Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0042

References

  • Ansari A., Economides N., Ghosh A. Competitive positioning in markets with nonuniform preferences. Marketing Sci. (1994) 13(3):248–273LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Barwise P., Ehrenberg A.Television and Its Audience (1988) (Sage Publications Ltd., London, U.K.) 102CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Carpenter G. Perceptual position and competitive brand strategy in a two-dimensional two-brand market. Management Sci. (1989) 35:1029–1044LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Comstock G., Scharrer E.Television: What's On, Who's Watching, and What It Means (1999) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Danaher P. Optimal pricing of new subscription services: Analysis of a marketing experiment. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(2):119–138LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Danaher P., Mawhinney D. Optimizing television program schedules using choice modelling. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(August):298–312CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • D'Aspremont C., Gabszewicz J. J., Thisse J-F. On Hotelling's stability in competition. Econometrica (1979) 59:1145–1150CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Desai P. Quality segmentation in spatial markets: When does cannibalization affect product line design? Marketing Sci. (2001) 20(3):265–283LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dukes A., Gal-Or E. Negotiations and exclusivity contracts for advertising. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(2):222–245LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Economides N. The principle of minimum differentiation revisited. Eur. Econom. Rev. (1984) 24:345–368CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gensch D., Shaman P. Models of competitive television ratings. J. Marketing Res. (1980) 17(August):307–315CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Goettler R., Shachar R. Spatial competition in the network television industry. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(4):624–656CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hauser J. Competitive price and positioning strategies. Marketing Sci. (1988) 7(Winter):76–91LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hotelling H. Stability in competition. Econom. J. (1929) 39:41–57Google Scholar
  • Jankowski G. F., Fuchs D. C.Television Today and Tomorrow: It Won't Be What You Think (1995) (Oxford University Press, New York) 197Google Scholar
  • Lerner A. P., Singer H. W. Some notes on duopoly and spatial competition. J. Political Econom. (1937) 45(2):145–186CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moorthy K. Product and price competition in a duopoly. Marketing Sci. (1988) 7(2):141–168LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Neven D., Thisse J. F., Gabszewicz J., Richard J-F., Wolsey L. On quality and variety competition. Economic Decision Making: Games, Econometrics and Optimization (1990) 175–199North-Holland, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  • Rosen J. Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave N-person games. Econometrica (1965) 33(3):520–534CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rust R., Alpert M. An audience flow model of television viewing choice. Marketing Sci. (1984) 3(Spring):113–127LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Rust R., Eechambadi N. Scheduling network television programs: A heuristic audience flow approach to maximizing audience share. J. Advertising (1989) 18(2):11–18CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shachar R., Emerson J. Cast demographics, unobserved segments, and heterogeneous switching costs in a television viewing choice model. J. Marketing Res. (2000) 37(May):173–186CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shaked A., Sutton J. Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1982) 49:3–13CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vandenbosch M., Weinberg C. B. Product and price competition in a two-dimensional vertical differentiation model. Marketing Sci. (1995) 14(2):224–249LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Vogel H.Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis (1998) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.) Google Scholar
  • Wolf M.The Entertainment Economy: How Mega-Media Forces Are Transforming Our Lives (1999) (Random House, Inc., New York) Google Scholar
  • Wright D. Television advertising regulation and program quality. Econom. Record (1994) 70(211):361–367CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.