IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v32y2021i3p1009-1024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Network Interconnectivity and Entry into Platform Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Zhu

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Xinxin Li

    (School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269)

  • Ehsan Valavi

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Marco Iansiti

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

Digital technologies have led to the emergence of many platforms in our economy today. In certain platform networks, buyers in one market purchase services from providers in many other markets, whereas in others, buyers primarily purchase services from providers within the same market. Accordingly, network interconnectivity—which measures the degree to which consumers in one market purchase services from service providers in a different market—varies across different industries. We examine how network interconnectivity affects interactions between an incumbent platform serving multiple markets and an entrant platform seeking to enter one of these markets. Our model yields several interesting results. First, even if the entrant can advertise at no cost, it still may not want to make every user in a local market aware of its service, as doing so may trigger a competitive response from the incumbent. Second, having more mobile buyers, which increases interconnectivity between markets, can reduce the incumbent’s incentive to fight and, thus, increase the entrant’s incentive to expand. Third, stronger interconnectivity between markets may or may not make the incumbent more defensible: when advertising is not costly and mobile buyers consume in both their local markets and the markets they visit, a large number of mobile buyers will increase the entrant’s profitability, thereby making it difficult for the incumbent to deter entry. However, when advertising is costly or mobile buyers only consume in the markets they travel to, a large number of mobile buyers will help the incumbent deter entry. When advertising cost is at an intermediate level, the entrant prefers a market with moderate interconnectivity between markets. Fourth, we find that even if advanced targeting technologies can enable the entrant to also advertise to mobile buyers, the entrant may choose not to do so in order to avoid triggering the incumbent’s competitive response. Finally, we find that the presence of network effects is likely to decrease the entrant’s profit. Our results offer managerial implications for platform firms and help understand their performance heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Zhu & Xinxin Li & Ehsan Valavi & Marco Iansiti, 2021. "Network Interconnectivity and Entry into Platform Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 1009-1024, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:32:y:2021:i:3:p:1009-1024
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.1010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.1010
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2021.1010?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. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2016. "When do switching costs make markets more or less competitive?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 121-151.
    2. Leduc, Matt V. & Jackson, Matthew O. & Johari, Ramesh, 2017. "Pricing and referrals in diffusion on networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 568-594.
    3. Ramon Casadesus‐Masanell & Hanna Hałaburda, 2014. "When Does a Platform Create Value by Limiting Choice?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 259-293, June.
    4. Il-Horn Hann & Byungwan Koh & Marius F. Niculescu, 2016. "The Double-Edged Sword of Backward Compatibility: The Adoption of Multigenerational Platforms in the Presence of Intergenerational Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 112-130, March.
    5. Rosa-Branca Esteves & Joana Resende, 2016. "Competitive Targeted Advertising with Price Discrimination," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 576-587, July.
    6. Simon P. Anderson & Øystein Foros & Hans Jarle Kind, 2019. "The importance of consumer multihoming (joint purchases) for market performance: Mergers and entry in media markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 125-137, January.
    7. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1984. "The Fat-Cat Effect, the Puppy-Dog Ploy, and the Lean and Hungry Look," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 361-366, May.
    8. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    9. Arthur Campbell, 2013. "Word-of-Mouth Communication and Percolation in Social Networks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2466-2498, October.
    10. Gerald L. Thompson & Jinn-Tsair Teng, 1984. "Optimal Pricing and Advertising Policies for New Product Oligopoly Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 148-168.
    11. Vahideh Manshadi & Sidhant Misra & Scott Rodilitz, 2020. "Diffusion in Random Networks: Impact of Degree Distribution," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 1722-1741, November.
    12. Marius F. Niculescu & D. J. Wu & Lizhen Xu, 2018. "Strategic Intellectual Property Sharing: Competition on an Open Technology Platform Under Network Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 498-519, June.
    13. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    14. Banerji, A. & Dutta, Bhaskar, 2009. "Local network externalities and market segmentation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 605-614, September.
    15. Eric Abrahamson & Lori Rosenkopf, 1997. "Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 289-309, June.
    16. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    17. Peng Huang & Marco Ceccagnoli & Chris Forman & D. J. Wu, 2013. "Appropriability Mechanisms and the Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 102-121, July.
    18. Yili Hong & Paul A. Pavlou, 2017. "On Buyer Selection of Service Providers in Online Outsourcing Platforms for IT Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 547-562, September.
    19. Andrea Galeotti & Sanjeev Goyal, 2009. "Influencing the influencers: a theory of strategic diffusion," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 509-532, September.
    20. Feng Zhu & Marco Iansiti, 2012. "Entry into platform‐based markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 88-106, January.
    21. Ron Adner & Jianqing Chen & Feng Zhu, 2020. "Frenemies in Platform Markets: Heterogeneous Profit Foci as Drivers of Compatibility Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2432-2451, June.
    22. Ni Huang & Gordon Burtch & Bin Gu & Yili Hong & Chen Liang & Kanliang Wang & Dongpu Fu & Bo Yang, 2019. "Motivating User-Generated Content with Performance Feedback: Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 327-345, January.
    23. Corts, Kenneth S. & Lederman, Mara, 2009. "Software exclusivity and the scope of indirect network effects in the U.S. home video game market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 121-136, March.
    24. Catherine Tucker, 2008. "Identifying Formal and Informal Influence in Technology Adoption with Network Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(12), pages 2024-2038, December.
    25. Eocman Lee & Jeho Lee & Jongseok Lee, 2006. "Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1838-1848, December.
    26. Edward G. Anderson & Geoffrey G. Parker & Burcu Tan, 2014. "Platform Performance Investment in the Presence of Network Externalities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 152-172, March.
    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. Qizhi Dai, 2023. "Understanding how platform modularity enhances network effects," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Abdullah Alhauli & Wedad J. Elmaghraby & Anandasivam Gopal, 2023. "Impressionable or Immune? Examining the Influence of Marquee Sellers in B2B Secondary Market Platforms for IT Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 570-589, June.

    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. Tommy Pan Fang & Andy Wu & David R. Clough, 2021. "Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 233-272, February.
    2. Jin Li & Gary Pisano & Yejia Xu & Feng Zhu, 2023. "Marketplace Scalability and Strategic Use of Platform Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3958-3975, July.
    3. Zoë Cullen & Chiara Farronato, 2021. "Outsourcing Tasks Online: Matching Supply and Demand on Peer-to-Peer Internet Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 3985-4003, July.
    4. Wu, Cheng-Han & Chiu, Yun-Yao, 2023. "Pricing and content development for online media platforms regarding consumer homing choices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 312-328.
    5. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Feng Zhu & Qihong Liu, 2018. "Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 2618-2642, October.
    7. Elias Carroni & Paolo Pin & Simone Righi, 2020. "Bring a Friend! Privately or Publicly?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2269-2290, May.
    8. Tang, Hua & Chen, Jing & Ai, Xingzheng & Li, Xiaojing & He, Haojia, 2023. "First-party content decision under competitive hardware/software platforms: Free vs. charge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 1068-1083.
    9. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    10. Chenglong Zhang & Jianqing Chen & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2022. "Two-Sided Platform Competition in a Sharing Economy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8909-8932, December.
    11. Liang Chen & Noman Shaheer & Jingtao Yi & Sali Li, 2019. "The international penetration of ibusiness firms: Network effects, liabilities of outsidership and country clout," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(2), pages 172-192, March.
    12. Satish Nambisan & Shaker A. Zahra & Yadong Luo, 2019. "Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1464-1486, December.
    13. Abdullah Alhauli & Wedad J. Elmaghraby & Anandasivam Gopal, 2023. "Impressionable or Immune? Examining the Influence of Marquee Sellers in B2B Secondary Market Platforms for IT Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 570-589, June.
    14. Carmelo Cennamo & Hakan Ozalp & Tobias Kretschmer, 2018. "Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 461-478, June.
    15. Martin Poniatowski & Hedda Lüttenberg & Daniel Beverungen & Dennis Kundisch, 2022. "Three layers of abstraction: a conceptual framework for theorizing digital multi-sided platforms," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 257-283, June.
    16. Xie, Jiaping & Zhu, Weijun & Wei, Lihong & Liang, Ling, 2021. "Platform competition with partial multi-homing: When both same-side and cross-side network effects exist," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    17. Ron Adner & Jianqing Chen & Feng Zhu, 2020. "Frenemies in Platform Markets: Heterogeneous Profit Foci as Drivers of Compatibility Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2432-2451, June.
    18. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    19. Sebastian Wai, 2022. "Software quality and backward compatibility in the video game industry," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(3), pages 545-570, September.
    20. Yuki Inoue, 2019. "Winner-Takes-All or Co-Evolution among Platform Ecosystems: A Look at the Competitive and Symbiotic Actions of Complementors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, January.

    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:32:y:2021:i:3:p:1009-1024. 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.