two-sidedness of the market in the supply decision of TV stations. I then identify the shadow prices of regulation based on the observed regulatory constraints. Finally, I conduct counterfactual simulations to calibrate the regulation’s impact on viewers and advertisers. The results suggest that deregulating the market would increase the market advertising level by 4%, reduce the number of views per advert by 2%, and increase the average advertising cost per view by 0.5%. Accordingly, deregulation could increase the TV broadcasters’ net advertising revenue by 7%, but reduce the surplus of advertisers, and possibly damage the surplus of TV viewers if the broadcasters do not commit to improving the program quality.","PeriodicalId":11837,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other IO: Empirical Studies of Firms & Markets (Topic)","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other IO: Empirical Studies of Firms & Markets (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2847856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

There is a long debate whether TV advertising time should be restricted (as in the EU and UK nowadays) or be left unregulated (as in the US since 1982). This paper exploits a novel dataset of per hour data on 12 major TV broadcasters in France to investigate the efficiency of regulation using an empirical two-sided market model. I first estimate the demand function of TV viewers and advertisers, in order to account for the two-sidedness of the market in the supply decision of TV stations. I then identify the shadow prices of regulation based on the observed regulatory constraints. Finally, I conduct counterfactual simulations to calibrate the regulation’s impact on viewers and advertisers. The results suggest that deregulating the market would increase the market advertising level by 4%, reduce the number of views per advert by 2%, and increase the average advertising cost per view by 0.5%. Accordingly, deregulation could increase the TV broadcasters’ net advertising revenue by 7%, but reduce the surplus of advertisers, and possibly damage the surplus of TV viewers if the broadcasters do not commit to improving the program quality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
管制广告数量:有效吗?
电视广告时间是应该受到限制(就像现在的欧盟和英国),还是应该不受管制(就像1982年以来的美国),人们一直在争论。本文利用法国12家主要电视广播公司的每小时数据的新数据集,使用经验双边市场模型来研究监管的效率。本文首先对电视观众和广告商的需求函数进行估计,以解释电视台供给决策中市场的两面性。然后,我根据观察到的监管约束确定了监管的影子价格。最后,我进行了反事实模拟,以校准该规定对观众和广告商的影响。结果表明,放松市场管制将使市场广告水平提高4%,每条广告的浏览量减少2%,每条广告的平均浏览量增加0.5%。因此,放松管制可以使电视广播公司的净广告收入增加7%,但减少了广告商的盈余,如果广播公司不致力于提高节目质量,可能会损害电视观众的盈余。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Modeling Preference Heterogeneity Within and Across Behavioral Types: Evidence from a Real-world Betting Market The economics of movies (revisited): A decade of literature in review Does Industry Classification Matter in IT Business Value Research? A Simple Method to Estimate Discrete-type Random Coefficients Logit Models Intermittent versus Dispatchable Power Sources: An Integrated Competitive Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1