Second-Sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition
The authors show that a new product monopolist may benefit from (delayed) competition if consumers incur setup costs. Setup costs create a dynamic consistency problem: the monopolist cannot guarantee low future prices once customers have incurred those costs. The authors show that, if customers anticipate this problem, the monopolist's profits can be improved through ex ante commitment to competition in the post-adoption market if setup costs are large. If setup costs are small, the monopolist can typically achieve the same level of profits without price commitment as with. Copyright 1988, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||01 Oct 1987|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/iber/wps/econwp.html
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: IBER, F502 Haas Building, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-1922|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucb:calbwp:8760. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.