An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior of Base Products and Add-ons Given Compatibility Constraints

References

• Che H, Sudhir K, Seetharaman PB (2007) Bounded rationality in pricing under state-dependent demand: Do firms look ahead, and if so, how far? J. Marketing Res. 44(3):434–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen PY, Forman C (2006) Can vendors influence switching costs and compatibility in an environment with open standards? MIS Quart. 30:541–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choudhary VC, Zhang Z (2016) Bundling add-on products with information goods. Proc. Twenty-second Americas Conf. Inform. Systems.Google Scholar
• David PA, Greenstein S (1990) The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research 1. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 1(1–2):3–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Derdenger D, Kumar V (2013) The dynamic effect of bundling as a product strategy. Marketing Sci. 32(6):827–859.Link, Google Scholar
• Derdenger T (2014) Technological tying and the intensity of price competition: An empirical analysis of the video game industry. Quant. Marketing Econom. 12(2):127–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé JP, Hitsch GJ, Rossi PE (2010) State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia. RAND J. Econom. 41(3):417–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé JP, Hitsch GJ, Rossi PE, Vitorino MA (2008) Category pricing with state-dependent utility. Marketing Sci. 7(3):417–429.Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T (1996) A dynamic analysis of market structure based on panel data. Marketing Sci. 15(4):359–378.Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T, Sun B (2001) Testing for choice dynamics in panel data. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 19(2):142–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Klemperer P (2007) Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. Armstrong M, Porter R, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1967–2072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Simcoe T (2012) Four paths to compatibility. Peitz M, Waldfogel J, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 34–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):505–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gentzkow M (2007) Valuing new goods in a model with complementarity: Online newspapers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):713–744.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon BR (2009) A dynamic model of consumer replacement cycles in the PC processor industry. Marketing Sci. 28(5):846–867.Link, Google Scholar
• Gowrisankaran G, Rysman M (2012) Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable consumer goods. J. Political Econom. 120(6):1173–1219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenstein SM (1993) Did installed base give an incumbent any (measureable) advantages in federal computer procurement? RAND J. Econom. 24(1):19–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadagni PM, Little JDC (1983) A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Sci. 2(3):203–238.Link, Google Scholar
• Hartmann WR, Nair HS (2010) Retail competition and the dynamics of demand for tied goods. Marketing Sci. 29(2):366–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Imai S, Jain N, Ching A (2009) Bayesian estimation of dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica 77(6):1865–1899.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee RS (2013) Vertical integration and exclusivity in platform and two-sided markets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(7):2960–3000.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu H, Chintagunta P, Zhu T (2010) Complementarities and the demand for home broadband Internet services. Marketing Sci. 29(4):701–720.Link, Google Scholar
• Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 90(430):773–795.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424–440.Google Scholar
• Nair H, Chintagunta P, Dubé JP (2004) Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quant. Marketing Econom. 2(1):23–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paulson K (2012) Identification of structural state dependence in brand choice panel data. Working paper, University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
• Seetharaman PB, Chib S, Ainslie A, Boatwright P, Chan T, Gupta S, Mehta N, Rao V, Strijnev A (2005) Models of multicategory choice behavior. Marketing Lett. 16(3–4):239–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sethuraman R, Srinivasan V, Kim D (1999) Asymmetric and neighborhood cross-price effects: Some empirical generalizations. Marketing Sci. 18(1):23–41.Link, Google Scholar
• Song I, Chintagunta PK (2003) Measuring cross-category price effects with aggregate store data. Management Sci. 52(10):1594–1609.Link, Google Scholar
• Sriram S, Chintagunta PK, Agarwal MK (2009) Investigating consumer purchase behavior in related technology product categories. Marketing Sci. 29(2):291–314.Link, Google Scholar
• Viswanathan S (2005) Competing across technology-differentiated channels: The impact of network externalities and switching costs. Management Sci. 51(3):483–496.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhu K, Kraemer KL, Gurbaxani V, Xu SX (2006) Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quart. 30:515–538.Crossref, Google Scholar