IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v7y1996i3p342-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eating Your Own Lunch: Protection Through Preemption

Author

Listed:
  • Barrie R. Nault

    (University of California, Graduate School of Management, Irvine, California 92717-3125)

  • Mark B. Vandenbosch

    (University of Western Ontario, Western Business School)

Abstract

Recent discussions of management practices among successful high-technology companies suggest that one key strategy for success is to “eat your own lunch before someone else does.” The implication is that in intensely competitive, or hypercompetitive, markets, firms with a leading position should aggressively cannibalize their own current advantages with next-generation advantages before competitors step in to steal the market. Given the pace of technological and other types of change, such strategy often requires creating next-generation advantages while the current advantages are still profitable---that is, trading current profits for future market leadership.We capture the tradeoff between a market leader's willingness to reap profits with its current set of advantages and its desire to maintain market leadership by investing in the next generation. Using a competitive model that determines the equilibrium launch time of a next generation advantage, we find that, in absence of lower launch costs for an entrant, the incumbent will be first to launch to maintain its market leadership. That is, regardless of the severity of penalties for being a follower in the next generation, it is optimal for the incumbent to preempt the entrant by launching early---even if the incumbent consequently loses money at the margin. We derive a straightforward condition to determine when an incumbent will make negative incremental profits from its investment in the next-generation advantage. The fact that the condition does not depend on the size of the incumbent's investment costs indicates that the severity of competition, rather than the costs of developing and introducing a next-generation advantage, is what forces firms to cannibalize at a loss.Finally, we find that a preemptive launch can result in an earlier launch of the next generation than is socially optimal, and provide a sufficient condition for that to occur. Although customers are better off as a result of an earlier launch, their gain may be outweighed by the additional costs firms incur from launching prematurely.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 1996. "Eating Your Own Lunch: Protection Through Preemption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-358, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:7:y:1996:i:3:p:342-358
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.7.3.342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.3.342
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.7.3.342?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dawid, Herbert & Keoula, Michel Y. & Kopel, Michael & Kort, Peter M., 2023. "Dynamic investment strategies and leadership in product innovation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 431-447.
    2. Zhu, Fengxia & Zou, Shaoming & Xu, Hui, 2017. "Launching reverse-innovated product from emerging markets to MNC’s home market: A theoretical framework for MNC’s decisions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 156-163.
    3. 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.
    4. Julian Birkinshaw & Mats Lingblad, 2005. "Intrafirm Competition and Charter Evolution in the Multibusiness Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 674-686, December.
    5. Barry L. Bayus & Rajshree Agarwal, 2007. "The Role of Pre-Entry Experience, Entry Timing, and Product Technology Strategies in Explaining Firm Survival," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1887-1902, December.
    6. Benjamin Engelstätter & Michael R. Ward, 2018. "Strategic timing of entry: evidence from video games," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(1), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2010. "Are Technology-Intensive Industries More Dynamically Competitive? No and Yes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 271-289, February.
    8. Yunchuan Liu & Sunil Gupta & Z. John Zhang, 2006. "Note on Self-Restraint as an Online Entry-Deterrence Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1799-1809, November.
    9. Huberts, N.F.D. & Dawid, H. & Huisman, K.J.M. & Kort, P.M., 2019. "Entry deterrence by timing rather than overinvestment in a strategic real options framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 165-185.
    10. Wang, I. Kim & Qian, Lihong & Lehrer, Mark, 2017. "From technology race to technology marathon: A behavioral explanation of technology advancement," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 187-197.
    11. Torsten Bornemann & Cornelia Hattula & Stefan Hattula, 2020. "Successive product generations: financial implications of industry release rhythm alignment," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1174-1191, November.
    12. Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 2000. "Research Report: Disruptive Technologies—Explaining Entry in Next Generation Information Technology Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 304-319, September.
    13. Pierre Roy, 2007. "De l’intérêt des firmes dominantes à perturber et stabiliser le jeu concurrentiel," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 10(3), pages 139-160, September.
    14. Barros, Henrique M. & Lazzarini, Sergio G., 2009. "Meritocracy and Innovation: Is There a Link? Empirical Evidence from Firms in Brazil," Insper Working Papers wpe_162, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    15. Wlömert, Nils & Papies, Dominik, 2019. "International heterogeneity in the associations of new business models and broadband Internet with music revenue and piracy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 400-419.

    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:ororsc:v:7:y:1996:i:3:p:342-358. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.