Search

Marketplaces are the quintessential type of business that can profit from network effects: The greater the number of buyers who join one, the more attractive it becomes to sellers, and vice versa. Indeed, marketplaces such as Amazon, Booking.com, and Apple’s App Store have achieved some of the strongest competitive positions imaginable. That’s why entrepreneurs are seeking to build, and venture capitalists are seeking to invest in, the next Airbnb, Uber, or Twitch. But not all marketplaces have the potential to realize strong network effects—the kind that make a marketplace defensible against wannabe competitors. Differentiation among sellers, fragmentation of the seller and buyer bases, the value added by discovery and transaction services, and the importance of seller ratings are all decisive in determining whether a marketplace can flourish. That’s why it is extremely important, both for new and established companies trying to build marketplaces and for their potential investors, to dig deeper into those factors. Drawing on their more than two decades’ worth of research and their own experience as angel investors in some 40 marketplace start-ups, the authors offer a comprehensive list of questions that anyone thinking of launching a marketplace should explore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By making it vastly easier and cheaper to improve or create products and services that previously required significant human labor and creativity, generative AI has the potential to disrupt or even commoditize many businesses. Some companies will be able to gain an edge by leveraging publicly available generative AI tools better or faster than their competitors. But that advantage will be only temporary, and using the tools will soon become table stakes. This means established companies will have to rethink their business strategies and find new ways to add value to their offerings. In this article, the authors consider which types of businesses have the greatest potential to gain competitive advantage from generative AI and which are most likely to be disrupted. They also offer guidance for implementing AI across three levels of sophistication that correspond to an increasingly powerful advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many executives assume that customer data can give you an unbeatable edge. The more customers you have, the more data you can gather, and that data, when analyzed, allows you to offer a better product that attracts more customers. You can then collect even more data, repeating the cycle until you eventually marginalize your competitors. But this thinking is usually wrong. Though the virtuous cycles of data-enabled learning may look similar to those of network effects—wherein an offering increases in value to users as more people adopt it and ultimately garners a critical mass of users that shuts out competitors—they are not as powerful or as enduring. Nevertheless, under the right conditions, customer data can help build competitive defenses. It all depends on whether the data offers high and lasting value, is proprietary, leads to improvements that can’t be easily imitated, or generates insights that can be quickly incorporated. Those characteristics do give firms an advantage. And when learning from one customer rapidly improves an offering for others (think Google Maps), people will care about how many other people are adopting it, and it will enjoy those sought-after network effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large digital multisided platforms (MSPs) such as Amazon, Alibaba, and Apple’s App Store have made it much easier for sellers to reach new customers, but as thousands of companies large and small have discovered, conducting business on them carries significant risks and costs. MSPs sometimes exploit sellers’ dependency on them in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways. They raise fees. They change their recommendation algorithms to put more emphasis on price. They require sellers to advertise to maintain visibility in search results. They compete against sellers by imitating their products. They impose restrictions on the prices sellers can set outside of the MSP. And they change their rules and design in ways that weaken sellers’ relationships with their customers. But all is not lost, say the authors. Sellers can employ four strategies to build viable businesses on platforms. They can develop and invest in direct channels, use platforms mainly as showrooms, go deep with highly specialized offerings or go broad with many different offerings, and wage public relations and lobbying campaigns to curb platforms’ power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many executives assume that customer data can give you an unbeatable edge. The more customers you have, the more data you can gather, and that data, when analyzed, allows you to offer a better product that attracts more customers. You can then collect even more data, repeating the cycle until you eventually marginalize your competitors. But this thinking is usually wrong. Though the virtuous cycles of data-enabled learning may look similar to those of network effects—wherein an offering increases in value to users as more people adopt it and ultimately garners a critical mass of users that shuts out competitors—they are not as powerful or as enduring. Nevertheless, under the right conditions, customer data can help build competitive defenses. It all depends on whether the data offers high and lasting value, is proprietary, leads to improvements that can’t be easily imitated, or generates insights that can be quickly incorporated. Those characteristics do give firms an advantage. And when learning from one customer rapidly improves an offering for others (think Google Maps), people will care about how many other people are adopting it, and it will enjoy those sought-after network effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five of the 10 most valuable companies in the world today—Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft—derive much of their worth from their multisided platforms, which facilitate interactions or transactions between parties. Many MSPs are more valuable than companies in the same industries that provide only products or services: For instance, Airbnb is now worth more than Marriott, the world’s largest hotel chain. However, companies that weren’t born as platform businesses rarely realize that they can—at least partially—turn their offerings into one, say the authors. And even if they do realize it, they often wander in the dark searching for a strategy to achieve this transformation. In this article, Hagiu and Altman provide a framework for doing so. They lay out four specific ways in which products and services can be turned into platforms and examine the strategic advantages and pitfalls of each: (1) opening the door to third parties; (2) connecting customers; (3) connecting products to connect customers; and (4) becoming a supplier to a multisided platform. These ideas can be used by physical as well as online businesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many ways, online marketplaces are the perfect business model. Since they facilitate transactions between independent suppliers and customers rather than take possession of and responsibility for the products or services in question, they have inherently low cost structures and fat gross margins. They are highly defensible once established, owing to network effects. Yet online marketplaces remain extremely difficult to build, say Andrei Hagiu of Harvard Business School and venture capitalist Simon Rothman of Greylock Partners. Most entrepreneurs and investors attribute this to the challenge of quickly attracting a critical mass of buyers and suppliers. But it is wrong to assume that once a marketplace has overcome this hurdle, the sailing will be smooth. Several other important pitfalls can threaten marketplaces: growing too fast too early; failing to foster sufficient trust and safety; resorting to sticks, rather than carrots, to deter user disintermediation; and ignoring the risks of regulation. This article draws on company examples such as eBay, Lending Club, and Airbnb to offer practical advice for avoiding those hazards. INSET: AIRBNB'S REMARKABLE GROWTH.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lured by the success of marketplaces such as eBay, many companies have tried operating as multisided platforms, which let buyers and sellers transact directly with one another. But resellers--which acquire and then resell products and services--often fare better. To determine the right position on the continuum between pure reseller and pure multisided platform, companies must consider four factors: Scale effects. Amazon draws on its formidable scale economies as a reseller for high-demand items but serves as a multisided platform for low-demand products. Aggregation effects. Resellers can extract value from buyers by bundling products and exploiting complementary relationships between them, as Apple has with its iTunes-iPod combination. The buyer and seller experiences. As Zappos realized in its early days as a multisided platform, some buyers do not want to deal with multiple sellers. And individual sellers might have a better experience selling to a reseller than to a buyer in a marketplace. Market failures. Many multisided platforms have avoided collapse by using mechanisms that keep buyers and sellers honest. It can take more than one move for a company to reach its optimal position: Companies that should ultimately be multisided platforms sometimes need to start out as resellers and vice versa. And as the competitive landscape changes, managers must be diligent about reevaluating their positioning. INSETS: How Companies Use Different Sales Models;Creating a Marketplace Is Harder Than It Looks;Creating a Marketplace Is Harder Than It Looks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multisided platforms can lower your transaction costs and increase customer reach. But powerful MSPs like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have also tended to extract most of the value from their platforms, mainly because companies that played with them didn't adequately understand their motives and operating strategies. As a result, firms can easily find themselves ceding control over customers to MSPs or being unwittingly turned into commodities. Hagiu and Yoffie, both professors at Harvard Business School, explore how MSPs can use their power to "hold up" companies that join them. The authors offer guidelines to help managers create an effective strategy for dealing with MSPs, identifying three basic issues that managers must address: (1) Whether to play with existing MSPs, build their own platform, or do both; (2) once they've concluded that at least one third-party MSP can benefit their business, deciding how many to join; and (3) figuring out how to play -- that is, which features or services they should adopt and which they should reject in order to maintain their company's competitive advantage. Some companies that lack the power to influence an MSP's actions may have few options. But many firms -- either on their own or in alliances -- can make choices that will differentiate them from competitors and curb MSPs' power over their businesses [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumers tend to stick with what they know, rather than risk trying something new. In an age of 'personalization,' companies engineer many products so they can appeal to a broad […]

The article discusses labor issues in the services industry in the U.S. as of August 2015, particularly whether the workers are considered as independent contractors or employees, as well as such other topics as the concept of control over supplier-customer interactions.

I study pricing and commitment by platforms in two‐sided markets with the following characteristics: (i) platforms are essential bottleneck inputs for buyers and sellers transacting with each other; (ii) sellers arrive before buyers; and (iii) platforms can charge both fixed fees and variable fees (royalties). I show that a monopoly platform may prefer not to commit to the price it will charge buyers at the same time it announces its seller price if it faces unfavorable seller expectations. With competing platforms, commitment makes the existence of an exclusive equilibrium (in which sellers register with only one platform) less likely, but it has no impact on multi‐homing equilibria (in which sellers support both platforms) whenever these exist.

Companies looking to launch a two-sided platform – between, for example, credit card users and merchants, or search engine users and advertisers – must overcome the reluctance of one side to sign on until it’s confident the other side will be well populated. It’s a common business quandary, but Google and Charles Schwab both found a way around it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses developments in the labor sector in the U.S. as of September 2015, particularly the growing adoption of flexible labor in which workers become independent contractors who can work part-time for a number of companies at the same time.