4.7 Article

Estimating Demand for Mobile Applications in the New Economy

期刊

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 1470-1488

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1945

关键词

mobile apps; demand estimation; Apple; Google; app characteristics; in-app purchases; in-app advertising; mobile analytics; mobile marketing

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IIS-0643847]
  2. Institute on Asian Consumer Insights grant
  3. Google-WPP Marketing Research Award
  4. Google Faculty Research Award
  5. City University of Hong Kong [7200265]
  6. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR [CityU 143312, CityU 191613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2013, the global mobile app market was estimated at over US$50 billion and is expected to grow to $150 billion in the next two years. In this paper, we build a structural econometric model to quantify the vibrant platform competition between mobile (smartphone and tablet) apps on the Apple iOS and Google Android platforms and estimate consumer preferences toward different mobile app characteristics. We find that app demand increases with the in-app purchase option wherein a user can complete transactions within the app. On the contrary, app demand decreases with the in-app advertisement option where consumers are shown ads while they are engaging with the app. The direct effects on app revenue from the inclusion of an in-app purchase option and an in-app advertisement option are equivalent to offering a 28% price discount and increasing the price by 8%, respectively. We also find that a price discount strategy results in a greater increase of app demand in Google Play compared with Apple App Store, and app developers can maximize their revenue by providing a 50% discount on their paid apps. Using the estimated demand function, we find that mobile apps have enhanced consumer surplus by approximately $33.6 billion annually in the United States, and we discuss various implications for mobile marketing analytics, app pricing, and app design strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据