Advertisement

Ad Addressability and Personalized Content in IPTV Markets

  • Christoph Fritsch
Chapter
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)

Abstract

The formation of Internet based TV channels denotes an elementary change in media markets. By combination of traditional broadcasting and interactive networks, television can be transformed from a mass medium into a customized service. In view of virtually unlimited channel capacity and addressable audiences, content will increasingly be adjusted to viewer preferences.

In this submission ad addressability and personalized content are discussed as the relevant options to customize IPTV services. We consider a two-sided market framework with an ad averse audience. The impact of ad addressability and personalized content on the TV market is analyzed in case of a monopoly channel and for the duopoly case. In both settings ad addressability enhances the equilibrium advertising level and increases channel profits. The program location on the preference spectrum and the audience share remains equal with ad addressability.

This submission contributes to the theory on two-sided markets especially Anderson and Gabszewicz (2006, Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 567–614) and Armstrong (The RAND Journal of Economics, 2006;37:668–691). Further it contributes to the theory of free TV markets (Gabszewicz et al. European Economic Review 2005;45:645–651; Kind et al. Journal of Media Economics, 2007:20:211–233) by introducing interactive channels and it augments the discussion of ad addressability by Kim and Wildman (Journal of Media Economics 2006:19, 55–79). The theoretical results give inside to the challenges and opportunities of individualized content in IPTV markets. Ad addressability appears to be a profit increasing tool for IPTV providers. Customized content on the other hand leads to a more severe competition in advertising levels. An essential question for the future development of IPTV markets is therefore, to what extend channels can differentiate their program with exclusive broadcasting rights.

Keywords

Acceptance Range Advertising Effect Personalized Content Viewer Preference Advertising Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, S. P., & Gabszewicz, J. J. (2006). The media and advertising: A tale of two sided markets. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (pp. 567–614). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, M. (2005). Public service broadcasting. Fiscal Studies, 26, 282–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagwell, K. (2007). The Economic Analysis of Advertising. In M. Armstrong & R. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization (pp. 1708–1725). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Barros, P. P., Kind, H. J., Nilssen, T., & Sørgard, L. (2004). Media competition on the internet. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4, 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Beebe, J. H. (1977). Institutional structure and program choices in television markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken and egg; competing matchmakers. The Rand Journal of Economics, 34, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fritsch C., & Lucas J (2009) program choice revisited (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. Gabszewicz, J. J., Laussel, D., & Sonnac, N. (2001). Press advertising and the ascent of the Pensée unique? European Economic Review, 45, 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomes, O. (2006). The dynamics of television advertising with boundedly rational consumers. Munic Personal RePEc Archive, 1–30.Google Scholar
  11. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, E., & Wildman, S. S. (2006). A deeper look at the economics of advertiser support for television—The implications of consumption-differentiated viewers and ad addressability. Journal of Media Economics, 19, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kind, H. J., Nilssen, T., & Sørgard, L. (2007). Competition for viewers and advertisers in a TV oligopoly. Journal of Media Economics, 20, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Noam, E. M. (1987). A public and private-choice model of broadcasting. Public Choice, 55, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Noam, E. M. (1995). Towards the third revolution of television (pp. 1–17). Bertelsmann Foundation: Gütersloh.Google Scholar
  16. Peitz, M, (2006). Marktplätze und indirekte Netzwerkeffekte. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 7, 317–333.Google Scholar
  17. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 990–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. Spence, M., & Owen, B. M. (1977). Television programming. Monopolistic competition and welfare. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steiner, P. O. (1952). Program patterns and preferences, and the workability of competition in radio broadcasting. Journal of Economics, 66, 194–223.Google Scholar
  21. Tacheny, T. (1989). Observation and measurement of audience viewing habits: Zapping. In European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (Ed.), Seminar on broadcasting research: experiences and strategies Paris (France), 25th-27th January (pp. 259–315). Amsterdam: ESOMR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations