Early bird or early worm? First-mover (dis)advantages and the success of web-based social enterprises

被引:14
作者
Halberstadt, Jantje [1 ]
Kollhoff, Sophia [1 ]
Kraus, Sascha [2 ,4 ]
Dhir, Amandeep [3 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vechta, Fac Educ & Social Sci, Business & Ethics, D-49377 Vechta, Germany
[2] Free Univ Bozen Bolzano, Dept Econ & Management, Piazza Univ 1, I-39100 Bolzano, Italy
[3] Univ Agder, Sch Business & Law, Dept Management, Kristiansand, Norway
[4] Univ Johannesburg, Dept Business Management, Johannesburg, South Africa
[5] Norwegian Sch Hotel Management, Fac Social Sci, Stavanger, Norway
[6] North West Univ, Optentia Res Focus Area, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
关键词
Web-based social business; Social entrepreneurship; First mover; Early followers; EARLY-MOVER ADVANTAGES; SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP; MARKET SHARE; ENTRY; INDUSTRY; BUSINESS; PERSONALITY; PLATFORMS; FUTURE; GOODS;
D O I
10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121784
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Achieving the optimal market entry time is of immense strategic importance for entrepreneurs, especially in online markets, where web-based social entrepreneurial activity continues to grow. This raises the question of whether first-mover market entry actually pays off or if market entry as a (later) follower might be the better option. First-mover research has so far not adequately answered this question. Our work contributes to closing this gap by transferring first-mover theory to web-based social enterprises. We expand upon first-mover theory by reflecting on the winner-take-all hypothesis to better illuminate the mechanisms of market structure development and entry decisions. Our empirical data was gathered on various types of web-based social enterprise models in a sample of 12 national markets. Our results show that first-mover advantages are available not only to those who are the very first to market but also to early followers. In addition, the speed of market entry matters. Our work also indicates, however, that first-mover advantages should not be overestimated; market structures and network effects may explain varying results. Furthermore, both business models studied exhibited high market concentration at a mature stage, implying that the winner, although perhaps not taking all, does take most.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 146 条
[1]  
Ade Y., 2020, KNE SOC SCI, V4, DOI [10.18502/kss.v4i4.6499, DOI 10.18502/KSS.V4I4.6499]
[2]   Are network effects really all about size? The role of structure and conduct [J].
Afuah, Allan .
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 2013, 34 (03) :257-273
[3]   The sharing economy and the future of the hotel industry: Transaction cost theory and platform economics [J].
Akbar, Yusaf H. ;
Tracogna, Andrea .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, 2018, 71 :91-101
[4]  
Andersson M., 2013, Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, P1
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1988, The Sources of Innovation
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1990, INDUSTRIAL MARKET STRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
[7]   The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria [J].
Bacq, S. ;
Janssen, F. .
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 23 (5-6) :373-403
[8]   Bundling information goods: Pricing, profits, and efficiency [J].
Bakos, Y ;
Brynjolfsson, E .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1999, 45 (12) :1613-1630
[9]  
Bangani A., 2014, COMP EFFECT SINGLE W
[10]  
Baran K., 2015, 14 INT S INF SCI ISI