1 / 18

Transaction Cost Economics in Marketing: Looking Back, Moving Forward Symposium in Honor of

Transaction Cost Economics in Marketing: Looking Back, Moving Forward Symposium in Honor of Professor Oliver E. Williamson at Norwegian School of Management December 4 2009 Professor George John Carlson School of Management University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

manton
Download Presentation

Transaction Cost Economics in Marketing: Looking Back, Moving Forward Symposium in Honor of

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transaction Cost Economics in Marketing: Looking Back, Moving Forward Symposium in Honor of Professor Oliver E. Williamson at Norwegian School of Management December 4 2009 Professor George John Carlson School of Management University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

  2. Locating TCE Research Within Marketing 4Ps Product Price Promotion Place (channels) Place (channels) is the least well understood despite its complexity and importance.

  3. Channels Research Streams (late 70s) Lou Stern and his colleagues inspired empirical research into vulnerability and power in inter-firm ties; e.g. firms sought control via the exercise of power over channel partners. Pete Bucklin and colleagues offered practice-based heuristics; e.g., convenience, shopping and specialty goods align with intensive, selective and exclusive distribution channels respectively.

  4. Complexity of Channels Decisions • IBM made 30% of PC in-house, bought 70% from outside sources • Co-branding between IBM, Intel, Microsoft • IBM-owned resellers competed with 3rd party resellers • Different contractual resale restrictions across reseller types, but honored in the breach (massive “diverting”) • Non-linear wholesale prices differed across types of resellers

  5. Game-Changing Events (mid-late 70s) Oliver Williamson blended economics, organizational behavior and sociology to offer an efficiency explanation of vertical ties between firms. Make vs buy is the canonical issue. GTE-Sylvania doctrine acknowledged possible efficiency of non arms length vertical ties

  6. TCE methodology in Marketing Census-style archival data were largely useless, so primary data were essential. Torger Reve’s dissertation (1979) laid the foundation for operationalizing and measuring TCE constructs. Karl Joreskog’s statistical models combining econometrics and psychometrics applied to “key informant” survey data of organizations proved crucial.

  7. Initial Focus Safeguarding: Under-investment in at-risk assets Adaptation: Exploitation of at-risk party during renegotiation Measurement: Under-supply of non-verifiable activities OEW’s JLE 1979 paper was the most influential paper.

  8. Initial Focus: Make vs Buy Erin Anderson’s dissertation (1981) showed that agents’ specific investments, rapid revisions to plans and poorly measured outputs predicted vertical integration of the selling function. Aside: Initially rejected from Journal of Marketing Research; accepted at Marketing Science. Among all-time most cited papers in that journal.

  9. Initial Focus: Make vs Ally vs Buy Tom Noordewier’s (1986) dissertation showed that relational ties improved measured productivity (% on-time deliveries), but only in volatile settings. Jan Heide’s dissertation (1987) showed that alliances and other “close” ties can be unpacked according to TCE principles. Takeaway: Non-verifiable activities are as important as specific investments. Adaptation to disturbances are difficult to explain. Norm perceptions are fragile.

  10. Initial Focus: Costly Enforcement Mark Bergen, Shantanu Dutta and their colleagues showed violations of contractual resale restrictions are enforced selectively. Trans-shipping is endemic, even in vertically integrated channels.

  11. Horse Race : Power/Dependence vs S-A-M Heide and John (1988): Small 3rd party resellers develop (seemingly wasteful) strong downstream social bonds with end-users to safeguard their upstream at-risk investments. Dependence avoidance (power) logic of Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) is empirically trumped in these data.

  12. Horse Race: Agency Theory vs S-A-M IBM Entry Systems Division IBM Product Center Stores IBM National Accounts Division; IBM National Markets Division In-bound small order customers Large order customers John and Weitz (1989): Employers pay flat wages/salaries to induce employees’ effort on poorly verified sales tasks. Agency theory’s incentive-insurance trade-off is empirically trumped in these data.

  13. Co-Existence: Branding Theory and S-A-M Branding theory predicts assortative matching in co-branding, yet Mrinal Ghosh finds little-known component suppliers are more likely to write co-branding contracts with well-known OEMs in response to their customization investments; e.g. Zenith fuel injectors in Nissan trucks.

  14. Co-Existence: PR and S-A-M Stephen Carson’s dissertation (2000) showed that clients induce more creative, (but poorly measured) RD&E work by sharing IP ownership rights with contractors, which occurs in the presence of costly ex-post bargaining.

  15. Porter Meets OEW Shantanu Dutta’s dissertation (1990) demonstrated that monopolists in the lab offered royalty-free “second source” licenses to competing firms to safeguard customers’ at-risk investments, but desisted at sufficiently high levels of rents. Mrinal Ghosh’s dissertation (1997) showed that firms with stronger downstream market positions were less likely to develop “closer” supplier ties to induce specific investments.

  16. Looking Forward S-A-M is the dominant lens amongst marketing academics today. What about decision-makers? Computing the value of alternative channel forms is key to formulating advice on specific business decisions. We lack these calculators today. Contrast NIE/TCE with EIO.

  17. CEO on PEPSICO-PBG Vertical Merger 1. …. Improved speed of decision making across the company. 2. Offer … more compelling bundled offers across its beverage and food portfolio. 3. … The company must get (the new bundled offers) on the retail shelves and incubate them. …. best accomplished by utilizing the multiple go-to-market systems, (i.e., the warehouse and direct store delivery channels that the new business will have. 4. The elimination of redundant costs between various systems including headquarters and back offices.

  18. CEO on Pepsico-PBG Separation/Integration Separation: The formation of the company’s anchor bottlers a decade ago was done when the category had strong growth, carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) dominated the market, the profit pool was expanding steadily, and there were only two major players. Integration: In the more mature market of today, there is a need to be more nimble given the increasing role of non-carbonated beverages (NCBs), retailer consolidation and changing competitive landscape. Indra Nooyi, November 2009

More Related