Pioneers' Marketing Mix Reactions to Entry in Different Competitive Game Structures: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Illustration

Pioneers' marketing mix reactions to new entries are recognized as important determinants of the outcome of pioneer-late mover competition, particularly in price-inelastic markets such as those for pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, and luxury goods. Managers in such markets are interested in better...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Marketing Science. - Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. - 16(1997), 3, Seite 271-293
1. Verfasser: Shankar, Venkatesh (VerfasserIn)
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 1997
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Marketing Science
Schlagworte:Competitive Strategy Defensive Strategy Econometric Models Game Theory Marketing Mix Resource Allocation Policy Business Behavioral sciences Economics Social sciences mehr... Political science Applied sciences
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST056346514
003 DE-627
005 20240622022631.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 150324s1997 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST056346514 
035 |a (JST)184225 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Shankar, Venkatesh  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Pioneers' Marketing Mix Reactions to Entry in Different Competitive Game Structures: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Illustration 
264 1 |c 1997 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Pioneers' marketing mix reactions to new entries are recognized as important determinants of the outcome of pioneer-late mover competition, particularly in price-inelastic markets such as those for pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, and luxury goods. Managers in such markets are interested in better understanding when to accommodate (i.e., decrease marketing spending) or retaliate (i.e., increase spending) in nonprice marketing variables such as advertising and salesforce. In addition, the reallocation of marketing resources toward advertising (indicated by a pull strategy) or salesforce (indicated by a push strategy) upon entry is strategically important to managers. Previous theoretical research shows that pioneers should retaliate in both static and growing markets. Results from empirical research are mixed in that they support both accommodation and retaliation in growing markets. Empirical research also shows that a pioneer accommodates (retaliates) with its low (high) elasticity marketing mix variable. Contrary to prior research, however, some pioneers have successfully accommodated late movers in growing markets, and in some cases, have accommodated with their stronger marketing mix variables and also retaliated with their weaker marketing mix variables. For example, Bristol Myers Squibb's Capoten accommodated the entry of Merck's Vasotec in the growing ace-inhibitors market with its more powerful variable, salesforce, but also retaliated with its less potent variable, advertising. Moreover, not much is known about how the pioneer's marketing mix allocation should change (i.e., toward pull vs. push strategies) in response to new entries. We seek to better explain the pioneer's reactions and predict its shift in marketing mix allocation upon new entry. We note that prior research's predictions on the pioneer's reactions are based on a limited number of key factors such as product-market characteristics and the pioneer's elasticities prior to a new entry. In this paper, we extend previous research by adding two other critical factors, namely, the impact of new entry on the pioneer's elasticities and margin, and different competitive game structures to better predict and explain the pioneer's reactions. We develop analytical results on the pioneer's reactions in price, advertising, and salesforce in different competitive games (both Nash and different leader-follower games). In these results we identify the conditions under which the pioneer should accommodate, or retaliate, or not react to a late mover's entry, and shift its marketing mix allocation toward pull versus push strategies. We empirically illustrate some of the analytical results using data from a pharmaceutical category. We show that a pioneer who adopts a follower (leader) role with respect to a marketing mix variable in a static (growing) market, and witnesses a decrease (an increase) in own elasticity and margin upon a new entry, generally should accommodate (retaliate) in that variable. However, we are also able to show that there are cases where these general reactions don't hold. Thus, for example, it is possible for a pioneer to find it optimal to accommodate in a growing market or to retaliate even when its elasticity decreases upon entry, depending on the combination of competitive game, the impact of entry on elasticities and margin, and market growth. In this way, our results point to the fact that it is necessary to look not only at one factor at a time, but instead examine the combination of all the factors. We explain the empirical support for both accommodation and retaliation in growing markets by showing that the pioneer should accommodate (retaliate) a late mover with its competitively low (high) elasticity marketing mix variable. Competitively high (low) elasticity variables are not (are) likely to be significantly reduced by a new entry in the anticipated competitive game. With regard to reallocation of the pioneer's marketing mix, we show that the change in the pioneer's marketing mix allocation should follow the change in the relative marketing mix effectiveness after new entry. This, in turn, depends on the structure of competition, the impact of the late mover on its elasticities and margins, and the competitor's marketing mix elasticities, in addition to own elasticities. The results can guide managers on how factors such as competitive structure, changes in elasticities and margin, and market growth impact the pioneer's marketing mix decisions, and on when to accommodate, retaliate, or not react to a late mover's entry, and shift marketing mix allocation toward pull versus push strategies. 
540 |a Copyright 1997 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences 
650 4 |a Competitive Strategy 
650 4 |a Defensive Strategy 
650 4 |a Econometric Models 
650 4 |a Game Theory 
650 4 |a Marketing Mix 
650 4 |a Resource Allocation Policy 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing  |x Marketing mix 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing  |x Branding  |x Brands 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Human behavior  |x Reciprocal behavior  |x Retaliation 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Business management  |x Sales management  |x Sales growth 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Economic disciplines  |x Financial economics  |x Finance  |x Financial analysis  |x Advertising to sales ratios 
650 4 |a Social sciences  |x Communications  |x Advertising  |x Advertising research 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Government  |x Government officials  |x Elected officials  |x Incumbents 
650 4 |a Applied sciences  |x Research methods  |x Modeling 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Economic disciplines  |x Financial economics  |x Financial market structures  |x Economic competition  |x Imperfect competition  |x Oligopolies  |x Duopolies 
655 4 |a research-article 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Marketing Science  |d Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences  |g 16(1997), 3, Seite 271-293  |w (DE-627)320627799  |w (DE-600)2023536-7  |x 1526548X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:16  |g year:1997  |g number:3  |g pages:271-293 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/184225  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_32 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_187 
912 |a GBV_ILN_224 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2034 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2048 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2055 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2059 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2065 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2068 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2106 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2108 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2113 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2118 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2122 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2129 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2143 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2147 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2148 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2153 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2232 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2472 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2935 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2940 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4246 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 16  |j 1997  |e 3  |h 271-293