IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aic/revebs/y2017j20weghakej.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Qwerty Phenomenon: Its Relevance In A World With Creative Destruction

Author

Listed:
  • JENS WEGHAKE

    (Clausthal University of Technology, Institute of Management and Economics, Department of Economics, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany)

  • FABIAN GRABICKI

    (Clausthal University of Technology, Institute of Management and Economics, Department of Economics, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany)

Abstract

Does quality always win? Looking at the critical drivers of success in and efficiency of high-tech markets, two contrasting perspectives exist in the academic sector. One camp argues that the higher quality of a product or service exerts a major influence on its market success. Consequently, an inferior market player should not persist. The opposite group emphasises the importance of network effects, which can lead to lock-ins in inferior situations or being stuck in a bad equilibria accordingly, also known as the QWERTY phenomenon. In this paper, we investigate this debate. We demonstrate that the missing consideration of the status quo bias in previous studies leads to the rejection of the QWERTY phenomenon, which means that independent of the quality offered by a business or service the pure moment of who reaches the customer first, establishes a status quo from which it is hardly possible to escape. We give several examples with inferior market leaders. We suggest that this phenomenon causes only temporary harm, and lock-ins could be overcome by Schumpeterian creative destruction. Therefore, we claim that even if lock-ins exist, they pose no problems as innovative market participants have the opportunity to introduce new business models.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Weghake & Fabian Grabicki, 2017. "The Qwerty Phenomenon: Its Relevance In A World With Creative Destruction," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 20, pages 157-173, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:aic:revebs:y:2017:j:20:weghakej
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rebs.feaa.uaic.ro/articles/pdfs/252.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    2. Sen Geng, 2016. "Decision Time, Consideration Time, And Status Quo Bias," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 433-449, January.
    3. Tanjim Hossain & Dylan Minor & John Morgan, 2011. "Competing Matchmakers: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 1913-1925, November.
    4. S. J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, 1994. "Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 133-150, Spring.
    5. Glenn Ellison & Drew Fudenberg, 2003. "Knife-Edge or Plateau: When Do Market Models Tip?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1249-1278.
    6. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    7. Gretz, Richard T., 2010. "Hardware quality vs. network size in the home video game industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 168-183, November.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    11. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2006. "Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1043-1068, September.
    12. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    13. Marc Rysman, 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 125-143, Summer.
    14. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    15. Gretz, Richard T. & Basuroy, Suman, 2013. "Why Quality May Not Always Win: The Impact of Product Generation Life Cycles on Quality and Network Effects in High-tech Markets," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 281-300.
    16. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif, 2014. "Platform selection in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 168-177.
    17. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1990. "The Fable of the Keys," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-25, April.
    18. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    19. Lam, W., 2015. "Switching Costs in Two-sided Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    20. Tanjim Hossain & John Morgan, 2009. "The Quest for QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 435-440, May.
    21. Raymond S. Hartman & Michael J. Doane & Chi-Keung Woo, 1991. "Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(1), pages 141-162.
    22. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    23. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2010. "Tipping and Concentration in Markets with Indirect Network Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 216-249, 03-04.
    24. Michael Mandler, 2004. "Status quo maintenance reconsidered: changing or incomplete preferences?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(499), pages 518-535, November.
    25. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    2. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    3. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    4. Dean, Mark & Kıbrıs, Özgür & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, 2017. "Limited attention and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 93-127.
    5. Ortoleva, Pietro, 2010. "Status quo bias, multiple priors and uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 411-424, July.
    6. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. P.J. Lamberson & Scott E. Page, 2018. "First mover or higher quality? Optimal product strategy in markets with positive feedbacks," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 40-52, March.
    8. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Stefan Stumpp, 2001. "Wertfunktion der Prospect-Theorie, Produktpräferenzen und Folgerungen für das Marketing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 559-588, September.
    9. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    10. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    11. Tanjim Hossain & John Morgan, 2013. "When Do Markets Tip? A Cognitive Hierarchy Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 431-453, May.
    12. Lu, Jingyi & Xie, Xiaofei, 2014. "To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 47-55.
    13. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif, 2014. "Platform selection in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 168-177.
    14. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    17. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    18. Liu, Jia & Sonntag, Axel & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2022. "Information defaults in repeated public good provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 356-369.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Decarolis, Francesco & Li, Muxin, 2023. "Regulating online search in the EU: From the android case to the digital markets act and digital services act," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    21. Tanjim Hossain & Dylan Minor & John Morgan, 2011. "Competing Matchmakers: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 1913-1925, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aic:revebs:y:2017:j:20:weghakej. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sireteanu Napoleon-Alexandru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feaicro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.