Frenemies: Corporate Advertising Under Common Ownership

References

• Admati AR, Pfleiderer P, Zechner J (1994) Large shareholder activism, risk sharing, and financial market equilibrium. J. Political Econom. 102(6):1097–1130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Advertising Age (2019) https://adage.com/datacenter/.Google Scholar
• Agarwal S, Hauswald R (2010) Distance and private information in lending. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(7):2757–2788.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alemson M (1970) Advertising and the nature of competition in oligopoly over time: A case study. Econom. J. 80(318):282–306.Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester D (2013) Advertising in a competitive market: The role of product standards, customer learning, and switching costs. J. Marketing Res. 50(4):489–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Lavy V (1997) The effect of a change in language of instruction on the returns to schooling in Morocco. J. Labor Econom. 15(1, Part 2):S48–S76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asker J, Ljungqvist A (2010) Competition and the structure of vertical relationships in capital markets. J. Political Econom. 118(3):599–647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar J (2012) A new look at oligopoly: Implicit collusion through portfolio diversification. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Azar J (2017) Portfolio diversification, market power, and the theory of the firm. Public-Private Section Research Center Working Paper No. WP-1170-E, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
• Azar J (2020) The common ownership trilemma. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 87(2):263–296.Google Scholar
• Azar J, Vives X (2021) General equilibrium oligopoly and ownership structure. Econometrica 89(3):999–1048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar J, Schmalz MC, Sahil R (2021) Ultimate ownership and bank competition. Financial Management. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Azar J, Schmalz MC, Tecu I (2018) Anticompetitive effects of common ownership. J. Finance 73(4):1513–1565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Backus M, Conlon C, Sinkinson M (2021) Common ownership in America: 1980-2017. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 13(3): 273–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagwell K (2007) The economic analysis of advertising. Armstrong M, Porte R, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 3 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1701–1844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bass FM, Krishnamoorthy A, Prasad A, Sethi SP (2005) Generic and brand advertising strategies in a dynamic duopoly. Marketing Sci. 24(4):556–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernheim BD, Whinston MD (1985) Common marketing agency as a device for facilitating collusion. RAND J. Econom. 16(2):269–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj SG, Tuli KR, Bonfrer A (2011) The impact of brand quality on shareholder wealth. J. Marketing 75(5):88–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloch F (1997) 10 - Non-cooperative models of coalition formation in games with spillovers. Carraro C, Siniscalco D, eds. New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 311–352.Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Ma S, Tian X (2018) How does hedge fund activism reshape corporate innovation? J. Financial Econom. 130(2):237–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg BJ (1998) Advertising frequency decisions in a discrete Markov process under a budget constraint. J. Marketing Res. 35(3):399–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caliendo M, Kopeinig S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J. Econom. Surveys 22(1):31–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty A, Grewal R (2011) The stock market in the driver’s seat! Implications for R&D and marketing. Management Sci. 57(9):1594–1609.Link, Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Weinberg M (2018) How does advertising depend on competition? Evidence from US brewing. Management Sci. 64(11):5132–5148.Link, Google Scholar
• Chemmanur T, Yan A (2017) Product market advertising, heterogeneous beliefs, and the long-run performance of initial public offerings. J. Corporate Finance 46:1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Joshi YV, Raju JS, Zhang ZJ (2009) A theory of combative advertising. Marketing Sci. 28(1):1–19.Link, Google Scholar
• Chintagunta PK, Vilcassim NJ (1992) An empirical investigation of advertising strategies in a dynamic duopoly. Management Sci. 38(9):1230–1244.Link, Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P, Hitsch GJ, Manchanda P (2005) An empirical model of advertising dynamics. Quant. Marketing Econom. 3(2):107–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edeling A, Fischer M (2016) Marketing’s impact on firm value: Generalizations from a meta-analysis. J. Marketing Res. 53(4):515–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmans A, Holderness CG (2017) Blockholders: A survey of theory and evidence. Hermalin BE, Weisbach MS, eds. The Handbook of the Economics of Corporate Goverance, vol. 1 (North Holland, Amsterdam), 541–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erickson GM (2009) An oligopoly model of dynamic advertising competition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197(1):374–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Shapiro C (1990) Asset ownership and market structure in oligopoly. RAND J. Econom. 21(2):275–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Albers S, Wagner N, Frie M (2011) Practice prize winner—dynamic marketing budget allocation across countries, products, and marketing activities. Marketing Sci. 30(4):568–585.Link, Google Scholar
• Freimer M, Horsky D (2012) Periodic advertising pulsing in a competitive market. Marketing Sci. 31(4):637–648.Link, Google Scholar
• Frennea C, Han K, Mittal V (2019) Value appropriation and firm shareholder value: Role of advertising and receivables management. J. Marketing Res. 56(2):291–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan SL, Starks LT (2000) Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. J. Financial Econom. 57(2):275–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilo D, Moshe Y, Spiegel Y (2006) Partial cross ownership and tacit collusion. RAND J. Econom. 37(1):81–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon RJ (1990) What is new-Keynesian economics? J. Econom. Literature 28(3):1115–1171.Google Scholar
• Gordon RH (2003) Do publicly traded corporations act in the public interest? B. E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 3(1):1–20.Google Scholar
• Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1980) Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation. Bell J. Econom. 11(1):42–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen RG, Lott JR (1996) Externalities and corporate objectives in a world with diversified shareholder/consumers. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 31(1):43–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanssens DM (2009) Advertising impact generalizations in a marketing mix context. J. Advertising Res. 49(2):127–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He JJ, Huang J (2017) Product market competition in a world of cross-ownership: Evidence from institutional blockholdings. Rev. Financial Stud. 30(8):2674–2718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He JJ, Huang J, Zhao S (2019) Internalizing governance externalities: The role of institutional cross-ownership. J. Financial Econom. 134(2):400–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoberg G, Phillips G (2016) Text-based network industries and endogenous product differentiation. J. Political Econom. 124(5):1423–1465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kacperczyk M (2010) Competition and bias. Quart. J. Econom. 125(4):1683–1725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jayaraman N, Khorana A, Nelling E (2002) An analysis of the determinants and shareholder wealth effects of mutual fund mergers. J. Finance 57(3):1521–1551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Hanssens DM (2010) The direct and indirect effects of advertising spending on firm value. J. Marketing 74(1):20–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kacperczyk M, Sialm C, Zheng L (2005) On the industry concentration of actively managed equity mutual funds. J. Finance 60(4):1983–2011.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn C, Winton A (1998) Ownership structure, speculation, and shareholder intervention. J. Finance 53(1):99–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B, Crawford RG, Alchian AA (1978) Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. J. Law Econom. 21(2):297–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J. Political Econom. 99(3):483–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lodish LM, Abraham M, Kalmenson S, Livelsberger J, Lubetkin B, Richardson B, Stevens ME (1995) How TV advertising works: A meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable tv advertising experiments. J. Marketing Res. 32(2):125–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lou D (2014) Attracting investor attention through advertising. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(6):1797–1829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo X, de Jong PJ (2012) Does advertising spending really work? the intermediate role of analysts in the impact of advertising on firm value. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 40(4):605–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margotta D (2010) Adolf Berle and revolution in the modern corporation. Bus. Rev. (Philadelphia) 15(2):62–67.Google Scholar
• Markovitch DG, Golder PN (2008) Findings—using stock prices to predict market events: Evidence on sales takeoff and long-term firm survival. Marketing Sci. 27(4):717–729.Link, Google Scholar
• McAlister L, Srinivasan R, Kim M (2007) Advertising, research and development, and systematic risk of the firm. J. Marketing 71(1):35–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAlister L, Srinivasan R, Jindal N, Cannella AA (2016) Advertising effectiveness: The moderating effect of firm strategy. J. Marketing Res. 53(2):207–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morck R, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1988) Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. J. Financial Econom. 20:293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newham M, Seldeslachts J, Banal-Estanol A (2018) Common ownership and market entry: Evidence from pharmaceutical industry. Working paper. German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin.Google Scholar
• Nijs VR, Dekimpe MG, Steenkamps J-BE, Hanssens DM (2001) The category-demand effects of price promotions. Marketing Sci. 20(1):1–22.Link, Google Scholar
• O’brien DP, Salop SC (2000) Competitive effects of partial ownership: Financial interest and corporate control. Antitrust Law J. 67(3):495–558.Google Scholar
• Park KM, Chintagunta PK, Suk I (2019a) Capital market returns to new product development success: Informational effects on product market advertising. J. Marketing Res. 56(1):37–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park J, Sani J, Shroff N, White H (2019b) Disclosure incentives when competing firms have common ownership. J. Accounting Econom. 67(2-3):387–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker PM, Röller L-H (1997) Collusive conduct in duopolies: Multimarket contact and cross-ownership in the mobile telephone industry. RAND J. Econom. 28(2):304–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reynolds RJ, Snapp BR (1986) The competitive effects of partial equity interests and joint ventures. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 4(2):141–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rotemberg JJ (1984) A monetary equilibrium model with transactions costs. J. Political Econom. 92(1):40–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin A (2006) Diversification and corporate decisions. Corporate Ownership Control 3(3):209–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS (2015) Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments. Quant. Marketing Econom. 13(3):203–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmalz MC (2018) Common-ownership concentration and corporate conduct. Annual Rev. Financial Econom. 10:413–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semov S (2017) Common ownership, firm financial policy and product market strategy. PhD thesis, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Shapiro BT (2018) Positive spillovers and free riding in advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals: The case of antidepressants. J. Political Econom. 126(1):381–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J. Political Econom. 94(3, Part 1):461–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simester D, Hu Y, Brynjolfsson E, Anderson ET (2009) Dynamics of retail advertising: Evidence from a field experiment. Econom. Inquiry 47(3):482–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slade ME (1995) Product rivalry with multiple strategic weapons: An analysis of price and advertising competition. J. Econom. Management Strategy 4(3):445–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas LA (1999) Incumbent firms’ response to entry: Price, advertising, and new product introduction. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 17(4):527–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tuli KR, Bharadwaj SG (2009) Customer satisfaction and stock returns risk. J. Marketing 73(6):184–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas JM (1993) Predicting advertising pulsing policies in an oligopoly: A model and empirical test. Marketing Sci. 12(1):88–102.Link, Google Scholar
• Xie J, Gerakos J (2021) Institutional cross-holdings and generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Financial Econom. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Yi S-S (1997) Stable coalition structures with externalities. Games Econom. Behav. 20(2):201–237.Google Scholar