Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 105–133 | Cite as

Media Mergers with Preference Externalities and Their Implications for Content Diversity, Consumer Welfare, and Policy



One of the primary concerns regarding media mergers involves their potential adverse effect on content/viewpoint diversity. This paper presents a formal treatment of the influence that within-group consumer preference externalities over media content have on a media outlet’s incentive to engage in product repositioning both before and after merging with another media outlet. We first present a model of consumer behavior under preference externalities and derive aggregate consumer expenditure functions for media output. It is shown that even assuming the merged entity sets a uniform price and content mix across market areas, the relative access to some minority (majority) group subscribers will increase (decrease) post-merger (and vice versa). We derive sufficient conditions under which the merged entity will in fact have an incentive to homogenize its post-merger price/content mix. And while the post-merger repositioning effects arguably suggest the consumer welfare implications of such mergers are ambiguous a priori, it is posited that the observed idiosyncratic preferences for media content among demographic groups may translate into significant losses to consumer welfare in some instances and may also adversely affect some individuals’ participation in civil affairs, such as voting. Finally, the relation of the model to previous empirical work on media mergers and diversity, and the potential for non-traditional policy interventions to offset the competitive harms of such transactions, are also discussed.


diversity media ownership merger policy preference externalities product repositioning welfare 

JEL Classification

K21 K23 L41 L82 


  1. Bagwell LS, Bernheim BD (1996) Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption. Am Econ Rev 86:349–373Google Scholar
  2. Baynes LM (2006) Race, media consolidation, and online content: the lack of substitutes available to media consumers of color. Univ Mich J Law Reform 39:199–228Google Scholar
  3. Berry ST, Waldfogel J (2001) Do mergers increase product variety? Evidence from radio broadcasting. Q J Econ CXVI:1009–1025Google Scholar
  4. Bush CA (1994) Interdependent preferences and status: a taxonomy of demand, University of Rochester, Department of Economics, Rochester Center for Economic Research Working Paper, no. 385Google Scholar
  5. Bush CA (2002) On the substitutability of local newspaper, radio, and television advertising in local business sales, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Staff Research Paper, no. 10, available at <>
  6. Dertouzos JN, Trautman WB (1990) Economic effects of media concentration: estimates from a model of the newspaper firm. J Ind Econ 39:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiCola P (2006) Do radio companies offer more variety when they exceed the local ownership cap?, In does bigger media equal better media? Four academic studies of media ownership in the United States. Washington, DC (Benton Foundation), pp 38–58Google Scholar
  8. Dubin J, Spitzer ML (1994) Testing minority preferences in broadcasting. South Calif Law Rev 68:841–884Google Scholar
  9. FCC (2002) In the matter of applications for consent of the transfer of control of licenses from Comcast Corporation and AT&T Corp., Transferors, to AT&T Comcast Corporation, transferee, memorandum opinion and order, MB Docket No. 02–70, 14 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  10. FCC (2003) In the matter of 2002 biennial regulatory review: review of the commission’s broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; cross-ownership of radio broadcast stations in local markets; definition of radio markets for areas not located in an arbitron survey area, 18 F.C.C.R. 13,620, 2 JulyGoogle Scholar
  11. FCC (2004) Report on the packaging and sale of video programming services to the public, 4 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  12. FCC (2006a) Further report on the packaging and sale of video programming services to the public, 9 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  13. FCC (2006b) In the matter of applications for consent to the assignment and/or transfer of control of licenses: Adelphia Communications Corporation to Time Warner Cable Inc., etc., memorandum opinion and order, MB Docket No. 05–192, 21 JulyGoogle Scholar
  14. George L (2007) What’s fit to print: the effect of ownership concentration on product variety in daily newspaper markets. Inf Econ Policy 19:285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. George L, Waldfogel J (2003) Who affects whom in daily newspaper markets? J Polit Econ 111:765–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heyer K (2006) Welfare standards and merger analysis: why not the best? Competition Policy International 2:29–54Google Scholar
  17. Lee J (2006) American idol: evidence of same-race preferences, IZA Discussion Paper, no. 1974Google Scholar
  18. Oberholzer-Gee F, Waldfogel J (2005) Strength in numbers: group size and political mobilization. J Law Econ XLVII:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oberholzer-Gee F, Waldfogel J (2006) Media markets and localism: does local news en español boost hispanic voter turnout?, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, no. 12317Google Scholar
  20. Rogers R, Woodbury J (1996) Market structure, program diversity, and radio audience size. Contemp Econ Policy XIV:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shelanski HA (2006) Antitrust law as mass media regulation: can merger standards protect the public interest? Calif Law Rev 94:371–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siegelman P, Waldfogel J (2001) Race and radio: preference externalities, minority ownership, and the provision of programming to minorities. In: Baye MR, Nelson JP (eds) Advertising and differentiated products, vol. 10. Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford, pp 73–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spitzer ML (1990) Justifying minority preferences in broadcasting. South Calif Law Rev 64:293–361Google Scholar
  24. Stone JRN (1954) Linear expenditure systems and demand analysis: an application to the pattern of British demand. Econ J 64:511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uri ND (2005) The implicit marginal valuation of cable service in the United States. Econ Int/Int Econ LVIII:79–115Google Scholar
  26. Veblen T (1899) Theory of the leisure class. Macmillan Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldfogel J (2002) Consumer substitution among media, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Staff Research Paper, no. 3, available at <>
  28. Waldfogel J (2003) Preference externalities: an empirical study of who benefits whom in differentiated-product markets. Rand J Econ 34:557–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waldfogel J (2004) Who benefits whom in local television markets?, Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, pp 257–284Google Scholar
  30. Williamson OE (1968) Economics as an antitrust defense: the welfare tradeoffs. Am Econ Rev 58:18–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Inspector General, U.S. Federal Communications CommissionWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Bureau of Economics, Antitrust I, U.S. Federal Trade CommissionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations