Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than later entrants?

Are market pioneers more successful because they started with superior skills and resources? The absolute pioneer advantage hypothesis is that because market pioneering is desirable, firms with superior skills and resources naturally choose to pioneer new markets. The comparative advantage hypothesis is that market evolution changes success requirements. Market pioneer skills and resources differ from, but are not superior to later entrants. Empirical results across 171 diversification entrants tend to support the comparative advantage hypothesis. Skill and resource profiles are provided for market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants.     

First-mover advantages from pioneering new markets: A survey of empirical evidence

Market pioneers can develop first-mover advantages that span decades. The most general first-mover advantage that helps explain higher pioneer market share levels is a broad product line or brand proliferation. In markets for experience goods, pioneers tend to shape consumer tastes and preferences in favor of the pioneering brand. While the preliminary results vary by industry, they indicate that market pioneers donot tend to perish more often than later entrants. Accounting profits for market pioneers generally are lower in the first four years of operation, but higher thereafter. Overall, market pioneers follow innovative strategies that have high initial costs and risks, but yield high potential returns.     

Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value

Entry order analysis often shows that early entrants to an industry or technical subfield of an industry outperform laggards. Some studies, though, have found that late entrants prevail. This paper tests dual-clock hypotheses of entry order effects on performance, measured both as market share and survival. One entry clock records the entry of all entrants to a new technical subfield within an industry, while a second clock records the entry of industry incumbents. Relative to the appropriate clock, early entrants are predicted to outperform laggards, but when entry is measured on only one clock, the estimated influences may be inaccurate. Error will be particularly likely if a study contains a survivor bias. The study, which finds entry timing trade-offs between market share and survival, is generalizable to cases in which a plausible set of conditions is found.     

Decomposing Pioneer Survival: Implications for the Order‐of‐Entry Effect

In contrast to previous studies of pioneer survival that directly compare the survival of market pioneers with later entrants, this paper proposes that a market pioneer, as the first entrant, operates under two distinctly different survival processes, one during the initial monopoly period and another during the later competition period. The two processes of market pioneers need to be separately estimated and compared with the survival process of later entrants. This paper demonstrates a method for decomposing the pioneer's survival and empirically shows how researchers can compare the pioneer survival in two periods with that of later entrants and identify period‐specific advantages of pioneering. Our empirical analysis using data collected from two different types of industries—a low‐tech (i.e., newspaper) industry and several high‐tech industries—reveals several interesting new findings that illustrate the advantages of decomposing pioneer survival. For example, this paper shows that when treating first‐mover survival as a single process, one can only find an oversimplified pattern showing that first movers have a survival chance equal to that of second movers in the newspaper industry, but a lower one than the second movers in high‐tech industries. However, when analyzing the first‐mover's survival as a sequence of monopoly and competition processes, new insights emerge. In the newspaper industry, the pioneers can have survival advantages in both the monopoly and the competition periods relative to the second movers, and there is a significant survival advantage for those second entrants who delay market entry until the first entrant exits. In contrast, the overall pioneer survival disadvantage identified in the high‐tech industries when treating the survival as a single process comes from the survival disadvantage in the competition period but not in the monopoly period. Furthermore, our empirical analyses using data from two types of industries reveal completely different patterns with regard to the pioneer survival advantage, which suggests that being first can benefit pioneers in both two‐market periods in low‐tech industries but can be extremely risky for pioneers to gain any survival advantages in both two‐market periods in high‐tech industries because the former markets have relatively low market and technology uncertainties, and organizational change is less important; whereas the latter industries have significantly high market and technology uncertainties, technological advances emerge frequently, and firms are required to adapt themselves quickly to a fast‐changing environment.     

Product Hierarchy and Brand Strategy Influences on the Order of Entry Effect for Consumer Packaged Goods

Manufacturers focus on becoming more agile, software firms deploy rapid application development tools—everyone is in a hurry. Although we all understand the benefits of being first to market, we understand just as clearly that not all first-to-market products enjoy the same, sustainable benefits from being market pioneers. Why do some pioneering products experience a more significant order-of-entry effect than others? Roger A. Kerin, Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, and Daniel J. Howard examine two factors–product hierarchy and brand strategy—which may influence the magnitude of this effect for new consumer packaged goods. First, they hypothesize that pioneering a new product class offers a greater advantage than introducing a new form to an existing product class. Second, they predict that the order-of-entry effect will be greater for brand extensions than for entirely new brands. Finally, considering both product hierarchy and brand strategy, they expect that the order-of-entry advantage for brand extensions over new brands will be significantly greater within new product classes than for new forms of existing products. These hypotheses are tested using data from the Information Resources, Inc. Behaviorscan° data set. Collected from 2,500 household panel members, 75 supermarkets, and 25 drugstores, this database contains weekly measures of brand trial penetration as well as brand distribution, price, and promotion information in eight geographic markets from the period 1983–1988. The models developed in this study explore the relationships among brand trial penetration, product hierarchy, brand strategy, order of entry, lag time between successive brand entrants, and marketing mix variables (i.e., price, promotion, distribution, and advertising). The study strongly supports all three hypotheses. In particular, the analysis clearly demonstrates that the order-of-entry effect is greatest for a new product class pioneered by a brand extension. Order of entry has the least effect on a new product form pioneered by an entirely new brand. For a company seeking a competitive advantage from being first to market, innovation in product function offers greater potential benefit than innovation in product form. Such a company can also benefit from building on the name and reputation of its established brands. Although the study finds these order-of-entry effects significant, the effects of marketing mix variables such as product price and promotion are consistently stronger.     

Firm resources and entry-related advantages: An empirical study in China

The majority of research on order of market entry has focused on market pioneer advantages or the specialized assets that industry incumbents would need to possess. However, relatively little attention has been paid to whether and how certain firm resources or capabilities may provide latecomers with entry-related advantages. This issue is of particular interest when multinational organizations decide to enter emerging markets, such as China, where the transitional economy provides both opportunities and challenges. This study attempts to bridge this gap by discussing the entry-related advantages in terms of pioneer advantages, early follower advantages, and late entrant advantages, and by investigating how each of the entry-related advantages has unique impacts on market performance. In particular, this study examines the relations between innovation management, firm resources, entry-related advantages, and market performance simultaneously with cross-sectional data from 191 firms in China. Our findings reveal that technical resources and skills (R&S), marketing R&S, and market intelligence are associated with different advantages for market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants. Technical R&S is also found to have significant impacts on order of market entry as pioneers. Furthermore, the findings show that remarkable differences exist among the three entrant types (i.e., market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants) in their strategic approaches to attain market performance. We offer implications to foreign firms operating in China or intending to enter China's markets.     

Research notes and communications first-mover effects in multiple dynamic markets

A study of first-mover effects in semi-submersible oil-drilling suggests that first-entrants in international markets maintain higher market share after controlling for market localization and life cycle. Examining only surviving entrants at a point in time inflates this pioneering-market share relationship. Pioneering has an inter-market effect on market share, greater than the intra-market effect. Multinational firms may use market pioneering to resist localization pressures and enhance survival in foreign markets. The study suggests the importance of careful first-mover identification and market definition, a wider examination of first-mover effects over multiple markets, and control for measurement timing.     

Better late than never: a study of late entrants in household electrical equipment

For the most part, studies on timing of entry have attempted to determine the advantages that early entrants may be able to develop and hold over subsequent entrants. Given that a large number of firms attempt to enter at a much later stage in the development of the market, it is particularly surprising that little research has attempted to examine the differences in the ability of late movers to penetrate the market. In this paper, we focus exclusively on late movers and examine the extent to which their early success can be tied to existing market conditions, their resource strengths, and their strategic positioning. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Doomed from the start: what is the value of selecting a future dominant design?

This study investigates how important it is for a firm to select what turns out to be a dominant design in a technology‐driven industry. Using the personal computer industry as a case study, this research shows that firms are not doomed when their entry design choices turn out to be ‘wrong.’ For early entrants, we found that switching to the dominant design is associated with increased chances of survival and market share. Contrary to our expectations, we found that even later entrants that switched to the dominant design also enjoyed higher survival rates and greater market position. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competition in wholesale markets: Do MNOs compete to host MVNOs?

This paper extends previous research examining wholesale market shares of mobile network operators (MNOs). This study demonstrates that wholesale market concentration has decreased over time because of the increase of competition of MNOs for hosting mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). However, differences in wholesale market shares between MNOs have not disappeared. We propose that those operators that are late entrants in a market and belong to an international group with a proactive attitude towards hosting virtual operators positively influences wholesale market shares of MNOs. The empirical analysis is based on a panel data from 2000 to 2010 corresponding to MNOs and virtual operators in five European countries with high development of the virtual mobile industry. By closely examining KPN we show how being an international mobile group specialising in the wholesale market across Europe has enabled it to exploit complementarities that exist between traditional and virtual businesses.     

Strategic entry and potential competition: Evidence from compressed gas fuel retail

We provide novel evidence on the effect of the threat of potential competition on the timing of entry in a new and growing industry. Exploiting a change in regulation in the Italian retail fuel market that generates exogenous variation in the number of potential entrants in the emerging Compressed Natural Gas segment, we show that markets with a higher number of potential entrants witness speedier entry decisions. We document that this result is likely driven by an increase in the incentives to preempt the market due to heightened risk of being anticipated by competitors.     

ADVERTISING SUNK COSTS AND CREDIBLE SPATIAL PREEMPTION

Large sunk investments in advertising allow managers to credibly preempt potential entrants by introducing new products prior to anticipated increases in market growth. Previous investment in advertising can lower a firm's cost to introduce new products allowing it to credibly preempt potential entrants. Entrants may not have enough residual share to find it profitable to enter later, and incumbents find it profitable to keep new products in the market even if entrants choose to enter. I present empirical evidence from the RTE cereal industry.     

The effects of fishery harbor-based brands on the brand equity of shore fish: An empirical study of branded mackerel in Japan

In Japan, some fishery cooperative associations use their fishery harbor names as a brand to differentiate their own shore fish. Most notable is the branding of mackerel. In this paper, we analyze the effects of branding using a discrete/continuous model. The results are as follows. First, there is first-mover advantage in the branding of mackerel. For instance, unlike other brands of mackerel, Seki-saba as the pioneering brand can increase its brand equity. Second, other brands have opposing effects that increase and decrease the brand equity of the pioneering brand. We find the former is strongest in the early stages of fishery branding when there are few competing brands of mackerel, while the latter becomes stronger in later stages when many other brands emerge.     

Product development strategies for established market pioneers,early followers,and late entrants

At the time of entry, market pioneers are known for emphasizing major product development projects. After being in the market for many years, however, do market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants maintain different product development strategies? Data from 2273 established manufacturing businesses reveal that market pioneers have the highest probability of engaging in product development, which covers product R&D spending as well as new product sales. Even so, market pioneers and early followers tend to emphasize minor projects, such as product improvements and line extensions. Late entrants are less likely to engage in product development, but those that do tend to emphasize major development efforts. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can All Brands Innovate in the Same Way? A Typology of Brand Position and Innovation Effort*

Product innovation is vital to ongoing brand equity and has been responsible for revitalizing many brands, including Apple, Dunlop Volley, Mini, and Gucci. While several scholars have noted the relationship between a brand's position and the form of innovation available to a firm, surprisingly no study has sought to bridge this gap. This study aims to address this issue by, first, building a typology of the innovation practices underpinning differently positioned brands and, second, exploring the strategic and tactical implications of different brand‐related innovation efforts. In so doing, this study addresses a critical question: How do differently positioned brands organize their innovation efforts? A multiple case‐study approach was used in this paper. Cases were sampled from a number of industries and across a range of different countries with a focus on business‐to‐consumer brands. Thirty‐five interviews were conducted across 12 cases. The brands studied differed in their approach to innovation (incremental vs. radical) and in their relationship to the marketplace (market‐driven and driving markets). These two dimensions result in four alternative ways of organizing the innovation effort to effectively reinforce the brand: (1) incremental and market driven (follower brands); (2) radical and market driven (category leader brands); (3) incremental and driving market (craft‐design‐driven brands); and (4) radical and driving markets (product leader brands). For follower brands, new product success is contingent upon the quality of the firm's marketing information systems and speed to market. Category leaders seek to dominate and appeal to the mass market with bold product initiatives. Craft‐designer‐driven brands aim to maintain an aura of authenticity, downplaying the commercial realities of their innovation efforts, while product leader brands seek to reaffirm their status as industry pioneers. This research contributes to the branding and new product development literature in several ways. It illustrates that differently positioned brands require the deployment of different firm capabilities and resources and a unique organizational philosophy to achieve new product success. The findings also enrich the brand extension literature through an examination of alternate bases, beyond that of product category, by which brand fit can be established. Finally, this research demonstrates how brand positioning can pose limitations on an industry leader's ability to respond to disruptive technologies. This study identifies that failed new products or brand extensions are driven by a mismatch between desired strategy and the capabilities necessary for achieving success (suggesting brand extensions are not as low risk as previously thought). As such, managers should carefully attend to brand perceptions when developing innovation strategies, particularly in relation to brand extensions.     

How does income inequality affect market outcomes in vertically differentiated markets?

The distribution of consumer incomes is a key factor in determining the structure of a vertically differentiated industry when consumer's willingness to pay depends on her income. This paper computes the Shaked and Sutton (1982) model for a lognormal distribution of consumer incomes to investigate the effect of inequality on firms' entry, product quality, and pricing decisions. The main findings are that greater inequality in consumer incomes leads to the entry of more firms and results in more intense quality competition among the entrants. More intense quality competition raises the average quality of products in the market as firms compete for the shrinking share of higher-income consumers. With zero costs of quality improvements and an upper bound on the top quality or when costs of quality are fixed and rise sufficiently fast, greater heterogeneity of consumer incomes also reduces firms' incentives to differentiate their products. Competition between more similar products tends to reduce their prices. However, when income inequality is very high, the top quality producer chooses to serve only the rich segment of the market and charges a higher price. The conclusion is that income inequality has important implications for the degree of product differentiation, price level, industry concentration, and consumer welfare.     

The Impact of Product Portfolio Strategy on Financial Performance: The Roles of Product Development and Market Entry Decisions

Innovation is one of the most important issues facing business today. The major difficulty in managing innovation is that managers must do so against a constantly shifting backdrop as technologies, competitors, and markets constantly evolve. Managers determine the product portfolio through key decisions about product development and market entry. Key strategic questions are what portfolio strategies provide the greatest reward. The purpose of this study is to understand the relative financial values of each component of a product portfolio. Specifically, the paper examines the short‐term and long‐term financial impacts of product development strategy and market entry strategy. These strategies reflect two critical tensions that must be balanced in product portfolio decision making and essentially determine a firm's product portfolio. In doing so, the paper also investigates how a firm's capabilities drive each component of a product portfolio. From the empirical analyses in the context of the biomedical device industry, the paper found important insights regarding product portfolio strategies. First, a large product portfolio helps a firm's financial performance. In particular, the pioneering new products have strongest impacts on short‐term performances, and nonpioneering mature products do not provide significant contribution. Second, the results indicate a persistent first‐mover advantage. The first‐to‐market new products yield not only an immediate effect, but also persistent long‐term effects, suggesting that it is important to be first in the market even though there may be short‐term losses. Third, the results suggest the need to balance between “mature” and “new” products. Also, firms need to balance “first‐to‐market” and “late‐entered” products. Because a new or pioneering product requires more resource, it may hurt other products in the portfolio. Thus, without support from mature or follower products, new products and pioneering products alone may not increase firm sales or profit. Fourth, from a long‐term perspective, the paper found that the financial market only rewards a firm's overall capability to deliver new products first in the marketplace. Thus, short‐term performance is mainly driven by product‐level innovativeness, whereas firm‐level innovativeness enhances forward‐looking long‐term performance. Fifth, the paper also found that pioneering new products are driven by integrating both primary and complementary technological capabilities. And nonpioneering new products are mainly driven by the capabilities in primary technology domain. These results provide important insight into the relative value and timing of return on investment in radical versus incremental innovation and alternative market entry strategies. By understanding the performance trade‐offs of these different factors in the short and long term, one can develop better guidelines for optimizing innovation strategies, and their dependence on both external and internal environmental conditions.     

The advantage of being first and competition between firms

It is frequently suggested that the first brand in a product market enjoys a price advantage over its imitators due to imperfect information about product quality. This article considers the effect of this advantage on prices and market shares in a dominant firm price leadership model. An established firm with a price advantage faces free entry by firms producing unbranded products (generics). In equilibrium, the first brand enjoys a market share advantage over entrants in entry and post entry periods. If the initial price disadvantage is large, entry will not occur.     

Is five too many? Simulation analysis of profitability and cost structure in the Korean mobile telephone industry

Four new nationwide entrants were introduced into the Korean mobile telephone industry provoking intense competition among the five carriers by late 1997. Some assert that there is excessive competition and industry restructuring is needed. In this paper, we analyze the profitability of mobile telephone carriers and the degree to which cost is reduced through M&A, thereby obtaining principal information on the economic incentives for industry restructuring.     

The effect of inducement prizes on innovation: evidence from the Ansari X Prize and the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge

Inducement prizes are increasingly popular because of their potential to induce technological innovations and attain related goals. Academic research, however, has barely investigated these prizes. This paper investigates the motivation of prize entrants, the characteristics of their research and development (R&D) activities, and the overall effect of prizes on innovation using case study research and documentary data sources. The Ansari X Prize and the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, both considered successful technology competitions in the aerospace sector, are investigated. The findings show that, first, incentives created by competitions, particularly those that are nonmonetary, attract unconventional entrants. The market value of the prize technologies motivate entrants as well but do not attract traditional industry players. Second, limited technology development lead times and no up‐front funding characterize prize R&D activities, yet their differences with traditional industry practices are caused by participant‐level factors. Most importantly, the introduction of novel R&D approaches is associated with the participation of unconventional entrants. Third, these prizes induced innovations over and above what would have occurred anyway, with the caveat that they were linked to significant technology incentives and fundamentally, ongoing R&D processes. These findings put forward lessons that inform the design of more effective prize competitions.