IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0293355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Specialization in the marketplace for ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Sirui Wang
  • Michael Macy
  • Victor Nee

Abstract

Organizations that compete for attention in the marketplace face a strategic decision: whether to target a specialized niche or diversify to reach a broader market. Previous research has extensively analyzed the specialization dilemma faced by for-profit firms. We extend the analysis to knowledge-sharing groups in the marketplace of ideas. Using data on over 1,500 technology groups collected from an online event-organizing platform over a fifteen-year period, we measure the effect of topical focus, rarity, novelty, and technical exclusivity on audience growth, retention, and sustained engagement. We find that knowledge-sharing groups benefit marginally by specializing in rare topics but not in new topics. The strongest predictor of growth and survival is whether the group is associated with technically sophisticated topics, regardless of the breadth of focus, even though technical topics are less widely accessible. We conclude that what matters is not how specialized the organization, but how the organization is specialized.

Suggested Citation

  • Sirui Wang & Michael Macy & Victor Nee, 2023. "Specialization in the marketplace for ideas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293355
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293355
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293355&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0293355?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. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Hayagreeva Rao, 2010. "Categorical contrast and audience appeal: niche width and critical success in winemaking," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1397-1425, October.
    2. Yannis Bakos & Erik Brynjolfsson, 1999. "Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1613-1630, December.
    3. Edward Bishop Smith & Heewon Chae, 2017. "The Effect of Organizational Atypicality on Reference Group Selection and Performance Evaluation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1134-1149, December.
    4. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    5. Puay Khoon Toh & Taekyu Kim, 2013. "Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1236, August.
    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. Elizabeth George Pontikes, 2022. "Category innovation in the software industry: 1990–2002," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1697-1727, September.
    2. Puay Khoon Toh & Cameron D. Miller, 2017. "Pawn to Save a Chariot, or Drawbridge Into the Fort? Firms' Disclosure During Standard Setting and Complementary Technologies Within Ecosystems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(11), pages 2213-2236, November.
    3. Li, Zhengyu, 2016. "Essays on knowledge sourcing and technological capability : A knowledge structure perspective," Other publications TiSEM b8ff31fc-c57b-4bc3-b5a4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Gianluca Carnabuci & Elisa Operti & Balázs Kovács, 2015. "The Categorical Imperative and Structural Reproduction: Dynamics of Technological Entry in the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1734-1751, December.
    5. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    6. Carlo Corradini & Pelin Demirel & Giuliana Battisti, 2016. "Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 163-177, June.
    7. Yan Anthea Zhang & Zhuo Emma Chen & Yuandi Wang, 2021. "Which patents to use as loan collaterals? The role of newness of patents' external technology linkage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(10), pages 1822-1849, October.
    8. Jade Yu-Chieh Lo & Mark Thomas Kennedy, 2015. "Approval in Nanotechnology Patents: Micro and Macro Factors That Affect Reactions to Category Blending," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 119-139, February.
    9. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    10. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    11. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    12. Malgorzata Wachowska & Magdalena Homa, 2020. "The Role of Ethnic Diversity in Stimulating Innovation Processes: Comparative Analysis of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 1157-1176.
    13. Stefano Galavotti, 2014. "Reducing Inefficiency in Public Good Provision Through Linking," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 427-466, June.
    14. Tarek Abdallah, 2019. "On the Benefit (Or Cost) of Large‐Scale Bundling," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 955-969, April.
    15. Matthew Stephenson & Andrew Miller & Xyn Sun & Bhargav Annem & Rohan Parikh, 2025. "NDAI Agreements," Papers 2502.07924, arXiv.org.
    16. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    17. Roesler, Anne-Katrin & Deb, Rahul, 2021. "Multi-Dimensional Screening: Buyer-Optimal Learning and Informational Robustness," CEPR Discussion Papers 16206, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    19. Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, 2003. "Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 751-766, June.
    20. Pino G. Audia & Jack A. Goncalo, 2007. "Past Success and Creativity over Time: A Study of Inventors in the Hard Disk Drive Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0293355. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.