MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408328559 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.01299

Position Auctions with Endogenous Product Information: Why Live-Streaming Advertising Is Thriving

2025· article· en· W4408328559 on OpenAlexaff
Ying‐Ju Chen, Guillermo Gallego, Pin Gao, Yang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingAdvertisingCommon value auctionPosition (finance)Product (mathematics)BusinessOnline advertisingComputer scienceMarketingEconomicsMicroeconomicsThe InternetMathematicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Live-streaming advertising in e-commerce is soaring. Both Amazon and Alibaba have employed this novel marketing model to engage consumers by sequentially exhibiting different products through live-streaming videos. In this paper, we adopt a mechanism design framework to model live-streaming e-commerce as a position auction with endogenous provision of product information. We prove that finding the mechanism that simultaneously optimizes position allocation and information provision is NP-hard. Thus, we develop several approximation algorithms. Building on the connection to the order selection problem, our analysis establishes that heuristics relying solely on product information provision can achieve up to 66.9% of the optimal revenue in the worst case. In contrast, heuristics exploiting position allocation alone may result in arbitrarily large revenue losses. We attribute the efficacy of product information provision to its enhancement of the value of ad spots in position auctions. Our findings suggest that advertising that focuses on differentiating product information—as in live-streaming e-commerce—is more lucrative than conventional position-based sponsored search. This managerial insight remains valid when accommodating multiproduct purchases with dependency or accounting for random consumer attention spans. This paper was accepted by Omar Besbes, revenue management and market analytics. Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72201234, 72192805], the Hong Kong Research Grants Council [Grants 16211619, 16502219, 16212821, 16501722, C6032-21G], and the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Foundations for Artificial Intelligence [Grant 2023B1212010001]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.01299 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207