First mover (dis)advantage in e commerce

I would like to receive *1 page of hypothesis/ and *10 pages of methodology parts(with interpretation) for dissertation.
According to feedback from my advisor, my pothential hyphthesis is too ambitous and methodology is so difficult to acheive. so I need another/relavant hypothesis and methodology. My objectives(written in my introduction)could be flexible to change based on the hypthesis and methodology provided by you.
I am sending introduction and literature review, please do referecne them.
--
Introduction
The recent market trends for internet companies show that a lot of these are allocating a great deal of their resources for marketing activities that would help them get to buyers before the competition and thus reap the first-mover benefits. The first question that needs to be asked is: do the traditional theory first-mover benefits apply to dot.coms?
The first-mover theory suggests that first entrants have some advantages that late entrants don t because by entering a market first, they manage to create brand awareness, gain more customers and superior market share, which is difficult to match by the late entrant competitors. First movers can also build barriers to prevent other movers from entering the same market.
First movers, such as Amazon.com are a good example to support this theory. However, eCommerce is different than traditional industries, which could make someone ask to which extent traditional theory applies to a non traditional industry. The practice has proven that in some instances late movers have managed to develop superior capabilities than their early mover competitors (see the competition between Yahoo! and Google). The next logical question that needs to be asked is: what enabled late movers to compete with early movers and how did they accomplish it?
Aim and objectives
The aim of this paper is to determine to which extent the traditional first-mover theory applies to eCommerce companies. Furthermore, the paper will study what capabilities enabled late movers to compete with early movers and how did they accomplish those.
Some of the objectives that this paper will try to accomplish are:
identify what are the factors that provide unique advantages to first movers from traditional industries and determine to which extent those are able to provide first-mover advantage to eCommerce companies;
identify what are the factors that enable late movers from eCommerce to compete with first movers from the same industry and sometimes outrun them.
Literature review
The largest part of the first-mover advantage theory is focused on traditional industries, such as consumer goods and most of the papers in this field were written before dot.coms became so popular ([2], [3], [6]).
In the traditional industries, the first-mover has higher market share and increasing profits for a long period of time. As for the industries with online activity, the first-mover advantage may turn out to be important for online marketplaces (e.g. eBay) or contemporary supply chains. However, in business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) industries, where the pace of technological change is very high and the increasing return are not generated by scale, but by adoption of new technologies, it is likely that the first-mover advantage to lose its meaning. Hidding &Williams (2003), have found that 80% of eCommerce early movers for 19 information technology product categories in their study lost their initial advantage to later movers.
The low marginal cost Bertrand-Stackleberg game (Pepall, Richards and Norman, 2002) predicts that the second mover has more advantages than the first one. The explanation behind such a model lays in the network externalities from which later entrants benefit at the cost of earlier entrants.
Before the dot.coms  explosion , a seminal work covering our topic identified a number of factors that determined first-mover advantages. These factors were: network effects, consumer switching costs, acquisition of resources and technological preemption (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988).
The network effects are more visible in industries in which the value of goods increases as the number of users increases, such as telecommunications. The first mover can have great advantages if it manages to dominate the network. Such industries are likely to be organized as oligopolies in which the number of seller is low and the number of buyers high. However, this is not the case of eCommerce companies. Internet is a large network (WorldWideWeb  w.w.w.) with a very large number of sellers.
The first mover advantage coming from consumer switching costs refers to the situation in which a consumer has invested a considerable amount in the first mover s products and the costs of switching to a different seller would be too high, even prohibitive. However, this situation implies that the first mover has products that are difficult to reproduce, which is not the case of high-tech products. This factor is likely to have a different impact on the first-mover advantages from non traditional industries since high-tech products represent the majority of eCommerce activity.
The acquisition of resources and assets can be another factor to determine first-mover advantages. First movers may acquire resources, such as technologies and people before their competitors and the acquisition is likely to turn into an advantage especially in industries where resources are scarce. Again, this is a situation that characterizes more the traditional industries, rather than the new high-tech ones. In fact, one of the reasons that dot.coms became so popular is cost reduction. Even major traditional retailers have switched part of their activity online to reduce costs (see Merrill Lynch and Toys R us). First movers cope with resource scarcity in the same way as later movers.
Technological preemption is characteristic for high-tech industries where early entrants develop new technologies. The more early entrants are alone in the market, the harder it will be for the later entrants to catch up with those at the technological level because early entrants take their time to advance on their learning curve, whereas later entrants have to move very fast to acquire all that knowledge. However, this factor assumes that early entrant capitalize on their learning curve if the technology they develop belongs to those entrants exclusively for a period of time. If for some reason, other entrants enter in the possession of the same technology, they would have the advantage of the late mover that doesn t incur R&D costs, or any other conception costs for that matter.
These are some of the theoretical aspects that will be taken under consideration in this paper and will constitute the base for the empirical research.