Strategic Entry Before Demand Takes Off

References

• Agarwal R., Bayus B. L. The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Management Sci. (2002) 48:1024–1041Link, Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M., Archambault S. E Ink. (1999) . HBS Case 9-800-143. Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Amir R., Lambson V. E. Entry, exit, and imperfect competition in the long run. J. Econom. Theory (2003) 110:191–203Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bourguignon F., Sethi S. P. Dynamic optimal pricing and (possibly) advertising in the face of various kinds of potential entrants. J. Econom. Dynam. Control (1981) 3:119–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabral L. M. B. Experience advantages and entry dynamics. J. Econom. Theory (1993) 59:403–416Crossref, Google Scholar
• Debruyne M., Reibstein D. J. Competitor see, competitor do: Incumbent entry in new market niches. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24:55–66Link, Google Scholar
• Dixit A. A model of duopoly suggesting a theory of entry barriers. Bell J. Econom. (1979) 10:20–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dixit A., Shapiro C., Thomas L. G. Entry dynamics in mixed strategies. The Economics of Strategic Planning (1986) (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) 63–79Google Scholar
• Doraszelski U., Satterthwaite M. Computable Markov-perfect industry dynamics. RAND J. Econom (2010) 41:215–243Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economides N. Network externalities, complementarities, and invitations to enter. Eur. J. Political Econom. (1996) 12:211–232Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ericson R., Pakes A. Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1995) 62:53–82Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D., Tirole J. Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1985) 52:383–402Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D., Tirole J.Game Theory (1995) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D., Gilbert R., Stiglitz J., Tirole J. Preemption, leapfrogging, and competition in patent races. Eur. Econom. Rev. (1983) 22:3–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gallant A. R., Hong H., Khwaja A. Dynamic entry with cross product spillovers: An application to the generic drug industry. (2009) . Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
• Ghemawat P., Nalebuff B. Exit. RAND J. Econom. (1985) 16:184–194Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert R., Harris R. Competition with lumpy investment. RAND J. Econom (1984) 15:197–212Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godes D. B., Ofek E. XM satellite radio (A). (2003) . HBS Case 9-504-009. Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Golder P. N., Tellis G. J. Pioneer advantage: Marketing logic or marketing legend? J. Marketing Res. (1993) 30:158–170Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gowrisankaran G. A dynamic model of endogenous horizontal mergers. RAND J. Econom. (1999) 30:59–83Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L. Consumption flexibility, product configuration, and market competition. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25:116–130Link, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi J. Games with randomly disturbed payoffs: A new rationale for mixed-strategy equilibrium points. Internat. J. Game Theory (1973) 2:1–23Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heffner R. Moving to electric-drive. (2009) Presentation at Conference on New Energy Dynamics: Recession and BeyondApril 27Johns Hopkins University http://www.sais-jhu.edu/bin/g/w/Heffner.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Hopenhayn H. Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium. Econometrica (1992) 60:1127–1150Crossref, Google Scholar
• HybridCars.com Hybrid market forecasts. (2006) September 28). http://www.hybridcars.com/hybrid-drivers/hybrid-market-forecasts.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Jovanovic B. Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica (1982) 50:649–670Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1996) 86:562–583Google Scholar
• Klepper S., Graddy E. The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. RAND J. Econom. (1990) 21:27–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuksov D. Buyer search costs and endogenous product design. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23:490–499Link, Google Scholar
• Lal R. Price promotions: Limiting competitive encroachment. Marketing Sci. (1990) 9:247–262Link, Google Scholar
• Londregan J. Entry and exit over the industry life cycle. RAND J. Econom. (1990) 21:446–458Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mankiw N. G., Whinston M. D. Free entry and social inefficiency. RAND J. Econom. (1986) 17:48–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P., Roberts J. Limit pricing and entry under incomplete information: An equilibrium analysis. Econometrica (1982) 50:443–459Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreno D., Wooders J. Auctions with heterogeneous entry costs. (2009) . Working paper, University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
• Narasimhan C., Zhang Z. J. Market entry strategy under firm heterogeneity and asymmetric payoffs. Marketing Sci. (2000) 19:313–327Link, Google Scholar
• Ofek E., Turut O. To innovate or imitate? Entry strategy and the role of market research. J. Marketing Res. (2008) 45:575–592Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robinson W. T., Kalyanaram G., Urban G. L. First-mover advantages from pioneering new markets: A survey of empirical evidence. Rev. Indust. Organ. (1993) 8:669–678Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shen Q. A dynamic model of entry and exit in a growing industry. (2008) . Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
• Spence A. M. Entry, capacity, investment and oligopolistic pricing. Bell J. Econom. (1977) 8:534–544Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vettas N. On entry, exit, and coordination with mixed strategies. Eur. Econom. Rev. (2000) 44:1557–1576Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao M., Orazem P. F. Does the fourth entrant make any difference? Entry and competition in the early U.S. broadband market. (2009) . Working paper, University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
• Zhang J. The sound of silence: Observational learning in the U.S. kidney market. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29:315–335Link, Google Scholar