5. Discussion
5.1 Platform Dynamics
5.1.2 Managing Growth
to copy each other's features in order to become this solution. We predict a market where there will be users either concentrated around a few platforms, or spread around many differentiated platforms. In either scenario, the barriers to entry will grow as there will either be increasingly strong network effects in a few of the platforms, or there will be little room for more differentiated services. Regardless, new entrants will find it increasingly difficult to penetrate the market.
Moreover, even though a winner-take-all market looks unlikely by examining the state of the current market forces, some actions taken by the initiatives might steer the market in that direction. As presented in the findings, most of the initiatives expect the emergence of a platform leader and compete to become that leader. We discovered that one of the ways initiatives are getting users to support them and utilize their service is by engaging in expectation management (Shapiro & Varian, 1999). The initiatives are attempting to gain a unique identity within their market segment by giving consumers the impression that they will become the standard within the market. We witnessed that TooGoodToGo is, in some instances already equated with the action of eating leftovers and buying food that is soon to expire. Similarly, Fresh.Land is stating in interviews that they should be seen as the Airbnb of food (Kongsgaard, 2017). The product or service that people expect to become the new standard in the market will often become that standard due to positive feedback and bandwagon effects (Shapiro
& Varian, 1999). Through expectation management, the initiatives might, therefore, move the market closer to a winner-take-most market.
Curation
We observed that all of these platforms focus on sourcing out openings to move upstream, looking for prominent ways to increase its usefulness and attract more users by adding new features and interactions (Parker, Van Alstyne, Choudary 2016). Moving upstream might result in significant growth opportunities. However, the degree at which the initiatives engage in curation, might influence the relative rate of growth that they can experience. The initiatives with the least amount of curation will be better positioned for rapid growth due to participants having easier access to the platform ( Evans, 2012) . Nevertheless, this rapid growth comes at a cost, as the lack of curation can produce negative externalities on the platform. In contrast, the initiatives with stronger curation will experience a comparatively slower growth, but are more likely to avoid negative externalities on the platform.
The Redistributors facilitate direct contact between buyers and suppliers, meaning that buyers can actively choose which supplier they want to engage. In their model, an abundance of choices is vital, and the buyer takes more responsibility for sourcing out the right supplier. The Alterationists, however, are to a more substantial degree leveraging their knowledge of the market and their users to engage in matchmaking, that they naturally feel will result in higher value for the two sides. By doing so, they are also taking on the responsibility of delivering a satisfactory product, and thus stricter curation becomes more important. Currently, it is only the Redistributors and the Alterationists that engage in curation, which means that the Capability Builder is more likely to experi ence a sharp rise in users. Although curation can influence the growth potential of the initiatives over some time, it cannot be seen in isolation from other important factors.
Taking Advantage of Boundary Fluidity
One of the critical elements that differentiates the Alterationists and Redistributors from the Capability Builder is that the former deals with a physical product while the latter has a digital product at its core. This difference usually influences the amount of external resources a platform needs to assert control over in order to deliver the product from supplier to consumer. Moreover, due to the physical product being perishable, even stricter control needs to be asserted over the delivery process. Both the Alterationists and Redistributors are facilitating the trade of food, but their models
result in a very different delivery method. The difference lies in that Redistributors make use of resources controlled by the platform participants. Therefore, they generally do not need to invest in infrastructure or logistics in order to deliver the product from supplier to consumer. The Alterationists, on the other hand, are investing time and money in sourcing out logistics partners or by building routes for delivery themselves.
In other words, the Redistributors are more actively taking advantage of the boundary fluidity of platforms which can be a factor that influences the rate at which a company can grow (Constantiou, Marton & Tuunainen, 2017).
It is essential to build a delivery system that guarantees that the product has a consistent quality. Dealing with perishable food, which is very delicate and often has a short lifespan, requires strict control over the delivery method. Being the guarantor and provider of this distribution system can, therefore, be relatively costly. Moreover, the possible solutions for cost-reduction through expansion and automation might negatively impact the ability to maintain quality and service (Cusumano, 2017).
Therefore, it can be argued that economies of scale are relatively harder to reach, and have a more limited scope than with a digital product such as the one offered by the Capability Builder.
Network Properties
Network clusters is another concept which informs how these initiatives are going to grow into new regions (Zhu & Iansiti, 2019). Similar to other platforms that facilitate trade of physical products, the Alterationists and Redistributors are susceptible to network clusters. It means that a consumer in Copenhagen gains no additional value from the platform having a supplier in London as there is no mechanism in place for transporting the food within an acceptable timeframe or without risking a sharply reduced quality. The Capability Builder is not restricted by distance as the platform has a digital product at its core, rather than a physical one. Thus, the network growth increases value to users regardless of where in the world they are situated.
The result of these clusters is that the Alterationists and Redistributors cannot leverage existing user bases in new regions. Instead, they find themselves in a similar position to Uber, where they have to launch afresh in every new market they enter. Large brands and well-known businesses still have an advantage in new markets due to consumers'
familiarity with them. Thus initiatives such as TooGoodToGo will still find it easier to establish themselves in new markets than other less known brands. Nevertheless, the danger for the initiatives, as witnessed in the case of Uber, is if they end up in an infinite launching loop. Where gaining scale in a high number of markets simultaneously hinders the platform's ability to make profits (Parker, Van Alstyne &
Choudary, 2016). In comparison, the network of the Capability Builder is not limited by geographical distance. Thus, they face no limitations to user growth due to network clusters. The result of this is that the Capability Builder can create a potentially global network that has much stronger network properties, than the multinational networks that the Alterationists and Redistributors can build (Yonatari, 2017). The way in which the other initiatives bridge this gap is by enhancing their network properties through a community. Through social interactions in the community, consumers strengthen their bond to other users on the service. The result is that they create another layer of direct network effects which stands to strengthen the indirect network effects which already take place through the marketplace.