Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical note from case documents on the economies of network television advertising

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Economists have argued for many years about the extent of economies of geographic scope in television advertising. This paper maintains that previous studies could not correctly resolve this issue because they employed list prices, rather than transactions price data. In contrast to previous research, this paper reports transaction based prices from internal company documents. These transaction based data indicate that network advertising was substantially less costly per viewer than equivalent coverage using local spot television advertising. Local firms, unable to use network advertising as did their national competitors, faced high per viewer advertising costs as a result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arndt, Johan, and Julian Simon. "Advertising and Economies of Scale: Critical Comments on the Evidence."Journal of Industrial Economics, 32, No. 2 (December 1983), 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, Joe.Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, Harlan, and Jack Blum. "Network Television Rate Practices: A Case Study in the Failure of Social Control of Price Discrimination."Yale Law Journal, 74 (July 1965), 1339–1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, David. "Television Advertising: The Great Discount Illusion or Tonipandy Revisited."Journal of Business, 41 (January 1968), 10–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comanor, William, and Thomas Wilson.Advertising and Market Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, James.Advertising and Competition: Theory, Measurement, Fact. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Franklin, John McGowan, and David Evans. "The Audience Revenue Relationship for Local Television Stations."Bell Journal of Economics, 11, No. 2 (Autumn 1980), 694–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, Gary, and Donald Martin. "Does Government-Restricted Entry Produce Marketpower?: New Evidence from the Market for Television Advertising."Bell Journal of Economics, 14 (Spring 1983), 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • FTC vs. General Foods Corporation,In The Matter of General Foods Corporation, A Corporation. Federal Trade Commission, Docket No. 9085.

  • General Foods Corp., 3Trade Reg. Rep. (1963–1965) Transfer Binder Par. 17161 (FTC 1964).

  • Hilke, John. "Advertising and the Areeda-Turner and Williamson Rules."Journal of Reprints for Antitrust Law and Economics, 10, No. 1 (1980), 367–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilke, John, and Philip Nelson. "Caveat Innovator: Strategic and Structural Characteristics of New Product Introductions."Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 8 (1987), 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • --. "Strategic Behavior and Attempted Monopolization: The Coffee (General Foods) Case." in John Kwoka and Lawrence White, Eds.,The Antitrust Revolution. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988, 208–240.

  • ————. "Noisy Advertising and the Predation Rule in Antitrust Analysis."American Economic Review, 74, No. 2 (May 1984), 367–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leading National Advertisers, Inc. Competitive Brand Quarterly, (1971).

  • Levmore, Saul.Small Firm Disadvantages in Television Advertising. Yale University (Unpublished thesis), December 1978.

  • Mather, L. "Advertising and Mergers in the Food Manufacturing Industries." North Central Regional Research Project #117, (Unpublished) July 1979.

  • Mueller, Willard F. "Competitive Significance for the Beer Industry of Exclusive Advertising Rights Granted National Brewers in Major Network Sports Events." Submission to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, (Unpublished) January 15, 1979.

  • Peterman, John. "The Clorox Case and The Television Rate Structure."Journal of Law and Economics, 11, No. 2 (October 1968), 321–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. "Differences Between the Levels of Spot and Network Television Advertising Rates."Journal of Business, 52 (October 1979), 549–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterman, John, and Michael Carney. "A Comment on Network Television Price Discrimination."Journal of Business, 51 (April 1978), 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael. "Intraband Choice, Media Mix and Market Performance."American Economic Review, 66, No. 2 (May 1976), 398–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procter and Gamble Co., 3Trade Reg. Rep. (1963–1965) Transfer Binder par. 16673 (FTC 1963).

  • Scala, James. "Advertising and Shared Monopoly in Consumer Goods Industries."Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 9 (1973), 241–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, George.The Organization of Industry. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, USA

    John C. Hilke (Staff economist)

  2. Economists Incorporated, Washington, D.C.

    Philip B. Nelson (senior economist)

Authors
  1. John C. Hilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip B. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hilke, J.C., Nelson, P.B. An empirical note from case documents on the economies of network television advertising. Rev Ind Organ 4, 131–145 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02284665

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02284665

Keywords

Search

Navigation