Advertisement

Quantitative Marketing and Economics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 211–237 | Cite as

(Noisy) communication

  • Bharat N. Anand
  • Ron ShacharEmail author
Article

Abstract

Communication is central to many settings in marketing and economics. A focal attribute of communication is miscommunication. We model this key characteristic as a noise in the messages communicated, so that the sender of a message is uncertain about its perception by the receiver, and then identify the strategic consequences of miscommunication. We study a model where competing senders (of different types) can invest in improving the precision of the informative but noisy message they send to a receiver, and find that there exists a separating equilibrium where senders’ types are completely revealed. Thus, although communication is noisy it delivers perfect results in equilibrium. This result stems from the fact that a sender’s willingness to invest in improving the precision of their messages can itself serve as a signal. Interestingly, the content of the messages is ignored by the receiver in such a signaling equilibrium, but plays a central role by shaping her beliefs off the equilibrium path (and thus, enables separation between the types). This result also illustrates the uniqueness of the signaling model presented here. Unlike other signaling models, the suggested model does not require that the costs and benefits of the senders will be correlated with their types to achieve separation. The model’s results have implications for various marketing communication tools such as advertising and sales forces.

Keywords

Information Signaling Communication 

JEL Classification

C72 D82 D83 M31 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Adam Brandenburger, Eddie Dekel, Chaim Fershtman, Elon Kohlberg, Sridhar Moorthy, Barry Nalebuff, Ariel Pakes, Ben Polak, Julio Rotemberg, Ariel Rubinstein, Dennis Yao, and seminar participants at Hebrew University, Tel-Aviv University, Washington University, Yale University, and various conferences for helpful comments. Our editor, Rajiv Lal, and reviewers were very helpful with their constructive comments and guidance and we appreciate their effort. Anand gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Division of Research at Harvard Business School.

References

  1. Anand, B., & Shachar, R. (2005). Advertising, the Matchmaker, http://www.tau.ac.il/~rroonn/Papers/match05.pdf.
  2. Anand, B., & Shachar, R. (2006). Targeted Advertising as a Signal. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, I., & Funk, M. (2002). Marketing privacy: A solution for the blight of telemarketing (and Spam and Junk Mail). Mimeo.Google Scholar
  4. Belch, G., & Belch, M. (2007). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communication perspective. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  5. Bhardwaj, P., Yuxin, C., & Godes, D. (2005). Buyer versus seller-initiated information revelation. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, J., & Watson, J. (2004). Hard evidence and mechanism design. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, V., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50(5), 1431–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daughety, A., & Reinganum, J. (2000). Appealing judgments. Rand Journal of Economics, 31(3), 502–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deneckere, R., & Severinov, S. (2003). Mechanism design and communication costs. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  10. Desai, P. (2000). Multiple messages to retain retailers: Signaling new product demand. Marketing Science, 19(4), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishman, M., & Hagerty, K. (1990). The optimal amount of discretion to allow in disclosure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory. Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Glazer, J., & Rubinstein, A. (2000). Debates and decisions, on a rationale of argumentation. Games and Economic Behavior, 36(2), 158–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hertzendorf, M. N., & Overgaard, P. (2001). Price competition and advertising signals - signaling by competing senders. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(4), 621–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacoby, J., & Hoyer, W. (1982). Viewer miscomprehension of televised communication: Selected findings. Journal of Marketing, 46(4), 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacoby, J., & Hoyer, W. (1989). The comprehension/miscomprehension of print communcation: Selected findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kihlstrom, R., & Riordan, M. (1984). Advertising as a signal. Journal of Political Economy, 92(3), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipman, B., & Seppi, D. (1995). Robust inference in communication games with partial provability. Journal of Economic Theory, 66(2), 370–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marshack, J., & Radner, R. (1972). An economic theory of teams. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Price and advertising signals of product quality. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 796–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Okuno-Fujiwara, Postelwaite, & Suzumura (1990). Strategic information revelation. Review of Economic Studies, 57 (1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanchirico, C. (2001). Relying on the information of interested—and potentially dishonest—parties. American Law and Economics Review, 3(2), 320–357.Google Scholar
  23. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Google Scholar
  24. Zhao, H. (2000). Raising awareness and signaling quality to uninformed consumers: A price-advertising model. Marketing Science, 19(4), 390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Business SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.BostonUSA
  3. 3.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  4. 4.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations