IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v27y2016i2p282-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Product Line Extension in Consumer Software Markets in the Presence of Free Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron Baird

    (J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302)

  • Chadwick J. Miller

    (Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164)

  • T. S. Raghu

    (W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Rajiv K. Sinha

    (W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

Abstract

Hypercompetitive consumer software markets pit incumbents against free alternatives and pirates. Although the extant literature has studied firm level strategic responses to consumer heterogeneity and piracy, there is a lack of understanding of consumer reactions to digital goods choice sets that include firm product extensions such as the introduction of premium or free alternatives. With context-dependent preferences as the theoretical basis, this study systematically examines the impact of piracy controls and product line extensions on welfare in a consumer software market context (i.e., willingness to pay (WTP) and changes in consumer and producer surplus). In two controlled experiments using double-bound-dichotomous-choice WTP elicitation, we investigate how piracy controls and product line extensions impact two different platforms of the same software (PC Adobe applications and mobile Adobe applications) in terms of propensity to pirate and WTP. We show that introducing a premium or free vertical extension has different impacts on consumers’ WTP for the focal product depending on whether it is a low-cost or high-cost market even when controlling for individual differences, such as price fairness perceptions, product feature value, brand perceptions, etc. By contrast, piracy controls reduce piracy rates but have a limited impact on consumer WTP for the focal product in both contexts. By calculating the overall welfare of the market, we show that there is alignment in consumer and producer interests at current and estimated optimal price levels in both high-cost and low-cost markets. However, the introduction of a free product extension leads to a higher surplus in the high-cost market, whereas the introduction of the premium product extension leads to a higher surplus in the low-cost market.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron Baird & Chadwick J. Miller & T. S. Raghu & Rajiv K. Sinha, 2016. "Product Line Extension in Consumer Software Markets in the Presence of Free Alternatives," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 282-301, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:282-301
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2016.0621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0621
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2016.0621?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baohong Sun & Jinhong Xie & H. Henry Cao, 2004. "Product Strategy for Innovators in Markets with Network Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 243-254, October.
    2. Kathleen Reavis Conner & Richard P. Rumelt, 1991. "Software Piracy: An Analysis of Protection Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 125-139, February.
    3. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Ramnath K. Chellappa & Shivendu Shivendu, 2005. "Managing Piracy: Pricing and Sampling Strategies for Digital Experience Goods in Vertically Segmented Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 400-417, December.
    7. Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2006. "Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 562-578, August.
    8. Banerjee, Dyuti S., 2003. "Software piracy: a strategic analysis and policy instruments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 97-127, January.
    9. Shin-yi Wu & Pei-yu Chen, 2008. "Versioning and Piracy Control for Digital Information Goods," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 157-172, February.
    10. Kristina Shampanier & Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2007. "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 742-757, 11-12.
    11. Fernando Nascimento & Wilfried R. Vanhonacker, 1988. "Optimal Strategic Pricing of Reproducible Consumer Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(8), pages 921-937, August.
    12. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    13. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    14. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    15. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    16. T. S. Raghu & Rajiv Sinha & Ajay Vinze & Orneita Burton, 2009. "Willingness to Pay in an Open Source Software Environment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 218-236, June.
    17. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    18. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Lynn O. Wilson & John A. Norton, 1989. "Optimal Entry Timing for a Product Line Extension," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17.
    20. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    21. Sanjiv Erat & Sreekumar R. Bhaskaran, 2012. "Consumer Mental Accounts and Implications to Selling Base Products and Add-ons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 801-818, September.
    22. Ben Depoorter & Francesco Parisi & Sven Vanneste, 2005. "Problems with the Enforcement of Copyright Law: Is there a Social Norm Backlash?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 361-369.
    23. Taylor Randall & Karl Ulrich & David Reibstein, 1998. "Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 356-379.
    24. Mark N. Hertzendorf, 1993. "I'm Not a High-Quality Firm -- But I Play One on TV," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 236-247, Summer.
    25. Joo Heon Park & Douglas L. MacLachlan, 2008. "Estimating Willingness to Pay with Exaggeration Bias-Corrected Contingent Valuation Method," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 691-698, 07-08.
    26. Timothy B. Heath & Devon Delvecchio & Michael S. Mccarthy, 2011. "The Asymmetric Effects of Extending Brands to Lower and Higher Quality," Post-Print hal-00668763, HAL.
    27. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    28. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    29. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benedict Bender, 2020. "The Impact of Integration on Application Success and Customer Satisfaction in Mobile Device Platforms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 515-533, December.
    2. Debabrata Dey & Antino Kim & Atanu Lahiri, 2019. "Online Piracy and the “Longer Arm” of Enforcement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1173-1190, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. T. S. Raghu & Rajiv Sinha & Ajay Vinze & Orneita Burton, 2009. "Willingness to Pay in an Open Source Software Environment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 218-236, June.
    3. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    4. Stavroula Tsigou & Stathis Klonaris, 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ WTP for innovative fertilizer against soil salinity," Working Papers 2018-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    9. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    10. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    11. Tsigkou, Stavroula & Klonaris, Stathis, 2020. "Eliciting Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Innovative Fertilizer Against Soil Salinity: Comparison of Two Methods in a Field Survey," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 9, December.
    12. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    13. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    14. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    15. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    16. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    17. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    18. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    19. Can Sun & Yonghua Ji & Xianjun Geng, 2023. "Which Enemy to Dance with? A New Role of Software Piracy in Influencing Antipiracy Strategies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1711-1727, December.
    20. Dan Wu & Guofang Nan & Minqiang Li, 2020. "Optimal Piracy Control: Should a Firm Implement Digital Rights Management?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 947-960, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:282-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.