3 ms·
There is an old study that supports your point. The abstract reads: "Several studies have shown that pioneers have long-lived market share advantages and are l
by malshe 2y ago
There is an old study that supports your point. The abstract reads:
"Several studies have shown that pioneers have long-lived market share advantages and are likely to be market leaders in their product categories. However, that research has potential limitations: the reliance on a few established databases, the exclusion of nonsurvivors, and the use of single-informant self-reports for data collection. The authors of this study use an alternate method, historical analysis, to avoid these limitations. Approximately 500 brands in 50 product categories are analyzed. The results show that almost half of market pioneers fail and their mean market share is much lower than that found in other studies. Also, early market leaders have much greater long-term success and enter an average of 13 years after pioneers."
PDF available here:
https://people.duke.edu/~moorman/Marketing-Strategy-Seminar-2015/Session%205/Golder%20and%20Tellis.pdf https://people.duke.edu/~moorman/Marketing-Strategy-Seminar-...
- dmix 2y agoYes the "first mover advantage" is mostly just a common myth in business that refuses to die, but if we look at the original statement: > Founders and company builders will continue to build in AI—and they will be more likely to succeed, because they will benefit both from lower costs and from learnings accrued during this period of experimentation This still lines up with the 2nd wave benefiting more. The first movers helped established the large scale AI hardware industry, got a bunch of smart kids trained on how to make AI, a bunch of people will fail and learn, etc and this experimentation stage sets the groundwork for OpenAI 2.0. We could very well just in the Altavista vs Yahoo days of AI and an upstart takes over in 5yrs.