IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/16165.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Challenging the Incumbent: Entry in markets with captive consumers and taste heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Schmutzler, Armin
  • Oertel, Christian

Abstract

We analyze entry of a firm with a new and differentiated product into a market with two properties: An existing incumbent has a captive consumer base, and consumers have heterogeneous tastes. The interaction of the share of captive consumers with the degree of taste heterogeneity leads to non-monotone effects of both parameters on entry. In particular, a higher captive share can support entry when heterogeneity is low but not when it is high, and higher taste heterogeneity (i.e., less product substitutability) can impede entry in the presence of captive consumers. Considering these effects together leads to new insights on entry, horizontal product innovation, and price discrimination.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmutzler, Armin & Oertel, Christian, 2021. "Challenging the Incumbent: Entry in markets with captive consumers and taste heterogeneity," CEPR Discussion Papers 16165, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:16165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP16165
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2017. "The impact of consumer inattention on insurer pricing in the Medicare Part D program," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(4), pages 877-905, December.
    2. Jan Bouckaert & Hans Degryse & Theon Dijk, 2013. "Bertrand Competition with an Asymmetric No-discrimination Constraint," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 62-83, March.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    4. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 1993. "Price Discrimination, Competition and Regulation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 335-359, December.
    5. Jan Boone, 2000. "Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 549-569, Autumn.
    6. Varian, Hal R, 1980. "A Model of Sales," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 651-659, September.
    7. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Michael Raith, 2003. "Competition, Risk, and Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1425-1436, September.
    9. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    10. Mark Armstrong & John Vickers, 2022. "Patterns of Competitive Interaction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 153-191, January.
    11. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    12. Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "Is Competition Good for Innovation? A Simple Approach to an Unresolved Question," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 5(6), pages 355-428, August.
    13. Chioveanu, Ioana, 2008. "Advertising, brand loyalty and pricing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 68-80, September.
    14. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    15. Kardes, Frank R, et al, 1993. "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 62-75, June.
    16. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    17. Johannes Johnen, 2019. "Automatic‐renewal contracts with heterogeneous consumer inertia," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 765-786, November.
    18. Partha Dasgupta & Eric Maskin, 1986. "The Existence of Equilibrium in Discontinuous Economic Games, I: Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(1), pages 1-26.
    19. Arthur Campbell, 2013. "Word-of-Mouth Communication and Percolation in Social Networks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2466-2498, October.
    20. Partha Dasgupta & Eric Maskin, 1986. "The Existence of Equilibrium in Discontinuous Economic Games, II: Applications," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(1), pages 27-41.
    21. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2013. "Product Innovation Incentives: Monopoly vs. Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 513-528, September.
    22. Sinitsyn, Maxim, 2009. "Price dispersion in duopolies with heterogeneous consumers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-205, March.
    23. Schmutzler, Armin, 2013. "Competition and investment — A unified approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 477-487.
    24. Ali Hortaçsu & Seyed Ali Madanizadeh & Steven L. Puller, 2017. "Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 192-226, November.
    25. Murooka, Takeshi & Schwarz, Marco A., 2018. "The timing of choice-enhancing policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 27-40.
    26. Yongmin Chen & Michael H. Riordan, 2008. "Price‐increasing competition," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1042-1058, December.
    27. Anton, James J. & Vander Weide, James H. & Vettas, Nikolaos, 2002. "Entry auctions and strategic behavior under cross-market price constraints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 611-629, May.
    28. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Maxim Sinitsyn, 2008. "Technical Note--Price Promotions in Asymmetric Duopolies with Heterogeneous Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(12), pages 2081-2087, December.
    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. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2015. "Patent rights, product market reforms, and innovation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 223-262, September.
    3. Haucap, Justus & Rasch, Alexander & Stiebale, Joel, 2019. "How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-325.
    4. Pilar Beneito & Paz Coscollá-Girona & María Engracia Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2015. "Competitive Pressure and Innovation at the Firm Level," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 422-457, September.
    5. Yang, Jinrui, 2016. "Monopoly VS Competition: Market Structure’s Impact on Product Innovation-with Endogenous Quality of New Product," MPRA Paper 70094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ramiro de Elejalde & Carlos Ponce & Flavia Roldán, 2018. "Innovation and competition: evidence from Uruguayan firms," Documentos de Investigación 116, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    7. Ronald Goettler & Brett Gordon, 2014. "Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-42, March.
    8. Schmutzler, Armin, 2013. "Competition and investment — A unified approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 477-487.
    9. Mark Armstrong & John Vickers, 2022. "Patterns of Competitive Interaction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 153-191, January.
    10. Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "The relation between competition and innovation -- Why is it such a mess?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7640, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Stiebale, Joel, 2013. "The impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions on the acquirers' R&D — Firm-level evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 307-321.
    12. Bassanini, Andrea & Brunello, Giorgio, 2011. "Barriers to entry, deregulation and workplace training: A theoretical model with evidence from Europe," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 1152-1176.
    13. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    14. Schmutzler, Armin, 2009. "The Relation Between Competition and Investment – Towards a Synthesis," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8tt4457m, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    15. Guidi, Francesco & Solomon, Edna & Trushin, Eshref & Ugur, Mehmet, 2015. "Inverted-U relationship between innovation and survival: Evidence from firm-level UK data," EconStor Preprints 110896, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    17. Hunold, Matthias & Muthers, Johannes, 2019. "Spatial competition and price discrimination with capacity constraints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Aamir Hashmi, 2007. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry," 2007 Meeting Papers 362, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Federico, Giulio & Langus, Gregor & Valletti, Tommaso, 2018. "Horizontal mergers and product innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-23.
    20. Jonathan B. Baker, 2016. "Exclusionary Conduct of Dominant Firms, R&D Competition, and Innovation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(3), pages 269-287, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Entry; Captive consumers; Price discrimination; Product innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cpr:ceprdp:16165. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.