Researchers disagree about the critical drivers of success in and efficiency of high-tech markets. On the one hand, some researchers assert that high-tech markets are efficient with best-quality brands being dominant. On the other hand, many scholars suspect that network effects lead to perverse markets in which the dominant brands do not have the best quality. The authors develop scenarios about the relative importance of these effects and the efficiency of markets. Empirical analysis of historical data on 19 categories shows that though both quality and network effects affect market share flows, in general markets are efficient. In particular, market share leadership changes often, switches in share leadership closely follow switches in quality leadership, and the best-quality brands, not the ones that are first to enter, dominate the market. Network effects enhance the positive effect of quality.
AakerDavid, and JacobsonRobert, (1994), “The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 191–201.
2.
ArchibaldRobert, HaulmanClyde A., and MoodyCarlisle E.Jr., (1983), “Quality, Price, Advertising, and Published Quality Ratings,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9(March), 347–56.
3.
ArthurBrian, (1989), “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events,”Economic Journal, 99(March), 116–31.
4.
BesenStanley M., and FarrellJoseph, (1994), “Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization,”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 117–31.
5.
BrodieRoderick, and de KluyverC.A., (1984), “Attraction Versus Linear and Multiplicative Market Share Models: An Empirical Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21(May), 194–201.
6.
BrynjolfssonE., and KemererC., (1996), “Network Effects in Microcomputer Software: An Econometric Analysis of the Spreadsheet Market,”Management Science, 42(December), 1627–47.
7.
BuzzellRobert, GaleBradley T., and SultanRalph G.M., (1975), “Market Share: A Key to Profitability,”Harvard Business Review, 53(January–February), 97–106.
8.
ChurchJeffrey, and GandalNeil, (1992), “Network Effects, Software Provision, and Standardization,”Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1), 85–104.
9.
ChurchJeffrey, and GandalNeil, (1993), “Complementary Network Externalities and Technological Adoption,”International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11(12), 239–60.
10.
CurryDavid J., and FauldsDavid J., (1986), “Indexing Product Quality: Issues, Theory, and Results,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 134–43.
11.
FarrellJoseph, and SalonerGarth, (1985), “Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation,”RAND Journal of Economics, 16(1), 70–83.
12.
FarrellJoseph, and SalonerGarth, (1986), “Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Pronouncements and Predation,”American Economic Review, 76(5), 940–55.
13.
GhoshAvijit, NeslinScott, and ShoemakerRobert, (1984), “A Comparison of Market Share Models and Estimation Procedures,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21(May), 202–210.
14.
GolderPeter, (2000), “Historical Method in Marketing Research with New Evidence of Long-Term Market Share Stability,”Journal of Marketing Research, 37(May), 156–72.
15.
GolderPeter, and TellisGerard, (1993), “Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?”Journal of Marketing Research, 30(May), 158–70.
16.
GrangerC.W.J., (1969), “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods,”Econometrica, 37(July), 424–38.
17.
GuptaSachin, JainDipak C., and SawhneyMohanbir S., (1999), “Modeling the Evolution of Markets with Indirect Network Externalities: An Application to Digital Television,”Marketing Science, 18(3), 396–416.
18.
HellofsLinda, and JacobsonRobert, (1999), “Market Share and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality: When Can Firms Grow Their Way to Higher Versus Lower Quality?”Journal of Marketing, 63(January), 16–25.
19.
Hjorth-AndersenChr., (1984), “The Concept of Quality and the Efficiency of Markets for Consumer Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 708–718.
20.
JacobsonRobert, and AakerDavid, (1985), “Is Market Share All That It's Cracked Up to Be?”Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 11–22.
21.
JacobsonRobert, and AakerDavid, (1987), “The Strategic Role of Product Quality,”Journal of Marketing, 51(October), 31–44.
22.
KamakuraWagner A., RatchfordBrian T., and AgrawalJagdish, (1988), “Measuring Market Efficiency and Welfare Loss,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 289–302.
23.
KassarjianHarold, (1977), “Content Analysis in Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 4(June), 8–18.
24.
KatzMichael L., and ShapiroCarl, (1985), “Network Effects, Competition, and Compatibility,”American Economic Review, 75(June), 425–40.
25.
KatzMichael L., and ShapiroCarl, (1986), “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Effects,”Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 822–41.
26.
KatzMichael L., and ShapiroCarl, (1992), “Product Introduction with Network Externalities,”Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1), 55–83.
27.
KatzMichael L., and ShapiroCarl, (1994), “Systems Competition and Network Effects,”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 93–115.
28.
KopallePraveen, and HoffmanDonna L., (1992), “Generalizing the Sensitivity Conditions in an Overall Index of Product Quality,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(March), 530–35.
29.
KordupelskiRaymond E., RustRoland, and ZahorikAnthony J., (1993), “Why Improving Quality Doesn't Improve Quality,”California Management Review, 35(Spring), 82–95.
LiebowitzStan J., and MargolisStephen, (1995), “Path Dependence, Lock-In and History,”Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11(Spring), 205–226.
32.
LiebowitzStan J., and MargolisStephen, (1996), “Should Technology Choice Be a Concern of Antitrust Policy?”Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 9(Summer), 284–318.
33.
LiebowitzStan J., and MargolisStephen, (1999), Winners, Losers & Microsoft.Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.
34.
MaddalaG.S., (1983), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MoorthyK. Sridhar, (1984), “Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design,”Marketing Science, 3(4), 288–305.
36.
MoorthyK. Sridhar, (1988), “Product and Price Competition in a Duopoly,”Marketing Science, 7(2), 141–68.
37.
NairHarikesh, ChintaguntaPradeep, and DubeJean-Pierre, (2004), “Empirical Analysis of Indirect Network Effects in the Market for Personal Digital Assistants,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2(1), 23–58.
38.
PhillipsLynn, ChangDae, and BuzzellRobert D., (1983), “Product Quality, Cost Position, and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses,”Journal of Marketing, 47(Spring), 26–43.
39.
RatchfordBrian, (1980), “The Value of Information for Selected Appliances,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(February), 14–25.
40.
ShankarVenkatesh, and BayusBarry L., (2003), “Network Effects and Competition: An Analysis of the Home Video Game Industry,”Strategic Management Journal, 24(March), 375–84.
41.
ShankarVenkatesh, CarpenterGregory S., and KrishnamurthiLakshman, (1998), “Late Mover Advantage: How Innovative Late Entrants Outsell Pioneers,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35(February), 54–70.
42.
SimsChristopher, A., (1972), “Money, Income and Causality,”American Economic Review, 62(4), 540–52.
43.
SingerJudith D., and WilletJohn B., (1993), “It's About Time: Using Discrete-Time Survival Analysis to Study Duration and Timing of Events,”Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(2), 155–95.
44.
TellisGerard, J., (1988), “The Price Sensitivity of Competitive Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Sales Response Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(November), 331–41.
45.
TellisGerard J., and FornellClaes, (1988), “Advertising and Quality over the Product Life Cycle: A Contingency Theory,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(February), 64–71.
46.
TellisGerard J., and FransesPhilip Hans, (2006), “Optimal Data Interval for Advertising Response Models,”Marketing Science, 25(3), 217–29.
47.
TellisGerard J., and GolderPeter N., (1996), “First to Market, First to Fail? The Real Causes of Enduring Market Leadership,”Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 65–75.
48.
TellisGerard J., and GolderPeter N., (2001), Will and Vision: How Latecomers Grow to Dominate Markets.New York: McGraw-Hill.
49.
TellisGerard J., and JohnsonJoseph, (2007), “Value of Quality: Stock Market Returns to Published Quality Reviews,”Marketing Science, 26(6), 742–56.
50.
TellisGerard J., and WernerfeltBirger, (1987), “Competitive Price and Quality Under Asymmetric Information,”Marketing Science, 6(3), 240–53.
51.
TellisGerard J., and YinEden, (2005), “Network Effects or Quality: What Drives the Success of New High-Tech Products?” working paper, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
52.
ZhaoHao, (2000), “Raising Awareness and Signaling Quality to Uninformed Consumers: A Price Advertising Model,”Marketing Science, 19(4), 390–96.
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.
