All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Willingness to Pay for the Subscription Fee of Public Broadcasting System

DOI: 10.4236/ajc.2014.21001, PP. 1-7

Keywords: Public Broadcasting System, Subscription Fee, WTP, Framing

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


The study aims at developing communication strategies for the public broadcasting system according to WTP (Willingness to Pay) for the subscription fee and the audience’s perception of the public broadcasting system as a public good. A quasi-experiment was conducted for audiences who have previously watched public broadcasting channels. According to the results, those respondents who think of public broadcasting as a public good and who think that public broadcasting performs its public role well have high intention to pay the subscription fee. Respondents feel at a loss when they pay the subscription fee, and the willingness to pay the fee goes down.


[1]  Blaeij, A. D., Florax, R. J., Rietveld, P., & Verhoef, E. (2003). The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 973-986.
[2]  Choe, J. (2010). The Horizontal Regulation Model and the Public Sector Broadcasting in the Ear of the Convergence of Broadcasting and Communications. Culture, Media, and Entertainment Law, 4, 27-54.
[3]  Delaney, L., & O’Toole, F. (2004). Irish Public Service Broadcasting: A Contingent Valuation Analysis. The Economic and Social Review, 35, 321-350.
[4]  Eom, Y. (2008). Empirical Analysis on the Disparity between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Drinking Water Risks: Using Experimental Market Methods. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 17, 135-166.
[5]  Green, D. P. (1992). The Price Elasticity of Mass Preferences. The American Political Science Review, 86, 128-148.
[6]  Hanemann, M. W. (1991). Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ? The American Economic Review, 81, 635-647.
[7]  Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G., & Andersson, C. (2006). The Value of Improved Road Safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 151-170.
[8]  Jeong, H., & Yoo, S. (2008). A Study on Public Value of Digital Broadcasting and Willingness to Pay of Media Audience. Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 22, 390-422.
[9]  Johannesson, M., Johansson, P., & O’Connor, R. (1996). The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13, 263-275.
[10]  Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5-38.
[11]  Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K. E., & Grant, P. (1993). Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspectives. Psychological Science, 4, 310-315.
[12]  Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 203-235.
[13]  Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. (1998). Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49-86.
[14]  Kang, H. (2004a). Public Service Broadcasting Viewed by South Korean Newspapers. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 48, 207-231.
[15]  Kang, H. (2004b). Theory of Public Broadcasting: Social Change of Korea and Public Broadcasting. Seoul, Korea: Nanam.
[16]  Kang, M. (2006). A Study on the Relationship between Willingness to Pay or Program Preference and Audience Welfare. Journal of Broadcasting Research, 63, 59-84.
[17]  Kim, C., & Lee, W. (2010). A Study on Social Recognition of Public Broadcasting Subscription Fee. Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 24, 127-165.
[18]  Kim, J. (2007). A Study on the Relationship between the Recognition of Public Broadcasters on Public Values and Reception Fee. Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 21, 258-304.
[19]  Kim, Y. (2008). A Study on the Audience’s Understanding of the Identity of Public Broadcasting in the Digital Media Age. Journal of KSSSS, 16, 75-92.
[20]  Minasian, J. R. (1964). Television Pricing and the Theory of Public Goods. The Journal of Law and Economics, 71, 71-80.
[21]  Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.
[22]  Park, S. (2010). Positive Effects of Television Subscription Fees in Digital Age. Journal of Broadcasting Research, 70, 36- 59.
[23]  Payne, J. W., Schkade, D. A., Desvousges, W. H., & Aultman, C. (2000). Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21, 95-115.
[24]  Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387-389.
[25]  Samuelson, P. A. (1958). Aspects of Public Expenditure Theories. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 40, 332-338.
[26]  Samuelson, P. A. (1964). Public Goods and Subscription TV: Correction of the Record. The Journal of Law and Economics, 81, 81-83.
[27]  Schwer, K., & Daneshvary, R. (1995). Willingness to Pay for Public Television and the Advent of “Look-like” Cable Television Channels: A Case Study. The Journal of Media Economics, 8, 95-109.
[28]  Svensson, M., & Johansson, M. V. (2010). Willing to Pay for Public Goods Road Safety in Stated Preference Studies: Why Difference? Accidental Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1205-1212.
[29]  Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


微信:OALib Journal