Provision of Optional versus Standard Product Features in Competition

Competing brands differ in the extent to which they offer a given feature as standard or optional in their product lines. In this article, the authors study the competitive basis for this difference in brands’ product line strategies. Specifically, they analyze the relationship between a brand's quality image and its propensity to offer a wider product line, from a relatively stripped-down base model to a more feature-rich model. They develop a conceptual framework and hypotheses by considering an analytical model with two vertically differentiated firms: They show that a low-quality firm would offer a feature as optional—that is, it would offer both a feature-added product and a stripped-down base product—if it chose to add the feature to its product. In contrast, a high-quality firm would offer the feature as a standard component unless the cost of the feature was high. This asymmetry in the propensity of high- and low-quality firms to offer optional and standard features with their products is tested using data from the U.S. passenger car market; the authors find empirical support for their model.

[1]  J. Miguel Villas-Boas,et al.  Communication Strategies and Product Line Design , 2004 .

[2]  M. Lieberman The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries , 1984 .

[3]  Richard J. Gilbert,et al.  Product line rivalry with brand differentiation , 1993 .

[4]  J. Miguel Villas-Boas,et al.  Competitive product lines with quality constraints , 2008 .

[5]  S. Pfeifer A Course In Microeconomic Theory , 2016 .

[6]  David P. Myatt,et al.  Multiproduct Cournot Oligopoly , 2005 .

[7]  K. Moorthy,et al.  Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly , 1988 .

[8]  Michael L. Katz,et al.  Firm-Specific Differentiation and Competition among Multiproduct Firms , 1984 .

[9]  K. Moorthy Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design , 1984 .

[10]  G. Urban,et al.  You have printed the following article : Modeling Multiattribute Utility , Risk , and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice , 2007 .

[11]  Preyas S. Desai Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design? , 2001 .

[12]  David P. Myatt,et al.  Forthcoming in American Economic Review , 2022 .

[13]  Jianmin Jia,et al.  What You Don'T Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: the Role of Customer Expectation Distributions , 1999 .

[14]  Mary W. Sullivan How Brand Names Affect the Demand for Twin Automobiles , 1998 .

[15]  Devavrat Purohit,et al.  Exploring the Relationship Between the Markets for New and Used Durable Goods: The Case of Automobiles , 1992 .

[16]  Füsun F. Gönül,et al.  Consumer Learning and Brand Valuation: An Application on Over-the-Counter Drugs , 2004 .

[17]  S. Rosen,et al.  Monopoly and product quality , 1978 .

[18]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Consumer Preference Axioms: Behavioral Postulates for Describing and Predicting Stochastic Choice , 1978 .

[19]  L. Rapping Learning and World War II Production Functions , 1965 .

[20]  A. Shaked,et al.  Relaxing price competition through product differentiation , 1982 .