IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v48y2002i9p1175-1195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deconstructing the Pioneer's Advantage: Examining Vintage Effects and Consumer Valuations of Quality and Variety

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan D. Bohlmann

    (Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, 370 North Business Complex, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1122)

  • Peter N. Golder

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, 44 West 4th Street, KMC 8-79, New York, New York 10012-1126)

  • Debanjan Mitra

    (Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117155, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7155)

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated an order-of-entry effect on market share, suggesting that pioneers outperform later entrants. However, other research has pointed out the limitations of these studies and found evidence that many pioneers fail or have low market share. Given this background, the purpose of this research is to understand the conditions under which pioneers are more likely and also less likely to have an advantage. We propose a game-theoretic model that includes important sources of pioneer advantages as well as disadvantages. Specifically, we incorporate a pioneer advantage due to preemption in markets with heterogeneous tastes. In addition, we incorporate a potential pioneer disadvantage due to technology vintage effects, where later entrants utilizing improved technology can have lower costs and higher quality. The model allows us to evaluate the extent of vintage effects necessary to overcome a pioneer's advantage. Key relationships are found between the magnitude of the pioneer advantage or disadvantage and consumer valuations of product attributes (e.g., variety and quality). We empirically validate the model with vintage effect data in 36 product categories, and measures of consumer valuations of product variety and quality for 12 of these 36 categories. The results show that pioneers do better in product categories where variety is more important and worse in categories where product quality is more important. Pioneers in categories with high vintage effects are shown to have lower market shares and higher failure rates. Similar results appear when analyzing persistence of market leadership over time, further validating our model's major implications. We also present two case studies that illustrate key elements of the model.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan D. Bohlmann & Peter N. Golder & Debanjan Mitra, 2002. "Deconstructing the Pioneer's Advantage: Examining Vintage Effects and Consumer Valuations of Quality and Variety," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1175-1195, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:9:p:1175-1195
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1175.175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1175.175
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1175.175?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. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    2. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    3. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & William T. Robinson & Glen L. Urban, 1995. "Order of Market Entry: Established Empirical Generalizations, Emerging Empirical Generalizations, and Future Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 212-221.
    4. McLean, Richard P. & Riordan, Michael H., 1989. "Industry structure with sequential technology choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Schmalensee, Richard, 1982. "Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 349-365, June.
    6. Kardes, Frank R, et al, 1993. "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 62-75, June.
    7. Lenard C. Huff & William T. Robinson, 1994. "Note: The Impact of Leadtime and Years of Competitive Rivalry on Pioneer Market Share Advantages," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(10), pages 1370-1377, October.
    8. Asim Ansari & Nicholas Economides & Avijit Ghosh, 1994. "Competitive Positioning in Markets with Nonuniform Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 248-273.
    9. Edward C. Prescott & Michael Visscher, 1977. "Sequential Location among Firms with Foresight," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 378-393, Autumn.
    10. Partha Dasgupta & Eric Maskin, 1986. "The Existence of Equilibrium in Discontinuous Economic Games, I: Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(1), pages 1-26.
    11. 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.
    12. Berndt, Ernst R, et al, 1995. "Information, Marketing, and Pricing in the U.S. Antiulcer Drug Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 100-105, May.
    13. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    14. Economides, Nicholas, 1989. "Quality variations and maximal variety differentiation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 21-29, February.
    15. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Pankaj Ghemawat, 1991. "Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 161-171.
    17. Novshek, William, 1980. "Equilibrium in simple spatial (or differentiated product) models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 313-326, April.
    18. A. M. Spence, 1981. "The Learning Curve and Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(1), pages 49-70, Spring.
    19. Pepall, Lynne, 1992. "Strategic Product Choice and Niche Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 397-417, Summer.
    20. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    21. Bahk, Byong-Hong & Gort, Michael, 1993. "Decomposing Learning by Doing in New Plants," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 561-583, August.
    22. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1987. "The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), pages 441-452, September.
    23. W.J. Lane, 1980. "Product Differentiation in a Market with Endogenous Sequential Entry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 237-260, Spring.
    24. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    25. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1988. "Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 141-168.
    26. Preyas S. Desai, 2001. "Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 265-283, August.
    27. Christina L. Brown & James M. Lattin, 1994. "Investigating the Relationship Between Time in Market and Pioneering Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(10), pages 1361-1369, October.
    28. Douglas Bowman & Hubert Gatignon, 1996. "Order of Entry as a Moderator of the Effect of the Marketing Mix on Market Share," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 222-242.
    29. Intriligator, Michael D, 1992. " Productivity and the Embodiment of Technical Progress," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(0), pages 75-87, Supplemen.
    30. Chaim Fershtman & Vijay Mahajan & Eitan Muller, 1990. "Market Share Pioneering Advantage: A Theoretical Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 900-918, August.
    31. Rajeev K. Tyagi, 2000. "Sequential Product Positioning Under Differential Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(7), pages 928-940, July.
    32. Muthukrishnan, A V, 1995. "Decision Ambiguity and Incumbent Brand Advantage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 98-109, June.
    33. Mark Kroll & Peter Wright & Richard A. Heiens, 1999. "The contribution of product quality to competitive advantage: impacts on systematic variance and unexplained variance in returns," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 375-384, April.
    34. John R. Hauser, 1988. "Note—Competitive Price and Positioning Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 76-91.
    35. Thomas S. Gruca & K. Ravi Kumar & D. Sudharshan, 1992. "An Equilibrium Analysis of Defensive Response to Entry Using a Coupled Response Function Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 348-358.
    36. Mark B. Vandenbosch & Charles B. Weinberg, 1995. "Product and Price Competition in a Two-Dimensional Vertical Differentiation Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 224-249.
    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. Stefan Roth, 1999. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ökonomischer Positionierungsmodelle," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 243-266, March.
    2. Riemer, Hila & Mallik, Suman & Sudharshan, Devanathan, 2002. "Market Shares Follow the Zipf Distribution," Working Papers 02-0125, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    3. Himme, Alexander, 2005. "Der Einfluss der Markteintrittsreihenfolge auf den Unternehmenserfolg: Eine Zusammenfassung empirischer Arbeiten und Leitlinien für die weitere Forschung auf diesem Gebiet," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 600, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    4. William Boulding & Markus Christen, 2008. "Disentangling Pioneering Cost Advantages and Disadvantages," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 699-716, 07-08.
    5. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Raphael Thomadsen, 2007. "Product Positioning and Competition: The Role of Location in the Fast Food Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 792-804, 11-12.
    8. Didem Demirhan & Varghese S. Jacob & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2007. "Strategic IT Investments: The Impact of Switching Cost and Declining IT Cost," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 208-226, February.
    9. Rodríguez-Pinto, Javier & Carbonell, Pilar & Rodríguez-Escudero, Ana I., 2011. "Speed or quality? How the order of market entry influences the relationship between market orientation and new product performance," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 145-154.
    10. Rajeev K. Tyagi, 2000. "Sequential Product Positioning Under Differential Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(7), pages 928-940, July.
    11. MATHUR Sameer & DEWANI Prem Prakash, 2015. "Market Entry, Product Quality And Price Competition," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 62-82, August.
    12. Sajeesh Sajeesh & Song Sang-Young, 2017. "Transaction Utility and Quality Choice," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, June.
    13. Mitsukuni Nishida, 2017. "First-Mover Advantage Through Distribution: A Decomposition Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 590-609, July.
    14. S. Sajeesh, 2016. "Influence of market-level and inter-firm differences in costs on product positioning and pricing," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(12), pages 888-896, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Julia Cagé, 2014. "Media Competition, Information Provision and Political Participation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03602440, HAL.
    17. Delre, Sebastiano A. & Panico, Claudio & Wierenga, Berend, 2017. "Competitive strategies in the motion picture industry: An ABM to study investment decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-99.
    18. Markus Reisinger & Jens Schmidt & Nils Stieglitz, 2021. "How Complementors Benefit from Taking Competition to the System Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5106-5123, August.
    19. Luo, Zheng & Chen, Xu & Chen, Jing & Wang, Xiaojun, 2017. "Optimal pricing policies for differentiated brands under different supply chain power structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 437-451.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/16juu6v6rg8rq8nl0u1grb4jm6 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Dmitri Kuksov & Yuanfang Lin, 2010. "Information Provision in a Vertically Differentiated Competitive Marketplace," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 122-138, 01-02.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pioneering; Order of Entry;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:9:p:1175-1195. 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.