DQ1 e-activity and DQ2 Competitive Advantage Essay

DQ1 e-activity and DQ2 Competitive Advantage - evidence Exampleof buyers had an effect on an industrys competitive pricing and consumers demand for bettor services, which affects the strategy of a firm (Porters, 2008b, 14). In this case, firms in the industry where customers build bargaining power experient instances whereby consumers pressed for price reductions. Finally, the contention influenced the profitability of firms in an industry depending on the intensity of the rivalry and the land of a firms rivalry (Porters, 2008b, 18).The online sell industry experiences robust growth due to the on-going global profits and technological innovations although Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay are the most dominant firms in the industry (Bajari & Hortasu, 2004, p. 459). Nevertheless, the availability of online auction software in the industry, coupled with the number one costs of establishing start-ups and cheap hosting services available, pose a holy terror of new entrants into the indu stry. In effect, the fact that the cost of start-ups in the industry is cheap makes the bargaining power of suppliers low in the online auction industry. On the other hand, buyers in the industry hold high stakes in a companys profitability and success due to the bidding platform that the industry provided (Pinker, Seidmann, & Vakrat, 2003, p. 1457). In this case, buyers will control a firms strategy in the online auction industry since they have an option of buying the same commodities online from other dealers at a price of their choice. On the other hand, rivalry amongst firms in the industry results from the bidding platform offered, which brings intense rivalry (Stafford & Stern, 2002, p. 135). Finally, other resellers and auctioneers that are not internet based pose the substitutes threat in the online auction industry.Stafford, M. R., & Stern, B. (2002). Consumer Bidding Behavior on Internet auction sale Sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(1), 135-150. Ret rieved from http//www.jstor.org/stable/27751048Small businesses