Case Question 1:

How does being a second mover

contribute to JetBlues success? How does its secondmover strategy present potential difficulties for the firm?
Would a first mover strategy have been better? Why or why
not?
Q: How does being a second mover contribute to JetBlues success?
Second-mover advantage occurs when a firm following the first-mover can actually
gain substantial amount of market share despite not being the first mover. As a second
mover, jetblue successfully copied some of the strategies of the first mover firm (here,
southwest airlines). To some extent, they did even better than southwest by modifying
those strategies. Examples are:

Southwests low cost strategy

low labor costs
a single type of aircraft
a single class of service
Lower-cost airports.

Improved strategies (which adds more benefits)

More luxury (seats, televisions)

Entertainment options (satellite radio, TV channels)
Catering services like wine, coffee
Spa kits. Etc

Q: How does its second- mover strategy present potential difficulties for the
firm?
From the case we now know that jetblue is growing. Up to now, they have sucessfully
followed second mover strategy. But while a firm is thriving, the firm needs to be
flexible. Strictly following the basic strategy may hamper its growth. To allow the
development to take place, the firm should bring some changes compromising the other
factors. Here is an example based on this case.
We know jetblue flies to 40 cities. And it also uses low cost airports. Suppose they found
a new city with a large number of passengers, but a costly airport for that city. What
should they do? Should they ignore those customers or accept them? Should they strictly
follow the second mover rules? Or bring some changes? Similar sort of questions are also
applicable for type of aircraft, class of service etc.

So, strictly following the second mover strategy itself can bring potential difficulties for
the firm along with other factors of management.
Q: Would a first mover strategy have been better? Why or why not?
In case of jetblue, the first mover strategy would be inappropriate. Te reasons are:
Being a first mover involves financial and market risks and often requires a huge
amount of development expense. And we know from the case that the company
started small with a little capital. The first mover strategy would have been better
if they had had a large amount of capital.
Jetblue had the opportunity to study the first movers and their techniques and follow
their strategies, which gave them a free ride advantage.
Jetblue also got the opportunity to study and modify the strategies of the first
movers, which gave them competitive advantage above all the competitors.