|
on Marketing |
|
Issue of 2006‒08‒19
three papers chosen by Joao Carlos Correia Leitao Universidade da Beira Interior |
| By: | Richard Castaldi (San Francisco State University); Susan Cholette (San Francisco State University); Mahmood Hussain (San Francisco State University) |
| Abstract: | The purposes of this paper are (1) to examine driving forces and key success factors related to the increasing globalization of the wine industry, and (2) to analyze the current competitive advantage positions of four Old and five New World wine producing countries. Each country will be profiled using key industry data and analyzed regarding their national capabilities to address five key success factors that contribute to their national competitive advantage position. The countries fall into three groups with respect to their national comparative competitive advantage position. The group with the strongest competitive position includes United States, Australia, and Chile. Australia and Chile both have small populations that provide for a tiny domestic market with little potential for growth. However they are very well positioned to produce and export wine with their adaptive, large-scale producers and their great lure for foreign investments, providing them with a position of a strong competitive advantage. With respect to production, cost structures suggest Australia and Chile may be better positioned that the US. However, economies of scale and economies of scope in marketing offer an advantage to the US because it is a populous and affluent nation. While the US wine market is already significantly larger than Australia and Chile, it has even more potential to expand. The group of countries with moderate competitive advantages includes Italy, Spain, Argentina and South Africa. Lingering economic concerns and disadvantages of scale prevent Argentina from being ranked as competitively as neighboring Chile. Likewise, South Africa has strong marketing economies of scale and moderate production economies of scale, but currently domestic unrest has diminished its attraction for foreign investment and ability to expand its home market. In the Old World, Spain and Italy are hampered by decreased consumption rates and weak economies of scale in production. However, on the positive side, they have shown promise in their ability to adapt to an increasingly internationalized marketplace and to attract foreign investment. The countries with the weakest competitive advantage positions in the global wine industry are two traditional strongholds of wine production in the Old World: France and Germany. While they have large domestic markets, there is little opportunity for further growth. The concentration of production into small wineries, scarce land and labor, complex labeling practices and inability to leverage new production, and marketing techniques does not bode well for effective competition in a global market place. Nor does either country hold much potential for attracting foreign investment, save for some traditionally undervalued areas of France, like Languedoc. In conclusion, it is clear that the New World countries are currently positioned better to capitalize on the opportunities created through industry globalization and other current driving forces. Italy and Spain emerge as the best positioned Old World nations. This competitive advantage scenario should be a wake-up call to many wine producing countries. Indeed, some Old World countries have begun efforts to better adapt to industry-wide improvements in production and marketing practices. However, it is clear that many nations need to increase support that will encourage production and marketing innovations to improve their competitive advantage position to help local wineries succeed in the changing and increasingly competitive wine marketplace. |
| Keywords: | Wineries, Globalization, Competitive Advantage, Exports, Markets |
| JEL: | L11 M21 E32 |
| Date: | 2006–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bag:deiawp:6002&r=mkt |
| By: | Susan Cholette (San Francisco State University) |
| Abstract: | As the United States is predicted to become the world’s largest wine consuming nation by 2008 with consumers purchasing across all price segments, one might assume that Californian wineries should thrive in this market. However, regulations and consolidation effects often prevent small wineries from being able to reach the U.S. consumer and they face similar problems with exporting. These wineries must seek specialty distributors that represent lesser-known brands, usually by attending trade shows at great expense. In turn, specialty distributors face the daunting challenge of finding wineries that best satisfy their portfolios’ needs. Given this problematic situation, can one provide assistance to these parties in their quest for finding appropriate partners? While this question no doubt has many positive answers, the approach we have chosen to explore is to develop a web-based matching program. We ask wineries and distributors to submit their respective attributes and their needs via a web questionnaire. Operations research methodology is then used to algorithmically determine the most promising partnerships, subject to mutual fit and based on constraints of supply, demand and avoidance of conflicting matches. We summarize the results obtained from the initial iteration of the program, a pre-qualification service created for the World Wine Market, a San Francisco trade show in 2004. We provide some of the participant feedback, including testimonials from parties that were successfully matched through the program. We also analyze the results to determine why the program did not recommend a greater number of matches and used this information and other feedback to assist in the development of the next program iteration While the conceptual contribution of our research is in providing the first documented application of “assignment problems” to model the optimal placement of wines into the distribution tier, this paper focuses instead on the potential practitioner contributions to the wine industry. A functional web based matching program could provide many small wineries with a means to expand their representation into additional markets domestically and internationally. Even if only a small fraction of the recommended matches take place, the business return from participation has enormous potential. We discuss the current improvements, which being funded through a Business and International Education Grant from the U.S. Department of Education. We conclude with ideas for future research, including extending this program to a broader range of participants. |
| Keywords: | Wineries, Distributors, Exports, Matching, Optimization |
| JEL: | L14 C61 |
| Date: | 2006–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bag:deiawp:6001&r=mkt |
| By: | Nick Bloom; John Van Reenen |
| Abstract: | We use an innovative survey tool to collect management practice data from 732 medium sized manufacturingfirms in the US, France, Germany and the UK. These measures of managerial practice are strongly associatedwith firm-level productivity, profitability, Tobin's Q, sales growth and survival rates. Management practicesalso display significant cross-country differences with US firms on average better managed than Europeanfirms, and significant within-country differences with a long tail of extremely badly managed firms. We findthat poor management practices are more prevalent when (a) product market competition is weak and/or when(b) family-owned firms pass management control down to the eldest sons (primo geniture). European firmsreport lower levels of competition, while French and British firms also report substantially higher levels ofprimo geniture due to the influence of Norman legal origin and generous estate duty for family firms. Wecalculate that product market competition and family firms account for about half of the long tail of badlymanaged firms and up to two thirds of the American advantage over Europe in management practices. |
| Keywords: | management practices, productivity, competition, family firms |
| JEL: | L2 M2 O32 O33 |
| Date: | 2006–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0716&r=mkt |