IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i2p137-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Product Proliferation: An Empirical Analysis of Product Line Determinants and Market Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Barry L. Bayus

    (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, McColl Bldg. CB 3490, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599)

  • William P. Putsis, Jr.

    (London Business School, Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Considering the number of new product introductions and available product varieties today, the practice of product proliferation is visibly evident in many diverse industries. Given its prevalence in practice, understanding the determinants and implications of firm proliferation strategies clearly has important managerial relevance. Previous theoretical research has identified three primary effects of a proliferation strategy: (1) a broad product line can increase the overall demand faced by the firm, (2) a broad product line can affect supply by increasing costs, and (3) broad product lines can have strategic consequences (e.g., long product lines can deter entry, thereby allowing an incumbent firm to raise prices). However, despite the theoretical interest in this common business practice, there has been very little empirical research on this topic. Moreover, no empirical study has simultaneously considered all three of the possible effects associated with a proliferation strategy. Consequently, in this paper we propose a three-equation simultaneous system that captures both the determinants and market outcomes of a firm's product line decisions. In particular, we specify market share, price, and product line length equations, which are estimated by three stage least squares. Using this structure, we empirically study the personal computer industry over the period 1981–1992. Our empirical results demonstrate that proliferation strategies do not have a uni-dimensional explanation. We find that product proliferation decisions have both demand (market share) and supply (price) implications. Our empirical results also suggest that the firm-level net market share impact of product proliferation in the personal computer industry is negative (i.e., the cost increases associated with a broader product line dominate any potential demand increases). As expected, we find that structural competitive factors play an important role in the determinants and market outcomes of a firm's product line decisions. However, we do not find evidence of firms using proliferation strategies to deter entry in this industry. Finally, we also demonstrate that some of the empirical conclusions from previous research are reversed once product line length is specified as endogenous in the share and price specifications.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry L. Bayus & William P. Putsis, Jr., 1999. "Product Proliferation: An Empirical Analysis of Product Line Determinants and Market Outcomes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 137-153.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:137-153
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.2.137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.2.137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.2.137?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. Jeffrey M. Perloff & Steven C. Salop, 1985. "Equilibrium with Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(1), pages 107-120.
    2. Hart, Oliver D, 1985. "Monopolistic Competition in the Spirit of Chamberlin: Special Results," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(380), pages 889-908, December.
    3. Gilbert, Richard J & Matutes, Carmen, 1993. "Product Line Rivalry with Brand Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 223-240, September.
    4. Kelvin Lancaster, 1990. "The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 189-206.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-793, May.
    6. Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1988. "An Empirical Analysis of Dynamic, Nonprice Competition in an Oligopolistic Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 200-220, Summer.
    7. Brander, James A & Eaton, Jonathan, 1984. "Product Line Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 323-334, June.
    8. Barry L. Bayus, 1998. "An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 763-775, June.
    9. Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, April.
    10. Gasmi, F & Laffont, J J & Vuong, Q, 1992. "Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a Soft-Drink Market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 277-311, Summer.
    11. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    12. Brian T. Ratchford, 1990. "Commentary on “Marketing Applications of the Economics of Product Variety”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 207-211.
    13. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    14. Richard Schmalensee, 1978. "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 305-327, Autumn.
    15. Stavins, Joanna, 1995. "Model Entry and Exit in a Differentiated-Product Industry: The Personal Computer Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 571-584, November.
    16. John R. Hauser & Steven P. Gaskin, 1984. "Application of the “Defender” Consumer Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 327-351.
    17. Subramanian Balachander & Kannan Srinivasan, 1998. "Modifying Customer Expectations of Price Decreases for a Durable Product," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 776-786, June.
    18. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
    19. Oliver D. Hart, 1985. "Monopolistic Competition in the Spirit of Chamberlin: A General Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(4), pages 529-546.
    20. Langlois, Richard N., 1992. "External Economies and Economic Progress: The Case of the Microcomputer Industry," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 1-50, April.
    21. Kadiyali, Vrinda & Vilcassim, Naufel & Chintagunta, Pradeep, 1998. "Product line extensions and competitive market interactions: An empirical analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 339-363, November.
    22. Mary W. Sullivan, 1992. "Brand Extensions: When to Use Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 793-806, June.
    23. Carter, Richard A. L. & Nagar, Anirudh L., 1977. "Coefficients of correlation for simultaneous equation systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 39-50, July.
    24. Sunder Kekre & Kannan Srinivasan, 1990. "Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(10), pages 1216-1232, October.
    25. John M. Connor, 1981. "Food Product Proliferation: A Market Structure Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(4), pages 607-617.
    26. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter.
    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. Kai-Lung Hui, 2004. "Product Variety Under Brand Influence: An Empirical Investigation of Personal Computer Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 686-700, May.
    2. Cotterill, Ronald W & Putsis, William P, Jr & Dhar, Ravi, 2000. "Assessing the Competitive Interaction between Private Labels and National Brands," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(1), pages 109-137, January.
    3. Kostas Axarloglou, 2008. "Product line extensions: causes and effects," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 9-21.
    4. Sarangi, Subrat & Chakraborty, Abhishek & Triantis, Konstantinos P., 2021. "Multimarket competition effects on product line decisions – A multi-objective decision model in fast moving consumer goods industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 388-398.
    5. Ronald Cotterill & William Putsis, 2000. "Market Share and Price Setting Behavior for Private Labels and National Brands," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(1), pages 17-39, August.
    6. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora, 2008. "—Interbrand Variant Overlap: Impact on Brand Preference and Portfolio Profit," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 474-491, 05-06.
    7. Chrysovalantou Milliou & Joel Sandonis, 2018. "Manufacturer Mergers and Product Variety in Vertically Related Markets," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 2002. "Strategic Interaction With Multiple Tools: A New Empirical Model," Working Papers 28545, Arizona State University, Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management.
    9. Ayd{i}n Alptekinou{g}lu & Charles J. Corbett, 2008. "Mass Customization vs. Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 204-217, August.
    10. Horrace, William C. & Huang, Rui & Perloff, Jeffrey M., 2016. "Effects of increased variety on demand, pricing, and welfare," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 569-587.
    11. Yogesh V. Joshi & David J. Reibstein & Z. John Zhang, 2016. "Turf Wars: Product Line Strategies in Competitive Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 128-141, January.
    12. Horrace, William & Huang, Rui & Perloff, Jeffrey, 2009. "Variety: Consumer Choice and Optimal Diversity," Research Reports 149942, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
    13. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2007. "Vertical integration, exclusive dealing, and expost cartelization," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(1), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Ushchev, Philip & Zenou, Yves, 2018. "Price competition in product variety networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 226-247.
    15. SAKURAKI, Rie & 櫻木, 理江, 2015. "Organizational Inertia and Excessive Product Proliferation," Working Paper Series 189, Center for Japanese Business Studies (HJBS), Graduate School of Commerce and Management Hitotsubashi University.
    16. Yanhui Zhao & Yufei Zhang & Joyce (Feng) Wang & Wyatt A. Schrock & Roger J. Calantone, 2020. "Brand relevance and the effects of product proliferation across product categories," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1192-1210, November.
    17. Thomas, Louis A., 1999. "Incumbent firms' response to entry: Price, advertising, and new product introduction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 527-555, May.
    18. Richard Schmalensee, 2012. "“On a Level with Dentists?” Reflections on the Evolution of Industrial Organization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 41(3), pages 157-179, November.
    19. Charles Hugh Wilkie, Dean & Mirzaei, Abas & Pham, Ngoc & Johnson, Lester W., 2022. "Reassessing product line breadth effectiveness: The role of heterogeneity, moderation, and cumulative effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 434-447.
    20. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.

    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:18:y:1999:i:2:p:137-153. 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.