Entry and market share success of new brands in concentrated markets

Entry and Market Share Success of New Brands in Concentrated Markets*

Ronald H King, Appalachian State Unrverwy

Arthur A Thompson, Jr , The Umverq oj Alabama

Two hypotheses related to the concentrat~onlentry Issue were tested Unhke prevrous studies that have approached the lssuej+om the standpomt of the number ofjrms that enter concentrated versus relatrvely nonconcentrated mdustrtes, the concentratronlentry issue was studied at the brand level Spec@cally, two hypotheses were tested I) an inverse relatronshlp exists between brand concentration and number of brand entrants, and 2) an mverse relatlonshlp exists between brand concentration and success of brand entrants Whereas the results did reveal the existence of an inverse relatlonshrp between concentration and number of entrants. It was extremely weak The second hypothesrs that the market share success of new brand entrants 1s inversely related to brand concentration was not supported by test results

The relatlonshlp between seller concentration and bamers to entry has been a subJect of extensive study m analyzing markets and competltlon [2, 3,4,6, 9) The presumption has emerged that entry IS unlikely to be as easy or as frequently attempted m highly concentrated as in less concentrated markets Whether this 15 directly attnbutable to concentration per se or to barriers to entry variously linked to concentration 15 unsettled, mainly because frequency of entry mto markets and mdustrles has not been as thoroughly researched as either concentration or the size and extent of bamers to entry The few studies of entry frequency [ I, 3, 7, 8, IO] cover only a limited number of mdustnes and have produced an arguable fmdmg that the frequency of entry mto concentrated, high-barrier markets is not as mmlmal or mslgmficant as might be expected The relatlonshlp between entry frequency and concentration from the standpoint of brand entry and concentration rather than fu-m entry and concentration 15 explored here Approaching the issue of whether concentration represents a bamer to the entry of new brands into a market has ment m two respects First, It IS among brands wlthm the

* An oral version of this paper was presented at the 1978 annual conference of the Western Economic Assoclatlon

Address correspondence to Ronald H Kmg, John A Walker College of Buszness, Boone, NC 28608

Journal of Busmess Research 10,371-383 (1982)

@ Elsevler Science Pubhshmg Co , Inc 1982 52 Vanderblh Ave , New York NY 10017

371 0 I48-2963/82/03037 I I3$2 75

372 Ronald H Kmg and Arthur A Thompson, Jr

same product-type groupmg that the competmve struggle m the marketplace IS first Joined For Instance, the most direct mdlcatlons of the competitive posmon held by General Foods m Its coffee business come from how the sales of Its Maxim brand of freeze-dned instant coffee stack up agamst the sales of Nestle’s Tasters’ Choice brand of freeze-dned instant coffee, how the sales of its Maxwell House regular grind coffee m vacuum-packed cans compare with the sales of Procter & Gamble’s Folger’s brand of vacuum-packed regular gnnd coffee, how Its Sanka brand of decaffeinated instant coffee fares against Kroger’s pnvate brand of mstant decaffeinated coffee, and so on product type by product type Clearly, General Foods can hold different market shares and competltlve posltlons m each of the vanous product segments of the household coffee market Likewise, there IS ample room for brand concentration and brand entry to vary significantly from product type to product type To aggregate over brands and product types so as to focus on turn--level concentration and entry thus effectively blurs what IS hdppening in the tront-hne battles of the brands-the very places where any effect of concentration upon entry can be first observed and where, indeed, any such effect may be most relevant m shapmg the entry decision While a fum contemplating entry may well take a hard look at the rival firms It will have to compete against, the fact remains that entry tends to be undertaken with a specific branded product (or product line) aimed at an identified market (or market segment) Thus the measure of concentration that bears most directly on the entry decision 15 the concentration ratlo at the point of entry rdther than at the firm level The measure ot concentration that should count most m mfluencmg the entry decision (assuming concentration IS a determinant of entry) IS the concentration ratio at the point of entry rather than at the fmn level

The second advantage of studymg the concentration/entry issue at the brand level denves from the fact that the revenue sources of most firms

dre increasingly multiproduct and multundustry m character, this makes firm-level concentration ratlos calculated from consohdated revenue data inherently defective To the extent that sales data on competmg brands IS narrowly defined product categories are avadable, brand- level concentration ratios ofSeer a more satisfactory measure of market- specific concentration than do ratios based on consolidated sales data

On an a prrorl basis, one would expect brand entry to be easier and dttempted more often than firm entry simply because brand entry can be accomplished through product-lme expansion, expanded geographic coverage, brand name extension, and multibrand product strategies undertaken by firm5 having related products and/or operatmg m nearby markets Generally, there ought to be lower bamers to ‘sideways”

Success of New Brands 373

entry mto new markets than 1s required through either the establishment of a new firm or through an existing fum moving into a dlstmctly different industry via acqulstlon or internal dlverslflcatlon It 1s open to mquuy whether brand concentration acts as a barner to brand entry m the same way that firm concentration IS thought to act as a barner to firm entry For instance, even though one enterpnse may find It easier than another to establish a new brand m a mafket where it was not previously selling, the Issue still remains whether firm5 are mchned to avoid entry into product classes where sales are dominated by a few well-known brands Is entry as frequent where brand concentration 1s high as where it IS low?

Two mam hypotheses are tested I) the frequency of entry of new brands mto a given product category vanes inversely with brand concentration and 2) the market share success that new brands achieve varies Inversely with brand concentration Both hypotheses are logical denvatrves ot standard oligopoly theory

Research Methodology

This study of brand entry and concentration 15 based on random samples of some 1,800 households m a 22-county market area m the Southeast for each of the 6-years durmg the penod 1969-1974 A questlonnalre hstmg all brands avallable for sale m the research market across 67 categones of grocery Items was mailed each year, respondents were requested to check for each product category the bland (or brands) purchased or used wlthm the last two weeks The number of usable questlonnalres returned each year of the survey was 700 (1969), 707 (1970), 892 (1971), 731 (1972), 778 (1973), and 742 (1974), m each year the returns represented a statlstlcally valid sample size for the population surveyed

Estimates of the market share obtamed by each brand dunng each year of the survey were obtained by calculatmg the ratio of the number of households mdlcatmg purchase or use of a brand to the total number of household brand purchases wlthm that respective product category Hence the market share estimates employed here represent a household share (HHS) measure rather than a share based on total unit or dollar sales Such a measure corresponds to that used by Telser [ 121 Telser called his market share estimate “recalled brand share” because It was based on the percentage of “users” who named the various brands they typically bought The acuracy of a household market share estimate derived from survey data depends chiefly on respondent’s ability to remember from a hst of brands which ones (lf any) were recently purchased or used, the obwous deficiency 1s that It says nothmg about


frequency or amount purchased Hence there 15 opportumty for the unit or dollar market share measures dewed from retall sales data to be at vanance with a household share measure-how much at vanance IS uncertdm m thrs study \mce there were no locdl market share data based on retall sales valume that could be used to confirm the rehabihty of the HHS measure Accordmg to Telser [ 12, p 5471, however, “recalled shares” and actual market-brand shares are highly correlated

In order to measure brand entry It was necessary to establish boundanes for vanous product categones This task presented some problems For example, while most observers would agree that the product category “paper towels” IS dlstmct from “ paper napkins,” It 15

open to debate whether “regular coffee” and “instant coffee” should constitute a smgle product category or be separated into two categones for the purpose of entry measurement These classlflcatlon problems were resolved on the basis of the researcher’s Judgment, usmg the guideline of defmmg categones narrowly (instant coffee) rather than broadly (coffee) m instances where an arguable overlap might exist In addition, the content of the ddta base allowed only 19 of the 67 categones of grocery items surveyed to be used to test the hypotheses in this study, the 19 categones were alummum foil, beef stew/hash, beer, liquid bleach, scounng cleaners, instant coffee, automatic dlshwa\her detergent, canned dog food, facial tissue, hand cream/lotion, liquid soaps and detergents, regular stick marganne, fresh milk, paper napkins, paper towels, pressurized shdving cream, regular soft dnnks, paper toilet tissue, and toothpaste An average of some 300 brands per year were surveyed

Entry mto a category was defined to occur when a new brand had been introduced mto the research market dunng the interval since the previous year 5 survey New package configurations for the same branded product were not counted as entry, but a “new” version of an existing brand was counted if it aimed at a new customer segment (Jergens for Men) or if it represented a different form of the product (corn 011 marganne, a health-conscious substitute for lower-priced vegetable 011 mdrganne)

The hypothesis of an inverse relationship between brand entry and concentration was tested via correlation analysis Since concentration wds a continuous vanable and entry frequency wds an interval vanable, both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between each year’s frequency of entry into a given product category and brand concentration m that category, however, the two sets of correlation results were so similar that only the Pearson set 1s reported here Concentration at the four-brand level was examined and brand entry


frequencies were analyzed with regard to brand concentration m the same year and m the year pnor to entry

Testing the hypothesis that the HHS success that new brands achieve after entry vanes with brand concentration was more complex because it required estabhshmg HHS success cntena as standards for measunng brand performance Investigation of the brand success/brand concentration hypothesis was keyed to four dimensions of market share success 1) level of HHS achieved dunng the entry year, 2) HHS ranking vls-a-vls other brands m the last year of the study, 1974 (or in the last year the brand was present), 3) staying power (1 e , ability of an entrant to sustain Its HHS), and 4) the HHS pattern dunng the postentry penod but with emphasis on the peak HHS value, the years to reach the peak HHS, and the size of any decline from the peak HHS value The entry year HHS was selected as a success cntenon because it was the first mdlcatlon of the market’s acceptance of new brands and the ablhty of an entrant to gam market penetration The HHS rankmg vls-a-vls other brands m the termmal study year was used because It reflected the longer term market standmg that new brands were able to achieve m com- petition with nval brands Keying the HHS ranking to the terminal study year has the weakness that the length of time brand entrants could have been on the market 1s not standardized Since new entrants could have appeared any time between 1970 and 1974, It IS possible that those entenng early m the study penod have some time-related advantage m achlevmg a higher ranking However, inspection of the data revealed no detectable advantage to having been on the market longer For instance, as discussed below, only five of 164 brands that did not achieve a top eight ranking m their entry year were later found to have gamed a ranking among the top eight brands Using no postentry year rankmg was even more unsatisfactory because it would have ignored the market ranking mformatlon present m the data base

Staying power was defined as a brand entrant’s ablhty to hold or increase its market penetration and was measured by the ratlo of an entrant’s HHS value m the last year of the study to Its entry year HHS value In general, the higher the ratio of terminal year share to entry-year share, the more staymg power was evidenced The fourth cntenon of success, the HHS pattern, was narrowly defined m terms of when the HHS value of a new entrant reached its peak value An entrant that reached its peak value In the last year of the study penod was Judged more successful, cetemparlbus, than a brand whose HHS value peaked pnor to the terminal study year Moreover, m the case of brand entrants whose HHS peaked pnor to the last study year, success was held to be inversely related to the size of the decline from the peak HHS value


durmg the study penod Thus brand A was said to be more successful than brand B If Its HHS dechned by a smaller percentage from Its peak HHS than did the brand B HHS value This fourth cntenon has the tlme- related problem that the brands entenng m 1970 and survlvmg through 1974 had a pattern of five HHS values to examme, whereas brands entenng m later years had progressively smaller data sets to test As before, the full set of mformatlon available was used rather than optmg for standardlzmg time intervals This was Justified by a subsequent analysis of vanance with time as one of the covanants that indicated that time/year of entry was not a statlstlcally significant determinant of the level of market share success

It was not necessary to weight the four market share success cntena and thereby calculate a composite mdex of HHS success because it proved feasible to group the brand entrants mto seven different levels of success without an overall measure, the groupings ranged along a continuum from most successful to least successful

The hypothesis that the market success of new brand entrants vanes inversely with concentration was tested by exammmg whether the mean four-brand concentration ratios encountered by the brand entrants vaned slgmflcantly across the seven success levels of the entrants Tests were conducted both for concentration m the year of entry and ln the year pnor to entry As a second measure of the relatlonshlp between concentration and success, the data base was examined to determine 1) whether the new entrants that achieved a rank among the leading eight brands of Its product category the year of entry encountered significantly different brand concentration than entrants not ranking among the top eight brands, and 2) whether the resulting change m the 8-brand concentration ratio the followmg year was slgmflcantly different for those brands achieving a ranking among the top eight the year of entry than for those brands not gaming such a ranking

Results of the Study

Dunng the 6-year study penod a total of 209 new brands were observed to have entered the 22-county market research area As shown m Table 1, between 1970 and 1974 entry was observed m all 19 product categories, although there was not entry mto every category every year of the study penod Brand Concentration as a Barrier to Brand Entry Only weak evidence was found to support the hypothesis that brand concentration acts as d bamer to brand entry Results for the four-brand concentration


Table 1 Number of Brand Entrants and 4-Brand Concentration Ratios m the 22-County Market Area

Total Number Number of Brand Entrants of Entrants

Product Category 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 (1970-1974)

Hand cream/lotion 0 3 11 2 2 18 Beef stew/hash - 2 3 2 1 1 9 Beer - 2 2 3 3 0 10 Instant coffee - 4 0 1 1 0 6 Canned dog food - 3 1 3 4 2 13 Regular stick margarme - 4 4 2 2 2 14 Fresh mdk - 3 2 2 1 1 9 Soft drmks (regular) - 5 4 0 1 1 11 Aluminum foil - 2 1 1 3 0 7 Liquid bleach - 3 1 0 4 2 10 Scourmg cleaners 1 2 0 1 2 6 Auto dlshwasher detergent - 0 0 2 1 2 5 Llquld soaps and detergents - 1 5 4 2 3 15 Pressurized shavmg cream - 0 3 2 4 1 10 Toothpaste - 5 2 5 5 3 20 Facial tissue - 2 2 1 2 2 9 Paper napkins - 2 1 2 1 2 8 Paper towels - 1 3 4 3 1 12 Toilet tlssue - 4 5 3 3 2 17

Totals - 44 44 48 44 29 209

Product Category

Four-Brand Concentration Ratloo 1970-1974

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Average

Hand cream/lotion 68 70 67 63 63 61 65 Beef stew/hash 58 51 57 51 59 56 55 Beer 76 77 75 74 66 65 72 Instant coffee 64 57 79 76 79 80 73 Canned dog food 60 54 66 60 62 61 60 Regular stick margarine 61 58 63 61 59 63 61 Fresh milk 74 75 73 71 74 72 73 Soft drmks (regular) 68 65 66 66 70 67 67 Alummum foil 98 95 92 91 85 83 90 LIquld bleach 90 86 99 99 93 90 93 Scourmg cleaners 99 97 96 96 84 82 92 Auto dlshwasher detergent 84 97 93 88 86 84 89 Liquid soaps and detergents 70 72 68 67 67 64 68 Pressurized shavmg cream 54 57 54 54 50 53 54 Toothpaste 84 80 82 78 71 72 78 Facial tissue 88 85 83 81 82 79 83


Table 1 (contvmed)

Four-Brand Concentration Ratio” 1970-1974

Product Category 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Average _

Paper napkms 67 65 65 65 63 65 65

Paper towels 92 89 78 70 67 70 78

Toilet tissue 71 68 66 56 58 60 63

Q Defined as the sum of the household shares of the top four brands in each product

category

The following example for the product category, beer, illustrates the method used to compute edch tabul r

?

cell value (I e , four-brand concentration ratlo) If ten brands of

beer were available or sale m 1969 and each brand achieved the household share mdi-

cated m parenthesis [Budweiser (28 2), Miller (22 2), Pabst Blue Ribbon (18 l), Schhtz

(7 5), Old Mdwaukee (6 1). Busch (5 9), Coors (5 2), Burger (4 9), Dlxle (1 I), and Red,

White & Blue (1 O)], then the four-brand concentration ratlo for beer m 1969 was 76 0, computed by summmg the household shares of the four leadmg brands A four-brand

concentration ratlo of 76 0 means that the product category, beer, m 1969, was charac- terlzed by a relatively high degree of brand concentration

Smce the four-brand concentration ratios for all product Lategorles and for each of

the SIX study periods exceed 50 0 percent, the data for this study are derived from con-

centrdted rather than unconcentrated markets, which would be characterized by ratios less than 50 0 or 60 0

tests for the whole set of brand entrants are shown m Table 2 With only one exception, the Pearson correlation coefflclents were negative, m clear-cut accord with the hypothesis of an inverse relation between brand entry and brand concentration However, eight of the ten coefficients were smaller than -0 35 and an equal number were not statlstlcally significant at the 0 10 level-an outcome that weakens the support for the hypothesis In every case, the negative correlations between entry frequency and concentration the year pnor to entry were smaller and less statistically dependable than were those for the year of entry-a result that suggests the four-brand concentration levels seen by potential entrants have only a neghgtble beanng on entry frequency (m the sense of being a deterrent to entry or a predlctor of entry) As further confirmation, these tests were also conducted at the eight-brand level of concentration and the statIstica results were essentially the same-there was no more conclusive support for the hypotheses at the eight-brand concentration level than at the four-brand level Brand Concentration as an Inhibitor of Entrants’ Success The second hypothesis that the market share success of new brand entrants 15

inversely related to brand concentration was not supported by the test


Table 2 Correlations between Brand Entry Frequency and 4-Brand Concentration

Pearson Correlation Coefficient of Vartable Paumgsa

Brand Entry vs Concentratron Brand Entry vs Concentratron m m Year of Entry Year Prior to Entry

BE 1970 vs CR 1970 -0 30 BE 1970 vs CR 1969 -0 14

(P < 0 11) CD < 0 29)

BE 1971 vs CR 1971 -0 56 BE 1971 vs CR 1970 -0 29

(P < 0 01) (P <O 11) BE 1972 vs CR 1972 -0 36 BE. 1972 vsCR 1971 -0 30

(P < 0 07) 0-J <O 11) BE 1973 vsCR 1973 -0 14 BE 1973 vs CR 1972 0 02

(P < 0 29) (P < 0 46) BE 1974 vs CR 1974 -0 06 BE 1974 vs CR 1973 -0 04

(P < 0 41) (P<O44)

Q Smce these are simple correlation coefficients, the Influence of other variables, such

as the busmess cycle, on bofh brand entry and concentration cannot be ruled out

results The number of brand entrants by level of success and the mean four-brand concentration ratios for each group are shown m Table 3 The palred t-tests for slgmflcant differences among the means of the four- brand concentration ratios at each of seven levels of brand success produced statlstlcally slgmflcant r-values m only two out of 42 instances, as shown by Table 4 For these tests to have resulted m support for brand concentration being an mhlbltor of brand entrant success, the t-values m

Table 3 Levels of Success, Number of Brand Entrants, and Mean Four-Brand Concentration Ratios

Levels of Success

Level 1 (most successful)

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4 Level 5

Level 6

Level 7 (least successful)

Total

Number of Entrants

ClassGed by Success Level

7

20

42

47 26

23

15

180

Mean Four-Brand Concentration Ratios

Year of Year ptror Entry to Entry

71 75 69 72

67 69 69 72 72 74 71 73 68 72


Table 4 Results of t-Tests among the Means of the Four-Brand Concentration Ratios for Each of the Seven Levels of Success

Levels of Success

Levels of Success One Two Three Four Five SIX Seven

t-Values for four-Brand Means, Year of Entry

One (most successful) - 0 30 0 90 041 028 009 057

Two _ 0 64 007 087 039 0 25 Three _ 1 09 197= 133 0 29 Four _ 118 051 045

Five _ 0 56 121

SIX - 0 74

Seven (least sucLessfu1) -

t-values for Four-Brand Means, Year prior to Entry

One (most successful) - 052 1 23 072 022 038 058

Two _ 0 84 000 057 036 0 02

Three _ 122 173b 142 0 76

Four _ 081 051 0 03 Five _ 0 24 059

SlX - 0 38

Seven (least successful) _

a Slgmficant at 0 05 level b Slgnrfxant 0 09 level at

Note None of the other t-values were slgmftcant at the 0 10 level

Table 4 should have contained a systematic pattern of slgmficant differences, with the concentration ratios m the higher success categones bemg consistently smaller than m the less successful categones Such was not the case Additional testing at the eight-brand level of concentration gave essentially the same outcome, only five scattered r-values were slgnlftcant at the 0 10 level (out of a total of 42 paired t-tests)

The second test of the relationship between concentration and entrants’ success mvolved exammmg whether concentration was slgmficantly lower m those categones where the entrants failed to penetrate the top eight ranking Of the 209 brand entrants, 45, or slightly over one-fifth, achieved an HHS among the top eight brands the mltlal entry year, the remaining 164 brands entered as “nonleadmg” brands The mean eight-brand concentration ratios for these two groups were found to be slgmflcantly different at the 0 01 level for both the year of entry and the year prior to entry-but the differences were opposite to


the hypothesized direction The eight-brand concentration ratios were on the average about five percentage points higher m the product categories where the entrants were among the eight leaders for both the year of entry and the year prior to entry

Leading brand entrants (top 8)

(n = 45) Nonleading brand entrants

(n = 164)

&brand Concentration Ratlo

Year of Year plror Entry to Entry

91 93

86 88 t = 0 398 t=402

0, = 0 001) (p = 0 001)

A related test as to whether the Impact upon concentration which entry had was slgmficantly different as between successful entry and un- successful entry hkewlse produced negative results The expectation was that where a brand entrant gamed a household share among the top eight brands the year of entry, the eight-brand concentration ratlo could be expected to decline by more than m cases where the entrant falled to achieve a rankmg among the leadmg eight brands In the case of leading entry, an average dechne of 0 47 m the eight-brand concentration ratios was found m the year followmg entry For nonleadmg entry there was a shght increase of 0 34 m the eight-brand concentration ratio, a r-test did not show the differences between these mean changes to be statlstlcally slgmflcant, however

One finding of part~ular note relates to the ability of brand entrants to become one of the market leaders As stated above, 45 of the 209 entrants gamed a HHS rank among the top eight brands and, importantly, they achieved this rankmg their first year m the research market What 1s interesting, though, 1s that of the 164 brands that did not achieve a top eight rankmg m their first year, only five (3%) were later found to gam a ranking among the top eight brands These results suggest that msofar as grocery items are concerned, a new brand must gam rapld market acceptance and achieve a satisfactory market share wlthm a short penod of time if it is to become a brand leader If a new brand does not get market share quickly (wlthm a year at most) and become a leader, Its chances of becoming a leadmg brand are shm indeed

Conclusions

This study of 209 brand entrants mto 19 product categones (all having four-brand concentration ratios above 50%) revealed only a weak

382 Ronald H Kzng and Arthur A Thompson, Jr

statlstlcal relatlonshlp between entry frequency and brand concentration and an even weaker relatlonshlp between the market share success of new entrants and brand concentration There was little mdlcatlon that firms that introduce new brands mto competltlon against established brands are either deterred or mtlmldated by prevallmg concentration levels The observed entry frequencies reflected numerous atempts of new brands to become established m the marketplace--Important evidence of competitiveness and something that cannot be detected by looking only at concentration ratios Moreover, once entry took place, market success or failure did not appear importantly related to four- brand concentration In short, the influence and impact of concentration upon entry appeared mmlmal rather than predominant

Although these fmdmgs would be more conclusive if the 22-country market area and the 19 product categones of grocery items were a representative cross section of the entire U S market for all branded items, the mablhty to fmd any real support for the hypothesis that concentrated markets are per se more difficult to enter and also more difficult to enter successfully raises new doubts about the validity of concentration and market structure as indices of competltlon and bamers to entry Just why the conventional antitrust and theoretical emphasis upon concentration may be misplaced 1s not hard to explain A host of factors ought logically to outwelght concentration m shaping a firm’s entry decision Some obvious ones include 1) whether a firm has developed a new product with features as good as or better than exlstmg brands, 2) how vulnerable exlstmg brands are to something new or something better, 3) the long-term strategic attractiveness of the product market m question, 4) dlstnbutlon access, and 5) the advantages that accrue to having a full and well-balanced lineup of products m the firm’s business portfohcras well as all of the usual profit-sales-growth-market share conslderatlons

Two types of followup research are thus indicated One IS to further substantiate the findings of this study with a broader sample of branded products using national measures of market share Second, if concentration does not appear to condltlon entry, then field research IS needed to pmpomt the determinants of entry mto concentrated markets and the specific reasons underlying the declslons of firms to launch new brands m particular product markets

The authors gratefully acknowledge the data base access provcded by Edward M Smith and Wendell Hewett, the helpfid sugestlons of Morrrs L Mayer, W&am L James, J Barry Mason, two anonymous re- viewers, and the assutance of Oded Gur-Arre rn getting the data processed on the computer

Success of New Brands

References

383

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Amelson, M A, Demand, Entry, and the Game of Conflict in Oligopoly Over

Time Recent Austrahan Experience, Oxford Econ Papers 21 (July 1969) 200-

241

Bam, J S , Barriers fo New Competttron Harvard Umverslty Press, CambrIdge,

1956

Ferguson, J M , Advertlsmg and Liquor, J Bus 40 (October 1967) 414-434

George, K D , Concentrdtlon, Barriers to Entry and Rates of Return, Rev Econ

and Stat 50 (May 1968) 293-295

Kotler, P , Marketmg Management Analysts, Plannmg and Control Prentlce-Hall,

Englewood Chffs, N J , 1976, pp 193-195

Mann, H M , Seller Concentration, Parrlers to Entry, and Rates of Return m

Thirty Industrtes, 1950-1960,&u Econ andStat 48 (August 1966) 296-307

Mann, H M , Haas, P , and Walgreen, J , Comment Entry and Ohgopoly Theory,

J Poltt Econ 73 (August 1965) 381-393

Mansfield, E , Entry, Glbrat’s Law, InnovatIon, and the Growth of Firms, Am .&on Rev 52 (December 1962) 1023-1051

Ornstem, S I , Concentration dnd Profits, J Bus 45 (October 1972) 5 19-541

Osborne, D K , The Role of Entry m Ohgopoly Theory, J Polrr Econ 72 (August

1964) 396-402

Peck, M J , Competrtton m the Alummum Industry 1945-I 958 Harvard Umver- sity Press, Cambridge, 1961, pp 66-72

Telser, L , Advertlsmg and CornpetItion J Poltt Econ 72 (December 1964) 547-55 1

Weiss, L W , The Concentration Proflt Relatlonshlp and AntItrust, m Industrial Concentration The New Leurnmg H J Goldschmld, H M Mann, and 1 F Wes- ton, eds , Llttle Brown, Boston, 1974, pp 184-233

Yandle, B , and Hate, A , Branded CornpetitIon Measures, Southern hcon J 43 (Aprd 1977) 1576-1581

Documents

Entry and market share success of new brands in concentrated markets