Competing for attention in social communication markets

Management Science

Volumn 62, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 2304-2320

  Iyer, Ganesh ^a   Katona, Zsolt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Advertising and media; Marketing; Social media; Social networks

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; FIXED PLATFORMS; MARKETING;

DEGREE DISTRIBUTIONS; NONMONOTONIC; SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS; SOCIAL DISTANCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS; UNDERLYING NETWORKS; WORD OF MOUTH;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84983036089     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2209     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Modern Phys. 74(1):47-97.
2. Anderson S, de Palma A (2009) Information congestion. RAND J. Econom. 40(4):688-709.
3. Anderson S, de Palma A (2012) Competition for attention in the information (overload) age. RAND J. Econom. 43(1):1-25.
4. Bala V, Goyal S (2000) A noncooperative model of network formation. Econometrica 68(5):1181-1229.
5. Bramouillé Y, López-Pintado D, Goyal S, Vega-Redondo F (2004) Network formation and anti-coordination games. Internat. J. Game Theory 33(1):1-19.
6. Cabrales A, Calvó-Armegnol A, Zenou Y (2011) Social interactions and spillovers. Games Econom. Behav. 72(2):339-360.
7. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 67(3):297-308.
8. Elliott A (2013) Information overload from social media. Social Media Today (August 1), http://socialmediatoday.com/socialbarrel/ 1637856/information-overload-social-media-infographic. 13 Here, we allow other senders to act as receivers to make our model consistent with the basic model. This is a minor technical assumption that does not affect the results substantially.
9. Galeotti A, Goyal S (2010) The law of the few. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1468-1492.
10. Goldenberg J, Libai B, Muller E (2001) Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Lett. 12(3):211-223.
11. Goldenberg J, Han S, Lehman DR, Hong JW (2009) The role of hubs in the adoption process. J. Marketing 73(2):1-13.
12. Heil B, Piskorski M (2009) New Twitter research: Men follow men and nobody tweets. Harvard Bus. Rev. (June 1), http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2009/06/new-twitter-research-men-follo.html.
13. Hermalin BE, Katz ML (2004) Sender or receiver: Who should pay to exchange an electronic message? RAND J. Econom. 35(3): 423-448.
14. Iyengar R, Van den Bulte C, Valente TW (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Sci. 30(2):195-212.
15. Jackson MO (2004) A survey of models of network formation: Stability and efficiency. Demange G, Wooders M, eds. Group Formation in Economics; Networks, Clubs, and Coalitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 11-57.
16. Jackson MO, Wolinsky A (1996) A strategic model of social and economic networks. J. Econom. Theory 71(1):44-74.
17. Jeon DS, Laffont JJ, Tirole J (2004) On the receiver pays principle. RAND J. Econom. 35(3):85-110.
18. Katona Z, Zubcsek P, Sarvary M (2011) Network effects and personal influences: Diffusion of an online social network. J. Marketing Res. 48(3):425-443.
19. Lampel J, Bhalla A (2007) The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. 12(2):434-455.
20. Lawler R (2013) Why path limits you to 150 friends. Gigaom (March 14), http://gigaom.com/2012/03/14/path-150-friends/.
21. Pew Research Center (2013) Social networking fact sheet. Accessed March 4, 2014, http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/.
22. Salop SC (1979) Strategic entry deterrence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 69(2):335-338.
23. Shontell A (2013) It's official: Teens are bored with Facebook. Bus. Insider (March 3), http://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-teens-are-bored-of-facebook-2013-3.
24. Stehlé J, Voirin N, Barrat A, Cattuto C, Isella L, Pinton J-F, Quaggiotto M, et al. (2011) High-resolution measurements of face-to-face contact patterns in a primary school. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023176.
25. Toubia O, Stephen A (2013) Intrinsic versus image-related utility in social media: Why do people contribute content to Twitter. Marketing Sci. 32(3):368-392.
26. Trusov M, Bodapati AV, Bucklin RE (2010) Determining influential users in Internet social networks. J. Marketing Res. 47(4): 643-658.
27. Tucker C (2008) Identifying formal and informal influence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Sci. 54(12):2024-2038.
28. Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. Tollison R, Buchanan J, Tullock G, eds. Towards a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (Texas A&M University Press, College Station), 97-112.
29. Van Zandt T (2004) Information overload in a network of targeted communication. RAND J. Econom. 35(3):542-560.
30. Yoganarasimhan H (2012) Impact of social network structure on content propagation: A study using YouTube data. Quant. Marketing Econom. 10(1):111-150.
31. Zhang K, Sarvary M (2015) Differentiation with user-generated content. Management Sci. 61(4):898-914.