R.E.

Marks ECL 6-1

R.E. Marks ECL 6-2

Entrants — firms that are new to a market —

threaten incumbents in two ways:
6. Entry and Exit • they take market share away, reducing an
incumbent’s share of the profits pie
In the 1970s Harlequin had 90% of market share
• their entry often intensifies competition,
of “romance novels”. It was the incumbent.
reducing the size of the profits pie.
In 1980 it dumped Simon & Shuster, its
The importance of entry and exit.
distributor (to groceries and drugstores), in order
to become its own distributor. Structural factors (beyond firms’ control) affect
entry and exit decisions.
S&S and several others entered the market, some
using S&S as their distributor. They were the Incumbents’ strategies to reduce the threat of
entrants. entry and/or promote exit by rivals.
By 1983 total sales were up by 60%, but Predatory acts: entry-deterring strategies by
Harlequin’s sales fell by 28% and its share and incumbents that appear to reduce its profits, but
profits fell by 50% which it hopes will add to future profits.

Several months before IBM publicly announced

the OS/2 operating system, in competition with
Microsoft’s Windows, Microsoft got wind of the
new system.
It was able to design significant improvements
into its DOS and Windows systems (or at least
credibly announce such improvements), so that
OS/2 was only slightly better than Windows.
OS/2 never really caught on.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-3 R.E. Marks ECL 6-4

6.1 Some Facts About Entry and Exit 6.1.1 U.S. Evidence
Firm F has entered market M if F introduces a Twenty years of U.S. data.
new good or service into M, and
Hypothetical industry in 1996 with 100 firms, and
a. F previously did not exit (entry by a new combined annual sales of $100 m: average
firm), or incumbent has sales of $1 m per year. Then:
b. was not doing business in M previously 1. Entry and exit will be pervasive.
(entry by a diversifying firm).
By 2001, 30–40 new firms, with combined
Acquisition of an existing firm or plant by a sales of $12–20 m in 1996 dollars.
diversifying conglomerate does not necessarily
About 1⁄2 diversified, about 1⁄2 new firms.
introduce a new product into the market.
∴ not really entry. 30–40 existing firms will have left, also about
$12–20 m in annual sales.
Exit occurs either when a firm ceases to operate
altogether, or ceases to operate in the market in About 40% of exiting firms diversified.
question.
∴ 30–40% turnover in firms, about 12–20%
of volume.
2. Entrants and exiters tend to be smaller than
established firms.
Typical entrant about 1⁄3 of typical
incumbent.
Except entry by diversifying firms that build
new plant (5–10% of all entrants); roughly
same size as average incumbent.
Exiting firms about 1⁄3 size of the average
incumbent.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-5 R.E. Marks ECL 6-6

3. Most entrants don’t survive ten years, but 6.2 Entry & Exit: Basic Concepts
survivors grow very quickly.
A profit-maximising, risk-neutral firm should
Roughly 60% of new entrants in 1996–2001
enter a market if the NPV of expected post-entry
will exit by 2006.
profits > sunk costs of entry.
Survivors will nearly double their size
Possible sunk costs: specialised capital equipment,
between 2001 and 2006.
government licences. See below.
4. Entry and exit rates vary across industries.
For post-entry profits, assess post-entry
High rates of entry: apparel, lumber, competition: conduct and performance of firms.
furniture, printing, fabricated metal.
Consider: historical pricing practices, costs,
High rates of exit: apparel, lumber, furniture, capacity, other markets of incumbents.
printing, leather.
What of barriers to entry?
Little entry: food processing, tobacco, paper,
chemicals, primary metals. 6.2.1 Barriers to Entry
Little exit: tobacco, paper, chemicals,
6.2.1.1 Bain’s Typology of Entry Conditions:
primary metals, petroleum, coal.
Barriers to entry: those factors that allow
incumbents to earn positive economic profits,
Four important implications for strategy: while making it unprofitable for new entrants.
• Future planning: the unknown competitor: Structural barriers: when the incumbent has
1
⁄3 of rivals in five years time will be new. natural cost advantages, or marketing advantages,
or favourable regulations.
• Because of their size, diversifying competitors
who build new plants threaten. They benefit the incumbent even when entry is
ignored.
• Most new ventures fail quickly, but have
capital available for expansion. Entry-deterring strategies: barriers from
incumbents’ explicit actions: capacity expansion,
• Know the entry and exit conditions in one’s
limit pricing, predatory pricing.
industry: powerful or not?
Are entry barriers structural or strategic?
Are entry-deterring strategies desirable?
R.E. Marks ECL 6-7 R.E. Marks ECL 6-8

6.2.1.1.1 Blockaded entry 6.2.1.2 Structural Entry Barriers

If the incumbent need take no entry-deterring • control of essential resources,
strategies to deter entry.
• economies of scale and scope,
Because of structural entry barriers, or
• marketing advantages of incumbent.
because of expected post-entry competition with
homogeneous product. 6.2.1.2.1 Control of essential resources
Risks to acquiring key inputs in order to gain
6.2.1.1.2 Accommodated entry
monopoly status:
If structural barriers are low, and either
1. New sources of input may emerge,
a. entry-deterring strategies will be ineffective, encouraged by the high returns to owners.
or
2. Existing owners may hold out for high prices
b. the costs to the incumbent of trying to deter before selling to the would-be monopolist.
entry > the benefits it could gain from
3. It may be illegal: incumbents with dominant
repelling the entrant.
market share may be forbidden from
Typically markets with growing demand or rapid preventing competitors’ access to key inputs.
technological change.
Mining rights provide a legal entry barrier: only a
single firm has the right to mine in a particular
6.2.1.1.3 Deterred entry
location for a particular resource.
If the incumbent can keep repel the entrant using
Patents provide a legal entry barrier: when the
entry-deterring strategy. Predatory acts.
incumbent has invented a novel and non-obvious
The cost of the deterrence < additional profits in product or production process.
the less competitive market.
How, when, and for how long varies with
Firms should analyse entry conditions to jurisdiction.
determine its actions: understand the size of the
structural entry barriers, consider the likely
consequences of strategic entry barriers.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-9 R.E. Marks ECL 6-10

Sleeping patents: patents to products the patent Case: Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical
holder has no intention of selling: by stopping Industry
competitors from using, to the holder’s cost.
Pharmaceuticals: an expensive and risky venture
Patents may be ineffective: can be “invented to invent and develop new drugs: long R&D times,
around” — is it a new product or an imitation of a long approval times, uncertain demand. Without
protected product? patent protection, no incentive.
Incumbents may file patent protection suits In the late 1960s, Eli Lilly introduced Keflin; in
against entrants whose products are apparently 1971 Keflex: distinct chemical structures, so
different from the incumbent’s. separate patents.
But incumbents may rely on secrecy, not patents, In the ’70s and ’80s top selling prescription drugs
to protect specialised know-how: Coca-Cola exited in the U.S., but others developed distinct chemical
India rather than tell the government its syrup structures and patents too: Merck.
formula.
SmithKline’s Tagamet anti-ulcer drug in 1978 a
best seller, followed by Glaxo’s Zantac in 1984.
When their patents expire soon, both should see a
50% drop in sales as generics compete.
High returns on patented drugs that treat common
Western diseases with few substitutes.
The U.S. F.D.A.’s regulatory requirements meant
a race: patent too soon and the years of effective
monopoly after final approval are reduced, but
patent too late and you might get beaten to the
legal gun by another firm.
The law can provide longer effective protection ,
but simplify testing requirements, and lead to
greater competition.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-11 R.E. Marks ECL 6-12

6.2.1.2.2 Economies of Scale and Scope But there are two costs:
When EOS are significant, incumbents operating • the direct costs of advertising and employing
at or beyond the MES will have a cost advantage and training the sellers;
over smaller entrants
• when the incumbents lose market share to the
entrant, their MCs will fall, → a fall in market
$/unit P.

MC (Q) AC (Q) The entrant’s dilemma: to overcome its cost

..... . disadvantage, it must increase its market
....
..... ..
. ..... share; but, if successful, price competition will
ACE ..... .. ....
.....
....... ... .
....... increase.
........... .. .............
ACMES .............. Only if there is collusion would the P not fall
.. with the entrant’s arrival.
.. .
..
....... Large-scale entry into capital-intensive industries
....... often → fierce P competition:

QE QMES • sometimes the increased rivalry of more

Output per period, Q incumbents
• sometimes predatory pricing by incumbents to
An incumbent will operate at a scale such that any repel entrants by pricing below MC (see below).
P > ACMES will be profitable.
But if an entrant can only attain a much smaller Incumbents may also derive a cost advantage from
scale, then its ACE > ACMES , and only if P > ACE economies of scope:
will entry be profitable. • EOS in production, from the flexibility in
The entrant might enter at a larger scale: materials handling and scheduling from having
multiple production lines under the same roof;
• by spending heavily on advertising before
entering: e.g. Optus’ “ Yes ”
• by investing in the creation of a large sales
force
R.E. Marks ECL 6-13 R.E. Marks ECL 6-14

• EOS in marketing, from the substantial up- 6.2.1.2.3 Marketing Advantages of Incumbency
front expenditures on advertising for a new
Umbrella pricing, when a firm sells different
entrant to establish a minimum level of brand
products under the same brand name, is a special
awareness.
case of economies of scope.
An incumbent has already obtained brand-
Reduces an incumbent’s sunk costs of a new
name awareness, and may be able to use
product introduction, because less need to
existing production and distribution facilities
advertise and product promote to develop
for the new product.
credibility in the eyes of consumers, retailers, and
EOS and economies of scope force a minimum distributors.
scale or product variety on new entrants to achieve
But would not protect against a “lemon” of a new
AC parity with incumbents.
product: few repeat purchases, and fewer first
This is a barrier to the extent that the up-front purchases, after adverse reputation.
entry costs become sunk.
Risk that a lemon new product might:
If they were not sunk, we could see “hit-and-run”
• lead to lower quality perception for the
entry HARE: an entrant comes in at a large scale,
incumbent’s existing range of products;
undercuts incumbents’ prices, and if they retaliate
it exits and recovers its entry costs — leaves • lead rival managers to see the failure of the
incumbents vulnerable to entry even if MES new venture as a sign of the incumbent’s
implied only a single firm in the market. weakness.
Such a situation is rare, and usually significant The umbrella effect might also help with the
sunk up-front commitments necessary to achieve vertical chain of distributors and retailers, and of
cost competitiveness with incumbents means that suppliers.
entry is unattractive to potential entrants, even
though incumbent firms may be profitable.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-15 R.E. Marks ECL 6-16

Both incumbents and new entrants alike may face Case: The Japanese Brewing Industry
high entry barriers when introducing new
Highly concentrated: four firms have 98% of the
experience goods (Lecture 5-43). To get wary
market, and after-tax returns on assets of 3–4%,
consumers to sample their wares:
which is good in Japan with low infration.
• set low introductory prices,
Entry barriers in Japan, as in the U.S. and
• dispense free samples, Australia, are the strong brand identities.
• distribute money-saving coupons Until 1994, a further barrier to entry was
government requirement that a new brewery
• invest heavily in brand identity
produce at least 2 m litres annually.
If a product is high quality, then firms expect
After a reduction in the minimum to 60 k
much repeat business, which will repay the costs
litres/year in 1994, many microbreweries have
of heavy introductory advertising.
opened.
Thus consumers are more willing to sample new
Will cut the big four’s shares and profits, as will
products extensively advertised, correctly
changes in retailing practices:
perceiving them to be of higher quality.
• half of the beer is sold in bars and restaurants,
with loyalty
• most remaining sales in corner bottle shops
• recently, discount liquor shops have cut prices
by 25% below corner shops, and have also
stocked imported beers, at 2⁄3 the cost of
domestics
• entry by imports, and the growth of new retail
channels, will → the big four to lower prices,
lose share, or both
R.E. Marks ECL 6-17 R.E. Marks ECL 6-18

6.2.2 Barriers to Exit P entry – P exit = exit costs.

Exit means ceasing production and redeploying or Exit barriers:
selling off its assets, not a change in ownership.
• Obligations that they must meet whether or
A risk-neutral, profit-maximising firm will exit if not they cease operations:
the opportunity cost (Lecture 1-x) of its assets
— labour agreements (incl. superannuation)
exceeds the PV of remaining in the market.
— commitments to purchase raw materials —
But exit barriers can restrain exit, even when, had
especially for a diversified firm considering
it foreseen the prevailing conditions, the firm
exit of a single market.
would not have entered.
• Relationship-specific assets, with a low resale
$/unit value.
• government restrictions — environmental
MC ATC rehabilitation, etc.
..... . .
....
..... ..
..........
.
.
.. . ....
....... ......... ... .......... AVC
.
...... ....... . ..
P entry ....... ............. ..............................
......... ....... .........
.........................
P exit .
....
.
..
.......
.
....

Output per period, Q

P entry = min ATC, is the price at which the

entrant is indifferent between entering or staying
out.
P exit = min AVC, is the price below which the
incumbent would either liquidate its assets or
redeploy them to another market.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-19 R.E. Marks ECL 6-20

6.3 Entry-Deterring Strategies In most markets, incumbents can adjust prices

rapidly, when entry threatens, so contestability is
Two necessary conditions: limited.
• The incumbent can raise price after it achieves How can an incumbent monopolist deter entrants?
monopoly status.
• Limit pricing (charging a low price before
• The strategy must alter entrants’ expectations entry)
about post-entry competition.
• Predatory pricing (charging a low price to drive
Lest they ignore the strategy.
others out of business)
If a monopolist cannot raise price above MC, the
• Excess capacity (shaping entrants’ expectations
market is perfectly contestable.
of post-entry competition)
Contestability requires “hit-and-run entry”
(above): if a monopolist raises price above MC,
then a HAREntrant rapidly enters the market,
undercuts the price, reaps short-term profits, and
exits just as the incumbent retaliates.
If sunk entry costs are zero (at an extreme), then
HARE is always profitable: P = AC and π = 0,
even with only one incumbent.
More usually, the HAREntrant prospers so long as
it can set a price high enough, and for long
enough, to recover its sunk entry costs.
Contestability shows how the threat of entry can
restrain monopolists. But which industries?
With airlines, the threat of entry leads to a
monopolist to moderate its prices, but not to AC:
not perfectly contestable.
 R.E. Marks ECL 6-21 R.E. Marks ECL 6-22

6.3.1 Limit Pricing If N believed that Year 2 would be Cournot, then

its total π = 11.75 + 0.50 = $12.25 over two years.
The would-be entrant observes the low price set by
the incumbent, infers that the post-entry price Firm N:
would be at least as low, and walks away. “If we set a low Year 1 price, perhaps E will
expect a low post-entry price sufficiently low to
10 deter it, and we can earn monopoly profits in
Demand: Year 2”
8 P = 10 − Q
If Firm N chooses a Year 1 PL = $3/unit, then
6 Firm E:
$/unit • Monopoly
“If N charges $3 as a monopolist, with
4 • Cournot (2-firm) competition it would price lower. Suppose we
• Limit Pricing enter; even if P remains $3, and we sell 1⁄2 of 7
2 units, our π = 2 × 3.5 – 8.50 = –$1.50. ∴ Do
•
MC = $1 not enter.”
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 If N charges $3 in Year 1, successfully deters E,
Quantity Q = Q 1 + Q 2 and charges $5.50 in Year 2, its two-year profit is
$5.50 + $11.75 = $17.25, > $12.25.
Assume sunk FC of $8.50 per year.
6.3.1.1 The Flawed logic of Limit Pricing
Incumbent firm N with no threat of entry would
charge the monopoly price PM $5.50/unit, sell 4.5 Two flaws:
units/year, and make 4.50 × 4.5 – 8.50 = $11.75, or • It doesn’t end after two years
$23.50 undiscounted over two years.
• It relies on an equilibrium that is not subgame
Firm E also has the technology. What is the perfect (Lecture 1-40).
nature of the post-entry competition?
Only if N has a cost advantage over E could N
If E sees N charging $5.50 in Year 1 and concludes deter E indefinitely, by setting P < min AC of E.
that N is unlikely to be an aggressive competitor,
with Cournot equilibrium in Year 2 (at PC =
$4/unit, and Q = 3 + 3 = 6, and with each π = 3 × 3
– 8.50 = 50¢).
R.E. Marks ECL 6-23 R.E. Marks ECL 6-24

Case: Limit Pricing by Xerox Subgame Perfect Equilibrium

Xerox faced competition from electrofax, but Xerox E’s expectations about N’s post-entry pricing are
was 1¢ per copy cheaper, and 1⁄2¢ per copy better irrational:
quality.
Xerox machines were dearer to manufacture, N
however.
Did Xerox limit price? PM PL

Xerox’ monopoly price about 10¢/page, > AC of E E

electrofax.
For small customers (1,000 pages/month), Xerox In Out In Out
charged close to monopoly, which gave electrofax a
profitable opening (→ 25 rival firms). N $23.50 N $17.25
0 0
For large customers (> 2,000 pages/month), Xerox
charged only 5¢/page: consistent with limit PL PC PL PC
pricing, while still covering its AC (only 10
electrofax rivals). $10.25 $12.25 $4 $6
–$1.50 50¢ –$1.50 50¢
By 1978, others were using its technology; Xerox
share of new copiers down to 40%, and prices/page
down 30%, but Xerox still very profitable: implies Solve this game tree using backwards induction
substantial profits even when limit pricing. (Lecture 1-41).
If E enters, then N is always better off with PC
than with limit price PL ; E looks forward and
reasons back to realise this, and Enters.
Since N realises it cannot credibly deter entry, it
prices PM in Year 1.
The incumbent’s threat to price PL even after
Entry is non-credible.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-25 R.E. Marks ECL 6-26

6.3.1.2 So When does Limit Pricing Make Sense? An incumbent with MC = $1, may reason
strategically:
If limit pricing occurs, do firms set prices
irrationally? “If we set P = $5.25, then the entrant will not
know whether we are low or high MC and
Or two types of uncertainty:
might not enter.”
• about the incumbent’s objectives (see Predatory
Because a high-MC incumbent can disguise this, a
Pricing below);
low-MC firm would have to price sufficiently below
• about the incumbent’s costs or the level of $5.25 that an entrant would know that only a
market demand. low-MC firm could price so low: a credible signal.
Then the post-entry price forecasts can be But then a high-MC firm cannot disguise itself,
influenced by the incumbent’s pricing strategy. and should price at PM and accept entry.
Limit pricing may enable the incumbent to If the entrant is uncertain about the level of
influence the entrant’s estimate of its costs, and so demand as well as the incumbent’s MC, then an
the entrant’s expectations of post-entry equilibrium:
profitability.
a. the incumbent’s P < PM and
Incumbent MC of $1 → post-entry Cournot entrant
b. the lower the incumbent’s MC, the lower its
π = $5.
P — signals that MC and/or market demand
Incumbent MC of 50¢ → post-entry Cournot may be low: either sufficient to deter entry.
entrant π of –$10.60.
If the entrant knows the incumbent is not acting
strategically, then the entrant can infer the
incumbent’s MC from its price:
PM = $5.50 → MC = $1, and entry profitable
PM = $5.25 → MC = 50¢, entry unprofitable
R.E. Marks ECL 6-27 R.E. Marks ECL 6-28

6.3.2 Predatory Pricing Again: consider uncertainty.

The preying firm sets its P below cost (AC or If the entrant is uncertain about
short-run MC) in order to drive out others and
• the incumbent’s toughness
reap higher profits at higher P after they’ve gone.
• the incumbent’s costs
6.3.2.1 The Chain-Store Paradox
then the incumbent will want to signal its
The intuition that an incumbent that prices below toughness by pricing low and deterring entry.
cost in one market can deter entry in other
A sufficiently low price will also signal low costs,
markets in the future is wrong.
again deterring entry.
Using backwards induction, there is no further
Even if the costs are known, a reputation for
entry to deter in the last market, and so the
toughness can effectively deter:
incumbent will not engage in predatory pricing.
• by going for market share instead of profits
Looking forward and reasoning backwards, the
entrant will enter, regardless of previous price • by willingness to fiercely compete on price
cuts.
• by announcing a goal of attaining dominant
Similarly, now, in the second-last market, and so market share
on.
In a world in which all entrants could accurately
predict the future course of pricing, predatory
pricing would not deter entry, and would therefore
be irrational.
Experiments with student subjects: no price
slashing.
Yet many firms are seen as slashing prices to deter
entry. Why?
R.E. Marks ECL 6-29 R.E. Marks ECL 6-30

Case: Coffee Wars In 1976 the FTC charged GF with attempted

monopolisation, unfair competition, and price
In 1970 GF’s Maxwell House was best seller in the
discrimination.
Eastern U.S.; P&G’s Folger’s in the West.
But in 1984 GF exonerated: the relevant market
To increase sales of Folger’s in Cleveland, P&G
was the whole U.S., in which GF did not possess
started: TV advertising, retailer’s promotions,
market power:
coupons, in-pack gifts, and mailed free samples.
“MH did not come dangerously close to
GF responded with: mailed and in-pack coupons,
gaining monopoly power as a result of any of
and retailers’ promotional incentives
its challenged conduct in any of the alleged
But Folger’s share grew to 15% after a year. markets. [my emphasis] As a result, its actions
were output-enhancing and pro-competitive —
GF adopted its “defend now” strategy to limit
the kind of conduct the antitrust laws seek to
Folger’s to 10% in the East:
promote.”
• heavy price discounting, “but P ≥ AVC”
• and its “fighting brand,” Horizon
Evidence in the FTC’s investigation that both sold
with P < AVC.
Clearly, GF wanted to signal to P&G its
aggressive defence.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-31 R.E. Marks ECL 6-32

6.3.3 Excess Capacity 6.3.3.1 Entry-Deterring Excess Capacity

Firms hold more capacity than they use for several Assume a single market in which an incumbent is
reasons: threatened by a single firm, with Bertrand post-
entry competition (Lecture 3-32) and with fixed
• lumpiness of adding increments of capacity,
capacity, so that:
(market forces)
• Consumers buy from the lowest-price seller,
• downturns in demand (market forces), and
and
• to blockade entry by altering entrants’ forecasts
• Each firm expects the other to keep its price
of post-entry competition (strategic).
fixed, even if undercut, which gives the
Holding excess capacity may signal the incentive to price cut until P = MC.
incumbent’s willingness to slash prices if entry
occurs 100 ..
..
Indeed, this signal, if effective, may mean that .. Demand:
..
prices are never cut, and so the risk of antitrust 80 .. P = 100 − 1⁄2 Q
..
action in response to limit or predatory pricing .. •
never occurs. ..
60 ...
Excess capacity may deter an entrant with full $/unit MR ...
information about the incumbent’s costs and ..
strategic direction. 40 .. MCLR = $40
..
..
The incumbent’s excess capacity can affect the ..
entrant’s forecasts of post-entry competition, 20 ..
..
which depend on each firm’s costs and capabilities. .. MCSR = $10
..
..
0 .
0 40 80 ..120 . 160 200
Quantity Q
PM = $70 and QI = 60, when capacity costs
$30/unit and each unit produced costs another
$10: the long-run MC is $40/unit, and the short-
run $10/unit.
 R.E. Marks ECL 6-33 R.E. Marks ECL 6-34

With sufficient capacity the incumbent may deter

entry: with KI =100, the entrant stays out lest it
100
Market Demand: P = 100 − 1⁄2 Q make a loss of $50. Besanko’s Table 11.1 shows
that QI = 90 and ΠI = $950.
80
QI = KI = 60 Investment in additional capacity can be a credible
.. commitment to deter entry.
.
60 ... Critical that the capacity investment is sunk: if
.. •
$/unit .. the incumbent could sell its capacity for the full
.. purchase price, then, once entry had occurred,
40 .. MCLR = $40
.. better off selling any capacity above 60.
..
.. The entrant, looking forward and reasoning
20 MR... PRD
.. backwards, would realise this and enter no matter
.. MCSR = $10 how much capacity the incumbent held.
0 .
0 40 80 120 160 200
Quantity Q = QI + QE
The figure shows the entrant’s residual demand
curve (PRD = 70 − 1⁄2 QE ), after it realises that that
the incumbent will cut price to produce QI at
capacity KI .
Here QI = KI = 60, which results in QE = 30 at P =
$55/unit.
Besanko’s Table 11.2 shows how the entrant’s
optimal capacity QE , the market quantity Q, the
price P, and the two firm’s profits vary with the
incumbent’s capacity KI .
R.E. Marks ECL 6-35 R.E. Marks ECL 6-36

6.3.3.2 Judo Economics and the Puppy-Dog Ploy. 6.4 Exit-Promoting Strategies
Suppose an entrant could credibly commit to
During price wars firms sometimes argue that
limiting its output, so that P remained high: judo
their rivals are trying to drive them from the
economics or the “puppy-dog ploy” (Lecture 4-26).
market in order to exercise market power later.
In the above example, so long as the incumbent is
Complaints of “unfairly low prices” occur in
convinced that the entrant will produce no more
international trade disputes, when foreign firms
than 10, and so does not expand capacity, then ΠI
are sometimes accused of dumping: of selling at
= $1,400 at QI = KI = 60 and P = $65 with entry,
prices below cost.
instead of ΠI = $950 at KI = 100 and QI = 90
without entry. Case: How Standard Oil Drove Out its
Competitors
The new Braniff Airlines announced that it would
restrict its flights to a small number of cities and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil grew by
only about 3% the passengers of AA, but AA still exploiting scale and scope economies in refining,
triggered a price war that did for Braniff. distribution, and purchasing; careful organisation
of the vertical chain; and a series of shrewd steps
Why?
to destroy rivals.
• Perhaps AA was setting a predatory price to
“Drawbacks” meant that S.O. (Esso!) was paid a
deter later entry by others.
fee by the rails for every barrel of oil sent to NY by
• Perhaps Braniff’s promise was not credible. a rival: subsidised by its rivals.
The puppy dog may not be able to convince others S.O. had near monopsony power in oil refining and
of its commitment to stay small: it will meet distribution.
aggression.
S.O. came to dominate refining by predatory
pricing: by cutting prices until a recalcitrant
refiner was driven from business. Owned 90% of
U.S. refining, and then squeezed profits out of the
vertical chain.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-37 R.E. Marks ECL 6-38

S.O. aggressively built long-distance pipelines 6.4.1 Wars of attrition

from the fields to the refineries.
Price wars — wars of attrition — hurt all firms in
S.O. was a trust, and hence immune to state anti- the market.
competitive actions.
Larger firms with greater sales may be harmed
Eventually broken up by the “antitrust” Sherman more, even if they have greater capacity to sustain
Act of 1890. losses (“deeper pockets”) than do smaller firms.
Was it predation if the end was acquisition? In a war of attrition the eventual survivor claims
its reward of higher profits, while the loser gets
• Could have been a signal to future rivals, as
nothing and wishes it had never participated.
well as softening the targets.
e.g. Burns, Philp’s herbs and spices division
• Fear of an all-out war of attrition might have
against McCormick Spices.
led to lower prices.
If long and bloody enough, it may be only a pyrrhic
A successful predation strategy can be extremely
victory for the survivor.
costly.
No firm sustains a price war in the belief that it
will lose: the more convinced it is that it will
survive, the more willing to enter and endure.
∴ A role for signalling its capacity for endurance
to its rivals: via lower costs, greater earnings, or
commitment to winning. To encourage their early
exit.
Norman Schwartzkopf: “Show me a good loser, and
I’ll show you a loser.”
Exit barriers will enhance a firm’s position in a
war of attrition: committed to paying for inputs,
compared to firms who can adjust their input
costs.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-39 R.E. Marks ECL 6-40

6.5 Effects of Diversification on Entry and Exit 6.5.2 Diversification, entry, and coordinated pricing
Decisions
A diversified firm entering a new market may
choose a pricing strategy different from a new
Diversification may affect the entry costs, post-
firm’s.
entry profitability, and the nature of post-entry
competition. A natural-monopoly market with room for only one
hamburger vendor: two possible entrants:
6.5.1 Diversification and entry costs
1. the incumbent, with a pizza joint already,
Entry by diversified firms: larger plants (three and
times, on average) than startups’, and more likely
2. a startup firm.
to succeed — U.S. evidence.
Who has the stronger incentive to enter the
Several advantages of diversified firms:
hamburger market?
• Larger, and hence smaller risks to lenders —
Depends :
lower cost of credit;
new venture capitalists have reduced the need • Can the incumbent benefit by coordinating the
for startups to turn to exiting firms for capital. pricing of the two products?
Yes.
• Economies of scope in production, distribution,
and marketing. • Will the incumbent be as willing as the entrant
to fight for supremacy?
No, if the products are substitutes; yes, if
complements.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-41 R.E. Marks ECL 6-42

6.5.2.1 The Efficiency Effect 6.5.2.2 Is Preemption Credible?

In general pizzas and hamburgers are substitutes What if the entrant follows the incumbent into the
(Lecture 3-7). hamburger market?
With no hamburger outlet, the incumbent sets PZ A price war erupts, which cuts demand for pizzas
to maximise pizza profits. too: the incumbent has more to lose, and so may
exit from the hamburger market first.
If a new entrant opens a hamburger outlet, the
demand for pizzas will shift left and so the profit- With two substitutes, the incumbent should
maximising price will fall. consider this eventuality before entering the
hamburger market.
The new entrant would be willing to pay up to its
weekly profit to enter. For complements, however, the incumbent would
benefit from lower prices in both markets, up to a
But the incumbent would be willing to pay more,
point, and outlast the new entrant.
since it could coordinate prices in the two markets
to avoid cannibalising its existing pizza business.
If the two products were complements instead of
substitutes, similar analysis would follow, but the
incumbent would lower prices to boost demand
across both markets, and the incumbent would
have more to gain than a new entrant.
The efficiency effect: “Because competition destroys
industry profits, an incumbent has more incentive
to deter entry than an entrant has to enter.”
In effect the incumbent preempts entry to maintain
its monopoly status.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-43 R.E. Marks ECL 6-44

6.6 Evidence on Entry-Deterring Behaviour Case: DuPont’s Use of Excess Capacity to Control
the Market for Titanium dioxide
Apart from antitrust cases, little evidence of firms
While rivals used the sulphate process, DuPont
pursuing entry-deterring strategies, successful or
used the chloride process to produce TiO2 from
not.
ilmenite, and also low-cost rutile.
Scant evidence because:
New pollution laws ended use of sulphate process
• strategic entry deterrence may be commercially plants, which DuPont foresaw.
sensitive information, and may be illegal;
It predicted a rise in demand for TiO2 , and it
• to determine whether a firm was pricing below preempted its rivals by adding 500,000 t of new
its short-term PM necessary to know the firm’s capacity.
MC, its demand curves, the degree of industry
DuPont estimated its costs were 22% lower than
competition, and the availability of substitutes
its rivals, so they wouldn’t go head to head over
— outside antitrust cases difficult to obtain;
capacity and share.
• what would the rate of entry have been, absent
During the construction, DuPont was vulnerable,
the predatory acts? Difficult to say.
but signalled its rivals not to start capacity
expansion:
• announce the scale of its planned expansion
• falsely announced the start of construction of a
new plant
• and limit priced (P < ATC), which its rivals
refused to match
Since DuPont lacked capacity to supply the whole
market, the two-tier pricing structure persisted,
until demand slackened and the rivals caved lest
they lose the market to DuPont.
After reconsideration, DuPont scaled back its
capacity expansion.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-45 R.E. Marks ECL 6-46

6.6.1 Survey data on entry deterrence 6.6.2 Other evidence

A survey asked major-consumer-product-maker Strategic use of capacity would suggest expansion
managers about their use of entry-deterring unrelated to growth in demand, but no evidence of
strategies: this in the U.S. chemical products industries.
1. aggressive price reductions to move down the Some evidence of occasional limit pricing in other
learning curve (Lecture 2-21) to obtain a cost industries, but no evidence of strategic use of
advantage; excess capacity.
2. intensive advertising to create brand loyalty;
3. acquiring patents for variants of a product;
4. enhancing reputation for predation through
announcements;
5. limit pricing;
6. holding excess capacity.
1–3 create high entry costs; 4–6 alter the entrant’s
forecasts of post-entry competition.
Besanko’s Table 11.3 gives the results.
Over half: at least one frequently; almost all
occasional use of one or more.
1–3 much more popular than 4–6.
More likely for new products than for existing
product, which were often in intense competition
anyway: entry was blockaded.
R.E. Marks ECL 6-47

CONTENTS

6. Entry and Exit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

6.1 Some Facts About Entry and Exit . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.1.1 U.S. Evidence 4
6.2 Entry & Exit: Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.1 Barriers to Entry 6
6.2.1.1 Bain’s Typology of Entry Conditions: 6
6.2.1.1.1 Blockaded entry 7
6.2.1.1.2 Accommodated entry 7
6.2.1.1.3 Deterred entry 7
6.2.1.2 Structural Entry Barriers 8
6.2.1.2.1 Control of essential resources 8
6.2.1.2.2 Economies of Scale and Scope 11
6.2.1.2.3 Marketing Advantages of
Incumbency 14
6.2.2 Barriers to Exit 17
6.3 Entry-Deterring Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3.1 Limit Pricing 21
6.3.1.1 The Flawed logic of Limit Pricing 22
6.3.1.2 So When does Limit Pricing Make Sense? 25
6.3.2 Predatory Pricing 27
6.3.2.1 The Chain-Store Paradox 27
6.3.3 Excess Capacity 31
6.3.3.1 Entry-Deterring Excess Capacity 32
6.3.3.2 Judo Economics and the Puppy-Dog Ploy. 35
6.4 Exit-Promoting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.4.1 Wars of attrition 38
6.5 Effects of Diversification on Entry and Exit Decisions . . . . 39
6.5.1 Diversification and entry costs 39
6.5.2 Diversification, entry, and coordinated pricing 40
6.5.2.1 The Efficiency Effect 41
6.5.2.2 Is Preemption Credible? 42
6.6 Evidence on Entry-Deterring Behaviour . . . . . . . . . 43
6.6.1 Survey data on entry deterrence 45
6.6.2 Other evidence 46

-i-