Churn, Baby, Churn: Strategic Dynamics Among Dominant and Fringe Firms in a Segmented Industry
This paper integrates and extends the literatures on industry evolution and dominant firms to develop a dynamic theory of dominant and fringe competitive interaction in a segmented industry. It argues that a dominant firm, seeing contraction of growth in its current segment(s), enters new segments in which it can exploit its technological strengths, but that are sufficiently distant to avoid cannibalization. The dominant firm acts as a low-cost Stackelberg leader, driving down prices and triggering a sales takeoff in the new segment. We identify a "churn" effect associated with dominant firm entry: fringe firms that precede the dominant firm into the segment tend to exit the segment, while new fringe firms enter, causing a net increase in the number of firms in the segment. As the segment matures and sales decline in the segment, the process repeats itself. We examine the predictions of the theory with a study of price, quantity, entry, and exit across 24 product classes in the desktop laser printer industry from 1984 to 1996. Using descriptive statistics, hazard rate models, and panel data methods, we find empirical support for the theoretical predictions.
Volume (Year): 53 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA|
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
- Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G., 1993.
"The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry,"
93-34, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G.M., 1992. "The Life-Cycle of Competitive Industry," Papers 92-09, Rochester, Business - Financial Research and Policy Studies.
- Boyan Jovanovic & Glenn MacDonald, 1993. "The Life-Cycle of a Competitive Industry," NBER Working Papers 4441, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kenneth L. Judd, 1983.
"Credible Spatial Preemption,"
577, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Stoneman, P & Ireland, N J, 1983. "The Role of Supply Factors in the Diffusion of New Process Technology," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(369a), pages 66-78, Supplemen.
- Timothy Dunne & Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1988.
"Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S. Manufacturing Industries,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(4), pages 495-515, Winter.
- Dunne, T. & Roberts, M.J. & Samuelson, L., 1988. "Pattenrs Of Firm Entry And Exit In U.S. Manufacturing Industries," Papers 1-88-2, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
- Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-83, June.
- Agarwal, Rajshree & Bayus, Barry L., 2002. "The Market Evolution and Sales Take-Off of Product Innovations," Working Papers 02-0104, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
- Steven Klepper, 2002. "Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 37-61, Spring.
- Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-53, September.
- Bass, Frank M, 1980. "The Relationship between Diffusion Rates, Experience Curves, and Demand Elasticities for Consumer Durable Technological Innovations," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages S51-67, July.
- Yamawaki, Hideki, 1985. "Dominant Firm Pricing and Fringe Expansion: The Case of the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry, 1907-1930," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 429-37, August.
- James Brander & Jonathan Eaton, 1982.
"Product Line Rivalry,"
519, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Brian S. Silverman, 1999. "Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1109-1124, August.
- K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
- Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1971. "Limit Pricing and Uncertain Entry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(3), pages 441-54, May.
- Rajshree Agarwal & Barry L. Bayus, 2002. "The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1024-1041, August.
- 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.
- Katz, Michael L, 1984. "Firm-Specific Differentiation and Competition among Multiproduct Firms," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages S149-66, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:4:p:632-650. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.