Aftermarket (merchandise)

Last updated

Aftermarket in economic literature refers to a secondary market for the goods and services that are complementary or related to the primary market goods, also known as original equipment). [1] [2] [3] In many industries, the primary market consists of durable goods, whereas the aftermarket consists of consumable or non-durable products or services. [4]

Contents

In the moment, aftermarket goods mainly include products and services for replacement parts, upgrade, maintenance and enhancement. [3] [5]

Elements

There are two essential elements of the aftermarket: installed base and vendor lock-in effect. [6] [7] [8]

Installed base

A certain level of installed base of original equipment customers is necessary for the sufficient demand of aftermarket products. [9]

Therefore, significant installed base normally makes aftermarket profitable as an established installed base is likely to consume the aftermarket products repeatedly over the lifespan of their durable goods. [6]

Lock-in effect (also installed-base opportunism)

Lock-in effect or installed-base opportunism refers to the situation where the customers can only purchase the aftermarket goods produced by original equipment manufacturer.

The reasons for a lock-in can be:

These two essentials, installed base and lock-in effect, make aftermarket less volatile relative to primary market and therefore more likely to be profitable. [6] [7]

Strategy

The most well-known aftermarket strategy model is "Gillette's razor and blades business model" also known as "freebie marketing" [6] whereby a product is largely discounted or even free as a loss leader in order to increase the sales of its complementary goods. [9] [10]

Often the durable goods are offered at a low price (or even below marginal cost) in order to attract new customers amid competitive primary markets and the loss from the primary market will be rebated by the profits from consumables in aftermarket. [9] [10] In this case, an established installed base is essential to ensure sustainable business practice. [9]

Tying or bundling of aftermarket products with original equipment also could be the strategies for aftermarket. [10] [11]

Examples

Monopolisation

There have been a significant number of economic literature discussing about the aftermarket monopolisation after US Supreme Court's 1992 decision in the case Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Service . [1] [5] [7] The key issue of the debate is whether the monopolisation in the aftermarket harms customers and social welfare. [1] [4]

Chicago school

The Chicago school economists and advocates of this approach assert that aftermarket monopolization would not be harmful for the following reasons: [7] [13]

In addition, the Chicago school argues that aftermarket monopolization enables manufacturers to afford investments into quality improvement of their original equipment; consumers may benefit from quality primary goods for lower price and overall economic efficiency therefore increases. [2] [3]

Post-Chicago school

In contrast to the Chicago school, the post-Chicago school asserts that the monopolization in the aftermarket could harm consumer welfare as following reasons: [7] [8]

In addition, the post-Chicago school economists argue that the primary market where the investments costs in original equipment are largely subsidized by the profits from its monopolized aftermarket tend to be anti-competitive as entry into a market will be difficult without installed base. [1]

Consensus

Although Chicago school economists assumes that theoretically consumers are farsighted and rational, the results of a number of empirical economic literature insist that consumers are in many cases highly myopic towards the sophisticated choices. Thus, now there is consensus that aftermarket monopolization has potential harms even when consumers are fully informed about the whole lifecycle costs with the competitive primary market.

Following is a list of factors making aftermarket monopolization more harmful. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

A monopoly is a market in which one person or company is the only supplier of a particular good or service. A monopoly is characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular thing, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monopolistic competition</span> Imperfect competition of differentiated products that are not perfect substitutes

Monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that there are many producers competing against each other but selling products that are differentiated from one another and hence not perfect substitutes. In monopolistic competition, a company takes the prices charged by its rivals as given and ignores the impact of its own prices on the prices of other companies. If this happens in the presence of a coercive government, monopolistic competition will fall into government-granted monopoly. Unlike perfect competition, the company maintains spare capacity. Models of monopolistic competition are often used to model industries. Textbook examples of industries with market structures similar to monopolistic competition include restaurants, cereals, clothing, shoes, and service industries in large cities. The "founding father" of the theory of monopolistic competition is Edward Hastings Chamberlin, who wrote a pioneering book on the subject, Theory of Monopolistic Competition (1933). Joan Robinson's book The Economics of Imperfect Competition presents a comparable theme of distinguishing perfect from imperfect competition. Further work on monopolistic competition was undertaken by Dixit and Stiglitz who created the Dixit-Stiglitz model which has proved applicable used in the sub fields of international trade theory, macroeconomics and economic geography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perfect competition</span> Market structure in which firms are price takers for a homogeneous product

In economics, specifically general equilibrium theory, a perfect market, also known as an atomistic market, is defined by several idealizing conditions, collectively called perfect competition, or atomistic competition. In theoretical models where conditions of perfect competition hold, it has been demonstrated that a market will reach an equilibrium in which the quantity supplied for every product or service, including labor, equals the quantity demanded at the current price. This equilibrium would be a Pareto optimum.

Price discrimination is a microeconomic pricing strategy where identical or largely similar goods or services are sold at different prices by the same provider to different buyers based on which market segment they are perceived to be part of. Price discrimination is distinguished from product differentiation by the difference in production cost for the differently priced products involved in the latter strategy. Price discrimination essentially relies on the variation in customers' willingness to pay and in the elasticity of their demand. For price discrimination to succeed, a seller must have market power, such as a dominant market share, product uniqueness, sole pricing power, etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pricing</span> Process of determining what a company will receive in exchange for its products

Pricing is the process whereby a business sets and displays the price at which it will sell its products and services and may be part of the business's marketing plan. In setting prices, the business will take into account the price at which it could acquire the goods, the manufacturing cost, the marketplace, competition, market condition, brand, and quality of the product.

Monopoly profit is an inflated level of profit due to the monopolistic practices of an enterprise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substitute good</span> Economics concept of goods considered interchangeable

In microeconomics, substitute goods are two goods that can be used for the same purpose by consumers. That is, a consumer perceives both goods as similar or comparable, so that having more of one good causes the consumer to desire less of the other good. Contrary to complementary goods and independent goods, substitute goods may replace each other in use due to changing economic conditions. An example of substitute goods is Coca-Cola and Pepsi; the interchangeable aspect of these goods is due to the similarity of the purpose they serve, i.e. fulfilling customers' desire for a soft drink. These types of substitutes can be referred to as close substitutes.

Market penetration refers to the successful selling of a good or service in a specific market. It involves using tactics that increase the growth of an existing product in an existing market. It is measured by the amount of sales volume of an existing good or service compared to the total target market for that product or service. Market penetration is the key for a business growth strategy stemming from the Ansoff Matrix (Richardson, M., & Evans, C.. H. Igor Ansoff first devised and published the Ansoff Matrix in the Harvard Business Review in 1957, within an article titled "Strategies for Diversification". The grid/matrix is utilized across businesses to help evaluate and determine the next stages the company must take in order to grow and the risks associated with the chosen strategy. With numerous options available, this matrix helps narrow down the best fit for an organization.

Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry. Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pricing strategies</span> Approach to selling a product or service

A business can use a variety of pricing strategies when selling a product or service. To determine the most effective pricing strategy for a company, senior executives need to first identify the company's pricing position, pricing segment, pricing capability and their competitive pricing reaction strategy. Pricing strategies and tactics vary from company to company, and also differ across countries, cultures, industries and over time, with the maturing of industries and markets and changes in wider economic conditions.

The six forces model is an analysis model used to give a holistic assessment of any given industry and identify the structural underlining drivers of profitability and competition. The model is an extension of the Porter's five forces model proposed by Michael Porter in his 1979 article published in the Harvard Business Review "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy". The sixth force was proposed in the mid-1990s. The model provides a framework of six key forces that should be considered when defining corporate strategy to determine the overall attractiveness of an industry.

In competition law, before deciding whether companies have significant market power which would justify government intervention, the test of small but significant and non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP) is used to define the relevant market in a consistent way. It is an alternative to ad hoc determination of the relevant market by arguments about product similarity.

A marketing channel consists of the people, organizations, and activities necessary to transfer the ownership of goods from the point of production to the point of consumption. It is the way products get to the end-user, the consumer; and is also known as a distribution channel. A marketing channel is a useful tool for management, and is crucial to creating an effective and well-planned marketing strategy.

In competition law, a relevant market is a market in which a particular product or service is sold. It is the intersection of a relevant product market and a relevant geographic market. The European Commission defines a relevant market and its product and geographic components as follows:

  1. A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use;
  2. A relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the firms concerned are involved in the supply of products or services and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Razor and blades model</span> Business model

The razor and blades business model is a business model in which one item is sold at a low price in order to increase sales of a complementary good, such as consumable supplies. It is different from loss leader marketing and product sample marketing, which do not depend on complementary products or services. Common examples of the razor and blades model include inkjet printers whose ink cartridges are significantly marked up in price, coffee machines that use single-use coffee pods, electric toothbrushes, and video game consoles which require additional purchases to obtain accessories and software not included in the original package.

Customer cost refers not only to the price of a product, but it also encompasses the purchase costs, use costs and the post-use costs. Purchase costs consist of the cost of searching for a product, gathering information about the product and the cost of obtaining that information. Usually, the highest use costs arise for durable goods that have a high demand on resources, such as energy or water, or those with high maintenance costs. Post-use costs encompass the costs for collecting, storing and disposing of the product once the item has been discarded.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket. The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Service parts pricing</span>

Service parts pricing refers to the aspect of service lifecycle management that deals with setting prices for service parts in the after-sales market. Like other streams of pricing, service parts pricing is a scientific pursuit aimed at aligning service part prices internally to be logical and consistent, and at the same time aligning them externally with the market. This is done with the overarching aim of extracting the maximum possible price from service parts and thus maximize the profit margins. Pricing analysts have to be cognizant of possible repercussions of pricing their parts too high or too low in the after-sales market; they constantly have to strive to get the prices just right towards achieving maximum margins and maximum possible volumes.

In marketing and microeconomics, customer switching or consumer switching describes "customers/consumers abandoning a product or service in favor of a competitor". Assuming constant price, product or service quality, counteracting this behaviour in order to achieve maximal customer retention is the business of marketing, public relations and advertising. Brand switching—as opposed to brand loyalty is the outcome of customer switching behaviour.

<i>LePages, Inc. v. 3M</i>

LePage's Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141, is a 2003 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upholding a jury verdict against bundling. Bundling is the setting of the total price of a purchase of several products or services over a period from one seller at a lower level than the sum of the prices of the products or services purchased separately from several sellers over the period. Typically, one of the bundled items is available only from the seller engaging in the bundling, while the other item or items can be obtained from several sellers. The effect of the bundling is to divert purchasers who need the primary product to the bundling seller and away from other sellers of only the secondary product. For that reason, the practice may be held an antitrust violation as it was in the LePage's case, in which the Third Circuit held that 3M engaged in monopolization in violation of Sherman Act § 2 by (1) offering rebates to customers conditioned on purchases spanning six of 3M's different product lines, and (2) entering into contracts that expressly or effectively required dealing exclusively with 3M.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Vootman, John J (1993). "curbing aftermarket monopolisation". J. Legis.
  2. 1 2 Waldman, Michael (2003-01-01). "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 17 (1): 131–154. doi: 10.1257/089533003321164985 . JSTOR   3216843.
  3. 1 2 3 Carlton, Dennis W.; Waldman, Michael (2010-04-01). "Competition, Monopoly, and Aftermarkets". Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 26 (1): 54–91. doi:10.1093/jleo/ewp006. hdl: 10419/262566 . ISSN   8756-6222. S2CID   12821661.
  4. 1 2 Cabral, Luis M. B. (2008-04-01). "Aftermarket Power and Basic Market Competition". SSRN   1281912.
  5. 1 2 Blume, Lawrence E; Durlauf, Steven N, eds. (2012). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2012 Version. doi:10.1057/9781137336583 (inactive 4 December 2024). ISBN   9781137336583.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2024 (link)
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Developing an Aftermarket Strategy". forio.com. 29 June 2003. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coppi, Lorenzo (2007). "Aftermarket monopolization: the emerging consensus in economics". The Antitrust Bulletin. 52 (1): 53. doi:10.1177/0003603X0705200104. S2CID   168924514.
  8. 1 2 Kattan, Joseph (1993-07-01). "Market Power in the Presence of an Installed Base". Antitrust Law Journal. 62 (1): 1–21. JSTOR   40843233.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Jinhyuk, Lee; Jaeok, Park (2014-01-01). "PRICING OF COMPLEMENTARY GOODS AS AN IMPLICIT FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT". Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics. 55 (2): 207–228.
  10. 1 2 3 "Why Aftermarket Power Can Be Bad for Firms - Institut für Strategie, Technologie und Organisation (ISTO) - LMU München". isto.bwl.uni-muenchen.de (in German). Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  11. Economides, Nicholas (2014-10-17). "Bundling and Tying". SSRN   2511508.
  12. "The Inkjet Aftermarket: An Economic Analysis". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
  13. Telser, L. G. (1979-04-01). "A Theory of Monopoly of Complementary Goods". The Journal of Business. 52 (2): 211–230. doi:10.1086/296044. JSTOR   2352194.