To offer or not to offer? Bullet screen strategies for competing video platforms with vertical differentiation

IF 11 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Xingzhen Zhu , Li Li , Jing Li
{"title":"To offer or not to offer? Bullet screen strategies for competing video platforms with vertical differentiation","authors":"Xingzhen Zhu ,&nbsp;Li Li ,&nbsp;Jing Li","doi":"10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A considerable number of video platforms, including Bilibili and Acfun, have opted to provide bullet screens in conjunction with their video content. The question of whether and when to provide bullet screens represents a significant challenge, particularly given the variability in consumer preferences for such screens. In order to address this challenge, this paper presents a game-theoretic model for the analysis of optimal bullet screen strategies for competing media platforms. Although conventional wisdom suggests that offering bullet screens may be beneficial for video platforms, our results indicate that if the quality of bullet content is sufficiently low and the proportion of consumers who prefer bullet content is sufficiently high, both platforms have no incentive to offer bullet screens. In addition, if the quality of the bullet screen content and the proportion of consumers who prefer bullet content are moderate, only the low-quality platform will offer the bullet screen. We also find that if the quality of the bullet screen content is high enough, both platforms will provide bullet screens. Furthermore, our results show that given its competitor's bullet screen strategy (providing or not providing bullet screen features), only when the quality of bullet screen features is sufficiently large, the video platform who offers bullet screen features can set higher advertising prices. We further extend the basic model to consider asymmetric bullet screen qualities of the two platforms, and examine the impact of differences in bullet screen content quality on the optimal strategies of the video platforms. Our study provides important managerial insights for video platforms, especially on whether to provide bullet screen features in a competing environment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 104083"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698924003795","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A considerable number of video platforms, including Bilibili and Acfun, have opted to provide bullet screens in conjunction with their video content. The question of whether and when to provide bullet screens represents a significant challenge, particularly given the variability in consumer preferences for such screens. In order to address this challenge, this paper presents a game-theoretic model for the analysis of optimal bullet screen strategies for competing media platforms. Although conventional wisdom suggests that offering bullet screens may be beneficial for video platforms, our results indicate that if the quality of bullet content is sufficiently low and the proportion of consumers who prefer bullet content is sufficiently high, both platforms have no incentive to offer bullet screens. In addition, if the quality of the bullet screen content and the proportion of consumers who prefer bullet content are moderate, only the low-quality platform will offer the bullet screen. We also find that if the quality of the bullet screen content is high enough, both platforms will provide bullet screens. Furthermore, our results show that given its competitor's bullet screen strategy (providing or not providing bullet screen features), only when the quality of bullet screen features is sufficiently large, the video platform who offers bullet screen features can set higher advertising prices. We further extend the basic model to consider asymmetric bullet screen qualities of the two platforms, and examine the impact of differences in bullet screen content quality on the optimal strategies of the video platforms. Our study provides important managerial insights for video platforms, especially on whether to provide bullet screen features in a competing environment.

提供还是不提供?垂直差异化视频平台的弹幕竞争策略
包括 Bilibili 和 Acfun 在内的许多视频平台都选择在播放视频内容时提供弹幕。是否以及何时提供弹幕是一个重大挑战,尤其是考虑到消费者对弹幕的偏好各不相同。为了应对这一挑战,本文提出了一个博弈论模型,用于分析竞争媒体平台的最佳弹幕策略。尽管传统观点认为提供弹幕可能对视频平台有利,但我们的研究结果表明,如果弹幕内容的质量足够低,且偏好弹幕内容的消费者比例足够高,那么两个平台都没有提供弹幕的动力。此外,如果弹幕内容的质量和偏好弹幕内容的消费者比例适中,则只有质量低的平台才会提供弹幕。我们还发现,如果弹幕内容的质量足够高,两个平台都会提供弹幕。此外,我们的结果表明,在竞争对手的弹幕策略(提供或不提供弹幕功能)下,只有当弹幕功能的质量足够大时,提供弹幕功能的视频平台才能制定更高的广告价格。我们进一步扩展了基本模型,考虑了两个平台不对称的弹幕质量,并研究了弹幕内容质量的差异对视频平台最优策略的影响。我们的研究为视频平台提供了重要的管理启示,尤其是在竞争环境中是否提供弹幕功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.40
自引率
14.40%
发文量
340
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services is a prominent publication that serves as a platform for international and interdisciplinary research and discussions in the constantly evolving fields of retailing and services studies. With a specific emphasis on consumer behavior and policy and managerial decisions, the journal aims to foster contributions from academics encompassing diverse disciplines. The primary areas covered by the journal are: Retailing and the sale of goods The provision of consumer services, including transportation, tourism, and leisure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信