IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v37y2018i4p569-591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior of Base Products and Add-ons Given Compatibility Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao Liu

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012)

  • Timothy Derdenger

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Baohong Sun

    (Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, 100006 Beijing, China)

Abstract

Despite the common practice of multiple standards in the high-technology product industry, there is a lack of knowledge on how compatibility between base products and add-ons affects consumer purchase decisions at the brand and/or standard level. We recognize the existence of compatibility constraints and develop a dynamic model in which a consumer makes periodic purchase decisions on whether to adopt/replace a base and/or an add-on product under the expectation of future price, quality, and compatibility. Dynamic and interactive inventory effects are included by allowing consumers to account for the long-term financial implications when planning to switch to a base product that is incompatible with their inventory of add-ons. Applying the model to the consumer purchase history of digital cameras and memory cards from 1998 to 2004, we demonstrate that the inventory of add-ons significantly affects the purchase of base products. This “lock-in” effect is enhanced when future prices of add-ons increase. Interestingly, it is more costly for consumers to switch from Sony to other brands than vice versa. In two policy simulations, we explore the impact of alternative compatibility policies. For example, if Sony had not created its proprietary Memory Stick, the market share of its cameras would have been reduced by 6 percentage points. This result provides important insights that leading brands and early movers should implement a proprietary standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao Liu & Timothy Derdenger & Baohong Sun, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior of Base Products and Add-ons Given Compatibility Constraints," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 569-591, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:37:y:2018:i:4:p:569-591
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2017.1080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2017.1080
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2017.1080?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. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Marc Rysman, 2012. "Dynamics of Consumer Demand for New Durable Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(6), pages 1173-1219.
    2. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    3. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Susumu Imai & Neelam Jain & Andrew Ching, 2009. "Bayesian Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(6), pages 1865-1899, November.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    6. Erdem, Tulin & Sun, Baohong, 2001. "Testing for Choice Dynamics in Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(2), pages 142-152, April.
    7. Robin S. Lee, 2013. "Vertical Integration and Exclusivity in Platform and Two-Sided Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2960-3000, December.
    8. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2008. "Category Pricing with State-Dependent Utility," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 417-429, 05-06.
    9. Brett R. Gordon, 2009. "A Dynamic Model of Consumer Replacement Cycles in the PC Processor Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 846-867, 09-10.
    10. Hongju Liu & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ting Zhu, 2010. "Complementarities and the Demand for Home Broadband Internet Services," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 701-720, 07-08.
    11. Harikesh Nair & Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Empirical Analysis of Indirect Network Effects in the Market for Personal Digital Assistants," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 23-58, March.
    12. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    13. Timothy Derdenger, 2014. "Technological tying and the intensity of price competition: An empirical analysis of the video game industry," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 127-165, June.
    14. Wesley R. Hartmann & Harikesh S. Nair, 2010. "Retail Competition and the Dynamics of Demand for Tied Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 366-386, 03-04.
    15. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    16. Tülin Erdem, 1996. "A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 359-378.
    17. Timothy Derdenger & Vineet Kumar, 2013. "The Dynamic Effects of Bundling as a Product Strategy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 827-859, November.
    18. Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
    19. Raj Sethuraman & V. Srinivasan & Doyle Kim, 1999. "Asymmetric and Neighborhood Cross-Price Effects: Some Empirical Generalizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 23-41.
    20. Peitz, Martin & Waldfogel, Joel, 2012. "The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195397840.
    21. 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.
    22. Shane M. Greenstein, 1993. "Did Installed Base Given an Incumbent Any (Measurable) Advantages in Federal Computer Procurement?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 19-39, Spring.
    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. Kim, Hwang & Rao, Vithala R., 2023. "A comparison of online recommendation methods: Simultaneous versus sequential approaches," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 210-227.
    2. Bryan Bollinger & Naim Darghouth & Kenneth Gillingham & Andres Gonzalez-Lira, 2023. "Valuing Technology Complementarities: Rooftop Solar and Energy Storage," NBER Working Papers 32003, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Janina Garbas & Sebastian Schubach & Martin Mende & Maura L. Scott & Jan H. Schumann, 2023. "You want to sell this to me twice!? How perceptions of betrayal may undermine internal product upgrades," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 286-309, March.
    4. Yufeng Huang, 2022. "Tied Goods and Consumer Switching Costs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 93-114, January.

    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. Avery Haviv & Yufeng Huang & Nan Li, 2020. "Intertemporal Demand Spillover Effects on Video Game Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4788-4807, October.
    2. Yufeng Huang, 2022. "Tied Goods and Consumer Switching Costs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 93-114, January.
    3. Hui Li, 2019. "Intertemporal Price Discrimination with Complementary Products: E-Books and E-Readers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2665-2694, June.
    4. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    5. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Marco Shaojun Qin & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2018. "Licensing and Price Competition in Tied-Goods Markets: An Application to the Single-Serve Coffee System Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 883-911, November.
    6. Mingyu Joo & Dinesh K. Gauri & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2020. "Temporal Distance and Price Responsiveness: Empirical Investigation of the Cruise Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5362-5388, November.
    7. Masakazu Ishihara & Andrew T. Ching, 2019. "Dynamic Demand for New and Used Durable Goods Without Physical Depreciation: The Case of Japanese Video Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 392-416, May.
    8. Yue Liu & Rong Luo, 2023. "Network Effects and Multinetwork Sellers’ Dynamic Pricing in the U.S. Smartphone Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3297-3318, June.
    9. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2018. "Microeconometric Models of Consumer Demand," NBER Working Papers 25215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Yiyi Zhou, 2017. "Bayesian Estimation of a Dynamic Model of Two-Sided Markets: Application to the U.S. Video Game Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3874-3894, November.
    12. Timothy Derdenger, 2014. "Technological tying and the intensity of price competition: An empirical analysis of the video game industry," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 127-165, June.
    13. Timothy Derdenger & Vineet Kumar, 2013. "The Dynamic Effects of Bundling as a Product Strategy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 827-859, November.
    14. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    15. Bronnenberg, Bart & Dube, Jean-Pierre, 2016. "The Formation of Consumer Brand Preferences," CEPR Discussion Papers 11648, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Ericson, Keith M. Marzilli, 2020. "When consumers do not make an active decision: Dynamic default rules and their equilibrium effects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 369-385.
    17. Adithya Pattabhiramaiah & S. Sriram & Shrihari Sridhar, 2018. "Rising Prices Under Declining Preferences: The Case of the U.S. Print Newspaper Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 97-122, January.
    18. Ron N. Borkovsky, 2017. "The timing of version releases: A dynamic duopoly model," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 187-239, September.
    19. Michelle Sovinsky & Liana Jacobi & Alessandra Allocca & Tao Sun, 2023. "More than Joints: Multi-Substance Use, Choice Limitations, and Policy Implications," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 487, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Robin S. Lee, 2013. "Vertical Integration and Exclusivity in Platform and Two-Sided Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2960-3000, December.

    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:37:y:2018:i:4:p:569-591. 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.