Platform markets involve indirect network effects as two or more sides of a market interact through an intermediary platform. Many platform markets consist of both a platform device and corresponding software. In such markets, new software introductions influence incumbent software sales, and new entrants may directly cannibalize incumbents. However, entrants may also create an indirect halo impact by attracting new platform adopters, who then purchase incumbent software. To measure performance holistically, this article introduces a method to quantify both indirect and direct paths and determine which effect dominates and when. The authors identify relevant moderators from the sensations–familiarity framework and conduct empirical tests with data from the video game industry (1995–2019). Results show that the direct impact often results in cannibalization, which generally increases when the entrant is a superstar or part of a franchise. For the indirect halo impact, superstar entrants significantly increase platform adoption, which can help all incumbents. Combining the direct and indirect impacts, the authors find that only new software that is both a superstar and part of a franchise increases platform adoption sufficiently to overcome direct cannibalization and achieve a net positive effect on incumbent software; all other types of entrants have a neutral or negative overall effect.
AgarwalRajshreeBayusBarry L. (2002), “The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations,” Management Science, 48 (8), 1024–41.
2.
AllenB.J.DholakiaUtpalBasuroySuman (2016), “The Economic Benefits to Retailers from Customer Participation in Proprietary Web Panels,” Journal of Retailing, 92 (2), 147–61.
3.
ArellanoManuelBondStephen (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations,” Review of Economic Studies, 58 (2), 277–97.
4.
ArellanoManuelBonhommeStephane (2012), “Identifying Distributional Characteristics in Random Coefficients Panel Data Models,” Review of Economic Studies, 79 (3), 987–1020.
5.
AskinNoahMauskapfMichael (2017), “What Makes Popular Culture Popular? Product Features and Optimal Differentiation in Music,” American Sociological Review, 82 (5), 910–44.
6.
BelkRussell W.GerGulizAskegaardSoren (2002), “The Missing Streetcar Named Desire,” in The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, RatneshwarS.MickD.G.HuffmanC., eds. London: Routledge: 98–199.
BinkenJeroen L.G.StremerschStefan (2009), “The Effect of Superstar Software on Platform Sales in System Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 88–104.
9.
BohnenkampBjörnKnappAnn-KristinHennig-ThurauThorstenSchauerteRicarda (2015), “When Does It Make Sense to Do It Again? An Empirical Investigation of Contingency Factors of Movie Remakes,” Journal of Cultural Economics, 39 (1), 15–41.
10.
BurmesterAlexa B.BeckerJan U.van HeerdeHarald J.ClementMichel (2015), “The Impact of Pre- and Post-Launch Publicity and Advertising on New Product Sales,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (4), 408–17.
11.
ChurchJeffreyGandalNeil (1992), “Network Effects, Software Provision, and Standardization,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 40 (1), 85–103.
12.
ChurchJeffreyGandalNeil (1993), “Complementary Network Externalities and Technological Adoption,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11 (2), 239–60.
13.
ClementsMatthew T.OhashiHiroshi (2005), “Indirect Network Effects and the Product Cycle: Video Games in the U.S.,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 53 (4), 515–42.
14.
CohenMorris A.EliashbergJehoshuaHoTeck H. (2000), “An Analysis of Several New Product Performance Metrics,” Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 2 (4), 337–49.
15.
CortsKenneth S.LedermanMara (2009), “Software Exclusivity and the Scope of Indirect Network Effects in the U.S. Home Video Game Market,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27 (2), 121–36.
16.
CoxJoe (2014), “What Makes a Blockbuster Video Game? An Empirical Analysis of US Sales Data,” Managerial and Decision Economics, 35 (3), 189–98.
17.
DubéJean-Pierre H.HitschGünter J.ChintaguntaPradeep K. (2010), “Tipping and Concentration in Markets with Indirect Network Effects,” Marketing Science, 29 (2), 216–49.
18.
GhoseAnindyaSmithMichael D.TelangRahul (2006), “Internet Exchanges for Used Books: An Empirical Analysis of Product Cannibalization and Welfare Impact,” Information Systems Research, 17 (1), 3–19.
19.
GreeneWilliam H. (2011), Econometric Analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
GretzRichard T.BasuroySuman (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, 89 (3), 281–300.
21.
GretzRichardMalsheAshwinBauerCarlosBasuroySuman (2019), “The Impact of Superstar and Non-Superstar Software on Hardware Sales: The Moderating Role of Hardware Lifecycle,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 394–416.
22.
GrewalRajdeepDharwadkarRavi (2002), “The Role of the Institutional Environment in Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 82–97.
23.
HavivAveryHuangYufengLiNan (2020), “Intertemporal Demand Spillover Effects on Video Game Platforms,” Management Science, 66 (10), 4788–4807.
24.
HealeyJohnMoeWendy M. (2016), “The Effects of Installed Base Innovativeness and Recency on Content Sales in a Platform-Mediated Market,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (2), 246–60.
25.
Hennig-ThurauThorstenHoustonMark B. (2019), Entertainment Science: Data Analytics and Practical Theory for Movies, Games, Books, and Music. New York: Springer Nature.
26.
KimJin-HyukPrinceJeffreyQiuCalvin (2014), “Indirect Network Effects and the Quality Dimension: A Look at the Gaming Industry,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 37, 99–108.
27.
KretschmerTobiasClaussenJörg (2016), “Generational Transitions in Platform Markets—The Role of Backward Compatibility,” Strategy Science, 1 (2), 90–104.
28.
KupferAnn-Kristinvor der HolteNora PählerKüblerRaoul V.Hennig-ThurauThorsten (2018), "The Role of the Partner Brand’s Social Media Power in Brand Alliances," Journal of Marketing, 82 (3), 25–44.
29.
LandsmanVarditStremerschStefan (2011), “Multihoming in Two-Sided Markets: An Empirical Inquiry in the Video Game Console Industry,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (6), 39–54.
30.
LeeRobin (2013), “Vertical Integration and Exclusivity in Platform and Two-Sided Markets,” American Economic Review, 103 (7), 2960–3000.
31.
LeeYikuanO’ConnorGina Colarelli (2003), “New Product Launch Strategy for Network Effects Products,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3) 241–55.
32.
LiuHongju (2010), “Dynamics of Pricing in the Video Game Console Market: Skimming or Penetration?” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 428–43.
33.
MarchandAndre (2016), “The Power of an Installed Base to Combat Lifecycle Decline: The Case of Video Games,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (1), 140–54.
McAlisterLeighPessemierEdgar (1982), “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 311–22.
36.
NevoAviv (2000), “A Practitioner’s Guide to Estimation of Random-Coefficients Logit Models of Demand,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9 (4), 513–48.
37.
NickellStephen (1981), “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects,” Econometrica, 49 (6), 1417–26.
38.
NobleCharles H.KumarMinu (2010), “Exploring the Appeal of Product Design: A Grounded, Value-Based Model of Key Design Elements and Relationships,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (5), 640–57.
39.
ReberRolfSchwarzNorbertWinkielmanPiotr (2004), “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
40.
ReddySrinivas K.HolakSusan L.BhatSubodh (1994), “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2), 243–62.
41.
RietveldJoostSchillingMelissa A. (2021), “Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature,” Journal of Management, 47 (6), 1528–63.
42.
RietveldJoostSchillingMelissa A.BellavitisCristiano (2019), “Platform Strategy: Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements,” Organization Science, 30 (6), 1232–51.
43.
RossiPeter E. (2014), “Invited Paper—Even the Rich Can Make Themselves Poor: A Critical Examination of IV Methods in Marketing Applications,” Marketing Science, 33 (5), 655–72.
44.
RysmanMark (2009), “The Economics of Two-Sided Markets,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (3), 125–43.
45.
ShankarVenkateshBayusBarry L. (2003), “Network Effects and Competition: An Empirical Analysis of the Home Video Game Industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 24 (4), 375–84.
46.
SrinivasanSundara RaghavanRamakrishnanSreeramGrasmanScott E. (2005), “Identifying the Effects of Cannibalization on the Product Portfolio,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23 (4), 359–71.
47.
SriramS.ManchandaPuneetBravoMercedes EstebanChuJunhongMaLiyeSongMinjae, et al. (2015), “Platforms: A Multiplicity of Research Opportunities,” Marketing Letters, 26 (2), 141–52.
48.
StremerschStefanTellisGerard J.FransesPhilip HansBinkenJeroen L.G. (2007), “Indirect Network Effects in New Product Growth,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 52–74.
WooldridgeJeffrey M. (2010), Econometric Analysis of Cross-Section and Panel Data, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
ZhuFengZhangXiaoquan (2010), “Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 133–48.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
