Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2008

Platform Competition, Compatibility, and Social Efficiency

by Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda

Abstract

Katz and Shapiro (1985) study systems compatibility in settings with one-sided plat- forms and direct network effects. We consider systems compatibility in settings with two-sided platforms and indirect network effects to develop an explanation why markets with two-sided platforms are often characterized by incompatibility with one dominant player who may subsidize access to one side of the market. We find that incompatibility gives rise to asymmetric equilibria with a dominant platform that earns more than under compatibility. We also find that incompatibility generates larger total welfare than compatibility when horizontal differences between platforms are small.

Keywords: Network Effects; One-Sided Platforms; Two-Sided Platforms; Competition;

Language: English

Format: Print

54 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, and Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda. "Platform Competition, Compatibility, and Social Efficiency." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 09–058, October 2008. (Revised November 2009.)

We analyze the implications of consumer privacy for competition in the marketplace. We consider a market where firms set prices and disclosure levels for consumer information and consumers observe both before deciding which firm to patronize and how much information to provide it with. The provision and disclosure of information presents tradeoffs for all market participants. Consumers benefit from providing information to the firm, as this increases the utility they derive from the service, but they incur disutility from information disclosure. This in turn benefits the firm providing an additional source of revenue, but reduces consumer demand for the service. We characterize equilibrium information provision, disclosure levels, and prices as a function of the consumer population's valuation for the service, and show that competition has three main effects on the marketplace. First, competition drives the provision of services with a low level of disclosure. Second, competition ensures that services with a high level of disclosure subsidize consumers. And third, higher competition intensity tends to increase the volume of consumer information disclosed by firms. Our findings are particularly relevant to the business models of Internet firms and contribute to inform the regulatory debate on consumer privacy.

This paper provides the first formal model of business model innovation. Our analysis focuses on sponsor-based business model innovations where a firm monetizes its product through sponsors rather than setting prices to its customer base. We analyze strategic interactions between an innovative entrant and an incumbent where the incumbent may imitate the entrant's business model innovation once it is revealed. The results suggest that an entrant needs to strategically choose whether to reveal its innovation by competing through the new business model or conceal it by adopting a traditional business model. We also show that the value of business model innovation may be so substantial that an incumbent may prefer to compete in a duopoly rather than to remain a monopolist.

In recent years, the concept of the business model has received substantial attention in the strategy literature, where a number of qualitative approaches to describe, represent, and evaluate business models have been proposed. We contend that while helpful to understand a firm's overall logic of value creation and capture, qualitative methods must be complemented with quantitative analyses. The development of quantitative methods for the study of business models, however, has trailed that of their qualitative peers. In this paper, we develop an analytical framework based on the theory of index numbers and production theory to provide quantitative insight on the link between a firm's business model choices and their ultimate profit consequences. We apply the method to Walmart. Using evidence from annual reports, research papers, case studies, and books for the period of 1972–2008, we build a qualitative representation of Walmart's business model. We then map that representation to an analytical model that quantifies Walmart's sources of competitive advantage over a 36-year period. Although Walmart's business model remained the same during the years of our study, we find that the different CEOs pulled a number of business model levers differently, which partly explains the variation in Walmart's performance throughout the years. Under Sam Walton, the company's performance improved due mainly to the adoption of new technologies as well as low prices obtained from vendors. David Glass's tenure was characterized by business model choices aimed at increasing volume such as building new stores, increasing product variety, everyday low prices (EDLP), and high-powered incentives for store managers. Input and output prices played a smaller role under David Glass than under Sam Walton. Finally, Lee Scott loosened EDLP and modified Walmart's human resource practices by offering better benefits and wages to associates in response to growing social pressure. Overall, our analysis suggests that the effectiveness of a particular business model depends not only on its design (its levers and how they relate to one another) but, most importantly, on its implementation (how the business model levers are pulled).

General Information

Academic Programs

Alumni

Faculty & Research

Recruit

Resources

Faculty & Research

Platform Competition, Compatibility, and Social Efficiency

Abstract

About the Author

More from the Author

Contact

Related Links

Resources