Skip to Content Skip to Footer
Ensuring Market Entry or Survival During Disruptive Technology Innovation

Ensuring Market Entry or Survival During Disruptive Technology Innovation

Deepa Chandrasekaran, Gerard J. Tellis and Gareth M. James

In July 2020, Tesla became the world’s most valuable automaker, surpassing Toyota in market value for the first time. Ironically, it was Toyota that in 1997 released the Prius, the world’s first mass-produced hybrid electric vehicle. In 2006, Tesla Motors, an upstart entrant, bet its future on fully electric cars. Incumbents dismissed the effort as futile because of the high entry barriers for auto production, the high cost of production in California, and the challenges of establishing charging stations across the vast USA. In contrast, Toyota bet the future on hybrids. Toyota faced hard choices: invest in hybrids, all-electrics, or both? 

This example illustrates that during times of potentially disruptive technological change, both industry incumbents and new entrants face difficult choices. For incumbents, the critical dilemma is whether to cannibalize their own successful offerings and introduce the new (successive) technology, survive with their old offerings, or invest in both. To address this dilemma, they need to know whether disruption is inevitable and if so, how much of their existing sales will be cannibalized over time, or whether both old and new technologies may, in fact, exist in tandem (coexist). The entrant’s dilemma is whether to target a niche to avoid incumbent reaction or target the mass market and incur the wrath of the incumbent. 


Our new study in the Journal of Marketing posits that to effectively manage disruption, companies must answer the following questions: First, when does an old technology coexist with a new, successive technology, versus going into an immediate decline? If so, how can one account for the coexistence of two technologies in an empirical model? Second, how can one estimate the extent of cannibalization and leapfrogging of an old technology by a new technology over time? Third, can consumer segments explain coexistence, cannibalization, and leapfrogging in successive technologies and, if so, in which segments? 

To answer these questions, we develop a generalized model of the diffusion of successive technologies. A key feature of the generalized model is the rate of disengagement from the old technology, which is not forced to equal the rate of adoption of the successive technology, thus allowing both technologies to coexist. A low rate of disengagement indicates people hold both technologies (co-existence) whereas a high rate of disengagement indicates they let go of the old technology in favor of the new (cannibalization). We apply our model to three different types of aggregate data to ascertain model fit:

  1. penetration of seven successive technology pairs across 105 countries (441 technology pair-country combinations), spanning multiple years;
  2. sales of three contemporaneous technology pairs across 40 countries (92 technology pair-country combinations);
  3. case analyses of real disruption of large incumbents in the U.S. 

Our key finding is that technological disruption is frequent, with dominant incumbents failing in the face of takeoff of a new technology. However, disruption is neither always quick nor universal because new technologies sometimes coexist as partial substitutes of the old technologies. Our generalized model of diffusion of successive technologies can help marketers capture disruption or coexistence due to the presence of a rate of disengagement from the old technology, which can vary from the rate of adoption of the new technology. This model enables a superior fit to data on technological succession over prior multi-generational models that do not include such flexibility.

Next, we identify four adopter segments that account for competition between successive technologies from aggregate data: leapfroggers correlate with the growth of the new technology, switchers and opportunists account for the cannibalization of the old technology, and dual users account for the coexistence of both technologies. The generalized model can capture variations in segment sizes across technologies and markets. For example, leapfroggers form a dominant component of adopters in the early life cycle of a new technology in developing markets while dual users do so in developed markets.

We model can provide important signals about disruption and survival by estimating cannibalization versus co-existence and forecasting the evolution of four critical consumers segments from aggregate data. Incumbents often wait until the market for the new technology is large enough to be profitable before committing resources to its development. Our analysis suggests that managers should be careful not to underestimate cannibalization by switchers, especially when they dominate dual users, or the growth of new technologies via leapfroggers (especially in developing countries). In addition, despite its frequent occurrence, disruption is not a given when a new successive technology enters the market. Thus, managers do not have to make a stark choice between the two technologies. Disruption may be averted by effectively targeting dual users and by carefully examining factors driving the prolonged (co)existence of the old technology.

Read the full article

From: Deepa Chandrasekaran, Gerard Tellis, and Gareth James, “Leapfrogging, Cannibalization, and Survival during Disruptive Technological Change: The Critical Role of Rate of Disengagement,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

Deepa Chandrasekaran is Associate Professor, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA.

Gerard J. Tellis is Professor, Director of the Center for Global Innovation, and Neely Chair of American Enterprise, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.

Gareth M. James is Deputy Dean, E. Morgan Stanley Chair in Business Administration, and Professor of Data Sciences and Operations, University of Southern California, USA.