|
on Marketing |
|
Issue of 2007‒08‒27
five papers chosen by Joao Carlos Correia Leitao University of the Beira Interior |
| By: | Swaminathan Vanitha; Dawar Niraj; Hulland John (METEOR) |
| Abstract: | A company’s brand portfolio serves as its link to customers and markets, protects it from competitors, and provides it with a degree of channel power. Historically, brand portfolios were built, brand by brand. But in today’s fast-paced and highly competitive marketplace, companies cannot afford to rely solely on brands built from scratch. Consumer preferences change, yesterday’s star brands are today’s dogs, new segments emerge, and established competitors and nimble start-ups are quick to spot and respond to new opportunities. A brand portfolio that does not continually evolve to meet the changing strategic needs of the market risks becoming obsolete. At the same time, building brands has never been more costly, nor more fraught with risk. In response to these challenges, firms are increasingly choosing to acquire brands from other companies. Acquisitions of brands allow firms to respond far more quickly to the needs of an emerging market segment or to a competitive move. Furthermore, buying an established brand is considerably less risky than undertaking the launch of an entirely new brand. But acquiring brands presents its own set of challenges. Not only must the purchased brand have the potential to fulfill the strategic objectives for which it is purchased, but it must also be integrated into the existing portfolio of brands and brand management structures of the acquiring company, and be properly deployed to capture market opportunities. Strategic match, portfolio fit, and effective deployment can mean the difference between success and failure of a brand acquisition. Yet managers tend to underestimate the effort and risk associated with brand acquisition. Brand acquisitions may have a lower rate of failure than new products, but they are not risk- free. We develop a framework to guide managers in assessing potential acquisitions against key success factors. To develop the framework, we have assembled and examined a comprehensive set of brand acquisitions in the food and health and beauty sectors that took place over the past 25 years. We studied key variables that helped us understand how and why brands change hands, as well as the financial consequences of acquisitions that were ultimately deemed to be either successes or failures. We supplement the statistical results with in-depth case studies of brand acquisitions that help illustrate the key lessons. |
| Keywords: | marketing ; |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:umamet:2007015&r=mkt |
| By: | Bruce A. Babcock (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD); Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC)); Dermot J. Hayes (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD); Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)); John D. Lawrence; Roxanne Clemens (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD); Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC)) |
| Abstract: | Worldwide, a segment of consumers can afford to pay substantial price premiums for very high quality agricultural products with attributes those consumers value. At the same time, many U.S. farmers are producing these high-quality products but are not using market mechanisms that allow them to take fullest advantage of price premiums. This paper describes a pilot program developed to commercialize an origin-based collective brand for very high quality beef. We hypothesize that, if successful, the program would create potential for cattle producers to take fuller advantage of price premiums often captured elsewhere in the marketing channel. Specifically, the pilot program analyzed two mechanisms for differentiating and marketing very high quality beef: a certification mark (a type of U.S. trademark that links products to their geographic origin) and a USDA Process Verification Program (a federal program that allows producers to provide documented assurances to their customers that a stated set of minimum production standards are met). This paper describes how we identified target markets, defined product specifications and determined potential supply, protected property rights using the U.S. trademark system, prepared documentation for a USDA process verification program, and attempted to commercialize Iowa-80 Beef. We also discuss the costs and feasibility of small firms or producer groups obtaining and maintaining a certification mark and a process verification program. Finally, we discuss the challenges and lessons learned from attempting to brand and commercialize very high quality beef. |
| Keywords: | certification mark, collective brands, consumer assurance, geographic origin, process verification. |
| Date: | 2007–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ias:mpaper:07-mbp13&r=mkt |
| By: | Rajagopal (Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México) |
| Abstract: | This paper aims at identifying attributes of players in franchising process that contribute in delivering satisfaction in purchasing and operating the outlets in Mexico. The discussion also focuses the impact of cultural diversities in franchisee selection, outlet management and achieving high performance. Franchisee relationship has been evaluated in reference to principal determinants attributing to the enhancement of satisfaction and strengthening franchisor-franchisee ties. It has been observed in the study that performance of franchisee outlets is a function of outlet attraction, supply and manufacturing management, quality, price, and promotional strategies as functional factors. Besides, relational variables including personalized customer services, leisure support and customer convenience also influence the performance of outlets. |
| Keywords: | Franchising, performance measurement, market demand, sales management, retailing, store organization, pricing, promotional strategies, customer value and business growth |
| JEL: | C51 D23 L81 M31 |
| Date: | 2007–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ega:wpaper:200706&r=mkt |
| By: | JEON, Doh-Shin; ROCHET, Jean-Charles |
| JEL: | D42 L42 L82 |
| Date: | 2007–06–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ide:wpaper:7208&r=mkt |
| By: | O'Reilly, Tim |
| Abstract: | This paper was the first initiative to try to define Web2.0 and understand its implications for the next generation of software, looking at both design patterns and business modes. Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences. |
| Keywords: | collective intelligence; rich client; data; software as a service; long tail and beta. |
| JEL: | H42 L41 K21 C78 L96 L90 K23 K41 |
| Date: | 2007–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:4578&r=mkt |