This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Liu, Y. Articles by Weinberg, C. B. Search for Related Content

Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters

School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2
yoliu{at}syr.edu
dan.putler{at}sauder.ubc.ca
charles.weinberg{at}sauder.ubc.ca

Competitive behavior in commercial television broadcasting is modeled to examine program choice and the effects of more channels being available on firm strategy. Specifically, broadcasters compete by selecting both the "type" and quality level of a program to offer, but do not compete on price. We obtain five major results. First, a comparison of monopoly and duopoly markets indicates that broadcasters in an industry with a larger number of competitors may provide programs of lower quality compared to broadcasters in an industry with a smaller number. Second, in terms of viewer welfare, having more channels available is not necessarily "better." Third, broadcasters tend to choose an intermediate level of differentiation in terms of the types of programs they provide, resulting in a "counterprogramming" strategy. In other words, avoidance of price competition is not required for competitors to differentiate themselves from each other. Fourth, if one broadcaster starts the evening with a higher-quality (higher-rated) program than its competitor, its second program should also be of higher quality. Finally, a broadcaster's first program should be of equal or higher quality than its second program. Put another way, it always behooves a broadcaster to "lead with its best."

Key Words: competition; competitive strategy; entertainment marketing; game theory; market structure; media; product policy
History: Received: July 18, 2001;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Dukes and Y. Liu In-Store Media and Distribution Channel Coordination Marketing Science, January 1, 2010; 29(1): 94 - 107. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. J. Kind, T. Nilssen, and L. Sorgard Business Models for Media Firms: Does Competition Matter for How They Raise Revenue? Marketing Science, November 1, 2009; 28(6): 1112 - 1128. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Godes, E. Ofek, and M. Sarvary Content vs. Advertising: The Impact of Competition on Media Firm Strategy Marketing Science, January 1, 2009; 28(1): 20 - 35. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. C. Wilbur A Two-Sided, Empirical Model of Television Advertising and Viewing Markets Marketing Science, May 1, 2008; 27(3): 356 - 378. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. B. Syam and N. Kumar On Customized Goods, Standard Goods, and Competition Marketing Science, September 1, 2006; 25(5): 525 - 537. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S.-Y. Chou and C.-C. Wu A Comment on "Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters" Marketing Science, September 1, 2006; 25(5): 538 - 542. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Liu, D. S. Putler, and C. B. Weinberg A Reply to "A Comment on 'Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters' " Marketing Science, September 1, 2006; 25(5): 543 - 546. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Yang, V. Narayan, and H. Assael Estimating the Interdependence of Television Program Viewership Between Spouses: A Bayesian Simultaneous Equation Model Marketing Science, July 1, 2006; 25(4): 336 - 349. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Jing On the Profitability of Firms in a Differentiated Industry Marketing Science, May 1, 2006; 25(3): 248 - 259. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Comments on Competitive Responsiveness Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(1): 3 - 7. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Chen and J. Xie Third-Party Product Review and Firm Marketing Strategy Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(2): 218 - 240. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. M. Bass, A. Krishnamoorthy, A. Prasad, and S. P. Sethi Generic and Brand Advertising Strategies in a Dynamic Duopoly Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(4): 556 - 568. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. B. Syam, R. Ruan, and J. D. Hess Customized Products: A Competitive Analysis Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(4): 569 - 584. [Abstract] [PDF]