Churn, Baby, Churn: Strategic Dynamics Among Dominant and Fringe Firms in a Segmented Industry

This paper integrates and extends the literatures on industry evolution and dominant firms to develop a dynamic theory of dominant and fringe competitive interaction in a segmented industry. It argues that a dominant firm, seeing contraction of growth in its current segment(s), enters new segments in which it can exploit its technological strengths, but that are sufficiently distant to avoid cannibalization. The dominant firm acts as a low-cost Stackelberg leader, driving down prices and triggering a sales takeoff in the new segment. We identify a “churn” effect associated with dominant firm entry: fringe firms that precede the dominant firm into the segment tend to exit the segment, while new fringe firms enter, causing a net increase in the number of firms in the segment. As the segment matures and sales decline in the segment, the process repeats itself. We examine the predictions of the theory with a study of price, quantity, entry, and exit across 24 product classes in the desktop laser printer industry from 1984 to 1996. Using descriptive statistics, hazard rate models, and panel data methods, we find empirical support for the theoretical predictions.

[1]  Dominant Firm Pricing and Fringe Expansion: The Case of the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry, 1907-1930 , 1985 .

[2]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .

[3]  W. Mitchell.  Whether and When? Probability and Timing of Incumbents' Entry into Emerging Industrial Subfields , 1989 .

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

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

[6]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[7]  F. Bass.  The Relationship between Diffusion Rates, Experience Curves, and Demand Elasticities for Consumer Durable Technological Innovations , 1980 .

[8]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[9]  S. Klepper,et al.  Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations , 1982 .

[10]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  The Market Evolution and Take-Off of Product Innovations , 2002 .

[11]  G. Carroll,et al.  Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition.By Michael T. Hannan and Glenn R. Carroll. Oxford University Press, 1992. 286 pp. $29.95 , 1992 .

[12]  Morton I. Kamien,et al.  LIMIT PRICING AND UNCERTAIN ENTRY , 1971 .

[13]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[14]  B. Silverman.  Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics , 1998 .

[15]  Alice P. White.  The Dominant Firm Structure: Theoretical Myth or Empirical Reality? , 1981 .

[16]  D. Gaskins,et al.  Dynamic limit pricing: Optimal pricing under threat of entry , 1971 .

[17]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Boyan Jovanovic,et al.  The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  John M. de Figueiredo,et al.  PRODUCT LAUNCH DECISIONS BY DOMINANT AND FRINGE FIRMS , 2004 .

[20]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history , 2002 .

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

[22]  Paul Stoneman,et al.  The Role of Supply Factors in the Diffusion of New Process Technology , 1983 .

[23]  K. Judd.  Credible Spatial Preemption , 1985 .

[24]  Anthony R White,et al.  Strategic management , 1986 .

[25]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U. S. , 2000 .

[26]  C. F. Phillips.  Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance , 1971 .

[27]  Heather A. Haveman.  Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets , 1993 .

[28]  Cynthia A. Montgomery,et al.  Tobin's q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance , 1988 .

[29]  P. Ghemawat,et al.  The Decline of Dominant Firms, 1905–1929 , 1984 .

[30]  F. Scherer,et al.  Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. , 1971 .

[31]  Janet Bercovitz,et al.  Why Firms Want to Organize Efficiently and What Keeps Them from Doing So: Inappropriate Governance, Performance, and Adaptation in a Deregulated Industry , 2004 .

[32]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly , 2002 .

[33]  Mark J. Roberts,et al.  Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S. Manufacturing Industries , 1988 .

[34]  Michael Gort,et al.  Firm and Product Life Cycles and Firm Survival , 2002 .

[35]  J. Ivery,et al.  Organizational Ecology , 2007 .

[36]  G. Tellis,et al.  Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables , 1997 .

[37]  John M. de Figueiredo,et al.  Surviving the Gales of Creative Destruction: The Determinants of Product Turnover , 2005 .

[38]  S. Klepper.  Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle , 1996 .

[39]  Anne S. Miner.  Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition , 1993 .

[40]  M. Sarkar,et al.  The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: An industry life cycle approach , 2002 .

[41]  J. Eaton,et al.  Product Line Rivalry , 1984 .