Instagram social media valuation with conditional valuation approach (Case study of users in Tehran)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor department of economics, faculty of economics of Payam-e-Noor university , Tehran, iran

2 Professor department of economics, faculty of economics of Tehran university, Tehran, iran,

3 Professor department of economics, faculty of economics of Payam-e-Noor university

4 Ph. D. Student of Economics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

10.34785/J018.2022.009

Abstract

In today's world, policymakers are trying to consider the preferences and desires of society as a pillar in the decision-making and implementation of economic policies; Policy-making in the field of social media is no exception to this, so understanding the behavior of consumers and users of social media, makes the possibility of policies more successful. In this study, using the one and one half bound dichotomous choice model, non-market value and the Willingness to accept users not to use Instagram have been estimated. The proposed amounts in the questionnaire are designed by the Cooper method. The total sample size is determined by Michel and Carson formula to 781 users. The corresponding function was estimated by the maximum likelihood method. The results show that the minimum desire to receive users for not using Instagram for a month is 379578 Tomans, the equivalent of 989 billion Tomans, approximately the monthly welfare surplus. The variables of household income, education, family budgets for access to the Internet and time of using Instagram have a positive and significant effect, and age, head of household, sex, marital has a negative and significant effect on the Willingness to accept users for non-use Instagram. The results showed that among the users, the highest desire to receive is related to the group of employees and then respectively, related to, students, , homemakers, freelancers, unemployed and retirees,.

Keywords


 
References
Ahmadi, S., Nazari, M., & Afifi, M. (2019). Effect of providing price partition in comparison to offering total price on consumer buying behavior) a case study of mehrabad airport. Consumer Behavior Studies Journal, 5(2), 21-37. (In Persian)
Bishop Richard C., & Thomas A. Heberlein. (1979). Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? Amer. J. Agri. Econ. Oxford University Press, 6, 926-30.
Borghi, J. (2008). Aggregation rules for cost–benefit analysis: a health economics perspective. Health economics17(7), 863-875.‏
Brynjolfsson, E., Collis, A., & Eggers, F. (2019). Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(15), 7250-7255.‏
Cooper, J. C., & Signorello, G. (2008). Farmer premiums for the voluntary adoption of conservation plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management51(1), 1-14.‏
Cooper, J., & Loomis, J. (1992). Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land economics, 211-224.‏
Corrigan, J. R., Alhabash, S., Rousu, M., & Cash, S. B. (2018). How much is social media worth? Estimating the value of Facebook by paying users to stop using it. PloS one13(12), e0207101.‏ Digital 2020 reports. 2020, https://wearesocial.com/
Fernández, J., González, M.I., &Gascón, T. (2010). Differences between willingness to pay and willingness to accept for visits by a family physician: A contingent valuation study. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 236-242.
Freeman III, A. M. (1986). On assessing the state of the arts of the contingent valuation method of valuing environmental changes. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method, 180-195.‏
Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. The American Economic Review81(3), 635-647.‏
Herzog, B. (2018). Valuation of digital platforms: experimental evidence for google and facebook. International journal of financial studies6(4), 87.‏
Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of environmental economics and Management44(3), 426-447.‏
http://ispa.ir/
https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/digital-advertising/social-media-advertising/worldwide
Kingsley, D. C., & Brown, T. C. (2013). Estimating willingness to accept using paired comparison choice experiments: tests of robustness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy2(2), 119-132.‏
Li, F., & Du, T. C. (2017). The effectiveness of word of mouth in offline and online social networks. Expert Systems with Applications88, 338-351.‏
Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., & Covlch A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103-117.
Mahmoodi, A., Yavary, G., Mehrara, M., & Yazdani, S. (2019). Application of One and One-half Bound (oohd) Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation for estimating the Recreational Value of Ghaleh-Roodkhan Forest Park.‏ Journal Of Agricultural Economics and Development, 33(3), 313-327. (In Persian)
Marchenko, P. (2012). Elicitating the willingness to pay for mobile virtual goods (Master's thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät).‏
Mirzaei, A., & Zibaei, M. (2019). Estimating the Economic Benefits of Jazmourian Wetland Restoration and Preservation Programs. Agricultural Economics Research, 11(41), 53-80. (In Persian)
Mitchell R., & Carson R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
Osouli ghareh aghaji, S., Sanayei, A., & Saeedabadi, M. (2016). Designing a developed model for effectiness of E-culture factor in market regulation and pricing and goods and services. New Marketing Research Journal, 6(3), 53-66. (In Persian)
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company.‏
Sanjari Nader, B., Yarahmadi, F., & Baluchi, H. (2020). The Impact of Social Network Based Brand Communities on Brand Evangelism through Strengthening Brand Trust. Consumer Behavior Studies Journal, 7 (2), 24-47. (In Persian)
Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J., & Kliebenstein, J. B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review, 255-270.‏
Stewart, K. J., Ammeter, A. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2006). Impacts of license choice and organizational sponsorship on user interest and development activity in open source software projects. Information Systems Research17(2), 126-144.‏
Sunstein, Cass R., & Valuing Facebook ( 2018). Behavioural Public Policy, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3241348
Tirole, J. (2017). Economics for the common good. In Economics for the Common Good. Princeton University Press.‏
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The quarterly journal of economics106(4), 1039-1061.‏
Utz, S., Tanis, M., & Vermeulen, I. (2012). It is all about being popular: The effects of need for popularity on social network site use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking15(1), 37-42.‏
Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of environmental economics and management26(2), 129-148.‏
Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental impact assessment review24(1), 89-124.‏
White, P. C. L., & Lovett, J. C. (1998). Revealed preference and willingness to pay for preservation of Northern Marirak park in Irland. Environmental Management55, 1-13.‏
Zhao, J., & Kling, C. L. (2001). A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economics Letters73(3), 293-300.‏