Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 167–173 | Cite as

Platform Launch Strategies

  • Christian Stummer
  • Dennis KundischEmail author
  • Reinhold Decker

Multi-sided Platforms and the Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma

Today, digital platforms mediating between independent groups of users account for a total market value of about US-$4.3 trillion and an employment base of several million direct and indirect employees (Evans and Gawer 2016). A multi-sided platform (MSP) – in the literature also referred to as two-sided platform, two-sided market, or multi-sided market – constitutes a market that enables interaction between at least two sets of users through an intermediary, where the decisions of each group of users on either side of the market affects the outcomes of the users on the other side(s) (Rochet and Tirole 2004; Rysman 2009; Hagiu and Wright 2015). MSPs have impressively demonstrated their disruptive potential in well-established global industries. Airbnb, for instance, leads the CNBC disruptor 50 list (CNBC 2017) and, with a market valuation of US-$31 billion, comes second after the Marriott group in the lodging industry (Bensinger 2017...


Multi-sided platform Two-sided market Launch strategy Network effect Chicken-and-egg dilemma Mutual baiting problem 



We sincerely thank Wilhelm Klat for his contribution to an earlier version of this paper. This work was partially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Collaborative Research Centre “On-The-Fly Computing” (SFB 901).


  1. Ackerberg DA, Gowrisankaran G (2006) Quantifying equilibrium network externalities in the ACH banking industry. RAND J Econ 37(3):738–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson EG, Parker GG, Tan B (2014) Platform performance investment in the presence of network externalities. Inf Syst Res 25(1):152–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong M (2006) Competition in two-sided markets. RAND J Econ 37(3):668–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong M, Wright J (2007) Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive contracts. Econ Theory 32(2):353–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakos Y, Katsamakas E (2008) Design and ownership of two-sided networks: implications for internet platforms. J Manag Inf Syst 25(2):171–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensinger G (2017) Airbnb valued at $31 billion after new funding round. Accessed 29 Oct 2017
  7. Binken J, Stremersch S (2009) The effect of superstar software on hardware sales in system markets. J Market 73(2):88–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohn N, Kundisch D (2018) Much more than “same solution using a different technology”: antecedents and consequences of technology pivots in software startups. In: Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, LüneburgGoogle Scholar
  9. Caillaud B, Jullien B (2003) Chicken & egg: competition among intermediation service providers. RAND J Econ 34(2):309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cennamo C, Santalo J (2013) Platform competition: strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strateg Manag J 34(11):1331–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chao Y, Derdenger T (2013) Mixed bundling in two-sided markets in the presence of installed base effects. Manag Sci 59(8):1904–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chu J, Manchanda P (2016) Quantifying cross and direct network effects in online consumer-to-consumer platforms. Market Sci 35(6):870–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clements MT, Ohashi H (2005) Indirect network effects and the product cycle: video games in the US, 1994–2002. J Ind Econ 53(4):515–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CNBC (2017) Meet the 2017 CNBC Disruptor 50 companies. Accessed 29 Oct 2017
  15. Dou G, He P, Xu X (2016) One-side value-added service investment and pricing strategies for a two-sided platform. Int J Prod Res 54(13):3808–3821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2006) Strategies for two-sided markets. Harv Bus Rev 84(10):92–101Google Scholar
  17. Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2008) Opening platforms: how, when and why? Working Paper 09-030, Harvard Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2011) Platform envelopment. Strateg Manag J 32(12):1270–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans DS (2003) Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Rev Netw Econ 2(3):191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans A, Gawer PC (2016) The rise of the platform enterprise: a global survey. Center for Global Enterprise, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Fath G, Sarvary M (2003) Adoption dynamics in buyer-side exchanges. Quant Market Econ 1(3):305–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gazé P, Vaubourg AG (2011) Electronic platforms and two-sided markets: a side-switching analysis. J High Technol Manag Res 22(2):158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagiu A (2009) Two-sided platforms: product variety and pricing structures. J Econ Manag Strateg 18(4):1011–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagiu A, Eisenmann T (2007) A staged solution to the Catch-22. Harv Bus Rev 85(11):25–26Google Scholar
  25. Hagiu A, Rothman S (2016) Network effects aren’t enough. Harv Bus Rev 94(4):65–71Google Scholar
  26. Hagiu A, Spulber D (2013) First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets. Manag Sci 59(4):933–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hagiu A, Wright J (2015) Multi-sided platforms. Int J Ind Organ 43:162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am Econ Rev 75(3):424–440Google Scholar
  29. Kiesling E, Günther M, Stummer C, Wakolbinger LM (2012) Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review. Cent Eur J Oper Res 20(2):183–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuek SC, Paradi-Guilford CM, Fayomi T, Imaizumi S, Ipeirotis P (2015) The global opportunity in online outsourcing. World Bank Group, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Landsman V, Stremersch S (2011) Multihoming in two-sided markets: an empirical inquiry in the video game console industry. J Market 75(6):39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE (1994) Network externalities: an uncommon tragedy. J Econ Perspect 8(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menezes N (2013) What is the story behind the creation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk? Accessed 23 Nov 2016
  34. Muzellec L, Ronteau S, Lambkin M (2015) Two-sided internet platforms: a business model lifecycle perspective. Ind Market Manag 45:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 41(1):223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW (2005) Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Manag Sci 51(10):1494–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW, Choudrary SP (2016) Platform revolution: how networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Ries E (2011) The lean startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Rochet JC, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J Eur Econ Assoc 1(4):990–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rochet JC, Tirole J (2004) Two-sided markets: an overview. Working paper, Institut d’Economie Industrielle, FranceGoogle Scholar
  42. Rochet JC, Tirole J (2006) Two-sided markets: a progress report. RAND J Econ 37(3):645–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rysman M (2004) Competition between networks: a study of the market for yellow pages. Rev Econ Stud 71(2):483–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rysman M (2009) The economics of two-sided markets. J Econ Perspect 23(3):125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schilling M (2003) Winning the standards race: building installed base and the availability of complementary goods. Eur Manag J 17(3):265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shankar V, Bayus BL (2003) Network effects and competition: an empirical analysis of the home video game industry. Strateg Manag J 24(4):375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sokoler D (2011) How to solve the two-sided chicken-and-egg problem: a great harvest! Accessed 23 Nov 2016
  48. Stremersch S, Tellis GJ, Franses PH, Jeroen LG (2007) Indirect network effects in new product growth. J Market 71(3):52–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tucker C, Zhang J (2010) Growing two-sided networks by advertising the user base: a field experiment. Market Sci 29(5):805–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veit D, Clemons E, Benlian A, Buxmann P, Hess T, Kundisch D, Leimeister JM, Loos P, Spann M (2014) Business models: an information systems research agenda. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(1):45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Voigt S, Hinz O (2015) Network effects in two-sided markets: why a 50/50 user split is not necessarily revenue optimal. Bus Res 8(1):139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilbur KC (2008) A two-sided, empirical model of television advertising and viewing markets. Market Sci 27(3):356–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson C, Boe B, Sala A, Puttaswamy K, Zhao BY (2009) User interactions in social networks and their implications. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM European Conference, Nuremberg, pp 205–218Google Scholar
  54. Yoo B, Choudhary V, Mukhopadhyay T (2002) A model of neutral B2B intermediaries. J Manag Inf Syst 19(3):43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhu F, Iansiti M (2012) Entry into platform-based markets. Strateg Manag J 33(1):88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Stummer
    • 1
  • Dennis Kundisch
    • 2
    Email author
  • Reinhold Decker
    • 3
  1. 1.Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Innovations- und TechnologiemanagementUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik, insb. Digitale Märkte, Department Wirtschaftsinformatik, Fakultät für WirtschaftswissenschaftenUniversität PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  3. 3.Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. MarketingUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations