A Comparative Study of Pioneer Entry Decisions in the United States and China

According to the resource‐based view of the firm, competitive advantages arise from control and deployment of productive resources that are rare and difficult to imitate. Through early entry, pioneers can gain preferential access to key resources. However, the value of that access depends on the presence of isolating mechanisms that limit or prevent competitive imitation. Isolating mechanisms increase the desirability of early entry by lengthening the time horizon over which the firm can earn Ricardian rents on those resources. To explore these implications of the resource‐based view, this study examines the impact of isolating mechanisms on pioneer advantages by analyzing the market entry timing decisions of 209 U.S. and 302 Chinese entrepreneurs. We hypothesize that the stronger intellectual property and legal protections available in the United States are an isolating mechanism that should increase the perceived importance of differentiation and cost advantages in the United States relative to China. Consistent with this argument, we find evidence that the relationships between the number of successful first‐mover decisions and (1) perceived pioneer differentiation advantages and (2) perceived cost advantages are relatively stronger in the United States than in China. We also argue that the importance of personal relationships in China constitutes an isolating mechanism that should increase the perceived importance of preemptive pioneer advantages in China relative to the United States. Consistent with this reasoning, we find that the coefficient linking perceptions of pioneer preemptive advantages with the number of successful first‐mover decisions is significant in the Chinese sample and not in the U.S. sample, but the difference between these coefficients is not significant. These results provide support for the argument that the availability of strong IP and legal protection encourages early entry decisions by entrepreneurs because these protections enhance the pioneer's ability to build a differentiated position in the minds of target customers and secure a cost advantage over later entrants. The results also support the argument that strong personal connections and the practice of reciprocity play a key role in the success of Chinese entrepreneurs.     

Pioneering Advantages and Entrepreneurs' First‐mover Decisions: An Empirical Investigation for the United States and China

New ventures are often launched for the purpose of pioneering an innovative new product or service in the marketplace. Entrepreneurs or founders of new ventures thus often have to make the decision whether to be the market pioneer or the first mover. While being a first mover potentially is advantageous, it also involves taking risks and facing uncertainties. Entrepreneurs must assess the benefits and risks of pioneering in the first‐mover decision‐making process to realize the potential competitive advantages associated with being a pioneer. Previous research has shown how entrepreneurs perceive potential gains and losses associated with exploring opportunities as the key defining element of entrepreneurial decision‐making. Past studies have also indicated that cultural and business environmental factors affect both perceptions and decision‐making. However, studies to date have insufficiently addressed the relationship between entrepreneurs' perceived pioneering advantages/disadvantages and their first‐mover decisions, with little attention to cross‐national differences. This study includes hypotheses postulating how entrepreneurs' perceived advantages and disadvantages of pioneering affect the number of first‐mover decisions made by entrepreneurs in two different cultural contexts, the United States and China. We collect data from 152 U.S. entrepreneurs and 140 Chinese entrepreneurs over a four‐year period and carry out empirical tests on the hypotheses using Poisson regression models. Our results provide insight on how culture affects perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of pioneering, and how these perceptions impact the likelihood of making a first‐mover decision. We find that a higher level of perceived advantages will drive first‐mover decisions, whereas perceived disadvantages will deter first‐mover decisions. The negative effect of perceived erosion disadvantages on the number of first‐mover decisions was higher for Chinese entrepreneurs, consistent with the high risk‐aversion culture in China. However, this effect was not found for perceived uncertainty disadvantages, suggesting that the risk‐averse characteristics of Chinese entrepreneurs is an oversimplification, and that the Chinese cultural, business, and legal environment helps offset uncertainty disadvantages. We also find an interesting positive moderating effect of perceived advantage on the relationship between perceived disadvantages and the number of first‐mover decisions in China only. That is, if perceived advantages are low, Chinese entrepreneurs are more risk averse than U.S. entrepreneurs; but if perceived advantages are high, Chinese entrepreneurs are more risk‐seeking than U.S. entrepreneurs. This finding again challenges the risk aversion conclusion found by previous studies of Chinese managers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Managerial perceptions of global pioneering advantage: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence in the U.S. and Korea

Managers form mental models of their business environment, and make strategic decisions based on these perceptions of reality. We study managerial perceptions of the competitive advantage gained by a pioneering firm. We expect that managers will make pioneering entry decisions based on their perceptions of pioneering advantages. Due to cross-national cultural and business environment differences, managers from different countries will employ different mental models and thus perceive the relative advantage of pioneering differently.Drawing from the literature on cultural influence on decision-making, we build a theoretical framework of perceived pioneering advantage in different cultural environments. From this framework, and from cultural differences that exist between the United States and South Korea, we derive hypotheses regarding expected cross-cultural perceptual differences. We test these hypotheses using samples of senior product managers from both countries. We find that some, but not all, of the principles of pioneering advantage empirically verified in North America are generalizable to the culturally-different South Korean business environment.     

Pioneering advantages in manufacturing and service industries: empirical evidence from nine countries

Although one might expect differences between manufacturing and service firms in pioneering advantages, the extent of these differences has not yet been investigated. This is the first cross‐national study that compares such differences in nine countries/regions: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore. We develop several hypotheses concerning the perceptions of managers of manufacturing firms and service firms regarding the benefits and post‐entry risks of pioneering, and the cost and differentiation advantages accruing to the pioneering firm. We test the hypotheses with data from 2,419 firms representing all nine countries and both industrial sectors. We find that: (1) managers from all countries perceive pioneering to be associated with higher market share and/or profitability; (2) manufacturing firm managers perceive pioneering risks to be significantly more important than do service firm managers; (3) cost and differentiation advantages of pioneering are, for the most part, more significant to manufacturing than to service firm managers; (4) Western manufacturing firm managers perceive the cost advantages to be more important than Asian Pacific manufacturing firm managers. We conclude by presenting the managerial implications of our findings. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Launch decisions and competitive reactions: an exploratory market signaling study

When firms launch a new product into the marketplace they often aim to find a balance between building scale and provoking extensive and quick competitive reactions. Competitors react to new products when they perceive the product introduction as hostile, committed or when they feel that the product entry will have a large impact on their profitability. The present study develops a framework that shows how strong and fast incumbents react to perceived market signals resulting from a new product's launch decisions (broad targeting, penetration pricing, advertising intensity and product advantage). The strength of the relationships between the launch decisions and the perceived market signals was expected to depend on one industry characteristic (i.e., market growth) and on one entrant characteristic (i.e., aggressive reputation). We distinguished three market signals in our framework: hostility, commitment and consequences. Signal hostility refers to the extent to which the approach used by an acting firm to introduce the new product is perceived hostile whereas the commitment signal refers to the extent to which incumbents perceive the entrant firm to be committed to the new product introduction. The consequence signal is defined as the incumbents' perception of the impact of a new product entry on their profitability. We tested our framework using cross‐sectional data provided by 73 managers in The Netherlands who recently reacted to a new product entry. The results clearly reveal which launch decisions create which market signals. For example, incumbents consider high advantage new products hostile and consequential. Penetration pricing and an intense advertising campaign are also considered hostile, especially in fast growing markets. Broad targeting is not perceived hostile, especially not when used by entrants with an aggressive reputation. In addition, this study explored the impact of three perceived market signals on the strength and speed of competitive reaction. The results reveal that perceived signals of hostility and commitment positively impact the strength of reaction, whereas the perceived consequence signal positively impacts the speed of reaction. The article concludes with the implications of our study for managers and academics. The relevance to managers was assessed from both the perspective of the incumbent firm that must defend, and that of the rival firm that is introducing the new product.     

Did federal regulation discourage facilities-based entry into US local telecommunications markets?

In the United States from 2001 to 2006, federal regulations allowed entrants to lease from incumbents at relatively low cost all of the network infrastructure necessary to provide local phone service. These platform entrants could then provide phone service without installing any of their own equipment. Advocates of this policy claimed that it was needed to provide an economically feasible means by which entrants could serve residential customers. Critics contended that the policy substantially deterred loop entry whereby entrants installed their own switching equipment. An analysis of panel data for each state over this period indicates that the policy's critics may have been correct. The cross-price elasticity of loop entry with respect to platform price was roughly 1.0. A back of the envelope calculation suggests that loop entry may have decreased by roughly 20% due to platform entry price reductions.     

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.     

Sunk Costs,Accommodation, and the Welfare Effects of Entry

Although economists usually support the unrestricted entry of firms into an industry, entry may lower social welfare if there are setup costs or if entrants have a cost disadvantage. We consider the welfare effects of entry within a standard Cournot model where some of an incumbent firm’s costs are sunk. We find that the range of parameter values over which entry can harm welfare declines monotonically in the fraction of cost that are sunk. Furthermore, the presence of even a small fraction of sunk costs often reverses an assessment that entry harms welfare.     

产品兼容、网络效应与企业竞争力

在网络效应较强的产业中，技术设置的兼容性是左右企业成长的关键因素。随着技术进步、新兴产业的发展和市场竞争的加剧，产品兼容、网络效应对企业竞争力具有越来越重要的意义。在计算机、电信、银行、旅游、媒体、软件等产业中，用户在购买时十分注重产品或服务的兼容性和网络效应。本文以差异产品竞争模型为基础，考察了产品兼容、网络效应对企业竞争力的影响，就在位企业和新进入企业如何利用这两个产品差异变量增强其竞争力进行了分析。     

The learning curve,technology barriers to entry,and competitive survival in the chemical processing industries

This paper evaluates entry and survival rates in a sample of 39 chemical product industries. The analysis focuses on learning-based cost advantages potentially held by incumbent firms. A logit model of entry gives no evidence that entry decisions were sensitive to the cumulative production lead held by incumbents. Entry was facilitated by the fact that for most products, technology was available from a range of sources. A hazard function model reveals that entrant survival rates were unrelated to order of entry or source of process technology. However, survival was adversely affected when the leading incumbent held a large cumulative output advantage or when entrants built plants of sub-optimal scale. Thus, a large incumbent lead in production experience did not deter new entry but did reduce the entrant'S probability of survival.     

INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVE PRESSURE*

I analyze the effects of competition on process innovation and product introduction and obtain robust results that hold for a range of market structures and competition modes. It is found that increasing the number of firms tends to decrease cost reduction expenditure per firm, whereas increasing the degree of product substitutability, with or without free entry, increases it—provided that the average demand for product varieties does not shrink. Increasing market size increases cost reduction expenditure per firm and has ambiguous effects on the number of varieties offered, while decreasing the cost of entry increases the number of entrants and varieties but reduces cost reduction expenditure per variety. The results are extended to other measures of competitive pressure and to investment in product quality. The framework and results shed light on empirical strategies to assess the impact of competition on innovation.     

Big splash,no waves? Cognitive mechanisms driving incumbent firms’ responses to low‐price market entry strategies

Research Summary: Low‐price market entries, aiming for rapid sales growth, tend to prompt strong competitive reactions. This research explores whether and how firms using low‐price entry strategies can mitigate retaliatory incumbent reactions. An experiment with 656 managers shows that entrants can attenuate the strength of incumbents’ responses by fostering perceptions of high aggressiveness or low commitment. Entrants may be able to accomplish this by adjusting their entry strategy to embed (subtle) cues of aggressiveness and (lack of) commitment. A replication experiment with university students reinforces our overall theoretical argument. However, the results also indicate that the interpretation of cues embedded in the entry strategy may be affected by the experience of incumbent firm managers. Overall, these results clarify the cognitive foundations of competitive responses to market entry. Managerial Summary: What drives incumbents to respond strongly to market entries, and what can the entrant, if anything, do to mitigate those responses? This research offers empirical evidence and theoretical insights for managers faced with these questions by shedding light on the thinking processes preceding competitive responses. The study shows that while managers are motivated to respond strongly to market entries that appear to be highly consequential to their business, these responses may be mitigated if the entrant manages to foster perceptions of high aggressiveness or low commitment to the market. Managers form these perceptions in part on the basis of the entrant’s behavior, creating an opportunity for entrants to adjust their entry strategies in a manner that demotivates strong competitive responses.     

Why Do Firms Enter a New Product Market? A Two‐Dimensional Framework for Market Entry Motivation and Behavior

What are the energetic forces that induce established firms to enter new product markets? While most previous research has explained the economic profits expected from a new product market as firms' distinctive motivation for market entry, some recent studies also emphasize interfirm competition and benchmarking activities as another important factor that motivates firms' new market entry. To explain the established firms' diverse new product market entry behaviors, this study presents a two‐dimensional scheme of entry motivation in terms of the degrees of target market profit focus and competitor focus. The first dimension captures the economic motivation of firms' new market entry that ranges from focusing on the direct expected profits from the target market to considering more strategic/indirect benefit incentives. The second dimension captures the degree of firms' external motivation for entry affected by competitors that ranges from independent entry decisions to fully competitor‐oriented entry decisions. Using multiple‐industry survey data, the current study empirically verifies that these two entry motivation dimensions explain a great portion of actual firms' new product market entry behaviors and that they are independent of each other. Subsequently, this study validates that firms' operational size and their environmental factors like perceived technological uncertainty and competitive intensity upon new market entry affect the degrees of the two dimensions of firms' new product market entry motivation. More specifically, large firms less emphasize target‐market profits than small firms, and when perceived technological uncertainty is high, potential market entrants become less target market profit focused but more competitor focused. Under a highly competitive new market condition, firms focus on both target‐market profits and competitors. Based on the analysis of new market entry motivation dimensions, the current study proposes a new typology of established firms' market entry behaviors. The suggested typology represents the four different types of new product market entrants and examines specific characteristics and entry strategies for each type of potential entrants. This entry‐motivation framework should provide a deeper understanding of the backgrounds of entry behaviors and assist firms in developing appropriate entry strategies and in advantageously responding to rival firms' actions with regard to entry.     

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.     

Entrepreneurial failure: Statistical and psychological explanations

Research summary : Entrepreneurial start‐ups suffer high rates of business failure. Previous research on entrepreneurial failure has focused on two kinds of explanations: statistical and psychological. Statistical explanations attribute excess entry to random errors made by boundedly rational entrepreneurs attempting to estimate business opportunities in risky markets. Psychological explanations focus on entrepreneurial overconfidence and competition neglect. These explanations emerged independently and have not been tested or compared in the same study. In this experimental study, we distinguish entrepreneurial markets from other types of markets and test statistical and psychological hypotheses for all market types. We find that excess entry is significantly greater in small, risky markets than in other market types, and that confidence levels account for excess entry, over and above the effects of unbiased statistical errors. Managerial summary : How can we explain the fact that most entrepreneurial ventures fail within five years? Market risk, inadequate capital and inexperienced management certainly play a role. However, from an economic point of view, it seems odd that inexperienced, under‐funded people continue to engage in risky behavior that is widely known to fail. We conducted experiments that tested two explanations of entrepreneurial failure. The first explanation – the statistical hypothesis – argues that entrepreneurship involves high uncertainty, so random errors are inevitable and can produce excess entry (or under‐entry). The second explanation – the psychological hypothesis – says that entrepreneurs' mistakes are not random but skewed heavily toward excess entry; hence, their decisions are distorted by psychological factors such as overconfidence. Our experiments found support for both of these explanations. Random errors under uncertainty explained 60% of the excess entry in our experiments. However, the overconfidence hypothesis correctly predicted that excess entry exceeds under‐entry, and our psychological measures of overconfidence found support in the data. We also found that the markets that most often attract entrepreneurial investment – emerging markets with high uncertainty – were the markets most conducive to excess entry, due to a combination of psychological and market factors. Hence, we conclude that potential entrepreneurs should pay less attention to their own abilities and aspirations, and more attention to the external realities of competition in the marketplace. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.