IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v19y2000i3p203-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Markets for Product Modification Information

Author

Listed:
  • Ganesh Iyer

    (John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri)

  • David Soberman

    (INSEAD, France)

Abstract

An important product strategy for firms in mature markets is value-adding modifications to existing products. Marketing information that reveals consumers' preferences, buying habits, and lifestyle is critical for the identification of such product modifications. We consider two types of value-adding modifications that are often facilitated by marketing information: -type modifications that increase the attractiveness of a product to a firm's loyal customers, and -type modifications that allow a firm to increase the appeal of its product to a competitor's loyal customers. We examine two aspects of the markets for product modification information: (1) the manner in which retention and conquesting modifications affect competition between downstream firms, and (2) the optimal selling and pricing policies for a vendor who markets product modification information. We consider several aspects of the vendor's contracting problem, including how a vendor should package and target the information to the downstream firms and whether the vendor should limit the type of information that is sold. This research also examines when a vendor can gain by offering exclusivity to a firm. We address these issues in a model consisting of an information vendor facing two downstream firms that sell differentiated products. The model analyzes how information contracting is affected by differentiation in the downstream market and the quality of the information (in terms of how “impactful” the resulting modifications are). We analyze two possible scenarios. In the first, the information facilitates modifications that increase the appeal of products to the loyal customers of only one of the two downstream firms (i.e., one-sided information). In the second scenario, the information facilitates modifications that are attractive to the loyal consumers of both the firms (i.e., two-sided information). The effect of modifications on downstream competition depends on whether they are of the retention or the conquesting type. A retention-type modification increases the “effective” differentiation between the firms and softens price competition. Conquesting modifications, however, have benefits as well as associated costs. A conquesting modification of low impact reduces the “effective” differentiation between competing products and leads to increased price competition. However, when conquesting modifications are of sufficiently high impact, they also have the benefit of helping a firm to capture the customers of the competitor. The vendor's strategy for one-sided information always involves selling to one firm, the firm for which the modifications are of the retention type. When the identified modifications are of low impact, this result is expected because conquesting modifications are for downstream firms. However, even when the information identifies high-impact modifications (and positive profits are generated by selling the information as conquesting information), the vendor is strictly better off by targeting his information to the firm for which the modification is the retention type. With two-sided information, the equilibrium strategy is for the vendor to sell the complete packet of information (information on both retention and conquesting modifications) to both downstream firms. However, in equilibrium, both firms only implement retention-type modifications. The information on conquesting modifications is “passive” in the sense that it is never used by downstream firms. Yet the vendor makes strictly greater profit by including it in the packet. This obtains because the price charged for information depends critically on the situation an individual firm encounters by buying the information. The presence of conquesting information in the packet puts a nonbuyer in a worse situation, and this underlines the “passive power of information.” The vendor gains by including the conquesting information even though it is not used in equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganesh Iyer & David Soberman, 2000. "Markets for Product Modification Information," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 203-225, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:19:y:2000:i:3:p:203-225
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.19.3.203.11801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.3.203.11801
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.19.3.203.11801?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. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul, 1988. "Selling and Trading on Information in Financial Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 96-103, May.
    2. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 1994. "Sleeping with the Enemy: Should Competitors Share the Same Advertising Agency?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 190-202.
    3. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    4. Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1980. "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 393-408, June.
    5. Green, Paul E. & Krieger, Abba M., 1989. "Recent contributions to optimal product positioning and buyer segmentation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 127-141, July.
    6. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1988. "Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 141-168.
    7. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    8. Miklos Sarvary & Philip M. Parker, 1997. "Marketing Information: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 24-38.
    9. Richard A. Colombo & Donald G. Morrison, 1989. "Note—A Brand Switching Model with Implications for Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 89-99.
    10. Mehmet Pac{s}a & Steven M. Shugan, 1996. "The Value of Marketing Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 370-388, March.
    11. Admati, Anat R. & Pfleiderer, Paul, 1986. "A monopolistic market for information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 400-438, August.
    12. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul, 1990. "Direct and Indirect Sale of Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 901-928, July.
    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. Soberman, David A., 2009. "Marketing agencies, media experts and sales agents: Helping competitive firms improve the effectiveness of marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-33.
    2. Gabriel Desgranges & Celine Rochon, 2008. "Conformism, Public News and Market Effciency," OFRC Working Papers Series 2008fe16, Oxford Financial Research Centre.
    3. Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 2009. "Optimal financial education," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Gabriel Desgranges & Céline Rochon, 2013. "Conformism and public news," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 1061-1090, April.
    5. Dang, Tri Vi & Felgenhauer, Mike, 2012. "Information provision in over-the-counter markets," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 79-96.
    6. Giovanni Cespa, 2008. "Information Sales and Insider Trading with Long‐Lived Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(2), pages 639-672, April.
    7. Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, 2009. "Optimal financial education," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9, January.
    8. Dridi, Ramdan & Germain, Laurent, 2009. "Noise and competition in strategic oligopoly," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 311-327, April.
    9. García, Diego & Vanden, Joel M., 2009. "Information acquisition and mutual funds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1965-1995, September.
    10. Biais, Bruno & Glosten, Larry & Spatt, Chester, 2005. "Market microstructure: A survey of microfoundations, empirical results, and policy implications," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 217-264, May.
    11. Bing Han & Liyan Yang, 2013. "Social Networks, Information Acquisition, and Asset Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1444-1457, June.
    12. Shiyang Huang & Yan Xiong & Liyan Yang, 2022. "Skill Acquisition and Data Sales," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 6116-6144, August.
    13. Markus Christen, 2005. "Research Note---Cost Uncertainty Is Bliss: The Effect of Competition on the Acquisition of Cost Information for Pricing New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 668-676, April.
    14. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Bonatti, 2015. "Selling Cookies," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 259-294, August.
    15. Robert I. Webb, 2003. "Transitory real‐time property rights and exchange intellectual property," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 891-913, September.
    16. Zheng, Liping & Xu, Hedong & Tian, Cunzhi & Fan, Suohai, 2021. "Evolutionary dynamics of information in the market: Transmission and trust," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 581(C).
    17. Verrecchia, Robert E., 2001. "Essays on disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 97-180, December.
    18. Dmitri Kuksov & Yuanfang Lin, 2010. "Information Provision in a Vertically Differentiated Competitive Marketplace," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 122-138, 01-02.
    19. Yuxin Chen & Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2001. "Individual Marketing with Imperfect Targetability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 23-41, November.
    20. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.

    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:19:y:2000:i:3:p:203-225. 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.