Lecture Notes On Network ExternalitiesSloan Schoolof Management 15.013-Industrial Economics for Strategic Decisions Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Robert S. Pindyck Lecture Notes on ...
web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/courses/netex.pdf
DOWNLOAD
| Find Similar
advertisement
Text Previews (text result may be not accurate) SloanSchoolofManagement15.013{IndustrialEconomicsforStrategicDecisions
1
Forahistoryofnetworkbattlesinhomevideogameconsoles,startingin1970,goto
www.thegameconsole.com.
1
1.First,supposeeachconsumerthinksthatnootherconsumerwillbuyafaxmachine.In
thiscase,noconsumerwillwanttobuyafaxmachine,sothateachconsumeris
correct
inhisorherexpectationregardingthepurchasedecisionsofotherconsumers.We
thereforehaveaself-fullledexpectation|eachconsumerhasmadea
rational
decision
nottobuyamachine.
2.Alternatively,supposeeachconsumerbelievesthatmanyotherconsumerswillbuyfax
machines.Then,eachconsumerwillwanttobuyafaxmachine,andindeedmany
consumerswillbuyone.Wenowhaveaverydierentself-fullledexpectation|many
consumershavemadearationaldecisiontobuyafaxmachine,correctlyexpecting
thatotherconsumerswilllikewisebuythem.
Youhavebeenlookingatthisprobleminthecontextofthe\DOS/MAC"exercise,
x
a
+
y
a
W
+
"
1
x
a
x
a
+
y
a
#
L
x
(1)
Taking
x
asgiven,Firm2chooses
y
inthesameway.HenceFirm1'sreactionfunctionis
givenby:
ax
a
1
y
a
(
x
a
+
y
a
)
2
(
W
L
)
1=0(2)
andFirm2'sreactionfunctionisgivenby:
ax
a
y
a
1
(
x
a
+
y
a
)
2
(
W
L
)
1=0(3)
4
(
W
L
)(4)
2
ThisexampleisfromS.M.BesenandJ.Farrell,\ChoosingHowtoCompete:StrategiesandTacticsin
Standardization,"
JournalofEconomicPerspectives
,Spring1994.
3
pricingstrategies.
Figure2a:
X
2.2TheLaggard'sDilemma
youwillalmostsurelylose,andatgreatexpense.
InExercise9,youwillhaveachancetoexplorethe\Laggard'sDilemma,"andseefor
yourselfwhatkindsofstrategiesworkanddon'tworkwhenyouarecomingfrombehind.
Youwilldothisinthecontextofa\DOS-MAC"simulation,inwhichyouwillfaceApple's
situationinthemid-1980's.
3ConnectivityandCompatibility
servicefromSprint.
3
example,BarnesandNoble.comhasconnecteddirectlytoCable&Wireless,whileMITis
providers
B
,
C
,and
D
haveexcellentconnectivityamongthemselves.Inthatcase,most
ISPsandlargecompanieswouldhaveanincentivetoconnecttooneofthem,becausethat
waytheywouldhave60-percentcoverage,andalowerchanceofaconnectivityproblem
thaniftheyuseprovider
A
totippingtowardsoneprogramoranother.Forexample,supposethatthefourprograms
havedierentcommandstructures,andthatProgram
A
adoptadruginthecategoryifalargenumberofotherpatientshavetakenoraretaking
adruginthecategory.Inotherwords,doctorsaremorewillingtoprescribe,andpatients
totake,atypeofdrugifthattypeofdrughasbeen\accepted,"and\acceptance"isbest
measuredbythenumberofotherpeoplethathavetakenorareadruginthattherapeutic
category.
4
ThisresearchisdescribedindetailinErnstR.Berndt,RobertS.Pindyck,andPierreAzoulay,\Con-
sumptionExternalitiesandDiusioninPharmaceuticalMarkets:AntiulcerDrugs,"
JournalofIndustrial
Economics
,June2003.
15
anddynamicdiusionmodelsareestimatedtoexplaintheevolutionofsalesattheindustry
andbrandlevels.Inthesediusionmodels,theadoptionofanydrugwithinthetherapeutic
category,andtheadoptionofaparticularbrandofdrugwithinthatcategory,depends
Eachequationalsohasoneortwovariablesthatareintendedtoidentifyandmeasurethe
inferfromthisthattheimpactofthelevelofpastconsumptionontherateofproduct
diusionoccurs
primarilyatthebrandlevel
.
Table2alsoshowsestimatedtotalown-priceandadvertisingelasticities.Theprice
elasticitiesareontheorderof{0.6to{0.9,andtheadvertisingelasticitiesareontheorderof1
to1.3.Giventhatthemarginalcostofproductionforantiulcerdrugsisverysmall(generally
around10centsto20centsperdailydose),wewouldexpecttheown-priceelasticitiesto
becloseto{1iftheproducersareindeedmaximizingprots.Theestimatedown-price
elasticitiesareindeedintheballparkof{1.Theadvertisingelasticitiesseemlarge,butmay
re
ectarisingmarginalcostofadvertising.
Figure4:MonthlySalesforH
2
-AntagonistDrugs
Figure5:RealPricesofH
2
-AntagonistDrugs
19
Figure6:Quality-AdjustedRealPricesforH
2
-AntagonistDrugs
20
Table1.HedonicPriceEquation
A.DependentVariable=
P
jt
B.DependentVariable=log
P
jt
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
Const.1.35351.41521.39190.51130.54670.5387
(18.82)(18.44)(17.64)(7.47)(7.45)(7.21)
GERD
it
0.18160.23200.18200.12450.14180.1247
(10.72)(13.48)(10.71)(10.50)(13.40)(10.48)
SUMATT
it
{0.01590.0163{0.0156{0.00610.0050{0.0059
({0.98)(1.11)({0.97)({0.49)(0.46)({0.48)
INTER
it
{0.0452{0.0375{0.0452{0.0286{0.0259{0.0285
({16.62)({14.37)({16.59)({14.33)({14.56)({14.29)
DOSAGE
it
{0.1158{0.1194{0.1157{0.1555{0.1566{0.1554
({6.83)({7.41)({6.83)({9.63)({9.91)({9.64)
XS
it
(
1).1758
10
3
.1753
10
3
.6030
10
4
.5998
10
4
(5.49)(5.48)(2.72)(2.71)
XS
t
(
1).4804
10
3
.4265
10
3
.0239
10
3
.3054
10
3
(1.79)(1.50)(1.45)(1.34)
R
2
.966.960.967.970.969.970
ZantacPrice$0.01$0.35$0.30$0.04$0.27$0.25
Premium
Note
:Allregressionsincludeannualandquarterlytimedummies;NOB=441;
t
-statistics(from
Table2.BrandDiusionEquations
NOBS=429
(1)(2)(1)(2)
PastSalesXS
t
3
log[XS
t
3
]
C
(1.25)({1.76)
C
Zantac
2.6309{3.1004
P
(Tagamet){0.7569{0.8202
(1.46)({1.11)({3.73)({2.76)
C
Pepcid
4.2109{2.0477
P
(Zantac){0.8266{0.9388
(1.46)({0.68)({2.46)({1.84)
C
Axid
5.1534{3.9436
P
(Pepcid){0.6490{0.6770
(1.50)({1.35)({5.38)({4.39)
d
0
{0.00240.0612
P
(Axid){0.6357{0.6483
({1.04)(0.13)({6.08)({5.73)
d
1
0.01801.3585
(4.04)(4.57)
b
0
{26.887{49.474
MIN
(Tagamet)1.31041.2794
({2.41)({3.05)(36.74)(28.45)
b
1
{1.0205{1.2366
MIN
(Zantac)1.10211.0639
({1.59)({1.26)(31.48)(21.87)
b
2
5.70409.8617
MIN
(Pepcid)0.96770.9487
(2.73)(3.25)(38.60)(31.42)
b
3
0.21820.1069
MIN
(Axid)1.26721.2442
(2.92)(0.87)(39.29)(32.65)
R
2
.293.200
Note
:Ineachmodel,theconsumptionexternalityisCE
t
=XS
t
orlog[XS
t
],andCE
it
=XS
it
orlog[XS
it
].Weestimatethefollowingmodelbynonlinearleastsquares,usingdataforthe
fourbrands,combinedtoformanunbalancedpanel:
X
it
X
it
3
=[log(^
s
it
X
t
)
log
X
it
3
]
"
C
i
+
12
X
k
=2
k
m
kt
+
d
0
CE
t
3
+
d
1
CE
it
3
#
wherelog
X
t
=
b
0
+
b
1
log
P
t
+
b
2
logPOP
t
+
b
3
logMINSTKTOT
t
.The^
s
it
'saretted
5AStandardsBattle:High-DenitionDVDs
Wediscussedatsomelengththestandardsbattlethatemergednearlythreedecadesago
Table3.DVDSalesandrentals$Billions
YearVHSDVDHigh-defTotal
DVD
1999$12.5$0.8$0.00$13.3
2000$11.8$2.5$0.00$14.3
2001$11.1$6.8$0.00$17.9
2002$9.1$11.6$0.00$20.7
2003$6.1$16.1$0.00$22.2
2004$3.7$21.2$0.00$24.9
2005$1.6$22.8$0.00$24.4
2006$0.4$24.1$0.00$24.5
2007$0.1$23.3$0.27$23.7
2008$0.0$21.6$0.75$22.4
24