Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The conventional wisdom in economic theory holds that switching costs make markets less competitive. This article challenges this claim. The authors formulate an empirically realistic model of dynamic price competition that allows for differentiated products and imperfect lock-in. They calibrate this model with data from frequently purchased packaged goods markets. These data are ideal in the sense that they have the necessary variation to identify switching costs separately from consumer heterogeneity. Equally important, consumers exhibit inertia in their brand choices, a form of psychological switching cost. This makes the results applicable to the broad range of products that are distinctly identified (i.e., branded) rather than just to products for which there is a product adoption cost or explicit switching fee. In the simulations, prices are as much as 18% lower with than without switching costs. More important, equilibrium prices do not increase even in the presence of switching costs that are of the same order of magnitude as product price.

Keywords

switching costs dynamic oligopoly pricing brand loyalty competition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allenby

, and Rossi

P.E.

(1999), “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity,” Journal of Econometrics, 89(1-2), 57–78.

Beggs

, and Klemperer

(1992), “Multi-Period Competition with Switching Costs,” Econometrica, 60(3), 651–66.

Besanko

, Doraszelski

, Kryukov

, and Satterthwaite

(2007), “Learning-by-Doing, Organizational Forgetting, and Industry Dynamics,” working paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Cabral

L.M.B.

(2009), “Small Switching Costs Lead to Lower Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46(August), 449–51.

Cabral

L.M.B.

, and Villas-Boas

(2005), “Bertrand Supertraps,” Management Science, 51(4), 599–613.

Caplin

Andrew

, and Nalebuff

Barry

(1991), “Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium,” Econometrica, 59(1), 25–59.

Che

Hai

, Sudhir

, and Seetharaman

P.B.

(2007), “Bounded Rationality in Pricing Under State-Dependent Demand: Do Firms Look Ahead, and if So, How Far?” Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), 449–51.

Doganoglu

(2005), “Switching Costs, Experience Goods and Dynamic Price Competition,” working paper, Department of Economics, University of Munich.

Doraszelski

, and Satterthwaite

(2005), “Foundations of Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: Existence, Purification, and Multiplicity,” working paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

10.

Dubé

J.P.

, Hitsch

, and Rossi

P.E.

(2008), “State Dependence and Alternative Explanations for Consumer Inertia,” working paper, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago.

11.

Dubé

J.P.

, Hitsch

, and Rossi

P.E.

, and Vitorino

(2008), “Category Management with State-Dependent Utility,” Marketing Science, 27(3), 417–29.

12.

Erdem

(1996), “A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure Based on Panel Data,” Marketing Science, 15(4), 359–78.

13.

Farrell

, and Klemperer

(2007), “Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects,” in Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3, Armstrong

and Porter

, eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1967–2056.

14.

Farrell

, and Shapiro

(1988), “Dynamic Competition with Switching Costs,” RAND Journal of Economics, 19(1), 123–37.

15.

Fudenberg

Drew

, and Miguel Villas-Boas

(2006), “Behavior-Based Price Discrimination and Customer Recognition,” in Handbook on Economics and Information Systems, Hen-dershott

T.J.

, ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 377–436.

16.

Keane

M.P.

(1997), “Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 15(10), 310–27.

17.

Klemperer

(1987), “Markets with Consumer Switching Costs,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 375–94.

18.

Klemperer

(1995), “Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade,” Review of Economic Studies, 62(4), 515–39.

19.

Padilla

A.J.

(1995), “Revisiting Dynamic Duopoly with Consumer Switching Costs,” Journal of Economic Theory, 67(2), 520–30.

20.

Rossi

P.E.

, Allenby

G.M.

, and McCulloch

(2005), Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

21.

Roy

, Chintagunta

P.K.

, and Haldar

(1996), “A Framework for Investigating Habits, ‘The Hand of the Past,’ and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice,” Marketing Science, 15(3), 280–99.

22.

Seetharaman

P.B.

(2004), “Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach,” Marketing Science, 23(2), 263–71.

23.

Seetharaman

P.B.

, Ainslie

Andrew

, and Chintagunta

Pradeep K.

(1999), “Investigating Household State Dependence Effects Across Categories,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(November), 488–500.

24.

Shum

(2004), “Does Advertising Overcome Brand Loyalty? Evidence from the Breakfast-Cereals Market,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 13(2), 241–72.

25.

Viard

Brian

(2007), “Do Switching Costs Make Markets More or Less Competitive? The Case of 800-Number Portability,” RAND Journal of Economics, 38(1), 146–63.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.20 MB

0.00 MB