Experiments In Competitive Product Positioning : Actual Behavior Compared To Nash Solutions
AbstractAlmost all results on competitive product positioning derived in the literature so far are based on the hypothesis that static Nash equilibria of profit-maximizing competitors are accurate predictors of final market configurations. If the positioning behavior of firms differs from this assumption, it is questionable whether the corresponding propositions can be used in optimal product positioning. In this paper, we explore the validity of the Nashreaction hypothesis. We use a newly developed marketing simulation game, PRODSTRAT, to observe decisions of 240 advanced marketing students on product position, price, and marketing budget under various market conditions. We compare the players’ final configurations to Nash equilibria under the assumption that all players attempt to maximize their profit. Our results show that pricing and budgeting decisions are very well described by Nash equilibria for fixed product positions, but that decisions on product positioning are significantly more competitive. The experiments lead to less differentiated market configurations. The result is increased pricing as well as budgeting competition, and significantly reduced profits. We develop and support the hypothesis that the more aggressive product positioning behavior observed here stems from attempts to reduce profit differences (asymmetry) relative to competitors. Since profit asymmetry occurs in many market settings, it is an important factor to consider in making product positioning decisions in a competitive environment.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by LMU Munich School of Management in its journal Schmalenbach Business Review.
Volume (Year): 53 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
- C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - General
- L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
- M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (sbr).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.