This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sun, B. Articles by Cao, H. H. Search for Related Content

Product Strategy for Innovators in Markets with Network Effects

Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32616
Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
sunb{at}bschool.unc.edu
jinhong.xie{at}cba.ufl.edu
caoh{at}bschool.unc.edu

This paper examines four alternative product strategies available to an innovating firm in markets with network effects: single-product monopoly, technology licensing, product-line extension, and a combination of licensing and product-line extension. We address three questions. First, what factors affect the attractiveness of each of the four product strategies? Second, under what conditions will any particular strategy dominate the others? Third, what is the impact of licensing fees on the profitability of a licensing strategy? We show that offering a product line utilizes consumer heterogeneity to increase the total user base and is superior to free licensing when the innovator's cost of producing a low-quality product is low and network effects are weak. However, because of the advantage of licensing in generating a larger installed base, free licensing can dominate line extension when network effects are strong, even if the innovator suffers no cost disadvantage compared to the competitor. We also show that paid licensing trumps free licensing when the clone product has a high quality or a low cost, regardless of network effect. Finally, strong network effects make a lump-sum fee more profitable than a royalty fee (or a combination of both) because a royalty fee reduces the licensee's production.

Key Words: network effects; new product strategy; innovation management; licensing; product line; competitive strategy; technological standards; installed base
History: Received: October 22, 2003;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. O. Lauga and E. Ofek Market Research and Innovation Strategy in a Duopoly Marketing Science, March 1, 2009; 28(2): 373 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H.-K. Chien and C. Y. C. Chu Sale or Lease? Durable-Goods Monopoly with Network Effects Marketing Science, November 1, 2008; 27(6): 1012 - 1019. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Jain Digital Piracy: A Competitive Analysis Marketing Science, July 1, 2008; 27(4): 610 - 626. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. Chen and J. Xie Cross-Market Network Effect with Asymmetric Customer Loyalty: Implications for Competitive Advantage Marketing Science, January 1, 2007; 26(1): 52 - 66. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Commentary--Antibusiness Movies and Folk Marketing Marketing Science, November 1, 2006; 25(6): 681 - 685. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hauser, G. J. Tellis, and A. Griffin Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing Science Marketing Science, November 1, 2006; 25(6): 687 - 717. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Editorial: Errors in the Variables, Unobserved Heterogeneity, and Other Ways of Hiding Statistical Error Marketing Science, May 1, 2006; 25(3): 203 - 216. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Jing On the Profitability of Firms in a Differentiated Industry Marketing Science, May 1, 2006; 25(3): 248 - 259. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Guo Consumption Flexibility, Product Configuration, and Market Competition Marketing Science, March 1, 2006; 25(2): 116 - 130. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. K. Kopalle and D. R. Lehmann Setting Quality Expectations When Entering a Market: What Should the Promise Be? Marketing Science, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 8 - 24. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Comments on Competitive Responsiveness Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(1): 3 - 7. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Brand Loyalty Programs: Are They Shams? Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(2): 185 - 193. [Abstract] [PDF]

				X. Li Cheap Talk and Bogus Network Externalities in the Emerging Technology Market Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(4): 531 - 543. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. Shugan Editorial: Consulting, Research, and Consulting Research Marketing Science, January 1, 2004; 23(2): 173 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]