IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i4p485-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When and How Is the Internet Likely to Decrease Price Competition?

Author

Listed:
  • Rajiv Lal

    (Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldier's Field, Boston, Massachusetts, 02163)

  • Miklos Sarvary

    (Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldier's Field, Boston, Massachusetts, 02163)

Abstract

Conventional wisdom seems to claim that, by lowering the cost of distribution and by making search easier for consumer, the introduction of the Internet is likely to intensify price competition. This paper intends to challenge this view by asking: When and how is the Internet likely to decrease the level of price competition between firms? To answer this question, we develop an analytic model with the following characteristics. On the demand side, consumers need to gather information on two types of product attributes: (which can be communicated on the Web at very low cost) and (for which physical inspection of the product is necessary). Consumers choose between two brands but are familiar with the nondigital attributes of only the brand purchased on the last purchase occasion. On the supply side, firms use traditional stores and the Internet to inform consumers about their products' attributes and to sell their products. In this setup, we show that the impact of the Internet on competition will be radically different depending on the relative importance of parameters describing the relevant shopping and distribution context. Specifically, we find that the introduction of the Internet might lead to monopoly pricing when (1) the proportion of Internet users is high enough, (2) when nondigital attributes are relevant but not overwhelming, (3) when consumers have a more favorable prior about the brand they currently own, and (4) when the purchase situation can be characterized by “destination shopping”. More surprising, we also show that in such cases, the use of the Internet not only leads to higher prices but can also discourage consumers from engaging in search. As such, an important message of the paper is that under some conditions the Internet might represent an opportunity for firms to leverage their brand loyalty and increase their profits. The intuition behind our results is the following. The Internet allows consumers to evaluate digital attributes easily, i.e., without visiting the stores. However, nondigital attributes can only be evaluated through physical presence. As such, for goods where both types of attributes are important, the introduction of the Net changes the effective cost of search for consumers. Without the Internet the cost of search is . With the introduction of the Net however, nonsearching consumers do not have to undertake the shopping trip at all because they can order products on the Net. Thus, in the presence of the Internet the cost of search is related to . In the case of destination shopping (i.e. when the fixed cost of undertaking the shopping trip is higher than the cost of visiting an additional store), the presence of the Internet creates higher effective search costs for consumers. Given this shift of paradigm in search costs due to the Internet, consumers may not take the risk of searching for products with better nondigital attributes, but instead, remain with the product they are familiar with. This results in increased consumer loyalty, which induces firms to increase their prices. Our results have important managerial implications. First, they provide guidelines for firms on when (i.e. for which product categories) they should consider expanding their distribution network to the Internet. In this respect, an important additional insight of the paper is that the Internet can lower price competition and lead to reduced consumer search if it is more expensive than the traditional distribution channel. This can easily be the case if distribution through the Internet represents additional costs such as the costs associated with shipping and handling and return policies. Second, the paper also provides guidelines on how to plan the firm's Internet strategy. Interestingly, the results suggest that with the general availability of the Internet the role of stores might actually become more important. While we do not explicitly model a dynamic market, our findings together with Klemperer's (1987) results suggest that stores might have a key role in consumer acquisition, while the Internet can help leverage the acquired customer base through demand fulfillment. This might imply that for certain product categories, firms should actually allocate additional resources to improve their in-store environment when considering the Internet as a complementary distribution channel.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajiv Lal & Miklos Sarvary, 1999. "When and How Is the Internet Likely to Decrease Price Competition?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 485-503.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:485-503
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.4.485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.485
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.4.485?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. Nelson, Philip, 1974. "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 729-754, July/Aug..
    2. J. Yannis Bakos, 1997. "Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(12), pages 1676-1692, December.
    3. Paul Klemperer, 1987. "The Competitiveness of Markets with Switching Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 138-150, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ajay Kalra & Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, 1998. "Response to Competitive Entry: A Rationale for Delayed Defensive Reaction," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 380-405.
    2. Alvin J. Silk & Lisa R. Klein & Ernst R. Berndt, 2001. "The Emerging Position of the Internet as an Advertising Medium," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 129-148, September.
    3. Ralitza Nikolaeva, 2014. "Post-shakeout Performance, Survivor Bias and the Meaning of Success," Working Papers Series 2 14-04, ISCTE-IUL, Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL).
    4. Janssen, Maarten C.W. & Non, Marielle C., 2008. "Advertising and consumer search in a duopoly model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 354-371, January.
    5. Elie Ofek & Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2011. ""Bricks and Clicks": The Impact of Product Returns on the Strategies of Multichannel Retailers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 42-60, 01-02.
    6. James V. Koch & Richard J. Cebula, 2002. "Price, Quality, And Service On The Internet: Sense And Nonsense," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 25-37, January.
    7. Biswas, Dipayan, 2004. "Economics of information in the Web economy: Towards a new theory?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(7), pages 724-733, July.
    8. Siva Viswanathan, 2005. "Competing Across Technology-Differentiated Channels: The Impact of Network Externalities and Switching Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 483-496, March.
    9. Moon, Junyean & Chadee, Doren & Tikoo, Surinder, 2008. "Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized products online," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 31-39, January.
    10. Fluet, Claude & Garella, Paolo G., 2002. "Advertising and prices as signals of quality in a regime of price rivalry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 907-930, September.
    11. Kyle Bagwell & Garey Ramey, 1988. "Advertising and Limit Pricing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 59-71, Spring.
    12. Del Barrio-García, Salvador & Kamakura, Wagner A. & Luque-Martínez, Teodoro, 2019. "A Longitudinal Cross-product Analysis of Media-budget Allocations: How Economic and Technological Disruptions Affected Media Choices Across Industries," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-15.
    13. Anindya Ghose & Avi Goldfarb & Sang Pil Han, 2013. "How Is the Mobile Internet Different? Search Costs and Local Activities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 613-631, September.
    14. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    15. J. K. Pappalardo, 2022. "Economics of Consumer Protection: Contributions and Challenges in Estimating Consumer Injury and Evaluating Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 201-238, June.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:10:y:2004:i:8:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Oliver Hinz & Jochen Eckert, 2010. "The Impact of Search and Recommendation Systems on Sales in Electronic Commerce," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(2), pages 67-77, April.
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09hc03jc5h8 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Zhu, Hongwei & Madnick, Stuart & Siegel, Michael, 2003. "Global Comparison Aggregation Services," Working papers 4410-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    20. Beomjin Choi & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé & Kevin J. Dooley, 2019. "Effectiveness of standards consortia: Social network perspectives," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 405-416, April.
    21. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Thomas de Haan & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2015. "Money Talks? An Experimental Investigation Of Cheap Talk And Burned Money," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1426, November.

    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:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:485-503. 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.