Talk:Strategy for Information Markets/Network Externalities/Expectations Management

more detail positive side
I think the beginning of this article is good, it is clearly explains these two sides, positive side and negative side. However, I realize the positive side is too short, and the examples are too general, it's better to make it more detailed. You talked a lot about the negative side. If you talk the positive side later, it would not be coherent,it's better talk about the positive side before the negative side. Liuq (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Qian Liu
 * Your approach sounds reasonable to me. TDang (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

more on critical mass
I recommend substituting critical mass point with consumer surplus because critical mass point is defined as the value received from a good or service that is greater than the price of the good or service. As more people subscribe to a network, others will join to obtain the value added despite having to pay the price of the subscription. This Wikibook is based on economic concepts; therefore, it is appropriate to utilize economic terms such as consumer surplus. The second paragraph should be omitted because the information in that paragraph is covered in paragraph one and four. However, the link to FUD should be added to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. I also recommend adding an example of FUD attacks on product durability and a network’s hardware reliability to the second to last paragraph. This will strengthen the case that FUD is an effective competitive strategy.Clara1 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Critical mass" will be an important concept for us when we dive into network externalities more. It's a very different idea than consumer surplus, though (it's very similar to this idea). This page conceptually comes after the reader has already read about critical mass in this and this sections.
 * Re-organizing how FUD is presented sounds like a fine idea. TDang (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TDang review April 2012
I'm reviewing this version. I'll likely be more critical than complimentary, because (a) that's the way I am and (b) that's what will help improve things. Please don't take the criticism-over-compliments to mean I have a wholly negative view.

Make sure to check the all-purpose review thoughts as well.

TDang (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's great to have graphics. It would be better if they weren't so small.
 * The page needs some sectioning. Ideally it should have an introduction section (which shouldn't get any section heading, just the section which comes before all the others) and then some other sections which make things more detailed, deeper, clearer.
 * Is "joinees" a word?
 * "To provide an example, suppose..."--This example, since associated with a graphic should refer to which graph right away, rather than waiting a bit.
 * "will push Q1 to point F"--Q1 is still Q1. Instead, it will push "the market" and/or expectations to F.
 * "Providing subsidies or lower prices to new members has a similar effect but involves influencing..."--This is penetration pricing, which is a different strategy than expectations management (although both are likely to be used together). There is the beginning of a section on penetration pricing over at Strategy_for_Information_Markets/Monopoly. I suggest moving this text and graphic over there to help develop it in one place instead of two places.
 * "However, an incumbent competitor may counter this strategy by using a predatory pricing strategy"--Predatory pricing should be kept conceptually separate from penetration pricing. The only reason to talk about them together is that they look similar, but they are actually quite different things. I'm not sure that predatory pricing is worth spending much time on in a book on information economics.
 * "below the competing firm’s marginal costs"--if predatory pricing is going to be mentioned, this should be changed to average cost.
 * "The main intent behind both strategies is to take competitor profits or run them out of business in order to raise prices."--For penetration pricing the goal is to build one's own network to a successful point. It may turn out that part of doing that involves running the competition out of business, but not necessarily. Depending on the market, two firms could coexist and one might still need to engage in penetration pricing to get started. In other circumstances, a (potential) monopolist with no competition might need to engage in penetration pricing to get started even though there's no competition to drive out of business.
 * "One real world example of providing subsidies occurs during sports events"--This needs to be tied more clearly to the material or left out. Not every promotion is penetration pricing.
 * "An incumbent business is ahead on the learning curve, already endured the sunk costs, and achieved economies of scale which give it a first mover advantage..."--These things may be true, but confuse the (good) points about FUD by adding unnecessary, and non-general detail.
 * MS-DOS / DR-DOS:
 * This is a good example, but the way it's phrased it sounds more like "vaporware" than like "FUD". Try to decide which it is, and work on making it clearer.
 * This really needs (inline) references.
 * Other FUD examples ("suppose Sony wanted to employ FUD against Microsoft") should be left out in case they send improper bad messages about this or that company. However, finding real-world, referenced examples of FUD should be able to fill that gap.
 * "The second one is expectation management, it is broader and deeper than requirements..."--The material starting here needs to be integrated with what comes before, not stand alone.
 * "satisfaction is how close you're come to their expectations"--That is a different kind of expectations management. If expectations are that we won't have any market for our product, it might be that our customers are satisfied, but don't buy anything, which certainly isn't the intention. I think this might be working from a different definition of expectations management. From here down reads as if it's using this alternative notion of expectations management, and so doesn't fit with this book.
 * References
 * This is not a reputable enough source to use as a reference. You may have luck:
 * searching for "The rhetoric of dread: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in information technology marketing" by Bryan Pfaffenberger
 * here
 * A prominent, though far from neutral source:
 * Try to put the references in-line and in Wiki formatting
 * General: This page is a place where there's not a whole lot of theory to cover, but concrete actual examples (from sources which describe them in clear-cut terms as "vaporware" "expectations setting", "FUD", or otherwise explicitly tie it to these ideas will be worthwhile.