Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T06:21:47.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advertising and endogenous exit in a differentiated duopoly

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Andrea Mantovani  and
Giordano Mion
Andrea Mantovani
Affiliation:
CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain and Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Italy
Giordano Mion
Affiliation:
CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain and Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Italy
Get access

Summary

In this paper we consider a two-stage duopoly game where firms first decide whether to invest in advertising and then compete in prices. Advertising has two effects: a market enlargement for both firms and a predatory gain for the investing firm only.

Both symmetric and asymmetric equilibria may arise. The two most interesting cases are a coordination game where both firms investing and non-investing are equilibria, and a chicken game where only one firm invests while the other is possibly driven (endogenously) out of the market. Our results suggest that product differentiation has an ambiguous impact on investment in advertising and that strong product substitutabihty may induce a coordination problem.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article nous considérons un jeu de duopole en deux étapes, dans lequel les entreprises décident d'abord si elles souhaitent investir dans la publicité, puis se concurrencent ensuite en prix. Nous montrons que la publicité a deux effets : d'une part, elle élargie le marché pour les deux entreprises, et d'autre part, elle redirige une partie de la demande vers le produit publicisé.

Nous obtenons, en fonction des paramètres, des équilibres symétrique et asymétriques. Les deux cas les plus intéressants sont un jeu de coordination, où les deux entreprises peuvent simultanément investir ou ne pas investir, et un jeu chicken, où seule l'une des deux entreprises investie tandis que l'autre peut éventuellement sortir (de manière endogène) du marché. Nos résultats suggèrent que la différenciation des produits joue un rôle ambigu sur l'investissement en publicité et qu'une substituabilité forte entre produits peut donner lieu à un problème de coordination.

Keywords

cointégrationco-mouvementco-dépendancecorrélation en sériesC72L11L13M37advertisingproduct differentiationendogenous exitasymmetric equilibriacoordination gamesD64E24J22
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , 2006 , pp. 19 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Rabah Amir, Claude d'Aspremont, Luca Lambertini, Jacques Thisse, Vincent Vannetelbosch, Xavier Wauthy as well as two ananymous referees for useful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to seminar participants at the University of Bologna, the 2003 SMYE and the 2003 EARIE meeting. Both authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from CORE. The usual disclaimer applies.

**

CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain, 34 Voie du Roman Pays, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Strada Maggiore 45,1-40125 Bologna, Italy. [email protected][email protected][email protected]

References

Amir, R. (2000), “R&D Returns, Market Structure, and Research Joint Venture”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 4, pp. 583–598.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Ramey, G. (1988), “Advertising and Limit Pricing”, Rand Journal of Economics, 19, pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
Bagwell, K. and Ramey, G. (1990), “Advertising and Pricing to Deter or Accommodate Entry When Demand is Unknown”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 8, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
Butters, G. (1977), “Equilibrium distribution of prices and advertising”, Review of Economic Studies, 44, pp. 465–491.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. and Norman, V. (1978), “Advertising and Welfare”, The Bell Journal of Economics, 9, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Friedman, J.W. (1983), “Advertising and Oligopolistic Equilibrium”, Bell Journal of Economics, 14, pp. 464–473.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1984), “Informative advertising with differentiated products”, Review of Economic Studies, 51, pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
Ishigaki, H. (2000), “Informative advertising and entry deterrence : a Bertrand model”, Economics Letters, 67, pp. 337–343.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. (1950), “The Economic Aspects of Advertising”, Review of Economic Studies, 18, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Martin, S. (2002), Advanced Industrial Economics, second edition, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1986), “Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality”, Jounal of Political Economy, 94, pp. 796–821.Google Scholar
Muehling, D. Stoltman, J. and Grossbart, S. (1990), “The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement”, Journal of Advertising, 19, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. (1974), “Advertising as Information”, Journal of Political Economy, 82, pp. 729–754.Google Scholar
Piga, C. (1998), “A Dynamic Model of Advertising and Product Differentiation”, Review of Industrial Organization, 13, pp. 509–522.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. (1978), “A model of Advertising and Product Quality”, Journal of Political Economy, 86, pp. 486–503.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. (1983), “Advertising and entry deterrence : an exploratory model”, Journal of Political Economy, 91, pp. 636–653.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. (1991), Sunk Costs and Market Structure, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shubik, M. and Levitan, R. (1980), Market Structure and Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Von der Fehr, N.-H. and Stevik, K. (1998), “Persuasive Advertising and product Differentiation”, Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), pp. 113–126.Google Scholar
Wolinsky, A. (1984), “Product differentiation with imperfect information”, Review of Economic Studies, 51, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar