Instant Messaging and Social Network Sites: Combining Coopetition Strategies and Network Externalities

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 2)

Abstract

In recent years, Instant Messaging (IM) and Social Network Sites (SNS) have became the most important social platform for computer-mediated communication. This study proposes an integrated theoretical framework by combining network externalities and coopetition theory to investigate the strategic behavior of IM and SNS service providers. We show how firms generally coopete instead of competing in order to overcome local network externalities and avoid market segmentation, rival firms divide or partition the overall market into separate segments, with each firm selling to different segments. This indirectly produces network effects between competing products.

Keywords

Local network externalities Coopetition Social networks Instant messaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin, C. P., Tsai, Y. H., Wang, Y-J., Chiu, C. K., (2010). Modeling IT relationship quality and its determinants: A potential perspective of network externalities in e-service. Elsevier p. 2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doganoglu, T., & Grzybowski, L. (2007). Estimating network effects in mobile telephony in Germany. Information Economics and Policy, 19(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banerji, A., & Dutta, B. (2009). Local network externalities and market segmentation. Elsevier International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fjeldstad, Ø., Moen, E. R., Riis, C., (2009) Competition with local network externalities norwegian school of management.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd, D. M., Ellison, N. B., (2008). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 210–230 International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, C-C., Chiu, T. H-Y., Joung, Y-J., and Chen, S., (2011). An examination of online social networksproperties with tie-strength. PACIS 2011 Proceedings Paper 41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., Bradner, E. Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action. Proceedings of CSCW’00, (pp. 79–88).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Page, W. H., & Lopatka, J. E. (2000). Network externalities. In B. Bouckaert & G. D. Geest (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics (pp. 952–980). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goyat, S. (2011). The basis of market segmentation: A critical review of literature. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(9).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayo, J. W., & Wallsten, S. (2011). From network externalities to broadband growth externalities: A bridge not yet built. LLC: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldenberg, J., Libai, M., & Muller, E. (2010). The chilling effects of network externalities Elsevier Intern. Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dagnino G. B., Padula, G. (2002). Coopetition strategy—A new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation, in EURAM “Innovative Research in Management”. Stockholm, 9–11 May.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stein, H. D. (2010). Literature overview on the field of co-opetition. Business Theory and Practice, 11(3), 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., & Galati, F. (2011). Successful co-opetition strategy: evidence from an Italian consortium. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caplan, B., Stringham, E., (2003). Networks, law, and the paradox of cooperation The Review of Austrian Economics, 16:4, 309–326.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management 40 311–320.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks–to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khanna, T. R., & Gulati, N. N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo, Y. (2007). A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business, 42, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Metcalfe, B. (1995). Metcalfe’s law: A network becomes more valuable as it reaches more users. Infoworld, Oct. 2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Odlyzko, A., & Tilly, B. (2005). A refutation of Metcalfe’s law and a better estimate for the value of networks and network interconnections. Digital Technology Center: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (1988). Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economics basis for cooperative ventures. Cooperative strategies in international business, 3–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2003). Tension in Co-opetition. Developments in marketing science, 26, 38–42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1990). Innovation and cooperation: implications for competition and antitrust. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 75–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations