These are some of my current projects (comments and suggestions are welcome)

According to McKinsey, livestream

shopping offers two main advantages

over traditional shopping channels:

accelerating conversion and improving

brand differentiation. The table offers

an overview of livestream shopping


Further readings:

Zekun Liu, Weiqing Zhang, Xiao Liu, Eitan Muller, and Feiyu Xiong (2022),

"Success and Survival in Livestream Shopping," Read paper.

The livestream shopping industry, in which consumers can purchase products directly from live video sessions, is expected to exceed $60 billion in China in 2021 and $25 billion in the US in 2023. Despite the popularity of livestream shopping, many sellers fail within just a few weeks. We investigate the lead indicators of the success and survival of livestream shopping sellers. We ask three questions: 1. Livestream viewers can make purchases directly within the session (the “within-channel direct selling effect") or can use the session to gain information that may inform purchases later on (the “cross-channel spillover effect”). Which of the two effects is more important for seller success? 2. Livestream shopping encompasses three industries: e-commerce, social networks, and entertainment. Which industry-specific key performance indicators (KPIs) predict success? 3. Some sellers use livestream shopping for new product introduction while others use it for mature product inventory liquidation. Which type of seller is more likely to survive? We use a unique dataset from Taobao Live to show that: 1. Sellers who rely more heavily on the within-channel direct selling effect (vs. the cross-channel spillover effect) are less likely to succeed. 2. The e-commerce KPI positively predicts success, while the entertainment KPI negatively predicts success. For the social network KPIs, reach positively predicts success, but engagement rate negatively predicts success, reinforcing the cross-channel spillover effect of livestream shopping. 3. Mature product sellers are more likely to succeed than new product sellers.


The figure shows the number of active users of a casual

mobile games: It is typical of casual games where only

about a quarter of players are still active in two months.

This alarming decline could be explained both

in the difficulty in retaining users who did not pay to

download the game (or made in-app purchases)

and the satiation which characterizes mobile games.

Further readings:


Michael Haenlein, Barak Libai and Eitan Muller, (2022),

"Satiation and Cross Promotion: Selling and Swapping

Users in Mobile Games," Read paper.

One of the main challenges to the mobile game industry is an alarming level of satiation, that is, a decline in user engagement and consequently in ad viewing, spending, and retention. Satiation lowers users' CLV to the extent that makes acquisition from the likes of Facebook and Google untenable, driving the game publishers to cross-promote, that is, sell and swap users among themselves. We model this cross-promotion as first, a screening mechanism in that the fact of playing a game indicates specific preferences that might be suitable for an exchange with likewise games, and second, as a resetting mechanism that allows the swapped users to reset their engagement in the new game, thus making the swap or sell beneficial to both buyer and seller. We show that there exists an optimal level of satiation to a game, and with this level, we show the conditions under which the game publisher cross promotes, and when it does, what are the conditions for selling rather than swapping. We extend the analysis to the case in which advertising costs and conversion rates are related, explain why they might be negatively correlated, and show that our main results still hold.