Ecosystem Mapping Reference
Purpose: Use this file when Compete must analyze platform ecosystems, network effects, partnership landscapes, integration moats, or adjacent market threats.
Contents
- Ecosystem analysis framework
- Network effect classification
- Platform ecosystem mapping
- Partnership and integration analysis
- Cross-market subsidization detection
- Ecosystem health metrics
- Templates
Ecosystem Analysis Framework
Why Ecosystem Analysis Matters
Traditional competitive analysis compares Company A vs Company B. But in platform economies, the unit of competition is the ecosystem, not the company. A firm's competitive advantage includes its partners, integrations, developer community, and data network effects.
Three Lenses
| Lens | Question | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Who are the players and how are they connected? | Ecosystem map with node relationships |
| Dynamics | How do value and influence flow? | Value flow diagram with directionality |
| Trajectory | Where is the ecosystem heading? | Evolution forecast with tipping points |
Network Effect Classification
| Type | Definition | Strength indicator | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct (same-side) | More users → more value for each user | User growth rate, engagement per user | Social networks, messaging |
| Indirect (cross-side) | More users on side A → more value for side B | Marketplace liquidity, match rate | Marketplaces, app stores |
| Data | More usage → better product via data/ML | Model accuracy, personalization quality | Search, recommendation engines |
| Content | More users → more content → more users | UGC volume, content diversity | YouTube, Stack Overflow |
| Integration | More integrations → more sticky → more integrations | Integration count, API call volume | Salesforce, Slack |
| Protocol/Standard | Adoption creates lock-in through compatibility | Adoption rate, switching cost | USB, TCP/IP, file formats |
Network Effect Strength Assessment
## Network Effect Assessment: [Company/Platform]
| Effect type | Present? | Strength (1-5) | Defensibility | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
| Indirect | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
| Data | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
| Content | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
| Integration | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
| Protocol | Y/N | | H/M/L | [evidence] |
Composite network effect score: [X/30]
Dominant effect: [type]
Vulnerability: [what could weaken the strongest effect]Platform Ecosystem Mapping
Mapping Protocol
## Ecosystem Map: [Platform Name]
### Core Platform
- Value proposition: [what the platform enables]
- Primary users: [who uses it directly]
- Revenue model: [how it monetizes]
### Ecosystem Layers
| Layer | Players | Role | Dependency on platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core product | [platform itself] | Value creation | — |
| First-party extensions | [built by platform owner] | Value expansion | High |
| Third-party integrations | [partner companies] | Ecosystem enrichment | Medium-High |
| Developer community | [independent developers] | Long-tail value | Medium |
| Complementary products | [adjacent companies] | Workflow completion | Low-Medium |
| End users | [customers] | Value consumption | Varies |
### Integration Landscape
| Integration | Type | Direction | Strategic value |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Integration A] | Native / API / Marketplace | Inbound/Outbound/Bidirectional | Critical/Important/Nice-to-have |
| [Integration B] | ... | ... | ... |
### Ecosystem Competitive Dynamics
- Platform owner power: [high/medium/low — does the platform extract or share value?]
- Multi-homing cost: [high/medium/low — how easy to use competing platforms simultaneously?]
- Disintermediation risk: [high/medium/low — can participants bypass the platform?]Platform Power Assessment
| Dimension | Low power | High power |
|---|---|---|
| Switching cost | Data portable, standards-based | Proprietary format, deep integration |
| Multi-homing | Easy to use multiple platforms | Exclusive or high friction |
| Value capture | Platform shares most value | Platform extracts disproportionate rent |
| Governance | Open, predictable rules | Opaque, frequently changing |
| API stability | Stable, versioned, backward-compatible | Frequent breaking changes |
Partnership and Integration Analysis
Partnership Landscape Mapping
## Partnership Landscape: [Company Name]
### Partnership Types
| Partner | Type | Depth | Strategic value | Exclusivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Partner A] | Technology | Deep/Surface | H/M/L | Yes/No |
| [Partner B] | Distribution | Deep/Surface | H/M/L | Yes/No |
| [Partner C] | Data | Deep/Surface | H/M/L | Yes/No |
### Partnership Signals
- New partnerships announced: [list with dates]
- Partnerships dissolved: [list with dates]
- Partnership depth changes: [upgrades/downgrades]
### Integration Moat Assessment
- Total integrations: [count]
- Growth rate: [monthly/quarterly new integrations]
- Integration depth: [shallow API / deep embedded / native]
- Developer ecosystem: [SDK quality, documentation, community size]
- Marketplace health: [if applicable — listing count, review quality, revenue share]Cross-Market Subsidization Detection
Why This Matters
Platform companies often price below cost in one market to capture value in an adjacent market. Recognizing this pattern is critical for competitive response.
Detection Signals
| Signal | What to look for | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Below-cost pricing | Product priced lower than standalone economics justify | Google Workspace pricing vs standalone office tools |
| Aggressive free tier | Generous free tier beyond normal PLG economics | Amazon's loss-leading devices |
| Bundling acceleration | Rapid addition of features from adjacent markets | Microsoft adding Teams to Office 365 |
| Acquisition in adjacent space | Buying companies in markets they don't yet monetize | Platform acquiring complementary tools |
| Revenue mix shift | Growing revenue from adjacent market while core pricing drops | Core product becomes distribution for adjacent revenue |
Assessment Template
## Cross-Market Subsidization Analysis: [Company]
### Markets Operated In
| Market | Product | Pricing posture | Revenue (est) | Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Market A] | [Product] | Premium/Competitive/Below-cost | $X | Cash cow / Subsidizer |
| [Market B] | [Product] | Premium/Competitive/Below-cost | $X | Growth / Subsidized |
### Subsidy Flow
- Direction: [Market A] → subsidizes → [Market B]
- Mechanism: [bundling / free tier / cross-sell / data leverage]
- Estimated subsidy magnitude: [X]% of Market B costs covered by Market A profits
- Sustainability: [indefinite / time-limited / VC-funded]
### Competitive Implication
- Can we compete on price in the subsidized market? [Yes/No — why]
- What is our counter-strategy? [differentiate / niche / partner / match]Ecosystem Health Metrics
Use these to evaluate the vitality and trajectory of a platform ecosystem:
| Metric | Healthy | Warning | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Developer growth (YoY) | > 20% |
0-20% |
< 0% (shrinking) |
| Integration count growth | > 15% |
0-15% |
< 0% |
| Third-party app quality | Improving ratings | Stable | Declining ratings |
| API breaking changes/year | 0-1 |
2-3 |
4+ |
| Partner satisfaction | High (survey/signals) | Mixed | Low / departures |
| Multi-homing rate | Low (sticky) | Rising | High (commodity) |
| Platform revenue per partner | Growing | Flat | Declining |
Integration with Compete Workflow
Ecosystem analysis fits into the ANALYZE phase:
- Use during Landscape analysis when competitors operate as platforms
- Use during Strategy analysis to assess moat durability via network effects
- Use during Benchmark analysis to compare ecosystem breadth and health
- Feed ecosystem findings into Magi (
COMPETE_TO_MAGI) for strategic simulation of platform dynamics