5.7 Network Effects
[5.2 Using Game Theory] [5.3 Classic Game Models] [5.4 Simultaneous Games]
[5.5 Sequential Games] [5.6 Oligopoly]
Another
prominent application of game theory is the study of network effects. Network
effects arise in technology industries where the value of adopting a technology
to an individual is related to other individual’s adoption decisions.
To see this, imagine that you are the only person in the world with a
fax machine. How valuable would your fax machine be to you? Probably not very
valuable. But if your friends, family, colleagues, and business contacts all
had fax machines, then how valuable would your fax machine be? Probably much
more valuable now that a large network of people also own and use fax machines.
The fax machine is a network good; it becomes more valuable
as more and more people own or use it. When a technology increases in value as
more people use it, that technology is said to exhibit network effects.
Network effects can be
described as direct or indirect. Some technologies, such
as e-mail and telephones, have a physical network of users, meaning that actual
connections (phone calls and messages) exist among users. Goods in physical
networks tend to experience direct network effects. Consider
when users purchased telephones. The value of telephones to users was
"directly" determined by the number of users who also owned
telephones. Therefore, the phone was less valuable to users when few people
used it and it became more and more valuable as the network of phone users
grew. When a good's value increases as the number of users increases and
decreases as the number of users decreases, that good is said to experience
direct network effects.
Click on the link here for more
information about network externalities.
However, some goods make up a "virtual" network of users,
meaning that although actual connections do not exist among users, virtual
connections (eg, information and complementary goods
shared among product users) do exist. Goods in virtual networks tend to
experience indirect network effects. For example,
consumers don't value the Microsoft operating system just because a great
number of people use it. However, as more people use Windows®, more
complementary goods become available (eg, software
applications). As more complementary goods become available for Windows®,
users start to value Windows® more. When a good's value to users is
determined by its available complementary goods, it experiences indirect
network effects.
To learn more about direct and indirect network effects, read the example in the following here.
Network effects
can cause the following phenomena in technology markets: positive feedback, tippy markets, lock-in and product success or failure based
on consumer expectations. Any one of these phenomena can affect the type of
strategy firms choose to implement.
The
positive feedback process: As previously stated, as more users buy a particular network good, its
value increases. As its value increases, even more people want to adopt that
good. This starts a "bandwagon" effect, and the product's success
builds on its success. This virtuous cycle is often called positive feedback.
DVD technology
experienced positive feedback. As more people bought DVD players, more movie
titles became available on DVD and more video stores started to offer DVDs.
With more titles and more stores selling DVDs, even more buyers purchased DVDs.
Such positive feedback cycles can continue until the product reaches market saturation and a large array of
complementary products are available for a technology.
Tippy markets: If positive feedback
continues and consumers favour a single technology standard, the market can
"tip" towards one technology, making other technologies obsolete. For
this reason, markets with network effects are often
"winner-takes-all" markets.
To understand how and why a market tips, think of the DVD market. If DVD
players become increasingly popular because of positive feedback, video stores
will eventually stop renting VCR tapes, which will dissuade users from buying
VCRs. As a result, VCRs could eventually become obsolete and tip the market to
DVDs as the video recording technology standard.
For more information on how markets tip, read this here.
Lock-in: Once a large installed base of customers begins
to use one network good, users might face large costs (ie,
switching costs) if they want to switch technologies. Switching costs can
include the price of the new technology and all complementary products, the
time to learn a new technology, and the risk that an insufficient number of
users will adopt. When switching costs prevent users from changing
technologies, users face lock-in. If users are locked into
one established product, firms with new, noncompatible
technologies may have to go to great lengths to encourage users to adopt.
Sony learnt the power of lock-in in 1992 when it launched its MiniDisc. The MiniDisc had all of
the same features of the CD, but it was physically smaller and could record
music. However, by offering only slight improvements with its MiniDisc, Sony could not convince users who were locked
into CDs and CD players to throw away their CD collections and rebuy them on MiniDisc. So
although positive feedback continues for CDs today, MiniDisc
sales remain stagnant.
Consumer expectations: In markets with network effects, consumers often decide to buy the network good they perceive as potentially being the most widely adopted. Therefore, convincing consumers that a technology will be the most widely adopted in the market is often more important than convincing them that it is the best technology. A good strategy that manages consumer expectations can determine the winning product in a market with network effects. For example, Corel Corporation, creator of WordPerfect®, filed suit to block Microsoft from claiming that Microsoft Word® was the world's most popular word-processing software program. Corel clearly developed this strategy to try to prevent losing potential buyers (who could have been convinced that Microsoft Word® would eventually have the bigger network of users).
A key strategic decision for firms in markets with network effects is
whether to choose an open or closed technology standard. Sony and Philips
adopted an open standard for their CD technology. Nintendo, on the other hand,
used a proprietary (or closed) standard when developing its home video game
system. Both companies achieved great success because they critically
considered details about their business, the product, and the market before
making their standard decisions.
When a technology sponsor adopts an open standard, it signs
a licensing agreement that allows other firms to implement its technology,
often for a nominal fee.
What is a closed standard?
When the sponsor chooses a closed
standard, or proprietary
standard, it denies other firms use of its technology and remains
the sole technology provider.
The decision to adopt an
open or closed strategy ultimately rests with the technology sponsor, assuming
there is no government intervention. This decision will influence other
network-related strategies the firm might consider.
Standards can be somewhat
open or closed. For more information, read the following link about hybrid
strategies.
An open standard may
encourage users to adopt a technology. This is equivalent to increasing the
size of the network. If many companies use one technology to make similar
products, consumers are more likely to adopt that technology because they do
not fear being locked-in to a single product. Also, the
presence of competitors will probably lead to price reductions and frequent
technical improvements.
However, enlisting the help
of other companies comes at a cost; competition decreases the technology
sponsor's share of the overall market and puts pressure on prices.
If a firm alone cannot
ignite positive feedback and encourage people to adopt its technology, it
should consider an open standard and allow other companies to license and
promote its technology.
Adopting a closed standard
is riskier than adopting an open standard. After all, to succeed with a closed
standard, a technology sponsor must ignite positive feedback without the help
of other firms and their influence on consumer expectations. In the case that
it succeeds, however, the advantage is clear: The technology sponsor maintains
complete market share in the technology it sponsors, although not necessarily
in the market as a whole, and it does not share profits with a competitor.
Before a firm chooses a
closed standard, it must evaluate the following criteria to determine its
likelihood of success.
Does it have an installed base |
A large and locked-in customer
base from an earlier-generation technology can convince users to adopt a new
(but "backwards-compatible") technology. For example, Microsoft's
operating system (OS) draws its success from its loyal users of earlier,
compatible generations of the Windows® OS. |
Can it protect its |
A firm must be able to keep its
intellectual property for its closed technology secret or legally protected
from imitators
in order to succeed. A closed standard is of little use if a firm cannot
prevent imitators from producing compatible substitutes. A firm using a
closed standard must be able to protect its intellectual property from theft
or imitation. Unless it can do so, it cannot guarantee that it, and not its
imitators, will be the one to profit from the innovation. |
Does it have a first-mover |
A first-mover advantage can help exploit network effects and lock-in
future customers. |
Is the product innovative? |
A closed technology must offer
innovative features, superior performance, and low cost to overcome
consumers' fear of lock-in. Customers may be less likely to purchase from a
firm using a closed standard because, with a single firm as their source,
they fear the adverse future effects of lock-in. For example, Apple Computers
forbade other firms to use its operating system and so customers feared that,
after purchasing an Apple computer, they would only be able to purchase
software made by Apple (whereas many software developers were encouraged to
write software for the IBM PC). Nevertheless, Apple computers achieved
initial success partly because its graphical user interface was easier to use
than its competitors. |
Is the sponsor in control of its |
The control of complementary assets is crucial; a
firm that controls these assets has an advantage over firms that do not. |
Does the firm have brand recognition? |
Brand recognition is important because it can convince
users of a product's potential for success, which can ignite positive
feedback. |
The following illustration shows that, in most cases, firms using open
technology strategies gain a smaller share of a large market, whereas firms
using closed technology strategies gain a larger share of a small market.
Firms can use the following
strategies to ignite positive feedback: alliances, penetration pricing and
product pre-announcements.
Forming
alliances. By forming alliances with complementors, a firm can encourage users to adopt its
technology. When a technology is based on an open standard, customers benefit
from network effects. For example, alliances can encourage users to adopt a
common technology, thereby enhancing demand for all partners' products. In the
early 1990s, microchip manufacturers — such as Sun, MIPS and Motorola — formed
alliances to promote their chips, set standards, and encourage other firms to
write code for their chips.
Click on the link here for
some reasons to ally with complementors
Using penetration
pricing. Penetration pricing (selling a
technology at low to no cost) can help a firm penetrate a market and establish
a critical mass of users. Once a significant number of users buys a product,
however, the technology sponsor must develop a strategy to profit off future
sales of its product. Unfortunately, once a firm offers a product for free to
consumers, it may be difficult to convince consumers to pay for it. Internet
service provider NetZero experienced this challenge.
After it initially offered free Internet access to consumers, it encountered
great consumer resistance when it began charging for this service.
Making product
pre-announcements. Managing expectations is key to success in markets with network
effects. Pre-announcements (ie,
announcing that a product will soon be available) can work to fight off
competitors. After all, customers may not buy your competitors' products if
they are waiting for your product. Pre-announcements in the software business
are called vapourware and are
common.
The
link below shows an example of product pre-announcements:
For example, Microsoft first announced that Windows NT 5.0® would be
released in 1998 and then delayed its release of the product so long that it
renamed its product Windows 2000®. Competitors accused Microsoft of using vapourware tactics.
Note: The legality of product
preannouncements and vapourware has been called into question, so although
these strategies are common, they're not necessarily recommended.
The
outcomes when there are network effects are related to the classic game of the
Deer Hunt. When there are two individuals in that game, there were two equilibria involving the hunters choosing to go after deer
or rabbit. Interestingly, one equilibrium was preferred by both individuals.
This type
of game summarises the issues that arise for technology adoption in the face of
network effects. That is, individual adopters may co-ordinate on a potentially
inferior standard (such as the IBM PC, VHS videos or QWERTY keyboard) and be
unable to change from that situation. When people foresee this type of game,
however, they can undertake actions to change the game and co-ordinate on a
preferred equilibrium. One example of this is the adoption of standards that we
examined above.
Click here for your discussion activity.
Topic Summary
In this
topic you have learnt how to
·
evaluate how network effects can arise when products in a network
increase in value to users as the number of users increases
·
classify network effects can be described as strong, weak, direct and
indirect
·
consider how network effects can cause markets to tip toward one
technology standard and form cycles of positive feedback
·
decide between an open or closed standard
·
to ignite positive feedback, by opening your technology standard,
forming alliances, using penetration pricing strategies, or using product
preannouncements