IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v28y2009i2p373-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Research and Innovation Strategy in a Duopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Olié Lauga

    (Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093)

  • Elie Ofek

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

We model a duopoly in which ex ante identical firms must decide where to direct their innovation efforts. The firms face market uncertainty about consumers' preferences for innovation on two product attributes and technology uncertainty about the success of their research and development (R&D) investments. Firms can conduct costly market research before setting R&D strategy. We find that the value of market information to a firm depends on whether its rival is expected to obtain this information in equilibrium. Consequently, one firm may forgo market research even though its rival conducts such research and learns the true state of demand. We examine both vertical and horizontal demand structures. With vertical preferences, firms are a priori uncertain about which attribute all consumers will value more. In this case, a firm that conducts market research always attempts innovation on the attribute it discovers that consumers prefer and expends more on R&D than a rival that has not conducted market research. With horizontal preferences, distinct segments exist—each caring about innovation on only one attribute—and firms are a priori uncertain how many consumers each segment contains. In this case, a firm that conducts market research may follow a strategy and attempt innovation to serve the smaller segment to avoid intense price competition for the larger segment. A firm that conducts market research may therefore invest less in R&D and earn lower postlaunch profits than a rival that has forgone such research.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Olié Lauga & Elie Ofek, 2009. "Market Research and Innovation Strategy in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 373-396, 03-04.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:2:p:373-396
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1080.0409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0409
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1080.0409?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. Luís M. B. Cabral, 2003. "R&D Competition when firms Choose Variance," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 139-150, March.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    3. Boyan Jovanovic & Rafael Rob, 1987. "Demand-Driven Innovation and Spatial Competition Over Time," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(1), pages 63-72.
    4. Cabral, Luis M. B., 2002. "Increasing Dominance with No Efficiency Effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 471-479, February.
    5. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    6. Jagmohan S. Raju & Abhik Roy, 2000. "Market Information and Firm Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(8), pages 1075-1084, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "R&D Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 402-420, June.
    9. Lan Luo & P. K. Kannan & Brian T. Ratchford, 2007. "New Product Development Under Channel Acceptance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 149-163, 03-04.
    10. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1988. "Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 141-168.
    11. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    12. 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.
    13. Li, Lode & McKelvey, Richard D. & Page, Talbot, 1987. "Optimal research for cournot oligopolists," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 140-166, June.
    14. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    15. Ganesh Iyer & David Soberman & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2005. "The Targeting of Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 461-476, May.
    16. de Palma, A, et al, 1985. "The Principle of Minimum Differentiation Holds under Sufficient Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 767-781, July.
    17. Edwin Mansfield, 1987. "Price Indexes for R and D Inputs, 1969--1983," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 124-129, January.
    18. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    19. repec:ulb:ulbeco:2013/1759 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ganesh Iyer & David Soberman, 2000. "Markets for Product Modification Information," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 203-225, February.
    21. Olivier Toubia & John R. Hauser, 2007. "—On Managerially Efficient Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 851-858, 11-12.
    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. Yuetao Gao & Norman Johnson & Bo Shen & Yinliang (Ricky) Tan, 2023. "Benefits of sourcing alternative inputs of manufacturers for suppliers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1880-1894, June.
    2. Wehnert, Peter & Baccarella, Christian V. & Beckmann, Markus, 2019. "In crowdfunding we trust? Investigating crowdfunding success as a signal for enhancing trust in sustainable product features," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 128-137.
    3. Xu Guan & Ying‐Ju Chen, 2016. "Timing of information acquisition in a competitive environment," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 3-22, February.
    4. Zsolt Katona, 2015. "Democracy in product design: Consumer participation and differentiation strategies," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 359-394, December.
    5. Onesun Steve Yoo & Tingliang Huang & Kenan Arifoğlu, 2021. "A Theoretical Analysis of the Lean Start-up Method," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 395-412, May.
    6. David Godes, 2012. "The Strategic Impact of References in Business Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 257-276, March.
    7. Strausz, Roland, 2017. "A Theory of Crowdfunding," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 2, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    8. Byungyeon Kim & Oded Koenigsberg & Elie Ofek, 2022. "I Don’t “Recall”: The Decision to Delay Innovation Launch to Avoid Costly Product Failure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8889-8908, December.
    9. Zsolt Katona, 2015. "Democracy in product design: Consumer participation and differentiation strategies," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 359-394, December.
    10. Jeffrey D. Shulman & Zheyin (Jane) Gu, 2024. "Making Inclusive Product Design a Reality: How Company Culture and Research Bias Impact Investment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 73-91, January.
    11. Young Kwark & Jianqing Chen & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2018. "User-Generated Content and Competing Firms’ Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4608-4628, October.

    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. Byungyeon Kim & Oded Koenigsberg & Elie Ofek, 2022. "I Don’t “Recall”: The Decision to Delay Innovation Launch to Avoid Costly Product Failure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8889-8908, December.
    2. Lin, Yuanfang & Pazgal, Amit & Soberman, David A., 2021. "Who is the winner in an industry of innovation?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 50-69.
    3. Markus Christen, 2005. "Research Note---Cost Uncertainty Is Bliss: The Effect of Competition on the Acquisition of Cost Information for Pricing New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 668-676, April.
    4. John R. Hauser & Felix Eggers & Matthew Selove, 2019. "The Strategic Implications of Scale in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1059-1081, November.
    5. David P. Baron, 2020. "Vertical differentiation, product innovation, and dynamic competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 635-662, July.
    6. Dmitri Kuksov & Yuanfang Lin, 2010. "Information Provision in a Vertically Differentiated Competitive Marketplace," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 122-138, 01-02.
    7. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.
    8. Boccard, N. & Wauthy, X.Y., 2010. "Equilibrium vertical differentiation in a Bertrand model with capacity precommitment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 288-297, May.
    9. Byong‐Duk Rhee & André de Palma & Claes Fornell & Jacques‐François Thisse, 1992. "Restoring The Principle Of Minimum Differentiation In Product Positioning," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 475-505, September.
    10. Ganesh Iyer & Dmitri Kuksov, 2012. "Competition in Consumer Shopping Experience," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 913-933, November.
    11. Susan Athey & Armin Schmutzler, 1999. "Innovation and the Emergence of Market Dominance," Working papers 99-18, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    12. Bing Jing, 2016. "Lowering Customer Evaluation Costs, Product Differentiation, and Price Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 113-127, January.
    13. David Soberman, 2022. "Business Expansion Through Acquisition," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 9(3), pages 74-94, December.
    14. Mariana Cunha & António Osório & Ricardo Ribeiro, 2016. "Endogenous product design and quality with rationally inattentive consumers," Working Papers de Economia (Economics Working Papers) 03, Católica Porto Business School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa.
    15. Bing Jing, 2006. "On the Profitability of Firms in a Differentiated Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 248-259, 05-06.
    16. Naeeni, Hannan Sadjady & Sahin, Funda & Powell Robinson, E., 2023. "Socially responsible product-positioning: Impact of halo/horns spillover on product image," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 852-863.
    17. Yuxin Chen & Ganesh Iyer, 2002. "Research Note Consumer Addressability and Customized Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 197-208, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Paulson Gjerde, Kathy A. & Slotnick, Susan A., 2004. "Quality and reputation: The effects of external and internal factors over time," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-20, May.
    20. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, 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:28:y:2009:i:2:p:373-396. 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.