DEMISE FROM SUCCESS? THE EMERGENCE OF HYBRIDS BETWEEN NASCENT AND ESTABLISHED PRODUCTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT REVIVAL OF THE ONCE-NASCENT PRODUCTS

Jaemin Lee Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise INSEAD [email protected]

October 2015

* Job market paper

1

Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Demise from Success? The Emergence of Hybrids between Nascent and Established Products and the Subsequent Revival of the Once-Nascent Products

ABSTRACT This paper argues that the success of a hybrid between an established and a nascent product can ultimately cause the nascent product to become popular at the expense of the hybrid. By invoking familiarity with the established product, the hybrid is more easily understood and accepted. It also contributes to the legitimization of the nascent product over time, given the nascent product’s elements included in the hybrid. However, once the nascent product is better understood, the hybrid’s limitations may become apparent if it fails to incorporate the key elements of the once-nascent product that are crucial to positive evaluation and integral to the appeal of the once-nascent. Thus, unless the hybrid offers the unique value, it may gradually become less appreciated than the once-nascent product. I test this theory in the context of the emergence of hybrid jazz—a combination of original jazz and classical music that was popular during the 1920s and 1930s—and the subsequent popularity of traditional jazz during the 1940s and 1950s in the United

States. This paper extends research on entrepreneurship, innovation, and market categories by emphasizing that the appeal of a hybrid is dynamic. It also responds to recent research on institutional legacies in communities by suggesting a new type of institutional imprinting—the legacy of early popularity of a specific product type.

Keywords: hybrid; evolution of markets and organizational forms; entrepreneurial legitimacy; cultural revivalism

2 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

The importance of achieving acceptance is a fundamental issue in entrepreneurship research. By definition, new markets form around products that do not fit established products and thus are without acceptance. Yet such new products often replace dominant products and drive industry evolutions (Schumpeter, 1942; Anderson and Tushman,

1990), suggesting an importance of understanding how entrepreneurs obtain acceptance of the innovations and themselves (Schoonhoven and Romanelli, 2001). Among the strategies that entrepreneurs can use to this purpose (e.g., Zott and Huy, 2007), the notion of hybridity is regarded as central (Tripsas, 1997; Hargadon and Douglas, 2001; Jensen,

2010). Hybridity that combines elements of an established product with those of a new product is an effective way to attain visibility and acceptance by invoking preexisting understanding and knowledge (Hargadon and Douglas, 2001: 488), providing a cognitive template (Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009), creating socially acceptable identities or images

(Glynn, 2008), and lowering emotional and normative barriers (Zelizer, 1978; Jensen,

2010).

Despite this large body of research, organizational research provides little guidance as to how the hybrid can influence the evolution of the new and established products over time, a glaring absence given the many potential outcomes. For example, the hybrid could eventually redefine the nascent product (Negro, Hannan, and Rao, 2011) and replace it. Or, the hybrid could become dominant and subsume nascent product, but eventually be incorporated into the established one if it borrow heavily from the established (Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010). Alternatively, the nascent product could obtain certain market space and remain independent from the hybrid as well as the established product (Adner and Snow, 2010). Understanding which of these scenarios is

3 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success more likely to occur is important, given the prevalence of this type of hybrid in both literature and practice.

To advance theory on this issue, I develop a framework whereby the nascent product not only remains independent but also eventually becomes more popular than the hybrid. Drawing upon research on the cultural and sociological view of markets (e.g.,

Rosa et al., 1999; Lounsbury and Rao, 2004; Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010), I argue that a hybrid integrating elements of an established product into a new product can secure acceptance because of its familiarity to key stakeholders—who become more comfortable with the hybrid than with a nascent product. However, the success of the hybrid can unwittingly increase the appeal of the nascent product, as the hybrid integrates its elements. With more knowledge of the nascent product, market participants may identify its key elements that are not included in the hybrid and may perceive the hybrid as inferior, satisfying only part of the appeal of the nascent. Therefore, they may gradually return to the once-nascent product in search of a more authentic, superior experience (Peterson, 2005).

I apply my framework to a context in which a hybrid played a crucial role in the evolution of a new market—the emergence of hybrid jazz in the U.S., sometimes referred to as symphonic jazz. This setting is ideal to test my framework because the popularity of hybrid jazz was so enormous that many contemporaries considered it to be a standard of jazz forever (Stringham, 1926; Spaeth, 1928). A fusion of symphonic instrumentation with jazz, the hybrid form emerged around the late 1910s when jazz was still poorly accepted (Peretti, 1997; Phillips and Kim, 2009). In this era, European classical music was considered a more prestigious and widely appreciated music genre. Exploiting that

4 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success legitimacy gap, a group of entrepreneurial musicians and companies adopted symphonic instrumentation and pre-arranged compositions to establish a hybrid form. Exemplified by Rhapsody in Blue, hybrid jazz achieved enormous commercial success in the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, many jazz historians and musicologists believe that the success of this hybrid contributed to the legitimization of the entire jazz domain (e.g., Leonard, 1962).

Interestingly, however, hybrid jazz’s popularity began to wane with the revival of the original jazz form beginning in the late 1930s. By the mid-1940s, the hybrid form was no longer in the “forefront of jazz” (Kernfeld, 2002: 125). Although still a sub-genre or style, it never regained its dominance in the jazz field (Kernfeld, 2002; Shipton, 2008). This paper examines how the early popularity of hybrid jazz caused the subsequent reemergence of original jazz. In doing so, I follow recent research suggesting that local communities constitute the distinct institutional environments (e.g., Marquis, Glynn, and

Davis, 2007; Marquis and Battilana, 2009; Greve and Rao, 2012) and consider the relationship in individual communities.

The stream of research closest to mine is that related to resource partitioning theory, which has reported cases in which the anti-commercial sentiment against the dominant products engendered the rise of an original product type (e.g., Carroll and

Swaminathan, 2000; Greve, Pozner, and Rao, 2006; See also Raffaelli, 2013). Although the dominant products in these studies were hybrids of multiple product types in the same product category, my focus is on a hybrid of an established and a nascent product that are otherwise independent. The framework of this paper has some similarity to the theory of fashion cycles (e.g., Lieberson, 2000). Whereas this theory predicts a periodic change in dominance between styles, also my theory predicts the persistent dominance of the

5 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success original form once regained.

This paper makes three important contributions. First, it extends research on entrepreneurship (e.g., Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Hargadon and Douglas, 2001) by suggesting that although entrepreneurial firms may rely on a hybrid to achieve legitimacy, they need to change the focus of business activities to the once-nascent product as the hybrid (and thus the once-nascent) becomes increasingly accepted. Second, this work helps to explain why a hybrid can be a source of penalization as well as value creation, and thus provides new insights into the central research debates on whether spanning of market categories is penalized or not (e.g., Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010;

Zuckerman, 2015). Finally, this study contributes to recent research on institutional legacies of communities (e.g., Marquis and Battilana, 2009; Greve and Rao, 2012) by suggesting that the enduring heterogeneity of institutional environment across communities can arise from the early popularity of specific products.

HYBRID, MARKET EVOLUTION, AND MARKET ACCEPTANCE

The notion that a hybrid or blend of artifacts is important for market evolution is well established in the canons of management and sociological research. Schumpeter’s (1934) concept of entrepreneurial innovation as resulting from a new combination of existing products is a core tenet of research on new market creation and innovation (Henderson and Clark, 1990; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). Hybrids have also been regarded as a source of change. For example, Zelizer (1978) observed that the adoption of more accepted and legitimated product’s elements into the illegitimate market of life insurance contributed to a rise in the popularity of the life insurance. Rao et al. (2005) similarly showed that a combination of techniques and ingredients used in different culinary

6 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success regimes led to a change in market dynamics because the boundaries between the regimes became less rigid, making the transition from old to new regimes easier and less costly

(See also Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010). Although it may cause cognitive confusion and become devalued (Zuckerman, 1999; but see Zuckerman, 2015), a hybrid of different products can therefore be a source of market creation and change.

Focusing on a specific type of hybrid—a hybrid of a nascent and an established product—research on entrepreneurship and institutional theory regard the hybrid as having a symbolic and substantial importance for entrepreneurs seeking to obtain legitimacy need for acquiring resources and support (Zott and Huy, 2007). Similar to an analogy or metaphor (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Gavetti, Levinthal, and Rivkin, 2005), the hybridity provides cues from the consumer’s existing knowledge base for understanding and embracing a new product. Hargadon and Douglas (2001) observed that

Edison introduced his light bulb with a shade around it, a familiar link to traditional gas lamps, even though the electric light bulb didn’t need a shade. They argued that this design choices of “lessening rather than emphasizing the gaps between the old institutions and his new innovation” helped to “locate the ideas within the set of understandings and patterns of action that constitute the institutional environment” (2001:

476-489; See also Tripsas [1997] and Moreau et al., [2001] for similar examples in other settings). In addition to facilitating the understanding of a new product, the hybrid can also neutralize normative and emotional pushback from the public. For example, a study of the Danish movie industry showed that a hybrid of the more accepted comedy genre with the newly legalized pornography genre eased public resistance and spurred the development of the market for pornography (Jensen, 2010). The social movement

7 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success literature similarly highlights the importance of broadening the appeal of activist causes by framing them in ways that bridge their concerns to intersect with those of a broader audience and hence attract more attention and shared emotions (e.g., McAdam,

McCarthy, and Zald, 1996; Weber, Heinze, and DeSoucey, 2008). Overall, research suggests that the hybrid can overcome reluctance and objection to new products and achieve acceptance.1

A question therefore arises as to how the emergence of the hybrid influences the nascent or once-nascent product. Given the path-dependent nature of market evolution

(Garud and Karnøe, 2001), the early emergence of a hybrid can fundamentally alter how markets develop over time.2 Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury (2010) suggested several possible pathways through which these markets can evolve: in the first, one product subsumes the other (termed “subsumption”); in the second, one product expands at the expense of another without completely absorbing or replacing it (termed “substitution”).

Alternatively, the two products may grow together, generating synergy rather than competition. Understanding which scenario is more likely to occur with the early emergence of the hybrid is important, as it has significant implications for how entrepreneurs adapt their strategies as the market develops beyond the fledging stage.

Drawing upon theories on the evolution of market categories (Rosa et al., 1999;

Lounsbury and Rao, 2004; Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010), I develop theory on how

1 Although research on market categories generally suggests that the hybrid category might be overlooked or devalued (Greve and Rao, 2014: 35-38), a key boundary condition of such a category imperative is that the categories being combined must be well understood such that combining them causes confusion (e.g., Zuckerman, 1999; Hsu, 2006). Thus, such a penalty for recombining categories is not applicable to a hybrid of nascent and established products. 2 The hybrid is less likely to affect the established market than the nascent market, because the established market is, by definition, more stable boundary and dynamics than nascent one. In this paper, I thus focus on the hybrid’s influence on the nascent or once-nascent market.

8 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success the hybrid product may gradually influence the evolution of the once-nascent product. In doing so, I build upon a recent conception of markets and local community environments as having an enduring influence on one another (Marquis and Battilana, 2009; Greve and

Rao, 2012). Considering each community to represent a distinct institutional environment with respect to regulative, social-normative and cultural-cognitive aspects (Marquis and

Battilana, 2009), this perspective shows that local organizational foundings can be a source of the community heterogeneity that may last for a long time (See Greve and Rao,

2014 for a review). Extending this logic to product market, I examine how earlier introduction and prevalence of the hybrid in a community can leave an enduring influence on the popularity of the related products later in the community.

In the next section, I develop hypotheses to test my theory in the context of the emergence of a hybrid jazz form and the subsequent re-emergence of the original form.

In doing so, I consider the evolution of cultural markets to be an outcome of both the production (e.g., Hirsch, 1972; Peterson and Berger, 1975) and consumption sides (e.g.,

Griswold, 1987), in line with a recent call for integrating both sides in cultural sociology

(e.g., Peterson and Anand, 2004: 318; Patterson, 2014).

CONTEXT AND HYPOTHESES

Background of the Emergence of Hybrid Jazz: Limited Acceptance of Original Jazz

Emerging in the late 19th century from New Orleans, jazz was characterized as one of the most unconventional music genres by contemporary Americans. The combination of characteristics—syncopation (i.e., a deliberate shift in accent or rhythmic stresses to create an ‘off-beat’) and improvisation (i.e., extemporaneous play and composition)—

9 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success along with early jazz musicians’ unusual techniques made jazz both unique and difficult to understand (Raeburn, 2009). Moreover, jazz was disparaged because of its African-

American origins. The early 20th century was an era in which the racialization of music prevailed (Dowd, 2003), and jazz was no exception, given its roots in blues, folk and ragtime.

Among various consumers of cultural products, the classical ‘cultural elite’ particularly loathed jazz, essentially because of the fundamental differences between jazz and European classical music. In classical music—the widely accepted music genre during the period (Dowd, 2003)—a performance is pre-arranged and rehearsed, leaving limited room for improvisation; musicians’ ‘interpretation’ means taking minor liberty with a melody, such as novel accents or dynamics (Berliner, 1994: 66-71). In contrast, a jazz performance typically began with artists’ consensus on which song would be played, while the actual notes and sounds depended on the collective improvisation of the players—who followed a wide but defined range of variation rules to “radically alter portions of the melody or replace its segments with new creations bearing little, if any, relationship to the melody's shape” (Berliner, 1994: 77). In addition, jazz musicians deliberately changed the specific rhythm of the piece (syncopation), and the range and adoption of the syncopation were much more flexible in jazz than in classical music.

The lack of formal musical training—which was centered around classical music—of most pioneers of jazz further contributed to the dislike of this widely misunderstood genre (Leonard, 1962). Given these differences, along with the origins of jazz, classical music fans openly condemned jazz as a “lack of artistic cultivation” and

“incompetent music” that leads to “vulgarization of English taste and artistic ideals” (Sir

10 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Henry Coward in Houston Chronicle, 25 Feb 1925)—a sentiment also reflected in the following quote from Musical Quarterly, a journal championed by the cultural elite and educators of that time:

It [original jazz] is different from real music, which demands much time and thought; the music of artistic cultivation, of humble ambitions, prayerfully and earnestly followed; of obedience to teachers; of self-denial, renunciation and sacrifice; of the worship of beauty, and the passionate desire to express it. (White, 1922: 42-43)

Around the mid-1920s, at the same time that jazz was suffering from widespread rejection by classical music listeners, the recording industry was on the rise. This growth was led by popular music genres including dance band music, marching bands and parlor songs. Given its low acceptance, the moderate sales of early jazz records were surprising, demonstrating its potential appeal to the public. However, further market penetration was constrained while its acceptance was limited to a specific audience—primarily African-

Americans (Peretti, 1997; Kenney, 1999).

Hybrid jazz emerged as a result of these social and cultural cleavages (Sargeant,

1975). In the late 1910s and early 1920s, a group of classically trained musicians modified some jazz rhythms and harmonies to fit with classical theory and instrumental techniques (Lopes, 1999). This hybrid or “symphonic jazz” was characterized by performances that relied on pre-composed and pre-arranged pieces for a larger group of instruments, in sharp contrast to the small groups playing the improvised (original) jazz.

Performances by hybrid jazz bands were divided into several sections and featured more elaborate arrangements, “emulating symphonic presentation in composition and arrangement” (Lopes, 1999: 31). The best-known example is George Gershwin’s

11 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Rhapsody in Blue, a piece composed and first played in 1924.

The public’s reaction to this innovative jazz was enormously positive. The public had much less difficulty comprehending and embracing the hybrid form compared with the original jazz; at the same time, they found it more entertaining than the “serious”

European classical music (Leonard, 1962; Peretti, 1997). Many cultural critics, including classical music fans, also welcomed the hybrid form, championing the foremost hybrid jazz musician as the “King of Jazz”—Paul Whiteman, a classically trained bandleader who is credited with inventing the notion of hybrid jazz and who commissioned

Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. Unlike the original, the new hybrid was regarded as a proper type of music:

Jazz is in need of guidance into true, wholesome channels wherein it may be developed into what we would like to have it ... What we need now is the proper guidance of the jazz germ … Luckily we are seeing what is needed. (Stringham, 1926: 192-195)

Equally important, the recording companies that now dominated the industry were actively producing hybrid jazz. Most of these companies—notably Victor, Columbia, and

Edison—had the identities tightly linked to the classical music record and had actively published and used classical music records for enhancing their reputations as prestigious recording companies (Phillips and Kim, 2009). While these companies were reluctant to produce the original jazz, they favored to record the performances of the bands with more

“highbrow” appeal that matched well with their identities and strategies (Phillips and

Owens, 2004; Phillips and Kim, 2009).

As a result, hybrid jazz records quickly came to dominate the market for jazz records throughout the 1920s and 1930s after the first recording in 1920 by Paul

12 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Whiteman Orchestra with the Victor (Leonard, 1962; Sargeant, 1975).

Revival of Original Jazz and Market Domination

Given the enormous success and acclaim that hybrid jazz achieved, it is surprising that the jazz revival arose during the 1940s and the 1950s and resulted in a complete reversal of the relative dominance of these two forms. The roots of the jazz revival dated back to the mid-1930s, when a group of musicians and critics began to argue the superiority of the original form to the hybrid. Analytical and historical volumes such as Le Hot Jazz by

Hugues Panassié (1936), Hot Discography by Charles Delaunay (1936), American Jazz

Music by Wilder Hobson (1939) and Jazzmen by Charles Delaunay and Frederic Ramsey

(1939) made a crucial impact on how public and critics appreciated the original jazz

(Leonard, 1962; Gendron, 1993). Along with others, they specifically provided a theoretical basis for the revival of the original jazz by accusing hybrid jazz of being inauthentic and justifying original jazz to Americans who were diffident about it. These critics argued that collective improvisation among multiple jazz musicians was the essence of “true jazz” that imbued the music with its originality; only through collective improvisation could each player become both an originator and an interpreter of music

(Engel, 1929; Harap, 1941):

Every jazz band should provide for improvisation of a few choruses, usually accompanied at least by the rhythm section, and it is in this solo work that the great jazz players can best be studied. (Harap, 1941: 53)

The leading record companies were reluctant to produce such performances, because of their strong identification with highbrow culture as well as their dim view of the probability of commercial success (Raeburn, 2009). By contrary to this prediction, the

13 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success first revivalist jazz record—by Henry “Kid” Rena’s Delta Jazz Band in 1940—achieved both commercial success and critical appreciation (Leonard, 1962; Sargeant, 1975).

Thereafter, the original “hot” jazz quickly became the dominant form again, and has never lost its dominance since (Kernfeld, 2002; Shipton, 2008). In contrast, the majority of the hybrid big bands that were popular during the 1920s and 1930s collapsed by the late-1940s (Kernfeld, 2002). Although the hybrid form was not extinguished but rather continued as one style of jazz, it never regained the dominance that it enjoyed during the

1920s and 1930s.

── Insert Figure 1 about here ──

Jazz historians and musicologists have provided diverse explanations for this radical change in dominance of these two forms of jazz. The most prominent view links this rise in popularity of the original jazz to the folk music revivalism endemic from the

1940s to 1960s (e.g., Livingston, 1999). This view typically argues that the revivalism in popular music was largely driven by the after-war liberalism and a political movement to cast left-wing ideologies into popular culture during the period (e.g., Eyerman and

Barretta, 1996). Although this societal change may facilitate the revivalism of jazz, it cannot explain why the jazz revival led to the complete change in the relative dominance between the original and then-dominant form, whereas the revivalism of other music genres did not.

Below, I theorize that the success of hybrid jazz in earlier period caused the subsequent rise in popularity of the original form.

14 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Rise of Hybrid Jazz Records and Jazz Record Production during the Pre-revival

Era

Research in various traditions suggests that a hybrid that combines a nascent product with an established product will be more easily accepted. For instance, Hargadon and Douglas

(2001) found that Edison’s adoption of elements of the existing system made his invention appear more familiar and more easily understood by guiding individuals to draw upon their knowledge of existing products to understand the invention. Likewise, research in cognitive psychology on category learning (e.g., O'Sullivan and Durso, 1984;

Gelman and Markman, 1986) suggests that individuals tend to draw upon their understanding of existing products to understand objects that they have not experienced.

If a new product is perceived to be similar to an established product, their understanding of and emotion toward the existing product may be transferred to the new product.

Organizational studies have similarly evidenced such a diffusion of legitimacy based on perceived similarity between organizational forms (Ruef, 2000; Dobrev, Ozdemir, and

Teo, 2006; Kuilman and Li, 2009) and market categories (Zelizer, 1978; Jensen, 2010).

Given the importance of a product’s attributes to the “understanding, appreciating, and eventually, adoption of an innovation” of market participants (Hargadon and Douglas,

2001: 479), the hybridity will make market participants draw upon their understanding and appreciation of the integrated product, thereby facilitating its adoption.

In the immediate aftermath of the increased popularity of the hybrid, the once- nascent (original) may fail to attract the attention and necessary resources. In many cases, the hybrid and once-nascent product types are economic substitutes that compete for the valuable resources from audiences (Ruef, 2000; Kennedy, Lo, and Lounsbury, 2010).

15 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Given that the attention of and endorsement in an emerging market is particularly limited

(Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009), the growth of the once-nascent may be restricted as a result of the hybrid’s popularity.

Given these considerations, we should expect that the success of hybrid jazz records might have restricted the growth of original jazz records and the entry of companies producing that jazz form. In the context of early jazz, hybrid and original jazz have clearly been perceived as competing with one other. The early popularity of hybrid jazz attracted attention and endorsement from recording companies and jazz musicians, leaving little remaining for original jazz. Many recording companies and musicians— particularly those who were producing classical records or trained as classical musicians—followed precedent setters such as Paul Whiteman and Victor to begin their career in hybrid jazz (Lopes, 1999; Shipton, 2008). In the 1920s, the public and critics often stated that original jazz music “sounded like a crazy clarinetist broadcasting from a boiler factory … when the static was particularly bad” (Frankenstein, 1925: 40), and this music was equated with “the old, raucous noises…that are now almost forgotten” (Spaeth,

1928: 271). In contrast, critics and the public often described hybrid jazz as “soft, dreamy, subtly exotic effects, often presenting real beauty of tonal coloring” (Spaeth, 1928: 271) that “has much about it of interest and even of value” (New York Times, August 11, 1924:

12). Thus, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): During the pre-revival era, the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced in a community would (a) lower the growth in the number of original jazz records produced in the community and (b) lower the rates of entry for companies producing original jazz records in the community.

16 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

The increased dominance of the hybrid relative to the original, once-nascent may increase a chance of the hybrid subsuming the once-nascent product (Kennedy, Lo, and

Lounsbury, 2010). However, when the hybrid includes only a part of the once-nascent’s key characteristics—a often case with hybrids—the once-nascent and the hybrid are likely to remain separate (Negro, Hannan, and Rao, 2011).

When they remain separate, the increased acceptance of the hybrid may have interesting spillover effects on the once-nascent product over time (Ruef, 2000; Dobrev,

Ozdemir, and Teo, 2006; Kuilman and Li, 2009). The exposure of market participants to the hybrid boosts familiarity with aspects of the once-nascent that are included in the hybrid. This increased familiarity can be particularly helpful for strengthening acceptance of the once-nascent when those aspects are more radically different from existing products. Reluctance and objections toward the once-nascent, if any, can be also mitigated as a result of the hybrid’s popularity, because the hybrid’s features adopted from the more accepted product might neutralize the hesitation. Research in cognitive psychology (e.g., Gentner and Markman, 1997) and in organizational studies (Dobrev,

Ozdemir, and Teo, 2006; Kuilman and Li, 2009) similarly suggest the possibility of legitimacy diffusion from the hybrid to the once-nascent.

This spillover effect may be particularly strong when the products share names or labels (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990) because naming is a strong cue directing individuals’ classifications and perceptions of similarity among products (Stoman, Malt, and Fridman, 2001).

In the case of hybrid and original jazz, evidence indicates that the early popularity of hybrid jazz helped secure the viability of jazz as a field. Although it was

17 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success fundamentally different in some respects, the hybrid form embraced some key elements of the original form, such as the syncopation, rhythm and harmonies of original jazz that were unprecedented in other genres and had thus prevented wide acceptance of jazz, while combining them with the classical music’s features that were more familiar to many Americans. Thus, the public and critics were less reluctant to embrace hybrid jazz and consequently became more familiar with the elements of the original form that were included in the hybrid. Jazz historians and musicologists generally offer similar observations:

By offering jazz elements confected into a palatable form of entertainment, commercial [hybrid] jazz helped Americans to become familiar with them. After hearing jazz characteristics (however altered) for several years, many listeners could begin to accept or tolerate jazz less as a wild-sounding novelty and more as a form of music. (Leonard, 1962: 75)

But Charles Wakefield Cadman feels that such pilfered themes “treated jazzily” have led to the understanding and appreciation of the original versions. (New York Times, August 11, 1924: 12)

Moreover, the hybrid jazz bands tended to identify themselves as jazz bands rather than as classical orchestras or ensembles. Specifically, these bands relied on terms such as “symphonic jazz”—a term coined by Paul Whiteman—or “hotel orchestra jazz” to position themselves as “refined” jazz bands (Kernfeld, 2002; Kahl, Kim, and Phillips,

2010). This choice was primarily based on consideration of the wider opportunities for entry and success in the jazz field than the classical during the era (Lopes, 1999; Shipton,

2008). Nevertheless, in doing so, these musicians unwittingly helped the original jazz form to become more accepted.

18 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

As a result, audiences and critics gradually began to recognize the differences between the hybrid and original forms and to show increased comprehension of the original jazz. For instance, some argued that “what interested composers [of the hybrid jazz]... was not so much the spirit … as the more technical side of jazz” (Copland, 1927:

10-11), and thus hybrid jazz pieces were dilutions of a “genuine originality of expression and spirit” (Smith, 1930: 512). Therefore, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): During the pre-revival era, a greater amount of time elapsed since the first production of hybrid jazz record in a community was associated with a weaker negative effect of the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced in a community on (a) the growth in the number of original jazz records produced in the community and (b) the rates of entry for companies producing original jazz records in the community (as predicted in hypothesis 1).

Early Hybrid Jazz Record Production and Jazz Record Production during the

Revival Era

The improved acceptance of the once-nascent form over time may influence the dynamics between it and the hybrid in an interesting way. With a better understanding of the once-nascent product, consumers may now better recognize differences between the hybrid and the once-nascent, including the characteristics of the once-nascent form missing in the hybrid. If those left-out elements are crucial to a positive evaluation and integral to the appeal of the once-nascent, then market participants may evaluate the once-nascent more positively relative to the hybrid. This change in evaluation may be facilitated by individuals’ pursuit of authenticity (Peterson, 2005; Kovács, Carroll, and

Lehman, 2014)—the appeal that can be sufficiently strong to outweigh other important

19 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success values, such as food hygiene (Kovács, Carroll, and Lehman, 2014) or price and convenience in watches (Raffaelli, 2013). Or, the rise in the once-nascent’s appreciation may interact with individuals’ differentiation incentives (Lieberson, 2000), boundary members’ identity movement (Gamson and Meyer, 1996) or anti-commercial sentiment

(Carroll and Swaminathan, 2000; Greve, Pozner, and Rao, 2006), all of which can further motivate more market participants to turn to the once-nascent over the hybrid. Without a significant addition of value in the hybrid to compensate for the loss—as in disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997)—the once-nascent product can thus be considered superior to the hybrid and become more popular eventually.

In the jazz context, there is considerable evidence that the dominance of hybrid jazz may have led to increased acceptance and appreciation of the original jazz form. By listening to Rhapsody in Blue and similar pieces, many Americans in the early 20th century became familiar with and less reluctant to accept the syncopation, rhythm and harmonies of jazz. The acceptance of syncopation was crucial because syncopation is often believed to be a cause of the low acceptance of early jazz (Spaeth, 1928; Panassié,

1936), as exemplified in one description of it as a “goofy placement of accent”

(Frankenstein, 1925: 40). Interestingly, consumers increasingly sought out improvisational jazz as they better understood and accepted the original form. Although this feature had received little acknowledgement earlier, the improvisation began to be recognized as the most important determinant of jazz’s appeal gradually:

For jazz finds its last and supreme glory in the skill for improvisation exhibited by the performers. The deliberately scored jazz tunes are generally clumsy, pedestrian. … A good jazz band should never play, and actually never does play,

20 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

the same piece twice in the same manner. Each player must be a clever musician, an originator as well as an interpreter. (Engel, 1929: 184-185)

Interestingly, the enhanced appeal of the original was so apparent that eminent hybrid jazz musicians, including Paul Whiteman himself, attempted to emulate it by incorporating improvisation into their performances (Peretti, 1997; Kernfeld, 2002: 122-

123).3 However, these musicians were constrained by the fact that their performances were relied on large orchestra with many instruments and on pre-composition and arrangement, while the collective improvisation—the characteristic that was considered the most important determinant of jazz’s authenticity (Panassié, 1942; Gendron, 1993;

Raeburn, 2009)—cannot be performed with large instruments (Kernfeld, 2002). Record companies that were ardent producers of hybrid jazz were also constrained by inertial forces from their identities and thus inactive for publishing original jazz (Benner, 2007).

Instead, new companies whose identities rooted in original jazz, such as the United Hot

Clubs of America and the Hot Record Society, actively issued original jazz records. Thus,

I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): During the revival era, the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced in a community would (a) increase the growth in the number of original jazz records produced in the community and (b) increase the rates of entry for companies producing original jazz records in the community.

To the extent that the increased appeal of the once-nascent’s authenticity is based on recognition of the hybrid’s limitation, the reemergence of the once-nascent may

3 Swing music can be understood as similar attempt to incorporate the original form’s appeal, as swing bands generally played stronger rhythms than hybrid jazz bands with solo improvisation. Small swing bands even experimented the collective improvisation. See the Robustness Tests section for the details on this issue.

21 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success disadvantage the growth of the hybrid. Evidence similarly suggests that the revived popularity of original jazz may have restricted that of hybrid jazz. Indeed, proponents of original jazz severely criticized hybrid jazz, since from their perspective, the hybrid form sacrificed the genuineness and creativity of jazz for commercialization:

Interest in small jazz bands was intensified by the growing critical opinion that big-band jazz was not the true music. … Critics never really approved of Whiteman's concept of symphonic jazz, which they felt did not capture the essence of the music … insisted that only the older improvised music was the true jazz. (Kernfeld, 2002: 125)

Overall, the early hybrid form contributed to the achievement of legitimacy for original jazz while jazz was still poorly accepted. However the hybrid also led to the increased appeal of the original form of jazz relative to its own appeal, causing its own demise later. Therefore, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): During the revival era, the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced in a community would (a) lower the growth in the number of hybrid jazz records produced in the community and (b) lower the rates of entry for companies producing hybrid jazz records in the community.

Moderating Effects of Media Coverage

Thus far, I have argued that the increased understanding and acceptance of the once- nascent as a result of the hybrid can generate the retrogressive change in dominance between the once-nascent and hybrid. In the following section, I posit that the early media coverage in favor of the hybrid can facilitate this process for two reasons. First, favorable media coverage may contribute to the legitimization of the hybrid (Gamson et

22 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success al., 1992; Pollock and Rindova, 2003) and thus may facilitate the process of identifying the limitation of the hybrid compared to the once-nascent form.

More importantly, as a conduit of marketing message or propaganda (King and

Soule, 2007; Kennedy, 2008), the news media conveys the voices of the hybrid’s proponents that may inadvertently emphasize the limitations of the hybrid. To garner more acceptance, producers and fans of the hybrid often argue for uniqueness and values of the hybrid relative to the established as well as the once-nascent product. Particularly, their main goal will be to differentiate the hybrid from the more established product rather than the nascent—thus achieving conceptual distinctiveness and independence

(Hargadon and Douglas, 2001; Bingham and Kahl, 2013). To do so, they are likely to focus on advertising values of the hybrid’s features that are not part of the established— those from the nascent product. If this differentiation strategy is successful, however, it may help the public recognize the superiority of the once-nascent form to the hybrid.

In the jazz context, early media coverage of hybrid jazz may have not only increased its acceptance but also made its features crucial for evaluating any jazz form.

Producers of hybrid jazz records, including musicians and companies, actively used media to mold their identities and shape the public’s evaluations of the new art form.

Specifically, these proponents emphasized “refinedness” of hybrid form to differentiate from the original jazz; yet, they appealed to nationalism to differentiate from the classical music:

The great music of the past in other countries has always been built on folk-music … Jazz I regard as an American folk-music; not the only one, but a very powerful one which is probably in the blood and feeling of the American people. (Gershwin, 1933: 186-187)

23 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Jazz is the spirit of a new country. It catches up the underlying life motif of a continent and period, molding it into a form which expresses the fundamental emotion of the people, the place and time … At the same time, it evolves new forms… just as America constantly throws aside old machines for newer and more efficient ones. (Whiteman and McBride, 1926: 130-131)

This appeal may have helped secure public’s acceptance in the short term, however in the long run it may have, ironically, called more attention to the limitations of the hybrid. As the hybrid was part American jazz and part European classical music, it did not fully reflect the American spirit; rather, it may be regarded as contaminating it.

Indeed, the original jazz revivalists attacked hybrid jazz on this very point:

The most valid and vital music created in America in this century has been hot [original] jazz, while “classical” composition [hybrid jazz] here during the same period has been something less than vital. (Harap, 1941: 48)

Thus, while attempting to gain the public’s endorsement, the early producers and musicians of hybrid jazz unwittingly called more attention to their limitations, thereby facilitating the increased appeal of the original form. Therefore, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The more news articles discussed hybrid jazz favorably during the pre-revival era in a community, the stronger the positive effect of the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced in a community would be on the growth in the number of original jazz records produced during the revival era in a community (as predicted in hypothesis 3a).

METHODS

Sample and Data Collection

My sample consists of commercial jazz recordings published in the U.S. from 1920 to

24 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

1955. The data on recordings are drawn from two discographies known for their comprehensiveness and perfection: Jazz Recordings (Rust, 1969) and Jazz Discography

(Lord, 2014). They contain information on the recording date, name of a band or artists and their corresponding instruments, recording location, song title, and recording label, among other information. The data period begins in the third quarter of 1920—the quarter in which the first hybrid jazz was recorded and marketed by Paul Whiteman Orchestra— and ends in the fourth quarter of 1955—the quarter in which the popularity dynamics of hybrid and original jazz stabilized (Peretti, 1997; Gioia, 1998). This period also represents an era in which precedes the primary fragmentation of jazz styles, such as

West Coast jazz, soul jazz, modal jazz, third-stream jazz, free jazz, and funky jazz (Gioia,

1998; Kernfeld, 2002). Jazz historians and musicologists generally consider the revival of jazz records to begin in August 21, 1940, following the recording of Henry “Kid” Rena’s

Delta Jazz Band (e.g., Sargeant, 1975; Kernfeld, 2002). I therefore regard the third quarter of 1940 as a starting point for the era of jazz revivalism. I primarily consulted three volumes on early American recording companies to obtain data on recording companies (Rust, 1978; Sutton, 1994; Sutton and Nauck, 2000). I also consulted the internet and made inquiries to hobbyist communities for the additional information.

Based on the notion that each community has a distinct institutional environment

(Marquis and Battilana, 2009), I defined a quarter-community as the unit of analysis. The definition of community was based on Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs), the most commonly used operationalization of a community in studies (e.g., Marquis, 2003; Stuart and Sorenson, 2003). Developed in the 1950 by the Federal Committee on Standard

Metropolitan Areas, this criterion defines each SMA as one or more contiguous counties

25 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success containing at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more and additional counties that meet certain criteria of metropolitan character and of social and economic integration with the central city (Shryock, 1957). Thus, an SMA connects multiple counties that are geographically and economically interconnected . This unit is also ideal for capturing the geographical distribution of jazz production because jazz recording was an urban-based industry (Peretti, 1997; Kenney, 1999).4 I used the classification of 163 SMAs in Bogue

(1953)—a study conducted to provide a way to extend the SMA concept backward to earlier censuses.

Classification of Hybrid and Original Jazz Records

Classifying jazz into different styles can be a difficult task because jazz has particularly fuzzy boundaries (Kahl, Kim, and Phillips, 2010). In this paper, I used two different criteria that are based either on a playing style or on self-claimed identities. As a proxy for whether the performance centered on improvisation (Berliner, 1994; Gioia, 1998), the first criterion pertains to whether the number of melody instruments used in each recording is greater than four.5 Here, melody or “front-line” instruments refer to wind instruments—such as the trumpet, trombone, saxophone, cornet, clarinet, or violin—and singers, excluding rhythmic instruments—such as the tuba, bass, banjo, guitar, piano, or drum. The logic behind this approach is twofold. First, most original jazz revivalists

4 Although these communities represented heterogeneities, they were interlinked particularly those in the same state. Because such an interaction among communities may undermine the suggested effects, I retested hypotheses using states instead of SMAs for defining communities. This alternative definition did not change the results substantively. 5 This criterion pertains not only to the period of the study, but also to the modern era for discerning jazz, since “jazz bands, broadly speaking, may be divided into two categories: smaller groups which play music that is predominantly improvised; and larger groups, in which a substantial amount of the music performed is previously arranged.” (Kernfeld, 2002: 118).

26 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

“insisted that only the older, wholly improvised music was the true jazz” (Kernfeld,

2002: 124); second, it is widely believed among jazz musicians and scholars “that not more than three or four such instruments [melody instruments] can successfully improvise together, and that groups containing a larger number of them must play arranged parts” (Kernfeld, 2002: 119).6

For example, a recording by the hybrid jazz band Paul Whiteman and His

Orchestra used seven different melody instruments (in October 21, 1921), whereas a recording by the original jazz band Chicago Rhythm Kings used three (in March 27 1928)

(Lord, 2014). A more convincing example comes from the bands of Lu Watters, a trumpeter and bandleader who began his career as a sessionist in hybrid jazz bands but subsequently became the eminent original jazz revivalist. One of his earliest records as

Jack Danford and His Ben Franklin Hotel Orchestra used seven melody instruments, whereas that by Lu Watter’s Band in 1939 used only three melody parts.

For the second criterion, I considered whether names of jazz bands include symbolic words that represent a specific style, extending the approach by Phillips

(Phillips and Owens, 2004; Phillips and Kim, 2009; Kahl, Kim, and Phillips, 2010;

Phillips, 2011). Specifically, the following words were applied: “orchestra,” “hotel”

“symphonic,” “sweet,” “big,” “concert(o),” “dance,” “refined,” “big band,” “highbrow,”

“straight,” and “stage” for hybrid jazz; “hot,” “jazzy,” “jassy,” “dixieland,” “real,”

“offensive,” “revival,” “heritage,” “jazz classic,” “traditional jazz,” and an indication of geography such as New Orleans and Chicago for the original jazz.

6 This definition of original jazz is conservative in that it excludes those large bands that incorporated improvisation to a limited sense, the bands of which most core original jazz revivalists did not regard those bands as original jazz bands (e.g., Panassié, 1936; Delaunay, 1936). Moreover, this conservative approach hinders finding the hypothesized effects referenced in hypotheses 3 and 5.

27 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

I used these criteria for measuring dependent and independent variables.

Dependent Variables

Number of original or hybrid jazz records produced. Using the criteria for discerning eras and jazz forms described above, I measured the number of original or hybrid jazz records produced per community-quarter to measure the growth rates in the production of either type of records.

Number of companies beginning production of original or hybrid jazz records.

Similarly, I measured the number of recording companies that began to produce either jazz form per community-quarter (Stuart and Sorenson, 2003). One distinction can be made between record company and record label, as some large companies managed multiple labels to specialize in specific niche markets (Sutton and Nauck, 2000). I focused on the number of recording companies rather than recording labels, because firm entry corresponds to entrepreneurial activity whereas the label entry results from a company’s diversification or market strategies. Nevertheless, using labels to measure entry gave the same results as using companies.

Independent Variables

Cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced. Using the same criteria described above, this variable was measured by the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records that had been produced in the focal community up to the previous quarter. Given the evidence of depreciation of learning at individual (e.g., Bailey, 1989) and organizational-level (e.g., Argote, Beckman, and Epple, 1990), the effect of the cumulative production may depreciate over time. Thus, I tested the alternative measures

28 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success accounting for only last 7 or 9 years for the cumulative production per community- quarter. These measures with decay had little bearing on the findings.

Time elapsed since the first production of hybrid jazz record in a community.

This variable was measured by the number of quarters elapsed since hybrid jazz record was produced first in a community.

Favorable local media coverage of hybrid jazz. This variable measures the number of newspaper articles favorable to hybrid jazz published during the pre-revival era in a community. I collected data from diverse databases, including the ProQuest

Historical Newspaper, Lexis-Nexis, and www.newspapers.com. Because the time span for discourse to take an effect is likely to be more than a quarter, I aggregated the number of discourse items that had been published for the last four quarters.

I reported the results from seven newspapers that covered the seven randomly chosen SMAs (described in Table 6). To measure the sentiment in each of the articles covering hybrid jazz, I used an algorithm for machine learning semantic analysis—the

Stanford CoreNLP (natural language processing) algorithm for sentiment analysis

(Manning et al., 2014). This approach considers grammatical dependencies of the parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb, and adjective) in each sentence in addition to the sentiment contained in each word. This approach is particularly appropriate for handling discourse with sarcasm, the contrastive conjunction but, and the negation of positive or negative sentences. As media coverage for jazz music contained ample amounts of these elements, the machine learning approach is ideal for my purpose, compared to other approaches such as dictionary-based software of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) or

General Inquirer (GI) (Manning et al., 2014).

29 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Control variables

I included several community-level and market-level controls that may influence the production of different forms of jazz records and firm entry.

Community-level controls. First, I controlled for the total population, measured by the logarithm of the number of inhabitants in a community; the percentage of African-

American population, measured as the percentage of the African-American population in a community; and per capita disposable income corrected for inflation. All of these variables may influence the growth of the jazz market, particularly given the initial popularity of jazz among the African-American population. Frequent changes in local populations may refresh the cumulative experiences of local audiences, weakening the community-level imprinting effect (Marquis and Battilana, 2009). I thus controlled for the change in total population, measured by the percentage change in the total population compared with that from the previous year. Similarly, heterogeneity of audience resources for each community may influence the degree to which an institutional legacy formed (Greve and Rao, 2012). Thus, I included educational diversity, measured using the Blau heterogeneity index of a five-way classification ranging from elementary to college (Greve, Pozner, and Rao, 2006). I measured these variables by first obtaining county-level estimates from the Census of the United States (various years) and then aggregated these measures for each SMA defined according to Bogue (1953). The level of popularity of classical music in a community may affect the local popularity of jazz, especially hybrid jazz, given that classical music fans favored the hybrid much more than the original form (Leonard, 1962). To proxy for the population of classical music fans in a community, I included the cumulative number of classical recording sessions,

30 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success measured as the total number of classical recording sessions that had been held in a community. The data for this variable were drawn from a larger project on the evolution of the early classical and jazz record markets in the U.S. (Lee, 2015). Similarly, I controlled for the cumulative number of jazz recording sessions to capture the overall centrality of each community in the domain of jazz record production (Phillips, 2011).

Moreover, to capture cross-sectional differences among communities with respect to legitimization and competition , I controlled for the density of jazz record firms, measured by the number of recording companies that were producing jazz records in each community. I also included the density of record firms founded before 1917, as this type of recording company tended to favor hybrid jazz over the original form (Phillips and

Kim, 2009).

National-level controls. To proxy for the time-varying size of the jazz record market, I included the U.S. jazz recording production, measured as the number of jazz records produced in the U.S. (Phillips, 2011). Research has argued that the industry concentration ratio may either facilitate (e.g., Greve, Pozner, and Rao, 2006) or deter

(e.g., Dobbin and Dowd, 1997) the entry of specialist firms and the production of deviant products. Hence, I controlled for the concentration ratio, measured by the combined production share of the four largest firms (Carroll and Swaminathan, 2000). Moreover, I included the average prices for jazz records per year and the cumulative record machine sales for the last five years because of their possible influences on the growth of the jazz record market. The former variable was measured as the average price of jazz recordings in the advertisements posted in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the data for the latter were collected from the U.S. Census of Manufacturers (various years). I

31 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success chose five years for the latter variable because the average life cycle of machines during the era was five years (Kenney, 1999). Finally, because the music recording industry crashed during the Great Depression, an indicator for this period was added to the analyses designed to test hypotheses 1 and 2.

Model Specifications

I estimated zero-inflated Poisson models with community random effects and clustering at the community level. The benefit of this approach is that it allows the error terms across community-quarter observations to be correlated. A Hausman test comparing the random and fixed effects indicated that the random-effects estimator provided an adequate model fit (p > .20). This model differentiates zero events into two types: “true zero productions” from communities that had produced in other quarters but not in the specific observation and “excessive zero productions” from communities without any production. I used the percentage of African-American population, per capita disposable income, change in total population, cumulative number of classical recording sessions, and a dummy for 1929-1932 as covariates predicting the latter type of zero events. All time-varying independent variables were lagged by one quarter to reduce potential simultaneity bias.

RESULTS

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all the variables used in the sample from the pre-revival era; Table 2 provides the same data for the sample from the revival era. Although most correlations are within the low to moderate range (0-0.40), some show a higher range of correlations (0.41-0.77). To detect the

32 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success presence of multicollinearity, I calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) and the collinearity diagnostics suggested by Besley, Kuh, and Welsch (2004). Whereas the VIF accounts only for bivariate correlations, the latter accounts for correlations among multiple variables simultaneously and thus captures multicollinearity more precisely. In all models, both statistics were well below the recommended cutoffs (10 for the VIF and

100 for the other diagnostics), as the results from all models were below five and 70, respectively (Neter, Wasserman, and Kutner, 1985). Thus, the data did not appear to suffer from multicollinearity.

── Insert Table 1 and 2 about here ──

The Effect of Hybrid Jazz Record Production on Original Jazz Record Production during the Pre-revival Era

Table 3 shows the results from the zero-inflated Poisson estimation for testing hypotheses

1 and 2. Models 1 and 4 include only control variables, and an independent variable is added to other models; models 3 and 6 also include interaction terms. Models 1 through 3 are the results of analyzing rates of growth in the production of original jazz records; models 4 to 6 contain the results from the analyses of firms’ entry rates in the production.

── Insert Table 3 about here ──

In hypotheses 1a and 1b, I posit that the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records would lower the growth in the production of original jazz records and lower the rates of companies producing them during the pre-revival era. The estimated coefficients in models 2 and 5 support these hypotheses. Specifically, the results show that on average, when the cumulative number of hybrid jazz records produced increases by 1,000, the growth rates for original jazz record production in the subsequent quarter decrease by

33 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

37.75 (= 1 – e (–0.47)), and the entry rates decrease by 35.60 (= 1 – e (–0.44)) per community- quarter. However, models 3 and 6 indicate that such negative effects become weaker over time, and this finding supports hypotheses 2a and 2b, which posit that the negative influence of the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records on the growth in the production of original jazz records or the rates of companies producing them would be positively moderated by the amount of time elapsed.

── Insert Figure 2a and 2b about here ──

Figures 2a and 2b illustrate these moderating effects (based on models 3 and 6 in

Table 3). Here, high and low amounts of time elapsed were taken at one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. The plots indicate that when the time elapsed is low, an increase in the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records decreases the growth rates and firm entry rates for original jazz record production at a much faster rate than when the time elapsed is high. These results are consistent with my argument that the constraining influence of hybrid jazz record production was mitigated as the legitimacy spillover gradually expanded to original jazz record production.

The Effect of Early Hybrid Jazz Record Production on Hybrid and Original Jazz

Record Production during the Revival Era

Table 4 contains the results of testing hypotheses 3 and 4. Models 1 and 2 contain the results from the analyses of growth rates for original jazz record production; models 5 and 6 contain the results from those for hybrid jazz record production. Models 3 and 4 contain the result of analyzing firms’ entry rates in the production of original jazz records; models 7 and 8 contain the results of analyzing firms’ entry rates in the production of hybrid jazz records.

34 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

── Insert Table 4 about here ──

Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicts that the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records in each community-quarter would reduce the rates of growth in the production of original jazz records and the rates of entry of firms producing them during the revival era.

The results in models 2 and 4 strongly support these hypotheses. Specifically, an increase of 1,000 units in the number of hybrid jazz records that have been produced increases the production growth rates for the original jazz records by 28.40 percent (= e 0.25) and increases the entry rates for companies producing original jazz records by 32.31 percent

(=e 0.28). As shown in models 6 and 8, the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records lowers the subsequent rates of growth in hybrid jazz record production and the entry rates of producing firms, thus supporting hypotheses 4a and 4b.

The Moderating Effect of Favorable Media Coverage

Table 5 presents the estimations based on the sample of seven local newspapers that cover the seven different SMAs listed in Table 6.

── Insert Table 5 and 6 about here ──

As shown, the results confirm the prediction that with an increasing number of newspaper articles favorably covering hybrid jazz published during the pre-revival era, the positive effect of the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records on the production of original jazz records during the revival era increases (hypothesis 5).

── Insert Figure 3 about here ──

Figure 3 illustrates this moderating effect of the early favorable media coverage of hybrid jazz. When the volume of early media coverage in favor of hybrid jazz is high, an increase the cumulative production of original jazz records increases the growth rates for

35 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success hybrid jazz record production during the revival era increases at a much faster rate than when the volume is low.

Taken together, the results show that the early production of hybrid jazz records constrained growth in the production of original jazz records, but the effect became weaker over time as original jazz became more accepted. Ultimately, original jazz was more positively evaluated relative to hybrid jazz during the revival era. As this change in evaluation was resulted from the early popularity of hybrid jazz, the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records in each community facilitated the growth of original jazz revivalism but restricted growth in hybrid jazz production in the community.

Several other findings are noteworthy. The coefficients for percentage of African-

American population indicate that African-American audiences were the main customers of original jazz records during the pre-revival era, whereas they were not the primary audience after the revival. This is consistent with evidence that many Caucasians became jazz listeners after the rise of hybrid jazz (Leonard, 1962; Peretti, 1997; Gioia, 1998). The results for cumulative number of jazz recording sessions show that the effect of this variable is significant only during the pre-revival era, indicating that the legitimacy effect from the previous jazz recording sessions was relevant only during the 1920s and

1930s—when jazz was experiencing legitimization process. The coefficients for cumulative number of classical recording sessions suggest that classical audiences responded favorably to hybrid jazz but unfavorably to the original form. The results for density of record firms founded before 1917 show that this type of firm was reluctant to produce original jazz records even during the revival era; by contrast, these companies were main producers of hybrid jazz records, consistent with evidence indicating that

36 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success these firms had classically oriented identities (Phillips and Owens, 2004; Phillips and

Kim, 2009). Finally, the coefficients for concentration ratio indicate that higher concentration restricted the production of original jazz records before and after the revival yet increased production of hybrid jazz records after the revival. This result may be attributable to the fact that most leading record companies were founded before 1917.

Robustness Tests

In addition to robustness checks mentioned before—aggregation of SMAs to states, different measurement of hybrid and original jazz, and alternative measures of the cumulative production of hybrid jazz records with decay—I undertook several additional analyses to substantiate my claim. First, I followed Greve and Rao (2012) to account for the unobserved heterogeneity across communities. Although random effects control unobserved heterogeneity in commune characteristics during the time of study, the heterogeneity that had arisen before the period may have the enduring effect. To handle this, I modeled the commune-specific propensity to have an early production of hybrid jazz records and then I used the propensity score to weight observations in the regression–an approach called propensity score weighted analysis (Guo and Fraser, 2010).

The estimates of this approach are from a regression that can be interpreted like a selectivity control. I specifically defined having hybrid jazz recording production by the end of 1922 as a treatment of early production of hybrid jazz records, which gave the 1:2 ratio between observations with the treatment (52 observations) and those in the control group (111 observations) that gives the best efficiency in propensity score analysis

(Haviland, Nagin, and Rosenbaum, 2007). I used a probit regression of treatment on percentage of Afro-American population, per capita disposable income, change in total

37 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success population, and cumulative number of classical recording sessions to estimate the conditional probability of having an early production of hybrid jazz records. Then, I adopted the propensity for weighting regression.

Second, I tested whether the reemergence of the original jazz was driven by political movement, rather than by the endogenous dynamics of jazz types as I proposed.

Some musicologists and cultural sociologists argued that the folk music revivalism in the

United States, occurred roughly around 1930s and the 1960s, was “a form of politicization, forging left-wing political ideologies onto populist roots” (Eyerman and

Barretta, 1996: 501). To test this alternative explanation, I added the proportion of votes that did not go for the republic party, and checked whether the inclusion significantly change the findings.

Finally, I tested whether more stringent definition of original revival jazz—the exclusions of small swing bands and bebop bands from it—had meaningful bearing on the results. While sub-jazz styles have fuzzy boundaries (Kahl, Kim, and Phillips, 2010;

See also Levine, 1989; Peretti, 1992; Kenney, 1999; Walser, 1999; Lopes, 2002; Gioia,

2011), it is particularly controversial to discern original jazz, small group swing, and bebop (e.g., Panassié, 1936 vs. Sargeant, 1975). While swing music was generally characterized as big bands instrumentation and pre-arrangement with stronger rhythms, there were small-sized swing bands that emphasized improvisation more though remained small in number (Sargeant, 1975; Kernfeld, 2002). For instance, small swing groups, founded by swing musicians such as Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, and

Count Basie, were typically consist of one to three melody instruments. Thus these groups were included to original jazz in the main analysis, consistent with the view of

38 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success some jazz historians and revivalists who considered these groups as original jazz bands

(e.g., Delaunay & Ramsey, 1939; Ekins, 2012; Perreti, 1992). Nevertheless, I tested whether the exclusion of these bands changes the results by excluding any jazz band listed in the discography for swing music (Bruynickx, 1986-91).

Moreover, I conducted similar test for bebop bands, a style of jazz that emerged during the 1940s against big band swing music. While more modern jazz historians may differentiate this style from more original jazz bands, both original jazz revivalists and

(early) bebop players rather tended to consider it as a direct descendant of the original form. More importantly, this music was characterized as music designed for collective improvisation or jamming (Gendron, 1993). Accordingly, most of these bebop bands were included as the original form in my analysis. Nevertheless, I tested to exclude these bands from the original form by obtaining the list of bebop bands from a discography for bebop and other sub-styles followed (Bruynickx, 1984-88). The results from these tests remained unchanged.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study investigates how hybrids of nascent and established products can affect the evolution of a market, a real-world phenomenon that is largely overlooked in the existing research. My theory about the effect of a hybrid’s emergence on the nascent or once- nascent product market is tested in the context of the early American jazz record market.

I found that the success of a hybrid form of jazz—which combined elements of the nascent jazz form and the more established classical music—initially decreased the production of original jazz records and new entrants who made them. However, such a negative effect became weaker over time, and ultimately turned positive after the

39 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success revivalism—that is, the production of hybrid jazz records ultimately facilitated the growth and entry rates for the production of original jazz records, but impeded those for the production of hybrid jazz records. Early favorable coverage of hybrid jazz further facilitated such a positive relationship. In sum, these results suggest that a hybrid can contribute to the legitimization process of new products and to their rise in popularity in the long term, even surpassing the popularity of the hybrid itself.

Although this setting—the American jazz record market—provides comprehensive data on the dynamics of record production, future research can apply the theoretical framework in this paper to other settings. Particularly, it will be valuable to examine how the revert in evaluations of the hybrid and the once-nascent product interact with technological developments, which can subsequently make the unique features of the hybrid more valuable—similar to a case of disruptive technologies (Kahl, Kim, and

Phillips, 2010; See also Levine, 1989; Peretti, 1992; Kenney, 1999; Walser, 1999; Lopes,

2002; Gioia, 2011). This topic needs research settings other than cultural industries, since they are characterized with little influence of technological developments.

Despite this limitation, this study makes an important contribution to the literatures on entrepreneurship, market categories, and institutional legacies of communities by examining how the dynamics of hybrids change over time. Although the literature has consistently touted the benefits of hybrids in facilitating product adoption

(Christensen, 1997), little attention has been devoted to the products that hybrids combine

(e.g., Hargadon and Douglas, 2001; Jensen, 2010)—an oversight has constrained our understanding of the effects of hybridity.

40 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

More specifically, this paper deepens research on entrepreneurship by underlining the importance of dynamic change in the focus between hybrids and once-nascent products. Entrepreneurs may combine the elements of nascent, not-yet-accepted products with those of more accepted products to attain the combination of familiarity and innovativeness for their inventions and facilitate acceptance (c.f., Rao, Monin, and

Durand, 2005). However, the success of this combination might inadvertently affect the acceptance and popularity of the once-nascent (unaccepted) product, thus enhancing its appeal over that of the hybrid over time. Thus, although entrepreneurs can strategically employ hybrids to ease resistance to innovations, they must incorporate every key element of the innovations into the hybrids (so that audiences cannot find the gap between the hybrids and the innovations later). Or they must product the hybrids first, and then focus more on the production of the once-nascent products (so that they can keep up with an increase in appeal of the once-nascent relative to the hybrids over time).

This study also contributes to the literature on market categories by showing that crossing market categories can be both more helpful and less helpful than staying within the boundaries of a single category. Although a core tenet in the literature (Schumpeter,

1934; Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009) supports the notion that category purity is more beneficial than category mixing for obtaining positive evaluation for products and organizations, recent studies have identified cases with a reverse relationship (Zuckerman,

1999; Hsu, 2006). The latter studies generally focused on either the prevalence of hybrids

(Pontikes, 2012; Wry, Lounsbury, and Jennings, 2014; Paolella and Durand, 2015) or on the static expectations of audiences (e.g., Wry, Lounsbury, and Jennings, 2014) for understanding how category mixing can be rewarded rather than penalized. Departing

41 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success from these focuses, this paper shows that the dynamic change in audiences’ evaluations of related products can explain on whether the mixing will be positively or negatively evaluated.

Finally, my study deepens recent research on institutional legacies of communities by showing that the production of a product type can be imprinted in communities. Whereas previous studies on this topic generally focused either on the institutional legacies created by early founding of nonprofit organizations (e.g., Pontikes,

2012; Paolella and Durand, 2015; Zuckerman, 2015) or on the influence of existing legacies on companies (e.g., Greve and Rao, 2012), this paper examines how the legacies created from early business activities—specifically, a production of products—can influence subsequent business activities, overcoming the paucity of research on “business to business” legacy effects (e.g., Marquis, Glynn, and Davis, 2007; Greenwood et al.,

2010). The results clearly show that the emergence of a new market has an enduring influence on the subsequent popularity of the related market in the community, as the early popularity of a product type influences the cognitive understanding, norms, and attitudes of local audiences toward related product types.

42 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

References 1925 Houston Chronicle. Houston, TX. Adner, R., and D. Snow 2010 "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats." Industrial and Corporate Change: dtq046. Aldrich, H. E., and C. M. Fiol 1994 "Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation." Academy of Management Review, 19: 645-670. Anderson, P., and M. L. Tushman 1990 "Technological discontinuities and dominant designs." Administrative science quarterly: 604- 633. Argote, L., S. L. Beckman, and D. Epple 1990 "The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings." Management Science, 36: 140-154. Bailey, C. D. 1989 "Forgetting and the learning curve: A laboratory study." Management science, 35: 340-352. Benner, M. J. 2007 "The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change." Academy of Management Review, 32: 703-720. Berliner, P. F. 1994 Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Besley, D., E. Kuh, and R. Welsch 2004 Regression Diagnostics. New York, NY: Wiley. Bingham, C. B., and S. J. Kahl 2013 "The Process of Schema Emergence." Academy of Management Journal, 56: 14-34. Bogue, D. J. 1953 Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas, 1900-1950. Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Washington, DC: Housing and Home Finance Agency, Office of the Administrator, Division of Housing Research. Bruynickx, W. 1984-88 Modern Discography [Jazz: Modern Jazz, Bebop, Hard Bop, West Coast]. Mechelen, Belgium: Walter Bruynickx. 1986-91 Swing Discography [Swing, 1920-1985: Swing-Dance Bands & Combos]. Mechelen, Belgium: Bruynickx, Walter. Carroll, G. R., and A. Swaminathan 2000 "Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the US Brewing Industry." American Journal of Sociology, 106: 715-762. Christensen, C. M. 1997 The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Copland, A. 1927 "Jazz structure and influence." Modern Music, 4: 9-14. Dobbin, F., and T. J. Dowd 1997 "How Policy Shapes Competition." Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 501-529. Dobrev, S. D., S. Z. Ozdemir, and A. C. Teo 2006 "The ecological interdependence of emergent and established organizational populations." Organization Science, 17: 577-597. Dowd, T. J. 2003 "Structural power and the construction of markets." Comparative Social Research, 21: 147-201. Eyerman, R., and S. Barretta 1996 "From the 30s to the 60s." Theory and Society, 25: 501-543. Fombrun, C., and M. Shanley 1990 "What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy." Academy of management Journal, 33: 233-258.

43 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Frankenstein, A. V. 1925 Syncopating Saxophones. Chicago. Gamson, W. A., D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson 1992 "Media images and the social construction of reality." Annual review of sociology, 18: 373- 393. Gamson, W. A., and D. S. Meyer 1996 "Framing Political Opportunity." In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings: 274-290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garud, R., and P. Karnøe 2001 Path dependence and creation. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. Gavetti, G., D. Levinthal, and J. W. Rivkin 2005 "Strategy-making in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy." Strategic Management Journal. Gelman, S. A., and E. M. Markman 1986 "Categories and induction in young children." Cognition, 23: 183-209. Gendron, B. 1993 "Moldy figs and modernists: Jazz at war (1942-1946)." Discourse, 15. Gentner, D., and A. B. Markman 1997 "Structure mapping in analogy and similarity." American psychologist, 52: 45. Gershwin, G. 1933 "The Relation of Jazz to American Music." In H. Cowell (ed.), American Composers on American Music. Palo Alto. Gioia, T. 1998 The history of jazz. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glynn, M. A. 2008 "Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities." In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 413-430. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Greenwood, R., A. M. Díaz, S. X. Li, and J. C. Lorente 2010 "The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses." Organization Science, 21: 521-539. Greve, H. R., J. E. Pozner, and H. Rao 2006 "Vox Populi: Resource Partitioning, Organizational Proliferation, and the Cultural Impact of the Insurgent Microradio Movement." American Journal of Sociology, 112: 802-837. Greve, H. R., and H. Rao 2012 "Echoes of the Past: Organizational Foundings as Sources of an Institutional Legacy of Mutualism." American Journal of Sociology, 118: 635-675. 2014 "History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations." Research in Organizational Behavior, 34: 27-41. Griswold, W. 1987 "The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies." American Journal of Sociology: 1077-1117. Guo, S., and M. W. Fraser 2010 Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Harap, L. 1941 "The case for hot jazz." The Musical Quarterly: 47-61. Hargadon, A. B., and Y. Douglas 2001 "When Innovations Meet Institutions." Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 476-501. Hargadon, A. B., and R. I. Sutton 1997 "Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm." Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749.

44 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Haviland, A., D. S. Nagin, and P. R. Rosenbaum 2007 "Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study." Psychological methods, 12: 247. Henderson, R. M., and K. B. Clark 1990 "Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms." Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9-30. Hirsch, P. M. 1972 "Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems." American Journal of Sociology: 639-659. Hobson, W. 1939 American Jazz Music: W.W. Norton & Company. Hsu, G. 2006 "Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences' reactions to spanning genres in feature film production." Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 420-450. Jensen, M. 2010 "Legitimizing illegitimacy: How creating market identity legitimizes illegitimate products." Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 31: 39-80. Kahl, S. J., Y.-K. Kim, and D. J. Phillips 2010 "Identity sequences and the early adoption Pattern of a Jazz Canon (1920–1929)." Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 31: 81-113. Kennedy, M. T. 2008 "Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality." American Sociological Review, 73: 270-295. Kennedy, M. T., J. Y.-C. Lo, and M. Lounsbury 2010 "Category currency: The changing value of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction." In G. Hsu, G. Negro, and Ö. Koçak (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 369-397: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kenney, W. H. 1999 Recorded music in American life: The phonograph and popular memory, 1890-1945. New York, NJ: Oxford University Press. Kernfeld, B. D. 2002 The new Grove dictionary of jazz: Grove; London: MacMillan c2002. King, B. G., and S. A. Soule 2007 "Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns." Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 413-442. Kovács, B., G. R. Carroll, and D. W. Lehman 2014 "Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings: Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain." Organization Science, 25: 458-478. Kuilman, J. G., and J. Li 2009 "Grades of membership and legitimacy spillovers: Foreign banks in Shanghai, 1847–1935." Academy of Management Journal, 52: 229-245. Lee, J. 2015 "How do Nested Categories Influence Market Emergence? Evidence from Early American Music Records." Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015. Leonard, N. 1962 Jazz and the White Americans. London: The University of Chicago Press. Lieberson, S. 2000 A matter of taste. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Livingston, T. E. 1999 "Music revivals: Towards a general theory." Ethnomusicology: 66-85. Lopes, P. D. 1999 "Diffusion and Syncretism: The Modern Jazz Tradition." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566: 25-36. Lord, T.

45 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

2014 The Jazz Discography by Tom Lord. West Vancouver, Canada: Lord Music Reference. Lounsbury, M., and H. Rao 2004 "Sources of durability and change in market classifications: A study of the reconstitution of product categories in the American mutual fund industry, 1944–1985." Social Forces, 82: 969-999. Manning, C. D., M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. J. Bethard, and D. McClosky 2014 "The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit." Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations: 55-60. Marquis, C. 2003 "The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities." Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 655-689. Marquis, C., and J. Battilana 2009 "Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations." Research in organizational behavior, 29: 283-302. Marquis, C., M. A. Glynn, and G. F. Davis 2007 "Community Isomorphism and Corporate Social Action." Academy of Management Review, 32: 925-945. McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald 1996 Comparative perspectives on social movements. Cambridge University Press. Moreau, C. P., A. B. Markman, and D. R. Lehmann 2001 "“What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products." Journal of Consumer Research, 27: 489-498. Negro, G., M. T. Hannan, and H. Rao 2011 "Category Reinterpretation and Defection: Modernism and Tradition in Italian Winemaking." Organization Science, 22: 1449-1463. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. H. Kutner 1985 Applied Linear Statistical Models, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin. O'Sullivan, C. S., and F. T. Durso 1984 "Effect of schema-incongruent information on memory for stereotypical attributes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 55. Panassié, H. 1936 Hot jazz: The Guide to Swing Music [original: Le Jazz Hot]. London: Cassell. 1942 The Real Jazz. New York, NY: Smith & Durrell, Inc. Paolella, L., and R. Durand 2015 "Category spanning, evaluation, and performance." Academy of Management Journal, 2015. Patterson, O. 2014 "Making Sense of Culture." Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 1-30. Peretti, B. W. 1997 The creation of jazz. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Peterson, R. A. 2005 "In Search of Authenticity." Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1083-1098. Peterson, R. A., and N. Anand 2004 "The production of culture perspective." Annual review of sociology: 311-334. Peterson, R. A., and D. G. Berger 1975 "Cycles in symbol production." American Sociological Review: 158-173. Phillips, D. J. 2011 "Jazz and the Disconnected: City Structural Disconnectedness and the Emergence of a Jazz Canon, 1897–1933." American Journal of Sociology, 117: 420-483. Phillips, D. J., and Y.-K. Kim 2009 "Why pseudonyms? Deception as identity preservation among jazz record companies, 1920- 1929." Organization Science, 20: 481-499. Phillips, D. J., and D. A. Owens 2004 "Incumbents, innovation, and competence: the emergence of recorded jazz, 1920 to 1929." Poetics, 32: 281-295.

46 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Pollock, T. G., and V. P. Rindova 2003 "Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings." Academy of Management Journal, 46: 631-642. Pontikes, E. G. 2012 "Two Sides of the Same Coin How Ambiguous Classification Affects Multiple Audiences’ Evaluations." Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 81-118. Raeburn, B. B. 2009 New Orleans Style and the Writing of American Jazz History. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Raffaelli, R. L. 2013 "Identity and Institutional Change in a Mature Field: The Re-emergence of the Swiss Watchmaking Industry, 1970-2008." Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA. Rao, H., P. Monin, and R. Durand 2005 "Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy." American Sociological Review, 70: 968-991. Rosa, J. A., J. F. Porac, J. Runser-Spanjol, and M. S. Saxon 1999 "Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market." Journal of Marketing, 63: 64-77. Ruef, M. 2000 "The Emergence of Organizational Forms: A Community Ecology Approach." American Journal of Sociology, 106: 658-714. Rust, B. 1969 Jazz Records, 1897–1942. Essex, UK.: Storyville. 1978 The American Record Label Book. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. Santos, F. M., and K. M. Eisenhardt 2009 "Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields." Academy of Management Journal, 52: 643-671. Sargeant, W. 1975 Jazz, Hot and Hybrid, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Da Capo Press. Schoonhoven, C. B., and E. Romanelli 2001 The Entrepreneurship Dynamic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934 The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press. 1942 Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: Allen & Unwin. Shipton, A. 2008 A New History f Jazz. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Shryock, J. H. S. 1957 "The natural history of standard metropolitan areas." American Journal of Sociology: 163-170. Smith, C. E. 1930 "Jazz: Some Little Known Aspects." Symposium: A Critical Review, 1: 502-517. Spaeth, S. 1928 "Jazz is not music." Forum, LXXXX: 271. Stoman, S. A., B. C. Malt, and A. Fridman 2001 "Categorization versus similarity." In M. Ramscar, U. Hahn, E. Cambouropolos, and H. Pain (eds.), Similarity and Categorization: 73-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stringham, E. J. 1926 ""Jazz"-An Educational Problem." The Musical Quarterly, 12: 190-195. Stuart, T. E., and O. Sorenson 2003 "Liquidity Events and the Geographic Distribution of Entrepreneurial Activity." Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 175-201. Sutton, A. 1994 Directory of American disc record brands and manufacturers, 1891-1943: Greenwood Press Westport, CT. Sutton, A., and K. R. Nauck

47 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

2000 American record labels and companies: an encyclopedia (1891-1943): Mainspring Press. New York Times. August 11, 1924 "Editorial-Topics of the Times: "A Subject of Serious Study"." New York Times. Tripsas, M. 1997 "Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability." Industrial and Corporate Change, 6: 341-377. Weber, K., K. L. Heinze, and M. DeSoucey 2008 "Forage for Thought." Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 529-567. White, E. F. 1922 "Music versus Materialism." The Musical Quarterly, 8: 42-43. Whiteman, P., and M. M. McBride 1926 Jazz: Ayer Co Pub. Wry, T., M. Lounsbury, and P. D. Jennings 2014 "Hybrid Vigor: Securing Venture Capital by Spanning Categories in Nanotechnology." Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1309-1333. Zelizer, V. A. 1978 "Human values and the market." American journal of sociology: 591-610. Zott, C., and Q. N. Huy 2007 "How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources." Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 70-105. Zuckerman, E. W. 1999 "The categorical imperative." American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1398-1438. 2015 "The categorical imperative revisited." Research in the Sociology of Organizations.

48 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for the Pre-revival Era (for hypotheses 1 and 2)

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. of Original Jazz Records 1 Produced/1000 (during the pre- 0.54 0.52 1 revival era) No. of Entrants Producing 2 Original Jazz Records (during 0.62 1.93 0.61 1 the pre-revival era) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records 3 Produced/1000 (during the pre- 1.91 1.82 -0.34 -0.31 1 revival era) 4 Ln Total Population 10.97 1.96 0.23 0.21 0.31 1 Percentage of African-American 5 10.12 0.41 0.47 0.44 -0.42 0.1 1 Population 6 Per Capita Disposable Income 13.03 3.57 0.11 0.47 0.56 0.16 -0.19 1 7 Change in Total Population 9.24 3.04 0.18 -0.04 0.34 0.11 0.18 0.04 8 Educational Diversity 0.71 0.15 -0.13 0.40 0.19 -0.11 -0.13 0.12 Cumulative No. of Classical 9 9.82 4.1 -0.19 0.44 0.45 0.26 -0.39 0.34 Recording Sessions/1000 Cumulative No. of Jazz 10 4.87 3.71 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.39 0.27 -0.31 Recording Sessions/1000 Density of Jazz Record 11 0.49 0.32 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.31 0.39 0.12 Firms/100 Density of Record Firms 12 0.24 0.11 0.17 0.49 0.38 0.17 0.11 0.59 Founded before 1917/100 Ln U.S. Jazz Recording 13 4.62 1.41 0.18 0.29 0.39 0.31 0.23 0.22 Production 14 Concentration Ratio 29.71 13.71 0.12 0.31 0.28 0.11 0.13 0.17 15 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records 0.77 0.04 0.17 0.11 0.21 0.02 0.11 0.08 16 Ln Cumulative Machine Sales 9.87 1.83 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.49 0.31 0.55 17 Dummy for 1929-1932 0.21 0.40 -0.37 -0.33 -0.38 0.09 -0.04 -0.01 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 1 8 -0.11 1 9 0.13 0.12 1 10 0.19 -0.19 0.10 1 11 0.31 -0.10 0.11 0.31 1 12 0.11 0.17 0.45 0.33 0.30 1 13 0.32 -0.09 -0.02 0.39 0.41 0.21 1 14 0.09 0.09 0.31 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.27 1 15 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.13 1 16 0.11 0.19 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.34 0.24 -0.09 -0.07 1 17 0.01 0.09 -0.37 -0.32 -0.29 -0.44 -0.17 0.13 -0.02 -0.19 Note: N=12,877

49 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for the Revival Era (for hypotheses 3 through 5)

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 No. of Original Jazz Records 1 Produced/1000 (during the 2.32 0.51 1 revival era) No. of Entrants Producing 2 Original Jazz Records (during 1.98 1.74 0.57 1 the revival era) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records 3 Produced/1000 (during the pre- 2.84 1.02 0.65 0.34 1 revival era) 4 Ln Total Population 11.49 2.28 0.17 0.29 0.33 1 Percentage of African-American 5 10.26 0.13 0.13 -0.33 0.27 0.34 1 Population 6 Per Capita Disposable Income 15.47 3.94 0.34 0.48 0.71 0.27 -0.77 7 Change in Total Population 10.87 2.43 0.27 0.21 0.12 0.09 -0.02 8 Educational Diversity 0.64 0.12 -0.46 0.06 0.51 0.54 -0.39 Cumulative No. of Classical 9 15.46 3.60 -0.44 -0.34 0.68 0.36 -0.58 Recording Sessions/1000 Cumulative No. of Jazz 10 9.23 4.21 0.14 0.45 -0.16 0.38 0.46 Recording Sessions/1000 Density of Jazz Record 11 0.64 0.21 -0.08 0.18 -0.10 0.41 0.60 Firms/100 Density of Record Firms 12 0.13 0.08 -0.49 -0.58 0.21 0.31 -0.68 Founded before 1917/100 Ln U.S. Jazz Recording 13 4.98 1.27 0.34 0.45 0.18 0.37 0.59 Production 14 Concentration Ratio 34.74 16.42 -0.27 0.18 0.21 0.24 -0.44 15 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records 0.74 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.10 16 Ln Cumulative Machine Sales 11.24 1.38 0.41 0.24 0.35 0.37 -0.18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 1 7 0.27 1 8 -0.18 -0.03 1 9 0.29 0.08 -0.38 1 10 0.28 0.20 0.28 0.29 1 11 0.19 0.18 0.43 0.13 0.68 1 12 0.67 0.07 -0.24 0.67 0.24 0.21 1 13 0.23 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.67 0.36 1 14 0.51 0.12 0.18 0.38 -0.26 -0.24 0.58 -0.44 1 15 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.10 1 16 0.44 0.12 0.26 0.49 0.14 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.05 Note: N=10,106

50 Table 3: Growth and Entry Rates for Original Jazz Records during the Pre-revival Era

Original Jazz Records Variable Growth Rates Entry Rates MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4 MODEL5 MODEL6 Predictors No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced -0.47* -0.43* -0.44* -0.40* during the Pre-revival Era (H1) (0.20) (0.18) (0.18) (0.19) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced 0.03** 0.03** during the Pre-revival Era X Time Elapsed since 1920 (H2) (0.01) (0.01)

Controls 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.29 Total Population (.32) (0.24) (0.19) (0.38) (0.29) (0.18) Percentage of African-American 0.34*** 0.37*** 0.37*** 0.27*** 0.30** 0.25** Population (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) -0.31 -0.29* -0.26* 0.23† 0.17† 0.13† Per Capita Disposable Income (0.17) (0.14) (0.13) (0.12) (0.09) (0.07) 0.17** 0.19** 0.13* 0.21† 0.18† 0.16† Change in Total Population (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.11) (0.10) (0.09) -0.27† -0.33* -0.30* -0.28† -0.33* -0.35* Educational Diversity (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.15) (0.15) (0.13) Cumulative No. of Classical Recording -0.31*** -0.30*** -0.28*** -0.25** -0.27** -0.26** Sessions (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09) Cumulative No. of Jazz Recording 0.32** 0.33** 0.31** 0.29** 0.31** 0.30** Sessions (0.09) (0.05) (0.09) (0.09) (0.11) (0.10) 0.29** 0.27** 0.24* 0.31** 0.29* 0.27* Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.10) (0.09) (0.10) (0.17) (0.14) (0.13) Density of Record Firms Founded before -0.31** -0.33** -0.34** -0.28* -0.24** -0.31** 1917 (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.13) (0.08) (0.10) 0.20* 0.21* 0.22* 0.23* 0.26* 0.29** U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.09) (0.15) (0.11) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) -0.16** -0.18** -0.19* -0.17* -0.20* -0.16* Concentration Ratio (0.07) (0.06) (0.09) (0.10) (0.09) (0.07) 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.10 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.33) (0.36) (0.33) (0.38) (0.32) (0.33) 0.19* 0.21* 0.23* 0.27* 0.29* 0.27* Cumulative Machine Sales (0.08) (0.09) (0.11) (0.13) (0.13) (0.11) -0.37*** -0.41*** -0.38*** -0.36*** -0.29** -0.31** Dummy for 1929-1932 (0.08) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) 0.67 0.53* 0.56* 0.88 0.73 1.01 Constant (1.04) (0.22) (0.23) (1.09) (1.41) (0.91) Log pseudo-likelihood -3,987.24 -3,979.89 -3,971.23 -3,868.67 -3,801.06 -3,782.23 Wald text !" 757.41*** 771.74*** 775.23*** 781.66*** 798.96*** 801.38*** D.f. 92 93 94 92 93 94 Note: N=12,877; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include random effects for communities and indicators for quarters

51

Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Table 4: Growth and Entry Rates for Original and Hybrid Jazz Records during the Revival Era

Original Jazz Records (H3) Hybrid Jazz Records (H4) Variable Growth Rates Entry Rates Growth Rates Entry Rates MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4 MODEL5 MODEL6 MODEL7 MODEL8 Predictor No. of Hybrid Jazz Records 0.25*** 0.28*** -0.24** -0.30* Produced during the Pre- revival Era (0.04) (0.06) (0.11) (0.14)

Controls 0.07† 0.08† 0.20* 0.20† 0.27* 0.28* 0.17* 0.19* Total Population (0.04) (0.04) (0.09) (0.12) (0.11) (0.13) (0.08) (0.09) Percentage of African- 0.32 0.34 0.24† 0.22† -0.14 -0.13 -0.24* -0.23 American Population (0.38) (0.28) (0.13) (0.12) (0.87) (0.72) (0.11) (0.17) Per Capita Disposable 0.22* 0.24* 0.33* 0.23* 0.25* 0.27* 0.23* 0.18* Income (0.11) (0.11) (0.15) (0.11) (0.12) (0.12) (0.10) (0.08) 0.20† 0.16* 0.11 0.10 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.12 Change in Total Population (0.11) (0.08) (0.21) (0.18) (0.12) (0.09) (0.11) (0.14) 0.24 0.28* 0.32 0.28 -0.27* -0.22* -0.15 0.17 Educational Diversity (0.20) (0.20) (0.41) (0.49) (0.12) (0.10) (0.27) (0.17) Cumulative No. of Classical -0.20* -0.23** -0.11* -0.21** 0.22* 0.28* 0.23** 0.24** Recording Sessions (0.09) (0.07) (0.05) (0.07) (0.10) (0.13) (0.08) (0.07) Cumulative No. of Jazz 0.14** 0.18* 0.16** 0.18** -0.24† -0.27* -0.17* -0.21* Recording Sessions (0.05) (0.08) (0.04) (0.06) (0.13) (0.13) (0.08) (0.10) Density of Jazz Record 0.32 0.28 -0.16 -0.24 0.23 0.27 0.13 0.16 Firms (0.29) (0.34) (0.34) (0.43) (0.27) (0.24) (0.18) (0.11) Density of Record Firms -0.27*** -0.26*** -0.27*** -0.25** 0.28** 0.21** -0.17* -0.18* Founded before 1917 (0.06) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) U.S. Jazz Recording 0.17** 0.13** 0.11** 0.14* 0.21† 0.26† 0.11* 0.13* Production (0.05) (0.04) (0.03) (0.06) (0.11) (0.14) (0.05) (0.06) -0.14* -0.15* -0.01† -0.06† 0.21* 0.23* -0.14† -0.15* Concentration Ratio (0.04) (0.07) (0.01) (0.04) (0.09) (0.11) (0.08) (0.07) -0.30 -0.28 0.04 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.16 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.35) (0.31) (0.29) (0.33) (0.21) (0.17) (0.34) (0.31) 0.32* 0.31* 0.21* 0.19* 0.12* 0.11* 0.18 0.17 Cumulative Machine Sales (0.15) (0.12) (0.10) (0.08) (0.05) (0.05) (0.24) (0.19) 0.44* 0.54* 0.49† 0.59† 0.43** 0.38** 0.52* 0.59* Constant (0.21) (0.25) (0.25) (0.32) (0.11) (0.11) (0.23) (0.23) Log pseudo-likelihood -3,242.52 -3,234.49 -3,840.24 -3,829.76 -3,887.24 -3,877.03 -3,992.74 -3,982.44 Wald text !" 831.31*** 857.23*** 725.72*** 745.84*** 702.31*** 719.28*** 698.24*** 717.74*** D.f. 74 75 74 75 74 75 74 75 Note: N=10,106; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include random effects for communities and indicators for quarters

52 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Table 5: Moderation Effects of Favorable Media Coverage

Original Jazz Records (H5) Variable Growth Rates MODEL1 Predictors 0.27** No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced during the Pre-revival Era (0.09) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced during 0.06** the Pre-revival Era X Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid Jazz during (0.02) the Pre-revival Era (H5)

Controls Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid Jazz during 0.09* the Pre-revival Era (0.04) 0.14† Total Population (0.08) 0.37 Percentage of African-American Population (0.39) 0.23* Per Capita Disposable Income (0.11) 0.11† Change in Total Population (0.06) 0.23* Educational Diversity (0.11) -0.15* Cumulative No. of Classical Recording Sessions (0.06) 0.29† Cumulative No. of Jazz Recording Sessions (0.15) 0.27 Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.29) -0.21* Density of Record Firms Founded before 1917 (0.09*) 0.12* U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.05) -0.17† Concentration Ratio (0.09) 0.22 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.29) 0.27† Cumulative Machine Sales (0.15) 1.18* Constant (0.45) Log pseudo-likelihood -3,720.18 Wald text !" 727.48*** D.f. 77 Note: N=434; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include random effects for communities and indicators for quarters; results are from seven communities

53 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Figure 1: Annual Production of Total, Hybrid, and Original Jazz Records

Annual Production of Jazz Recordings 70000

60000

50000

40000

Total Original

Numbers 30000 Hybrid

20000

10000

0 191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955 Year Note: Each record was classified using the criterion based on the number of melody instruments (refer to the Methods section for details) Figures 2a and 2b: Multiplier Effects of Hybrid Jazz Record Production and Time Elapsed (Hypotheses 2a and 2b)

Effects of Production of Hybrid Jazz Records on Growth Rates of the Production 2.5

2

1.5

Low Time Elapsed (-2 S.D.) Mean Time Elapsed Multiplier 1 High Time Elapsed (+2 S.D.)

0.5

0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Hybrid Jazz Production (+/- from mean)

Effects of Production of Hybrid Jazz Records on Entry Rates of the Production

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 Low Time Elapsed (-1 S.D.) Mean Time Elapsed Multiplier 0.8 High Time Elapsed (+2 S.D.)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Hybrid Jazz Production (+/- from mean)

54 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Figure 3: Multiplier Effect of Hybrid Jazz Record Production and Favorable Media Coverage (Hypothesis 5)

Effects of Production of Hybrid Jazz Records on Growth Rates of the Production 4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5 Low Media Cov. (-2 S.D.)

2 Mean Media Cov. Multiplier High Media Cov. (+2 S.D.)

1.5

1

0.5

0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Hybrid Jazz Production (+/- from mean)

55 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Appendix A: Alternative Definition of Hybrid and Classical Jazz Records

Original Jazz Original Jazz Original Jazz Records (H1) Records (H2) Records (H3) Variable Growth Entry Growth Entry Growth Entry Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4 MODEL5 MODEL6 Predictors No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced -0.25* -0.23* -0.42* -0.35* 0.33*** 0.26** during the Pre-revival Era (0.11) (0.10) (0.17) (0.14) (0.07) (0.08) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced 0.05** 0.07** during the Pre-revival Era X Time Elapsed since 1920 (0.02) (0.02) Controls 0.22 0.26 0.11† 0.37† Total Population (0.23) (0.29) (0.06) (0.20) Percentage of African-American 0.31** 0.24** 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.23† Population (0.10) (0.08) (0.26) (0.29) (0.24) (0.13) -0.22* -0.19* 0.24** 0.21** 0.18* 0.21* Per Capita Disposable Income (0.11) (0.09) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08) (0.10) 0.18* 0.17† -0.19* 0.13† 0.17* 0.09 Change in Total Population (0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.20) -0.23† -0.35* 0.17* 0.13† 0.29 0.21 Educational Diversity (0.05) (0.16) (0.07) (0.07) (0.24) (0.42) Cumulative No. of Classical -0.37** -0.35** -0.35* -0.34* -0.25* -0.27* Recording Sessions (0.12) (0.11) (0.16) (0.16) (0.11†) (0.13) Cumulative No. of Jazz Recording 0.21† 0.23** -0.35** -0.31* 0.27** 0.22** Sessions (0.11) (0.07) (0.11) (0.14) (0.09) (0.07) 0.27* 0.31* 0.23** 0.25** 0.33 -0.20 Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.12) (0.13) (0.07) (0.07) (0.24) (0.33) Density of Record Firms Founded -0.37* -0.33** 0.31* 0.31* -0.30** -0.28** before 1917 (0.18) (0.10) (0.13) (0.14) (0.10) (0.09) 0.33† 0.30* -0.33** -0.34** 0.18* 0.17* U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.17) (0.14) (0.10) (0.10) (0.06) (0.07) -0.32* -0.25* 0.30* 0.33* -0.11† -0.10† Concentration Ratio (0.14) (0.11) (0.14) (0.15) (0.06) (0.05) 0.13 0.14 -0.25* -0.21* 0.27 0.21 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) (0.23) (0.23) 0.23* 0.24** 0.25 0.09 0.29* 0.21* Cumulative Machine Sales (0.11) (0.11) (0.20) (0.25) (0.13) (0.10) 0.22 -0.30* 0.24** 0.33* Dummy for 1929-1932 (0.23) (0.14) (0.11) (0.16) 0.31** 0.68** -0.30** -0.31* 0.83† 0.71† Constant (0.10) (0.18) (0.10) (0.15) (0.45) (0.37) Log pseudo-likelihood -3,999.78 -3,981.18 -3,968.34 -3,963.23 -3,472.83 -3,897.19 D.f. 93 93 94 94 75 75 Note: N=12,877; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include random effects for communities and indicators for quarters

56 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Appendix A: Alternative Definition of Hybrid and Classical Jazz Records (continued)

Original Jazz Hybrid Jazz Records (H4) Records (H5) Variable Growth Rates Entry Rates Growth Rates MODEL7 MODEL8 MODEL9 Predictors -0.37* -0.31* 0.28* No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced during the Pre-revival Era (0.18) (0.15) (0.14) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced 0.03** during the Pre-revival Era X Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid (0.01) Jazz during the Pre-revival Era Controls Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid 0.07† Jazz during the Pre-revival Era (0.04) 0.28* 0.27† 0.23† Total Population (0.13) (0.14) (0.13) Percentage of African-American -0.12 -0.24 0.34 Population (0.18) (0.77) (0.29) 0.31* 0.29* 0.18† Per Capita Disposable Income (0.15) (0.14) (0.10) 0.13 0.17 0.14* Change in Total Population (0.08) (0.13) (0.07) -0.28* 0.14 0.24* Educational Diversity (0.11) (0.28) (0.12) Cumulative No. of Classical Recording 0.27* 0.23* -0.25† Sessions (0.15) (0.11) (0.14) Cumulative No. of Jazz Recording -0.23* -0.21 0.27† Sessions (0.11) (0.35) (0.15) 0.25 0.17 0.24 Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.21) (0.32) (0.48) Density of Record Firms Founded before 0.23** -0.23* -0.27* 1917 (0.10) (0.11) (0.12) 0.23† 0.15* 0.14† U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.13) (0.07) (0.08) 0.24* -0.18† -0.23† Concentration Ratio (0.12) (0.10) (0.15) 0.13 0.12 0.34 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.14) (0.63) (0.34) 0.17† 0.15 0.12 Cumulative Machine Sales 0.09 (0.26) (0.69) 0.88* 0.92* 0.74† Constant (0.34) (0.48) (0.41) Log pseudo-likelihood -3,998.14 -3,931.81 -3,892.42 D.f. 75 75 77 Note: N=10,106; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include random effects for communities and indicators for quarters

57 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Appendix B: Estimates of Propensity Score Weighted Analyses

Original Jazz Original Jazz Original Jazz Records (H1) Records (H2) Records (H3) Variable Growth Entry Growth Entry Growth Entry Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4 MODEL5 MODEL6 Predictors No. of Hybrid Jazz Records -0.48** -0.47* -0.43** -0.43** 0.27*** 0.31*** Produced during the Pre-revival Era (0.12) (0.23) (0.15) (0.14) (0.05) (0.07) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records 0.06** 0.07*** Produced during the Pre-revival Era X Time Elapsed since 1920 (0.02) (0.01) Controls 0.22† 0.29 0.30* 0.29 0.13* 0.27† Total Population (0.12) (0.23) (0.22) (0.19) (0.05) (0.15) Percentage of African- 0.37*** 0.47*** 0.39*** 0.29** 0.31 0.27* American Population (0.07) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.30) (0.13) -0.27* 0.17* -0.38* 0.15† 0.28* 0.24* Per Capita Disposable Income (0.12) (0.08) (0.14) (0.08) (0.13) (0.11) 0.18* 0.16* 0.19* 0.21† 0.16* 0.13 Change in Total Population (0.08) (0.07) (0.09) (0.12) (0.07) (0.22) -0.23* -0.36* -0.34* -0.37* 0.27** 0.27 Educational Diversity (0.11) (0.17) (0.15) (0.17) (0.09) (0.33) Cumulative No. of Classical -0.38*** 0.23** -0.34*** -0.32*** -0.24** -0.27** Recording Sessions (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.09) Cumulative No. of Jazz 0.47*** 0.31** 0.30** 0.31** 0.19* 0.20** Recording Sessions (0.10) (0.09) (0.10) (0.11) (0.09) (0.06) 0.37*** 0.37** 0.30* 0.35** 0.30 -0.22 Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.09) (0.12) (0.14) (0.12) (0.23) (0.38) Density of Record Firms -0.43*** -0.32** -0.34** -0.34** -0.29** -0.28** Founded before 1917 (0.09) (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.09) (0.08) 0.32* 0.37** 0.29** 0.30** 0.22** 0.17* U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.15) (0.13) (0.09) (0.10) (0.06) (0.06) -0.36** -0.23* -0.21** -0.17* -0.13* 0.13* Concentration Ratio (0.12) (0.11) (0.07) (0.08) (0.05) (0.06) 0.11 0.17 0.32 0.10 0.28 0.17 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.21) (0.13) (0.35) (0.24) (0.33) (0.31) 0.34** 0.33** 0.33* 0.31* 0.33* 0.21* Cumulative Machine Sales (0.12) (0.11) (0.15) (0.12) (0.13) (0.10) -0.32*** -0.34*** -0.34*** -0.33** Dummy for 1929-1932 (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.10) 0.78** 1.29** 1.23* 1.65* 1.08** 0.71* Constant (0.24) (0.38) (0.45) (0.73) (0.37) (0.32) Log pseudo-likelihood -1,601.37 -1,592.04 -1,598.77 -1,589.73 -1,459.27 -1,461.23 D.f. 93 93 94 94 75 75 Note: N=12,877; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include indicators for quarters

58 Jaemin Lee – Sample Work Demise from Success

Appendix B: Estimates of Propensity Score Weighted Analyses (continued)

Original Jazz Hybrid Jazz Records (H4) Records (H5) Variable Growth Rates Entry Rates Growth Rates MODEL7 MODEL8 MODEL9 Predictors -0.27** -0.31** 0.33** No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced during the Pre-revival Era (0.08) (0.10) (0.11) No. of Hybrid Jazz Records Produced 0.07** during the Pre-revival Era X Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid (0.01) Jazz during the Pre-revival Era Controls Favorable Media Coverage of Hybrid 0.14* Jazz during the Pre-revival Era (0.07) 0.33* 0.22* 0.17* Total Population (0.14) (0.10) (0.08) Percentage of African-American -0.18 -0.27† 0.36* Population (0.55) (0.15) (0.27) 0.31* 0.21* 0.22* Per Capita Disposable Income (0.15) (0.09) (0.10) 0.10 0.13 0.16* Change in Total Population (0.13) (0.09) (0.07) -0.24* 0.21 0.30** Educational Diversity (0.11) (0.36) (0.10) Cumulative No. of Classical Recording 0.29* 0.25** -0.16* Sessions (0.13) (0.08) (0.06) Cumulative No. of Jazz Recording -0.28* -0.27† 0.30† Sessions (0.14) (0.15) (0.17) 0.29 0.24 0.29* Density of Jazz Record Firms (0.23) (0.18) (0.13) Density of Record Firms Founded before 0.23** -0.21* -0.27* 1917 (0.08) (0.09) (0.13) 0.27† 0.18* 0.19** U.S. Jazz Recording Production (0.14) (0.08) (0.06) 0.27* -0.17* -0.20† Concentration Ratio (0.12) (0.07) (0.11) 0.17 0.20 0.25 Avg. Prices for Jazz Records (0.19) (0.37) (0.17) 0.16* 0.25 0.30* Cumulative Machine Sales (0.07) (0.20) (0.13) 0.75** 0.88** 1.03† Constant (0.22) (0.29) (0.55) Log pseudo-likelihood -1,482.38 -1,466.07 -1,453.82 D.f. 75 75 77 Note: N=10,106; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; robust standard errors clustered on the communities in parentheses; models include indicators for quarters

59