CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 556Business Strategy and InnovationDigital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation and Knowledge Management

The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem

Open access
Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz), Garud, Raghu, Kumaraswamy, Arun·2016·Strategic Management Journal
DOI 10.1002/smj.2442
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research summary: Firms introducing disruptive innovations into multisided ecosystems confront the disruptor's dilemma: gaining the support of the very incumbents they disrupt. Through a longitudinal study of TiVo , a company that pioneered the Digital Video Recorder, we examine how these firms may address this dilemma. Our analysis reveals how TiVo navigated coopetitive tensions by continually adjusting its strategy, its technology platform, and its relational positioning within the evolving U.S. television industry ecosystem. We theorize how (1) disruption may affect not just specific incumbents, but also the entire ecosystem; (2) coopetition is not just dyadic, but also multilateral and intertemporal, and (3) strategy is both a deliberative and emergent process involving continual adjustments, as the disruptor attempts to balance coopetitive tensions over time . Managerial summary: New entrants confront a dilemma when they introduce a disruptive innovation into an existing business ecosystem, viz., how can they gain the support of the incumbents that their innovation disrupts? Confronting this “disruptor's dilemma”, the disruptor must consider several issues: How might it pitch its innovation to attract end customers and yet reduce the threat of disruption perceived by ecosystem incumbents? How can the innovation be modified to fit into legacy systems while transforming them? Based on an in‐depth analysis of TiVo and its entrepreneurial journey, we explore the strategies disruptors can deploy to address these issues . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.2442

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ansari, S. (., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • West Chester University (US)
Corresponding author
Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz)
ORCID
Venue
Strategic Management Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-29
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
1829-1853
ISSN
  • 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0266
DOI
10.1002/smj.2442
OpenAlex
W1752384673
Cited by
556
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 4
FWCI
69.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
disruptive innovation, multi-sided platforms, coopetition, business ecosystems, TiVo, digital video recorder, television industry, incumbent firms, new entrants, strategy adjustment, legacy systems, technology platforms, relational positioning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review