Privacy and Marketing Externalities: Evidence from Do Not Call

References

• Anderson SP, de Palma A (2009) Information congestion. RAND J. Econom. 40(4):688–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, Gans JS (2011) Platform siphoning: Ad-avoidance and media content. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconomics 3(4):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong M, Vickers J, Zhou J (2009) Consumer protection and the incentive to become informed. J. Eur. Econom. Association 7(2–3):399–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayres I, Funk M (2003) Marketing privacy: A solution for the blight of telemarketing (and spam and junk mail). Yale J. Regulation 20(1):77–138.Google Scholar
• Bass F (1969) A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Sci. 15(5):215–227.Link, Google Scholar
• Bergemann D, Bonatti A (2011) Targeting in advertising markets: Implications for offline vs. online media. RAND J. Econom. 42(3):414–443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates. Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonfrer A, Dreze X (2009) Real-time evaluation of e-mail campaign performance. Marketing Sci. 28(2):251–263.Link, Google Scholar
• Campbell J, Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2015) Privacy regulation and market structure. J. Econom. Management Strategy 24(1):47–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (2004) Annual report on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Report DA 04-3890, December.Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2003) The Status of the National Do Not Call Registry. Prepared Statement before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 30, 2003.Google Scholar
• George L, Waldfogel J (2003) Who affects whom in daily newspaper markets? J. Political Econom. 111(4):765–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goh K-Y, Hui K-L, Png IPL (2011) Newspaper reports and consumer choice: Evidence from the do not call registry. Management Sci. 57(9):1640–1654.Link, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2011) Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Sci. 30(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Hann I-H, Hui K-L, Lee S-YT, Png IPL (2008) Consumer privacy and marketing avoidance: A static model. Management Sci. 54(6):1094–1103.Link, Google Scholar
• Iyer G, Soberman D, Villas-Boas JM (2005) The targeting of advertising. Marketing Sci. 24(3):461–476.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson JP (2013) Targeted advertising and advertising avoidance. RAND J. Econom. 44(1):128–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson PA (2003) The new economics of telemarketing: Before and after the Federal DNC List. White paper, Direct Marketing Association, New York.Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Loder T, Van Alstyne M, Wash R (2006) An economic response to unsolicited communication. Adv. Econom. Anal. Policy 6:Article 1.Google Scholar
• Mahajan V, Muller E, Bass FM (1990) New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. J. Marketing 54(1):1–26.Google Scholar
• Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econom. Stud. 60(3):531–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• New York Post (2003) No-call law will keep sell-phoners on hold (June 27) 29.Google Scholar
• New York Times (2012) E-tailer customization: Convenient or creepy? (June 24) BU3.Google Scholar
• Plain Dealer (Cleveland) (2003) Telemarketers making flurry of calls before law kicks in. (September 24) C1.Google Scholar
• Rotfeld HJ (2004) Do-not-call as the US government’s improvement to telemarketing efficiency. J. Consumer Marketing 21(4):242–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saguaro Seminar (2000) Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/docs/exec_summ.pdf.Google Scholar
• Shiman D (1996) When e-mail becomes junk mail: The welfare implications of the advancement of comm. technology. Rev. Indust. Organ. 11(1):35–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shiman D (2006) An economic approach to the regulation of direct marketing. Federal Communications Law J. 58(2):321–359.Google Scholar
• Tucker C, Zhang J (2011) How does popularity information affect choices? A field experiment. Management Sci. 57(5):828–842.Link, Google Scholar
• USA Today (2003) FTC’s Do Not Call Registry puts telemarketing jobs on the line. (September 10) B01.Google Scholar
• Van den Bulte C, Stremersch S (2004) Social contagion and income heterogeneity in new product diffusion: A meta-analytic test. Marketing Sci. 23(4):530–544.Link, Google Scholar
• Van Zandt T (2004) Information overload in a network of targeted communication. RAND J. Econom. 35(3):542–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varian H, Wallenberg F, Woroch G (2004) Who Signed Up for the Do-Not-Call List? Working paper, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• Varian H, Wallenberg F, Woroch G (2005) The demographics of the do-not-call list. IEEE Security and Privacy 3(1):34–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldfogel J (2003) Preference externalities: An empirical study of who benefits whom in differentiated-product markets. RAND J. Econom. 34(3):557–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilbur KC (2008) A two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets. Marketing Sci. 27(3):356–378.Link, Google Scholar
• Wilbur KC, Xu L, Kempe D (2013) Correcting audience externalities in television advertising. Marketing Sci. 32(6):892–912.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang J (2010) The sound of silence: Observational learning in the U.S. kidney market. Marketing Sci. 29(2):315–335.Link, Google Scholar