IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v23y2004i2p243-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Product Strategy for Innovators in Markets with Network Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Baohong Sun

    (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514)

  • Jinhong Xie

    (Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32616)

  • H. Henry Cao

    (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514)

Abstract

This paper examines four alternative product strategies available to an innovating firm in markets with network effects: single-product monopoly, technology licensing, product-line extension, and a combination of licensing and product-line extension. We address three questions. First, what factors affect the attractiveness of each of the four product strategies? Second, under what conditions will any particular strategy dominate the others? Third, what is the impact of licensing fees on the profitability of a licensing strategy? We show that offering a product line utilizes consumer heterogeneity to increase the total user base and is superior to free licensing when the innovator's cost of producing a low-quality product is low and network effects are weak. However, because of the advantage of licensing in generating a larger installed base, free licensing can dominate line extension when network effects are strong, even if the innovator suffers no cost disadvantage compared to the competitor. We also show that paid licensing trumps free licensing when the clone product has a high quality or a low cost, regardless of network effect. Finally, strong network effects make a lump-sum fee more profitable than a royalty fee (or a combination of both) because a royalty fee reduces the licensee's production.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:23:y:2004:i:2:p:243-254
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0058
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1040.0058?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. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Baake, Pio & Boom, Anette, 2001. "Vertical product differentiation, network externalities, and compatibility decisions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 267-284, January.
    3. Belleflamme, Paul, 1998. "Adoption of network technologies in oligopolies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 415-444, July.
    4. Sudheer Gupta & Richard Loulou, 1998. "Process Innovation, Product Differentiation, and Channel Structure: Strategic Incentives in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 301-316.
    5. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1988. "Positioning and Pricing a Product Line," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 107-125.
    6. Preyas S. Desai, 2001. "Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 265-283, August.
    7. Kathleen R. Conner, 1995. "Obtaining Strategic Advantage from Being Imitated: When Can Encouraging "Clones" Pay?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 209-225, February.
    8. Esser, P. & Leruth, L., 1988. "Marketing Compatible, Yet Differentiated Products: In Search Of Competitive Equilibria When Network Externalities Are At Work," Papers 8807, Universite Libre de Bruxelles - C.E.M.E..
    9. Engelbert Dockner & Steffen Jørgensen, 1988. "Optimal Pricing Strategies for New Products in Dynamic Oligopolies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 315-334.
    10. Amiya Basu & Tridib Mazumdar & S. P. Raj, 2003. "Indirect Network Externality Effects on Product Attributes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 209-221, April.
    11. Devavrat Purohit, 1994. "What Should You Do When Your Competitors Send in the Clones?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 392-411.
    12. Praveen K. Kopalle & Carl F. Mela & Lawrence Marsh, 1999. "The Dynamic Effect of Discounting on Sales: Empirical Analysis and Normative Pricing Implications," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 317-332.
    13. Venkatesh Shankar & Barry L. Bayus, 2003. "Network effects and competition: an empirical analysis of the home video game industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 375-384, April.
    14. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1993. "Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 351-369, July.
    15. Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2001. "Leveraging the Customer Base: Creating Competitive Advantage Through Knowledge Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1441-1456, November.
    16. Jinhong Xie & Marvin Sirbu, 1995. "Price Competition and Compatibility in the Presence of Positive Demand Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 909-926, May.
    17. Barry L. Bayus, 1992. "The Dynamic Pricing of Next Generation Consumer Durables," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 251-265.
    18. Bental, Benjamin & Spiegel, Menahem, 1995. "Network Competition, Product Quality, and Market Coverage in the Presence of Network Externalities," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 197-208, June.
    19. Nicholas Economides & Fredrick Flyer, 1997. "Compatibility and Market Structure for Network Goods," Working Papers 98-02, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    20. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1994. "Systems Competition and Network Effects," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 93-115, Spring.
    21. Anirudh Dhebar & Shmuel S. Oren, 1985. "Optimal Dynamic Pricing For Expanding Networks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 336-351.
    22. Sachin Gupta & Dipak C. Jain & Mohanbir S. Sawhney, 1999. "Modeling the Evolution of Markets with Indirect Network Externalities: An Application to Digital Television," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 396-416.
    23. de Palma, Andre & Leruth, Luc, 1996. "Variable willingness to pay for network externalities with strategic standardization decisions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 235-251, September.
    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. Stremersch, S. & Tellis, G.J. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Binken, J.L.G., 2007. "Indirect Network Effects in New Product Growth," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-019-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Qi Wang & Huazhong Zhao & Jinhong Xie, 2016. "Intra-Standard Competition: The Joint Impact of an Installed-User Base and a Supporting-Firm Base in Markets with Network Effects," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(3), pages 159-174, December.
    3. Conrad, Klaus, 2004. "Network effects, Compatibility and the Environment : The Case of Hydrogen Powered Cars," Discussion Papers 613, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
    4. Fabio Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 301-322.
    5. Baake, Pio & Boom, Anette, 2001. "Vertical product differentiation, network externalities, and compatibility decisions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 267-284, January.
    6. Yuxin Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2007. "Cross-Market Network Effect with Asymmetric Customer Loyalty: Implications for Competitive Advantage," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 52-66, 01-02.
    7. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2010. "Tipping and Concentration in Markets with Indirect Network Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 216-249, 03-04.
    8. Frank Borowicz & Ewald Scherm, 2001. "Standardisierungsstrategien: Eine erweiterte Betrachtung des Wettbewerbs auf Netzeffektmärkten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 391-416, June.
    9. John Hauser & Gerard J. Tellis & Abbie Griffin, 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 687-717, 11-12.
    10. Steiner, Michael & Wiegand, Nico & Eggert, Andreas & Backhaus, Klaus, 2016. "Platform adoption in system markets: The roles of preference heterogeneity and consumer expectations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 276-296.
    11. Ewald Scherm & Christian Maaß, 2006. "Zum Stellenwert der Netzwerkökonomik in der Strategie-/Marketingforschung —Eine Analyse empirischer Untersuchungen," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 27-46, March.
    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. Agam Gupta & Arqum Mateen & Divya Sharma & Uttam K. Sarkar & Vinu Cheruvil Thomas, 2019. "Combating incumbency advantage of network effects: The role of entrant’s decisions and consumer preferences," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 20(1), pages 3-32, March.
    14. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    15. Joel West & Jason Dedrick, 2000. "Innovation and Control in Standards Architectures: The Rise and Fall of Japan's PC-98," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 197-216, June.
    16. Laura Ferrari Bravo & Paolo Siciliani, 2007. "Exclusionary Pricing And Consumers Harm: The European Commission'S Practice In The Dsl Market," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-279.
    17. Sreekumar R. Bhaskaran & Stephen M. Gilbert, 2005. "Selling and Leasing Strategies for Durable Goods with Complementary Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1278-1290, August.
    18. Pekka Sääskilahti, 2016. "Buying Decision Coordination and Monopoly Pricing of Network Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 313-333, April.
    19. Claussen, Jörg & Kretschmer, Tobias & Spengler, Thomas, 2010. "Market leadership through technology – Backward compatibility in the U.S. Handheld Video Game Industry," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 12716, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    20. Antonio Ladrón-de-Guevara & William Putsis, 2015. "Multi-Market, Multi-Product New Product Diffusion: Decomposing Local, Foreign, and Indirect (Cross-Product) Effects," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 57-70, 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:23:y:2004:i:2:p:243-254. 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.