Essay II: Spatial Product Differentiation
The degree of product differentiation of a market is diagnostic of the similarity or dissimilarity of products. It indicates whether products are substitutable or differentiated and therefore constitutes a useful measure of a market’s competitive intensity. The substitutability of products appears to be an appropriate measure of product differentiation. However, its operationalization proves rather complex, especially when it comes to the comparison of product differentiation over time or across markets.
In the present paper, I discuss and develop measures of product differentiation in a multidimensional characteristics space (or in a Hotelling-type market). After specifying the requirements a measure of product differentiation should satisfy, I investigate a number of avenues to measure product differentiation. Interestingly, I am able to illustrate that popular distance measurement functions such as the sum of Euclidean distances or the sum of City Block distances contradict basic notions of product differentiation and therefore contradict the above requirements. Further, I discuss the potential of Weitzman’s measure of diversity to validly measure product differentiation. I offer a transformation of Weitzman’s diversity measure which may turn it into a useful measure of product differentiation. Further, I apply spatial pattern analysis, a technique frequently used in botany, geostatistics, forestry and other research disciplines. From this starting point, I present several indices, functions and statistics based on nearest neighbor distances and discuss their ability to describe product differentiation in the marketing discipline.
KeywordsCharacteristic Space Product Differentiation Nearest Neighbor Neighbor Distance Neighbor Analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson, Simon P., Andre De Palma, Jacques-Francois Thisse. 1992. Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Besanko, David, David Dranove, Mark Shanley, Scott Schaefer. 2004. Economics of strategy. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Brenner, Steffen. 2001. Determinants of product differentiation: A survey. Working Paper, Humboldt University, Institute of Management, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
- Chamberlin, Edward Hastings. 1962. The theory of monopolistic competition. A reorientation of the theory of value. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Cressie, Noel A. C. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Revised edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Donnelly, K. P. 1978. Simulations to determine the variance and edge effect of total nearest-neighbour distance. I. Hodder, ed. Simulation methods in archeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Glazer, Rashi, Kent Nakamoto. 1991. Cognitive geometry: An analysis of structure underlying representations of similarity. Marketing Science 10(3) 205–228.Google Scholar
- Hoopes, David G. 1999. Measuring geographic diversification and product diversification. Management International Review 39(3) 277–292.Google Scholar
- Kint, Vincent, Marc Van Meirvenne, Lieven Nachtergale, Guy Geudens, Noel Lust. 2003. Spatial methods for quantifying forest stand structure development: A comparison between nearest-neighbor indices and variogram analysis. Forest Science 49(1) 36–49.Google Scholar
- Lancaster, Kelvin. 1975. Socially optimal product differentiation. The American Economic Review 65(4) 567–585.Google Scholar
- Nguyen, Phuong, Pier-Paolo Saviotti, Michel Trommetter, Bernard Bourgeois. 2004. Variety and the evolution of reinery processing. Working Paper 2004-28, Laboratoire d‚Economie Appliquée de Grenoble, Grenoble.Google Scholar
- Ripley, Brian D. 1981. Spatial statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Smith, Wendell R. 1995. Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Marketing Management 4(3) 63–65.Google Scholar
- Soberman, David A. 2003. The role of differentiation in markets driven by advertising. California Management Review 45(3) 129–147.Google Scholar