SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • channel management;
  • knowledge transfer and integration;
  • physical distribution;
  • supplier management;
  • theoretical development

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES

This paper examines the interrelationship between physical distribution and channel management. A conceptual framework is developed, based on industry and firm conditions, to explain the relative importance of physical distribution functions in the field of channel management. The need for knowledge transfer and integration among channel members to enable organizational capabilities lies at the heart of the research approach.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES

Research devoted to channel management has played an important role in the marketing discipline for over 40 years. Two main areas of channels research in marketing have evolved. First, how channels are organized or structured has been a focal point, centering on the level of channel integration, reliance on multiple channels, distribution intensity and organizational policies relating to centralization, formalization, standardization, and surveillance (cf. Dwyer and Oh 1988; John and Weitz 1988; Fein and Anderson 1997; Shervani, Frazier and Challagalla 2007). Second, how ongoing channel relationships are coordinated in a behavioral sense has been even more prominent, dealing with methods of channel governance, including the impact of contracts, the development and application of interfirm power, communication approaches, levels of control and conflict, and the attainment of trust and commitment (cf. Frazier 1983; Anderson and Weitz 1992; Boyle, Dwyer, Robicheau and Simpson 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp 1995a, b; Lusch and Brown 1996).

Physical distribution has been acknowledged as being an important component of channel management (cf. Frazier, Spekman and O'Neal 1988; Coughlan, Anderson, Stern and El-ansary 2006). However, relatively little attention has been paid to physical distribution functions in channels research within the marketing literature. The general topic has received more emphasis in other literatures, such as in operations management, logistics, transportation, purchasing and information technology, with a general focus on how product orders can be efficiently and effectively processed, and then delivered to channel members and end-customers. Among the main areas of interest have been inventory management, the number, placement, and design of warehouses or distribution centers, the use of technology to aide in processing orders, delivery options to customers, and customer payment methods (cf. Innis and LaLonde 1994; Emerson and Grimm 1996; Giannakis and Groom 2004; Giunipero, Hooker, Joseph-Matthews, Yoo and Brudvig 2008). Just-in-time delivery systems and efficient consumer response, including supplier managed ordering and inventory systems, have received considerable focus (cf. Kumar 2006).

The lack of attention to physical distribution in channels research in marketing is unfortunate. Physical distribution functions will impact both channel organization and the manner in which channel relationships are coordinated over time. To promote future progress, a greater focus on the general topic is warranted in channels research. For this to happen, more clarity is necessary on the role of physical distribution functions within the general domain of channel management.

Research on “organizational knowledge and capabilities” within the disciplines of organizational behavior, strategy and international business has been growing in recent years. Within this stream of research, “knowledge” is seen as the key strategic resource of the firm; a knowledge-based theory of the firm has been evolving (cf. Grant 1996). How the explicit and tacit knowledge can be fostered, transferred and integrated within and across firms to improve decision making, organizational capabilities and performance has been emphasized (cf. Daft and Lengel 1986; Huber 1990; Grant and Baden-Fuller 1995; Wiklund and Shepard 2003; Simonin 2004; Dyer and Hatch 2006). The transfer of knowledge and its associated effects have been examined in a variety of contexts, including within the firm, across global units within the firm, across subsidiaries within multinational corporations, across strategic alliances, across buying (original equipment manufacturers) and selling organizations (suppliers) in business-to-business markets, and across international joint ventures.

Within marketing, the “organizational knowledge and capabilities” perspective has received little attention, a notable exception being De Luca and Atuahene-Gima (2007) in examining product innovation performance. It has yet to be applied to the functioning of interfirm channel relationships. The importance of individual channel functions or work activities could be heavily influenced by the need for knowledge transfer and integration between channel members.

The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual framework designed to clarify the relative importance of physical distribution functions within channel management across different industries and firms. Taking a functional approach and embracing an organizational knowledge and capabilities perspective, this study proposes that a firm's need for knowledge transfer and integration across channel members to enhance organizational capabilities is fundamental to what functions (work activities) must be emphasized in any particular channel system. Where the amount of knowledge to be transferred and integrated across channel members is immense and multifaceted, involving detailed product knowledge and marketing and sales skills, the importance of any individual set of work activities, including physical distribution functions, will be relatively low. On the other hand, where the amount of knowledge to be transferred and integrated across channel members is more limited, centering on the processing and fulfillment of product orders, the importance of physical distribution functions in channel management will be relatively high. While physical distribution is important to all product-oriented firms, it will be the predominant concern within channel management in certain industries and firms, as this study's conceptual framework will attempt to clarify.

Within this study, physical distribution is defined as the process by which firms fulfill orders for products from channel members and end-customers (cf. Coughlan et al. 2006). Therefore, physical distribution functions are work activities centered on the process of order fulfillment, including how orders are to be placed and submitted to the firm (e.g., lead times, minimum order sizes), warehousing, inventory control, delivery and payment. The broader concept of supply chain management (cf. Lambert, Coope and Pagh 1998; Mentzer, Dewitt, Keebler, Min, Nix, Smit and Zacharia 2001) is not the focus of this study. Channel management concerns how firms organize and coordinate pathways or pipelines to the marketplace for their products. Physical distribution is one component of channel management.

Table I provides a perspective on the types of knowledge that could be shared among channel members in the ongoing process of channel management. These types of knowledge may need to be shared with multiple people within each channel member organization, including the CEO, General Manager, CFO, marketing personnel, sales personnel, customer service personnel, purchasing personnel and logistics personnel. Figure 1 provides an overview of the general conceptual framework developed for this study. When the role of intermediaries is to “make demand” (i.e., build brand preferences among end-customers), not simply “meet demand” (i.e., “match” supply and demand), the amount of knowledge to be shared between channel members will be quite large, focusing on how products are to be marketed and sold to customers.

Table I.  Types of Knowledge That Can be Shared Between Channel Members
Physical Distribution Knowledge
Ordering Procedures
Minimum Order Sizes and Order Quantities
Lead Times
Order Cycle Times
Inventory Management, including Inventory Levels and Safety Stocks
Stock-Outs
Service Standards, including Order Fill Rates
Warehouse Management, including Cross-Docking
Packaging Guidelines
Delivery-Shipping Options
Drop Shipping Guidelines
Information Technology
Payment Terms and Options, including Electronic Funds Transfer
Performance Metrics
Sharing of Sales and Inventory Data
A Total Cost Approach
Marketing Knowledge
Targeted Customers
Customer Characteristics
Value Propositions (i.e., “Why Targeted Customers Should Buy Our Products)
Product Differentiation
Key Success Factors
Competitive Advantages
Advertising and Promotion Guidelines
Merchandizing Recommendations
Product Pricing Recommendations
PR Efforts
Sales Forecasts
Personal Selling Knowledge
Targeted Customers
Customer Characteristics
Generated Leads
Qualified Leads
Product Features
Product Benefits
The Art of Asking Questions to Gather Customer Information
Handling Objections
Alternative Closing Techniques
Account Management
Building Customer Relationships
Financial Knowledge
Credit Options
Credit Terms
Handling Accounts Receivables
Risk Taking
Customer Service Knowledge
Inside Sales
Technical Service Requirements
Product Returns
Web-Site Management
Strategic Planning Knowledge
Budgeting
Goal Setting
Sales Quotas
Plan Development
Plan Implementation
Capability Development
Sales Training Programs
Data Gathering and Sharing
Competitive Strategies
Building Competitive Advantage
image

Figure 1. Overview of the General Conceptual Framework of Our Study

Download figure to PowerPoint

This study is intended to make two primary contributions to the marketing discipline, one relating to future channels research, the other to resource allocations by practitioners in managing their firms' channels of distribution. First, insight into what channel management entails across different industries and firms should aid theory development in channels research. While generalized conceptual frameworks can make a contribution, finer-grained theory development based on a more refined view of channel management for particular channel contexts should propel us further in terms of insight and progress. In channel contexts where physical distribution functions predominate, channel organization and interfirm coordination will revolve around the processing and fulfillment of product orders. Research in such channel contexts must be designed to take into account this primary role of physical distribution. On the other hand, in channel settings where knowledge transfer and integration emphasizes other functions, including marketing and sales functions, and relationship-building, channel management will be driven less by physical distribution functions. In such settings, there will be less need to take them into account in conceptual frameworks.

Second, from a practitioner point-of-view, a stronger definition of channel management and the role of alternative functions will impact managerial decision-making and resource allocations within the firm. The conceptual framework of this study provides guidance to practitioners as to when physical distribution functions should take precedence in terms of decision-making focus and resource allocations. Prescriptions as to the functions or work activities of major significance for different firms in different industries are urgently needed in channels research, as well as in the marketing discipline in general (cf. Day 1994).

A knowledge-based view of channel management will first be presented, followed by propositions centering on industry and firm conditions that appear to impact the importance of physical distribution functions within the general domain of channel management. The paper concludes with a broadened discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of this research.

A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES

Basic Concepts

Within research on organizational knowledge and capabilities, a knowledge-based view of the firm has developed centering on how the creation, storage and application of knowledge impacts the structure, management and competitive advantage of the firm (cf. Grant and Baden-Fuller 1995). Knowledge, comprising information, know-how and skills, is seen as the primary strategic resource of the firm. Based on knowledge transfer and integration, valuable organizational routines and capabilities develop that provide the firm a basis for differentiation and a lower cost structure (Kogut and Zander 1992; Coff 2003; Dyer and Hatch 2006). Organizational routines or practices are ways in which a firm's personnel learn to conduct themselves in their daily work. Organizational capabilities are higher-order, more complex sets of routines that involve how to carry out specific work activities (e.g., how personal selling should be carried out). Organizational capabilities that are difficult to replicate are fundamental sources of competitive advantage (cf. Coff 2003; Hunt and Davis 2008).

Explicit knowledge can be codified and transmitted within and across firms in a formal, systematic language (Nonaka 1994). In contrast, tacit knowledge is abstract and difficult if not impossible to codify, requiring interpersonal communication, active involvement of the parties and experiential learning. Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensm and Tihanyi (2004, p. 430) clarify, “Whereas explicit knowledge provides the building blocks, tacit knowledge provides the glue and integrating mechanisms in learning.”

The transfer and integration of knowledge is the basis for the development of capabilities and relation-specific assets in channel member organizations. Without the right explicit knowledge, intermediaries would not be able to carry out even basic work activities, like properly ordering and receiving goods from a supplier. Importantly, developing capabilities relating to the marketing and selling of a specific supplier's branded products requires that intermediary personnel have both the explicit (e.g., an understanding of product benefits) and tacit knowledge (e.g., how to convey the status of a product) to effectively guide them in their efforts (Kogut and Zander 1992). For example, how to effectively merchandize products at retail or how to effectively handle objections and close sales in customer encounters is knowledge that is difficult to write down on paper and help someone learn without personal attention and interaction. In contrast, physical distribution functions primarily involve the sharing of explicit knowledge between firms, though some tacit knowledge may also be exchanged (e.g., the best ordering sequence; steps in an effective “drop shipping” procedure for major customers; sharing of forecasted demand).

Major challenges in promoting the transfer and integration of explicit and tacit knowledge between channel members include (1) lack of recipient's cognitive capacity, (2) lack of the sender's credibility, (3) lack of motivation of the sender or the recipient, (4) the existence of an arduous relationship between the sender and recipient and (5) causal ambiguity due to the complexity of knowledge (Szulanski 1996; Szulanski and Jensen 2006). In many cases, the effective transfer and integration of knowledge across channel members will fail.

Different Channel Contexts and the Sharing of Knowledge

In many channel contexts, firms need intermediaries to build or generate demand for their products. This is referred to as a “make demand” context in business practice. In such cases, the amount of knowledge that needs to be transferred and integrated across channel members is high. Both explicit knowledge (e.g., the advantages of the Toyota Prius over competing brands) and tacit knowledge (e.g., how to close a deal when a couple is procrastinating on buying a car) must be shared and integrated across manufacturers and intermediaries. Knowledge about products and their inherent advantages relative to competition, marketing efforts and selling skills needs to be shared with downstream channel members.

The transfer and integration of a large amount of explicit and tacit knowledge within an interfirm system is difficult (cf. Coughlan et al. 2006). Collaborative arrangements which permit repeated exchanges of knowledge on a reciprocal basis can avoid many of the road-blocks to knowledge transfer and integration (Grant and Baden-Fuller 1995). As Kogut and Zander (1992) indicate, the effective trading of “know-how” among firms requires the establishment of close, long-term relationships. Tie strength is important in the transfer and utilization of explicit and especially tacit knowledge (cf. Dhanaraj et al. 2004).

Therefore, when a firm recognizes that the need for knowledge transfer and integration is high in its channel system, it will need to devote significant efforts to building and maintaining high levels of relational exchange with associated channel members. Without a reasonable level of solidarity and mutuality in the channel relationship, the firm will likely be unable to effectively transfer knowledge to intermediary personnel and then have them integrate such knowledge to enhance their capabilities (Nelson and Winter 1982; Dyer and Hatch 2006).

In “make demand” channel contexts, explicit knowledge and some tacit knowledge on physical distribution must be transferred and integrated among channel members. However, relative to other aspects of channel management, including the sharing of knowledge on products, marketing, and sales, and the building of strong relational exchanges, the sharing of knowledge on physical distribution functions is less important in a relative sense.

In many other channel contexts, however, firms do not require intermediaries to build or generate demand for their products, at least not to a great extent. Many intermediaries carry thousands of different stock-keeping units (SKUs) from hundreds of different suppliers, as well as carry competitive product lines (e.g., Arrow as a major electronic components distributor; W.W. Grainger as a distributor of industrial supplies, and maintenance, repair, and operating [MRO] items). These intermediaries do not have the ability or the inclination to gain and then integrate knowledge on the nuances of each product line from each supplier. Instead, intermediaries and their sales forces in such channel contexts exist mainly as order-takers, buying in large quantities and then breaking bulk to serve downstream customers. This is referred to as a “meet demand” context in business practice.

In such cases, the amount of knowledge that needs to be transferred and integrated across channel members is not as great. Some knowledge may be transferred on product characteristics, but little in the way in which the products should be marketed and sold to end-customers is shared between channel members. Instead, most of the explicit knowledge shared between channel members has to do with the processing and fulfillment of orders, including minimum-sized orders, inventory levels and stocking points, and truckload shipments. Procedures are largely codified to improve the efficiency of physical distribution. The transfer and integration of explicit knowledge about physical distribution functions is critical in such channel contexts. Physical distribution functions will predominate within the domain of channel management in “meet demand” situations.

RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES

Given the prior foundation, the challenge in developing this conceptual framework was to identify conditions that influence the roles of channel members and the resulting knowledge that must be transferred and integrated within the channel. Relevant conditions would be those influencing whether intermediaries must “make demand” or “meet demand.” Physical distribution functions are most prominent within channel management in “meet demand” channel contexts.

What roles intermediaries must carry out and what capabilities they must develop appear to be based on conditions at the industry and supplier levels of analysis (cf. Mauri and Michaels 1998; Coughlan et al. 2006). An industry refers to a group of suppliers and intermediaries attempting to conduct business for a product category in a specific market (cf. Harrigan 1983; McGahan and Porter 1997). Within an industry, product, customer, competitor and intermediary characteristics are likely to impact whether channel members are active in “making demand” or in merely “meeting demand,” which will impact the amount and types of knowledge that must be transferred and integrated across channel members. Within a supplier organization, the positioning and dominance of the brand in the marketplace, and the culture of the organization are expected to impact the role of intermediaries within channels of distribution.

Propositions within an industry level of analysis are first presented. This is followed, in turn, by the development of propositions associated with a supplier level of analysis. The need for knowledge transfer and integration to enhance organizational capabilities underlies the development of each proposition in the conceptual framework.

Industry Level of Analysis

Product differentiation is the extent to which end-customers in an industry perceive significant variation to exist in product qualities and performance across supplier brands and product lines (cf. Burnham, Frels and Mahajan 2003). Within some industries, high levels of product differentiation exist, with individual suppliers possessing brands with strong and distinct images (e.g., stereo speaker industry; digital signal processor industry involving specialized semi-conductors). In other industries, products are viewed as less distinct or distinguishable from one another (e.g., Microsoft Windows-based desktop computers; MRO items).

When significant product differentiation exists in an industry, suppliers as a group need to transfer knowledge to intermediaries about their firms, the inherent features and benefits of their brands relative to competitors, and appropriate marketing and selling efforts (Burnham et al. 2003). Further, once knowledge is transferred, suppliers need to take steps to ensure that intermediary personnel process and utilize the knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, in enhancing their marketing and selling capabilities for their respective brands. Manufacturer heterogeneity reduces the extent to which knowledge concerning one provider is applicable to another provider (Schmalensee 1982), increasing the uncertainty and the “cost of thinking” associated with decision making for both intermediaries and end-customers alike (Shugan 1980; Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Thus when industry product differentiation is high, suppliers need to craft strong relationships with intermediaries in order to facilitate knowledge transfer and the ability of intermediary personnel to understand the basis on which to sell individual brands of products to end-customers.

Under such conditions, intermediary management should recognize that knowledge transfer and integration are important in enhancing its marketing and especially sales personnel's capabilities to adequately sell to and service its own end-customers. As a result, intermediaries should be at least somewhat receptive to supplier overtures to build and maintain strong exchange relationships.

In contrast, when product differentiation in an industry is low, there will be less knowledge to transfer and integrate among channel members. Product knowledge is not as important to share; marketing and sales efforts of intermediaries do not require as much supplier input. As a result, suppliers would appear to have less motivation to invest in building relationships with intermediaries because the knowledge they need to transmit to them is more rudimentary in nature. Intermediaries are unlikely to be that receptive to relationship building, as uniqueness of supplier products is not the basis for their business as much as their own service initiatives.

Thus, when products tend to be undifferentiated within an industry, knowledge sharing among channel members should focus more on physical distribution functions. Suppliers will transfer knowledge to intermediaries on terms, ordering patterns, minimum-sized orders and delivery options. Order cycle times, inventory carrying costs, inventory turnover and stock-outs will be critical indicators of performance. Because efficiency and controlling costs are of such relevance for undifferentiated products, physical distribution functions will play a primary role in channel management.

Proposition 1: Product differentiation in an industry will be inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Distribution intensity is the extent to which channel members align with numerous other firms in an industry (Fein and Anderson 1997). When distribution intensity is high, suppliers will utilize a large number of intermediaries per trade area and intermediaries will align with numerous suppliers and carry a number of competitive brands (e.g., the digital signal processor industry involving suppliers like Hitachi, Toshiba and Texas Instruments, and distributors like Arrow and Avnet).

High distribution intensity is expected to reduce the likelihood of knowledge transfer and integration in channel relationships in industries where significant product differentiation exists. High distribution intensity promotes market coverage and convenience (e.g., one-stop shopping) for end-customers, but leads to intrabrand competition and less loyalty among channel members (cf. Frazier and Lassar 1996; Fein and Anderson 1997). While there are potential benefits to knowledge transfer and integration because of industry product differentiation, the atmosphere of exchange in these channel relationships due to intrabrand competition and low loyalty are expected to undermine knowledge sharing behaviors to some degree. That is, when end-customers can purchase the same brands of products from numerous intermediaries, returns on intermediary investments with individual suppliers are less certain (e.g., the automobile industry in major metropolitan market areas).

In contrast, when suppliers and intermediaries are exclusive or at least highly selective in whom they do business with in an industry, the connection between industry product differentiation and the need for a broad variety of knowledge sharing should be enhanced. In such cases, the motivation to share and process knowledge between firms should be relatively high because of the commitment channel members are showing to one another (Fein and Anderson 1997). The common identity that may develop between a supplier and its intermediaries can be important to end-customers and heighten the desire for knowledge transfer and integration even more (e.g., channel relationships in the construction equipment industry). Low levels of intrabrand competition are likely to promote channel member support of the differentiated brands they carry (Mathewson and Winter 1984; Winter 1993).

Proposition 2: The inverse relationship between product differentiation in an industry and the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions is weakened by distribution intensity.

Product complexity is the extent to which products in an industry are perceived by end-customers as simple and stand-alone versus diverse, multifaceted, and system-oriented (cf. Hoyer and MacInnis 2004). High product complexity is present when end-customers perceive a product to be difficult to understand and use, partly because of the number of functions designed into the product (Rogers 1995; Griffin 1997; Novak and Eppinger 2001; Burnham et al. 2003). Rapid technological advancement in an industry can also contribute to product complexity, as can the lack of technology standardization where multiple technology designs and standards exist in an industry (e.g., bar coding equipment) (Robertson and Gatignon 1986).

End-customers are likely to perceive higher risks when products are more complex (e.g., the automobile industry). Difficulty in understanding the product may lead to decision-making uncertainty, increasing perceptions that an unknown negative outcome may occur (Holak and Lehmann 1990). Similarly, the large number of features or attributes often associated with complex products makes both information collection and direct comparisons of attributes across alternatives more costly for end-customers (Shugan 1980; Wernerfelt 1985). In such cases, intermediary personnel must possess the explicit knowledge to properly serve end-customers, who “… tend to be influenced by the information conveyed by others when the offering is high in complexity” (Hoyer and MacInnis 2004, p. 399; also see Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995).

Therefore, when product complexity is high in an industry, suppliers will need to transfer a large amount of product knowledge to associated channel members and encourage the personnel of these firms to integrate and use such knowledge in their marketing and sales efforts. Building strong relational exchanges among channel members will be critical in this channel context, as interfirm collaboration arrangements are efficient mechanisms to transfer and integrate explicit knowledge where knowledge cannot be completely embodied within the product being exchanged (Grant and Baden-Fuller 1995). The capabilities of intermediary personnel to explain products and their functioning to end-customers are critical when product complexity is high in an industry.

In the opposite case, when a product can be purchased by end-customers with most pertinent knowledge embedded in and around the product itself (i.e., low product complexity), the need for knowledge transfer and integration across channel members should be relatively low (Grant and Baden-Fuller 1995). Product type (e.g., memory chips) or product packaging and point-of-sale material (e.g., detergents) is often sufficient to facilitate end-customer search and purchase behaviors when product complexity is low.

For noncomplex products, therefore, there should be less need to focus deeply on products and how intermediaries should sell them when transferring knowledge among channel members. Intermediary personnel do not need to develop capabilities relating to understanding many and varied product attributes. Instead, knowledge about physical distribution functions is likely to be frequently shared among channel members; physical distribution becomes a more important component of channel management for noncomplex products.

Proposition 3: Product complexity in an industry will be inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

End-customer heterogeneity is the degree to which end-customers in an industry differ with respect to tastes and preferences (cf. Achrol and Stern 1988). In some industries, end-customers tend to be relatively homogeneous in their tastes and preferences (e.g., ultra-sound equipment for hospitals; customer credit evaluation software for banks), while in other industries, tremendous diversity can exist across different market segments and vertical niches (e.g., lighting products; racing and mountain bicycles).

When product complexity is high and considerable heterogeneity exists among end-customers in an industry on tastes and preferences, a truly challenging task confronts channel members. Not only do intermediary personnel need to grasp the functioning and operation of complex products, they need to understand how different segments of end-customers will react to these products in the purchase process. Benefits sought by end-customers will vary considerably across market segments. As a result, the magnitude of the knowledge on products, customers, marketing efforts and selling skills that must be transferred and integrated across channel members will be truly sizeable in this industry context.

The advantages of promoting relational exchange among channel members when a complex product category is involved are likely to be even greater when end-customer heterogeneity is high in an industry. Customer diversity is likely to increase task complexity, because it increases the knowledge and skills required to serve the entire market (Day 1994). In such cases, the need to “customize” product offerings for individual customers or customer segments should be high, requiring intelligence sharing, close coordination and teamwork among channel members. Without significant relationship building, the motivation and knowledge needed by intermediaries to sell complex products to a diverse group of customers are both likely to be low.

When noncomplex products are involved, but high end-customer heterogeneity exists, there will be a greater need to share and utilize knowledge on customer characteristics and marketing efforts across channel members. Some relationship building will be necessary. While still important, physical distribution functions and related knowledge sharing will play a somewhat lesser role in channel management, as a result.

Proposition 4: The inverse relationship between product complexity in an industry and the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions is strengthened by end-customer homogeneity.

End-customer expertise is the ability of end-customers in an industry to perform product-related tasks successfully (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). End-customers gain expertise in a product category as they gain significant product-related experiences (Park, Mothersbaugh and Feick 1994).

When end-customers in an industry possess a high level of expertise, suppliers of complex products should have less need to share extensive knowledge about products and marketing efforts with associated intermediaries. End-customers already have the wherwithal to make purchase decisions without that much outside assistance (cf. Hoyer and MacInnis 2004). Expertise in a product domain allows consumers to more rapidly and accurately evaluate options and learn new product-related information on their own, even when industry product complexity is high (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Obviously, a good deal of knowledge must still be shared with channel members, but less than what would be the case if end-customers lacked understanding of product functioning and accompanying benefits. A good example is in the computer hardware industry (e.g., main frame and mini-computer systems) in the business-to-business arena where many end-user organizations have specialized departments with the expertise to make buying decisions and provide specialized services with little assistance from available channels.

Proposition 5: The inverse relationship between product complexity in an industry and the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions is weakened by high end-customer expertise.

Product line extensiveness represents the breadth and depth of product lines within an industry (cf. Kekre and Srinivasan 1990; Nijssen and Agustin 2005). Some industries and the associated suppliers have a broad and deep group of product lines where the number of SKUs is massive (e.g., the lighting products' industry with GE and Phillips among the suppliers). Other industries have a relatively narrow and shallow group of product lines.

When suppliers in an industry offer a broad and deep product line, associated intermediaries must grasp, at least to some extent, how all the SKUs fit together. Further, the demands on the physical distribution system increase as product line extensiveness increases. More SKUs must be ordered; minimum order sizes must be understood; terms must be grasped; inventory levels must be managed; delivery and receipt of orders must be tracked. All of this requires that a large amount knowledge on physical distribution functions be transferred and integrated among channel members.

When supplier product lines in an industry are more limited in their breadth and depth, there is likely to be less need for knowledge transfer and integration among channel members. The SKUs in total should be easier to grasp by intermediary personnel, including which customers should be linked to which products. The existence of close relationships between channel members to facilitate knowledge sharing is likely less necessary under such conditions.

Proposition 6: Product line extensiveness in an industry is positively related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Industry financial performance is the degree to which suppliers and intermediaries in an industry are experiencing sales growth and adequate margins. At any point in time, there is considerable variation in financial performance across industries (cf. Porter 1980).

Where financial performance of firms in an industry is weak, initiatives to transfer knowledge across channel members and build stronger relational exchanges are likely to be few and far between. Instead, programs to cut costs and make operations more efficient and profitable in the short-run are likely to take precedence. For example, personal computer and software distributors (e.g., Tech Data; Ingram-Micro) are currently faced with gross margins in the 2% range. Accordingly, they have eliminated their outside sales forces and have primarily become “order takers” for supplier products over the telephone and the Internet. The interest of these distributors in the transfer of knowledge from their suppliers has been curtailed to a significant degree as they learn to survive under such economic conditions.1

In contrast, in industries where financial performance is relatively strong, more slack resources will exist. Intermediary management will likely be more interested in doing what is necessary to improve organizational capabilities for the long-term. Greater attention to sharing knowledge on products, customers and marketing skills is likely to take place when economic conditions in an industry are positive.

Proposition 7: Financial performance of firms in an industry is inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Supplier Level of Analysis

Supplier brand positioning is the degree to which a supplier attempts to convey to targeted end-customers that its brand has superior ability to perform (cf. Frazier and Lassar 1996). Some suppliers position their brands at or near the “high end” of the product continuum with the connotation that their products are of highest quality at a high but fair price (e.g., Callaway golf clubs; Rolex watches; Cannondale bicycles; Calphalon gourmet cookware). Other suppliers position their brands at or near the “low end” of the product continuum, with the message that end-customers can receive acceptable product quality at a relatively low price (e.g., Northwestern golf clubs; Timex watches; Raleigh bicycles). Other suppliers position their products somewhere in between.

Suppliers who position brands at the high-end must work with their intermediaries in an attempt be meet high end-customer expectations (cf. Nijssen and Agustin 2005). End-customers expect more from brands that are promised to provide the very highest levels of quality, especially when product-related services are involved (e.g., customized fitting of an expensive racing bicycle) (cf. Santos and Boote 2003). Intermediaries will play a vital role in ensuring that the desired brand image of the supplier is actually established with end-customers through intermediary merchandizing, selling and customer service capabilities. While the supplier must be concerned about explicit knowledge reaching intermediary personnel in such cases (e.g., communicating the functional features of cookware in terms of how well they cook and clean), the transfer of tacit knowledge to intermediary personnel about the high-end brand is even more critical (e.g., communicating the nonfunctional features of cookware as to the sleekness of design and the prestige of ownership). Without a relatively high level of relational exchange, the explicit and tacit knowledge necessary to adequately inform intermediary personnel and build up intermediary capabilities will never be effectively transferred and utilized. Thus the transfer and integration of explicit and especially tacit knowledge on a wide variety of issues should be extreme for suppliers of high-end brands.

End-customer expectations are lower for brands positioned at or near the low-end of the product spectrum (cf. Santos and Boote 2003). Intermediaries must make such products readily available to end-customers and price the products appropriately. While overall capability development within the intermediary organization is simply not as important for low-end brands, intermediaries must grasp how to efficiently and effectively order, receive and place them. The importance of physical distribution functions in channel management should be heightened as a result.

Proposition 8: Supplier positioning of brands is inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Supplier market position reflects the supplier's standing in an industry in terms of market share in its served market (Porter 1980). There can be market share leaders in the general industry, as well as market share leaders in narrower customer segments and vertical niches.

A supplier of a high-end brand should have its efforts to build and maintain a relatively high level of relational exchange in its channel relationships enhanced when its market position is strong in an industry (e.g., Caterpillar; Lexus). When sales of a high-end brand are doing well, this provides some verification as to the effectiveness of the positioning and the ability of the supplier and associated intermediaries to work together to serve a set of demanding end-customers. Intermediary motivation to gain and utilize supplier knowledge and further support sales of the brand should be enhanced. Knowledge on physical distribution functions will represent only a small portion of all the knowledge shared between channel members.

On the other hand, if a supplier's market position is weak or declining, the overall financial incentives (e.g., sales, gross margin dollars) will be less compelling to associated intermediaries in supporting the positioning of a high-end brand. The supplier's intended brand positioning may not be working, failing to register with targeted end-customers. Under such conditions, intermediaries may be unwilling to invest a lot of time and energy into the channel relationship, causing problems in the knowledge transfer and integration process. Knowledge on product benefits and customer characteristics may be transferred to channel members, but left unprocessed by channel member personnel; intermediaries often carry many more product lines and SKUs than their personnel can adequately grasp (cf. Szulanski and Jensen 2006). Still, intermediaries must understand the steps needed to order and adequately receive these products, making a focus on the transfer and integration of knowledge on physical distribution functions relevant.

Proposition 9: The inverse relationship between supplier positioning of brands and the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions is strengthened by a strong supplier market position.

Supplier product newness represents the degree to which a supplier's product portfolio consists of new products recently introduced to the marketplace (Meyer and Roberts 1986; Wathen 1993). Some suppliers frequently introduce new products into the marketplace, whereas other suppliers are less aggressive in developing and introducing new products.

When supplier product newness is high, the firm will be challenged to get knowledge about the new products disseminated among its intermediaries. The challenge will be greater to the extent that the new products incorporate a new core technology or provide substantially higher customer benefits relative to previous products in the line (cf. Chandy and Tellis 2000). The marketing of new products places unique demands on both intermediaries and end-customers in the adoption process (Hultink, Atuahene-Gima and Lebbink 2000). Clearly, close channel relationships are likely necessary for suppliers that frequently introduce new products into the marketplace; they may enable the transfer and integration of knowledge about the new products into intermediary organizations. The marketing and sales capabilities of intermediaries may need enhancing as the new products are incorporated into their offerings, as the purchase of a new product can be a potentially high risk situation to end-customers because of unfamiliarity (Donnelly and Etzel 1973).

In contrast, when supplier product newness is low, the firm will have less unique knowledge to transfer to intermediary organizations for integration by their personnel. The level of relational exchange required by the supplier in its channel relationships is likely lower as a result. Out of the total amount of knowledge that needs to be transferred and integrated across channel members, knowledge on physical distribution functions should comprise a relatively large proportion.

Proposition 10: Product newness in a supplier organization is inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Supplier market orientation is the extent to which a supplier focuses deeply on the needs and preferences of end-customers, and competitor initiatives (cf. Day 1994). Significant variation exists in the market orientation of different suppliers, even among those in the same industry (cf. Jaworski and Kohli 1993).

When a supplier organization is market-driven, it attempts to center its decision making on an understanding of customer needs and competitor actions. The culture of a market-oriented firm is driven by the gathering, dissemination and utilization of market knowledge. Such supplier organizations are likely to frequently share market knowledge with associated intermediaries, informing them of viable customer segments, customer beliefs and preferences, competitor strategies, and their own product lines and value propositions. As a result, suppliers with a high market orientation are expected to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a relatively high level of relational exchange in their channel relationships. As Day (1994) argues, channel bonding capabilities are valuable to market-driven organizations, as they promote market sensing capabilities and intelligence sharing within channel systems (also see Anderson and Weitz 1992).

Of course, knowledge about physical distribution functions will also be shared by a market-oriented supplier. However, such knowledge should represent a small proportion of total knowledge shared; other types of explicit and tacit knowledge should dominate.

When a supplier organization lacks a strong market orientation, its personnel will have less market knowledge and should place less value on sharing it with associated intermediaries. Less attention to building strong channel partnerships should exist. In such cases, more attention in a relative sense should be devoted to sharing knowledge about physical distribution functions, ensuring product orders can be placed and fulfilled in an efficient and effective manner.

Proposition 11: The market orientation of a supplier organization is inversely related to the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions.

Environmental volatility is the frequency of change and turnover in marketing forces in a supplier's external environment (Achrol and Stern 1988). First, when environmental volatility is high, a market-oriented supplier is likely to focus even more on the gathering, dissemination and utilization of market knowledge. Such efforts are an attempt to better deal with the uncertainty facing the firm in its decision making (cf. Pfeffer and Salancik 1978); more market knowledge will enable the firm to confront uncertainty head-on and prosper from it compared with competitor organizations.

Second, when environmental uncertainty is high, the market-oriented supplier is likely to increase the amount of market knowledge it shares with associated channel members. High uncertainty creates additional contingencies that lead to more difficulties in long-range planning and making product-mix, inventory and pricing decisions. Under such conditions, the benefits of coordinated actions with its intermediaries should be even higher (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Market-driven organizations facing turbulent external environments will likely recognize the special benefits of channel bonding (Day 1994). In contrast, when a market-oriented supplier faces low volatility in its external environment, additional effort to gather more market knowledge and share such knowledge with associated intermediaries are unlikely to occur (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978).

The transfer and integration of knowledge on physical distribution functions is likely to diminish to some degree in the face of high environmental uncertainty for market-oriented suppliers. Understanding customers and competitors in a time of rapid change, and generating sales and market share are likely to take center stage for market-oriented firms under such conditions, lessening the amount of total knowledge transferred on physical distribution among channel members. In contrast, when suppliers who lack a high market orientation are confronted with a highly uncertain environment, they are likely to become more conservative and center on efficiency and lessening total costs. Under such conditions, the transfer and integration of knowledge on physical distribution functions among channel members becomes of major importance in the drive for channel efficiency.

Proposition 12: The inverse relationship between market orientation within a supplier organization and the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other channel management functions is strengthened by environmental volatility.

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES

This study focused on the role of physical distribution within the general domain of channel management. Embracing a knowledge and capabilities perspective, propositions were developed centering on industry and supplier conditions that appeared to impact the importance of physical distribution functions within channel management.

In “make demand” situations, intermediaries and their personnel play a vital role in generating sales for supplier products. The capabilities of intermediaries in marketing and selling supplier products impact end-customer behavior. As a result, suppliers must (1) transfer a tremendous amount of explicit and tacit knowledge to intermediaries on product features and benefits, brand meaning, value propositions, customer and competitor characteristics, marketing best practices, and personal selling and (2) encourage intermediary personnel to process and integrate such knowledge to enhance their capabilities. Relationship building will be vital in the attempt to ensure that transfer and integration of knowledge among channel members work effectively. In this channel context, the domain of channel management is quite broad. While knowledge sharing on physical distribution functions among channel members is never unimportant, in “make demand” situations the amount of total knowledge shared on physical distribution functions will be comparatively small.

In industries where product differentiation is high and distribution intensity is low, product complexity is high along with significant end-customer heterogeneity and insignificant end-customer expertise, product line extensiveness is low, and firm financial performance is high, the importance of physical distribution functions vis-à-vis other activities within the general domain of channel management is proposed to be low. These industry conditions suggest that the role of intermediaries is to make demand, leading to knowledge sharing focused on developing intermediary capabilities that facilitate this general goal.

For suppliers that position their brands at the “high-end” and possess a superior market position, regularly introduce new products to the market, and exhibit a market-oriented culture and face high environmental uncertainty, the importance of physical distribution functions relative to other channel management activities is proposed to be low as well. Again, the rationale for these propositions rests on the amount and types of knowledge that must be shared among channel members. If the amount of shared knowledge on physical distribution functions out of the total amount of shared knowledge is low, then physical distribution functions are of relatively low importance within channel management. This is not to say that physical distribution functions will be unimportant in these situations, but rather they will be less important than other functions within the channel management realm.

Where will physical distribution functions play a particularly vital role in channel management? According to this study, the answer is where knowledge transfer and integration among channel members focuses on physical distribution functions (work activities) more than anything else. “Meet demand” channel contexts are of relevance. In industries where products tend to be undifferentiated and intensely distributed, products are noncomplex along with homogeneous markets and significant end-customer expertise, product lines are extensive, and firm financial performance is constrained, knowledge sharing on physical distribution functions among channel members should predominate, leading to high importance of physical distribution functions within channel management. For suppliers that position their brands near the “low-end” with a weak overall market position, infrequently introduce new products, and exhibit a weak market orientation and face environmental uncertainty at low to moderate levels, the importance of physical distribution functions within channel management should be high.

Theoretical Implications

Physical distribution does not receive its due in the channels literature within the marketing discipline. It is hoped this study will aid channels researchers in determining when physical distribution functions should receive attention in their research studies.

Physical distribution functions must be taken into account in examining channel organization and ongoing interfirm coordination efforts when they play an important role within channel management. The propositions presented in this study provide guidelines based on industry and supplier conditions as to the contexts where physical distribution functions predominate channel management. In such cases, any area of channel organization (e.g., level of channel integration, formalization and standardization of channel systems) and any area of channel coordination (e.g., channel member dependence levels, channel conflict, channel member trust and commitment) will be impacted by physical distribution functions. To ignore such a fact in such industry and supplier domains will lead to misspecified models. Where physical distribution functions are not as important a part of channel management, the need to take them into account in research studies will be less.

Thus a major theoretical implication of this study is that “contingency frameworks” are needed in channels research. Where intermediary capabilities are needed to primarily “meet demand,” physical distribution functions need attention in our research studies. Where intermediary capabilities are needed to “make demand,” attention can be devoted to other aspects of channel management. Both of these market situations, meet demand and make demand, need research studies conducted within them.

Another major theoretical implication of this study is that the evolving knowledge and capabilities perspective must be considered more fully in channels research. This theoretical perspective is extremely rich in ramifications for the marketing discipline. What motivates channel members to share knowledge? What motivates personnel within channel organizations to integrate and then use shared knowledge to improve their capabilities? When does integrated knowledge through capabilities lead to enhanced financial performance? Each question is of central importance and deserves scrutiny in future research.

Managerial Implications

A functional school of thought originally developed in the marketing discipline in the early part of the 20th century. The focus was on which functions or work activities did different types of organizations (e.g., suppliers, distributors, retailers) focus upon. The functional school of thought has not progressed that far to date. However, given renewed focus, it has critical managerial implications.

As firms compete in a variety of diverse industries and countries around the world, they must utilize their limited resources effectively. Understanding how the general domain of channel management may vary across different industries and supplier organizations is, therefore, of major concern to any business organization. More specifically, academic research could contribute significantly to business practice if it could shed light on which functions or work activities should be stressed under different industry and firm conditions.

The conceptual framework of this study will assist practitioners in understanding the different challenges intermediaries face in “make demand” versus “meet demand” market situations. In the former, the firm will need to share a large amount of knowledge on a variety of topics relating to customers, products and competitors, while attempting to build strong levels of relational exchange among channel members. In the latter, a greater focus on physical distribution functions appears most appropriate. When physical distribution functions predominate channel management, resource allocations must be directed toward their management. Firms doing business in multiple industries and in a diverse set of countries around the globe will need to become adept at deciding which functions to emphasize where, with resource allocations being adjusted accordingly. Hopefully, this study will contribute to such an understanding.

Footnotes
  1. 1Based on a personal conversation with Ed Raymond, founder of Tech Data, in 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. A KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CHANNEL MANAGEMENT
  5. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  • Achrol, R. and L.W. Stern. Environmental Determinants of Decision-Making Uncertainty in Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, (25), 1988, pp. 36-50.
  • Alba, J. and J.W. Hutchinson. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, (13), 1987, pp. 411-454.
  • Anderson, E. and B. Weitz. The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, (29), 1992, pp. 18-34.
  • Boyle, B., F.R. Dwyer, R. Robicheaux and J. Simpson. Influence Strategies in Marketing Channels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship Structures,” Journal of Marketing Research, (29), 1992, pp. 462-473.
  • Burnham, T., J. Frels and V. Mahajan. Consumer Switching Costs: A Typology, Antecedents, and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (31), 2003, pp. 109-127.
  • Chandy, R. and G. Tellis. The Incumbent's Curse?,” Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, (64), 2000, pp. 1-17.
  • Coff, R. The Emergent Knowledge-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: An Evolutionary Approach to Integrating Economics and Management,” Managerial and Decision Economics, (24), 2003, pp. 245-252.
  • Coughlan, A., E. Anderson, L. Stern and A. El-Ansary. Marketing Channels, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
  • Daft, R. and L. Lengel. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design,” Management Science, (32), 1986, pp. 554-571.
  • Day, G. The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, (58), 1994, pp. 37-52.
  • De Luca, L. and K. Atuahene-Gima. Market Knowledge Dimensions and Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation Performance,” Journal of Marketing, (71), 2007, pp. 95-112.
  • Dhanaraj, C., M. Lyles, H. Kevin Steensma and L. Tihanyi. Managing Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Transfer in IJVs: The Role of Relational Embeddedness and the Impact on Performance,” Journal of International Business Studies, (35), 2004, pp. 427-440.
  • Donnelly, J. and M. Etzel. Degrees of Product Newness and Early Trial,” Journal of Marketing Research, (10), 1973, pp. 295-300.
  • Dwyer, F.R. and S. Oh. A Transaction-Cost Perspective on Vertical Contractual Structure and Interchannel Competitive Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, (52), 1988, pp. 21-34.
  • Dyer, J. and N. Hatch. Relation-Specific Capabilities and Barriers to Knowledge Transfers: Creating Advantage Through Network Relationships,” Strategic Management Journal, (27), 2006, pp. 701-719.
  • Emerson, C. and C. Grimm. Logistics and Marketing Components of Customer Service: An Empirical Test of the Mentzer Model,” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, (26), 1996, pp. 29-38.
  • Fein, A. and E. Anderson. Patteerns of Credible Commitments: Territory and Brand Selectivity in Industrial Distribution Channels,” Journal of Marketing, (61), 1997, pp. 19-34.
  • Frazier, G. On the Measurement of Inter-Firm Power in Channels of Distribution,” Journal of Marketing Research, (20), 1983, pp. 158-166.
  • Frazier, G. and W. Lassar. Determinants of Distribution Intensity,” Journal of Marketing, (60), 1996, pp. 39-51.
  • Frazier, G., R. Spekman and C. O'Neal. Just-in-Time Exchange Relationships in Industrial Markets,” Journal of Marketing, (47), 1988, pp. 52-67.
  • Giannakis, M. and S. Groom. Toward the Development of a Supply Management Paradigm: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Supply Chain Management, (40:2), 2004, pp. 27-37.
  • Giunipero, L., R. Hooker, S. Joseph-Matthews, T. Yoon and S. Brudvig. A Decade of SCM Literature: Past, Present, and Future Implications,” Journal of Supply Chain Management, (44:4), 2008, pp. 66-86.
  • Grant, R. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, (17:Special Issue), 1996, pp. 109-122.
  • Grant, R. and C. Baden-Fuller. A Knowledge-Based Theory of Inter-Firm Collaboration,” Strategic Management Journal, (16), 1995, pp. 17-24.
  • Griffin, A. The Effect of Project and Process Characteristics on Product Development Cycle Time,” Journal of Marketing Research, (34), 1997, pp. 24-35.
  • Harrigan, K. Strategies for Vertical Integration, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1983.
  • Holak, S. and D. Lehmann. Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of Innovation: An Exploratory Model,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, (7), 1990, pp. 59-73.
  • Hoyer, W. and D. MacInnis. Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed., Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston, 2004.
  • Huber, G. A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making,” Academy of Management Review, (15), 1990, pp. 47-71.
  • Hultink, E.J., K. Atuahene-Gima and I. Lebbink. Determinants of New Product Selling Performance: An Empirical Examination in the Netherlands,” European Journal of Innovation Management, (3:1), 2000, pp. 27-34.
  • Hunt, D. and B. Davis. Grounding Supply Chain Management in Resource-Advantage Theory,” Journal of Supply Chain Management, (44:1), 2008, pp. 10-21.
  • Innis, D. and B. LaLonde. Customer Service: The Key to Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Market Share,” Journal of Business Logistics, (15), 1994, pp. 1-27.
  • Jaworski, B. and A. Kohli. Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, (57), 1993, pp. 53-71.
  • John, G. and B. Weitz. Forward Integration into Distirbution: Empirical Test of Transaction Cost Analysis,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, (4), 1988, pp. 121-139.
  • Kekre, S. and K. Srinivasan. Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success,” Management Science, (36), 1990, pp. 1216-1231.
  • Kogut, B. and U. Zander. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and Replication of Technology,” Organization Science, (3:3), 1992, pp. 383-397.
  • Kumar, N. From Branded Bulldozers to Global Distribution Partners,” Harvard Business Review, (77), 2006, pp. 23-35.
  • Kumar, N., L. Scheer and J.-B. Steenkamp. The Effects of Supplier Fairness on Vulnerable Resellers,” Journal of Marketing Research, (37), 1995a, pp. 54-65.
  • Kumar, N., L. Scheer and J.-B. Steenkamp. The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, (23), 1995b, pp. 348-356.
  • Lambert, D., M. Cooper and J. Pagh. Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities,” The International Journal of Logistics Management, (9:2), 1998, pp. 1-18.
  • Lusch, R. and J. Brown. Interdependency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior in Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing, (60), 1996, pp. 19-38.
  • Mathewson, G. and R. Winter. An Economic Theory of Vertical Restraints,” Rand Journal of Economics, (15:1), 1984, pp. 27-38.
  • Mauri, A. and M. Michaels. Firm and Industry Effects within Strategic Management: An Empirical Investigation,” Strategic Management Journal, (19), 1998, pp. 211-219.
  • McGahan, A. and M. Porter. How Much Does Industry Matter, Really?,” Strategic Management Journal, (18:Special Issue), 1997, pp. 15-30.
  • Mentzer, J., W. DeWitt, J. Keebler, S. Min, N. Nix, C. Smith and Z. Zacharia. Defining Supply Chain Management,” Journal of Business Logistics, (22:2), 2001, pp. 1-24.
  • Meyer, M. and E. Roberts. New Product Strategy in Small Technology-Based Firms: A Pilot Study,” Management Science, (32:7), 1986, pp. 706-722.
  • Morgan, R. and S. Hunt. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, (58), 1994, pp. 20-38.
  • Nelson, R. and S. Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
  • Nijssen, E. and C. Agustin. Brand Extensions: A Manager's Perspective,” Journal of Brand Management, (13:1), 2005, pp. 33-50.
  • Nonaka, I. A Dynamic Theory of Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science, (5:1), 1994, pp. 14-37.
  • Novak, S. and S. Eppinger. Sourcing by Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain,” Management Science, (47:1), 2001, pp. 189-200.
  • Park, C.W., D. Mothersbaugh and L. Feick. Consumer Knowledge Assessment,” Journal of Consumer Research, (21:1), 1994, pp. 71-82.
  • Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York, 1978.
  • Porter, M. Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, 1980.
  • Robertson, T. and H. Gatignon. Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion,” Journal of Marketing, (50), 1986, pp. 1-12.
  • Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, 1995.
  • Santos, J. and J. Boote. A Theoretical Exploration and Model of Consumer Expectations, Post-Purchase States, and Affective Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, (30:3), 2003, pp. 142-155.
  • Schmalensee, R. Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands,” American Economic Review, (27), 1982, pp. 349-365.
  • Shervani, T., G.L. Frazier and G. Challagalla. The Moderating Influence of Firm Market Power on the Transaction Cost Economics Model: An Empirical Test in a Forward Channel Integration Context,” Strategic Management Journal, (28), 2007, pp. 635-652.
  • Sheth, J. and A. Parvatiyar. Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (23), 1995, pp. 255-272.
  • Shugan, S. The Costs of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, (7), 1980, pp. 99-111.
  • Simonin, B. An Empirical Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer in International Strategic Alliances,” Journal of International Business Studies, (35:5), 2004, pp. 407-420.
  • Szulanski, G. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, (17), 1996, pp. 27-43.
  • Szulanski, G. and R. Jensen. Presumptive Adaptation and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer,” Strategic Management Journal, (27), 2006, pp. 10-29.
  • Wathen, S. Production Processes and Organizational Policies,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, (13:1), 1993, pp. 56-71.
  • Wernerfelt, B. Brand Loyalty and User Skills,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, (6), 1985, pp. 381-385.
  • Wiklund, J. and D. Shepard. Knowledge-Based Resources, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses,” Strategic Management Journal, (24), 2003, pp. 1307-1319.
  • Winter, R. Vertical Control and Price Versus Non-Price Competition,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, (108), 1993, pp. 61-76.

Gary L. Frazier (DBA, Indiana University) is the Richard and Jarda Hurd Professor of Distribution Management in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA. He is recognized around the world for his research on marketing strategy and channel management. Dr. Frazier is one of the top contributors of all time to the Journal of Marketing, a prestigious journal established in the 1930s. He has also published and edited several books on marketing and marketing strategy. Dr. Frazier has been awarded teaching awards at Indiana University, the University of Illinois, and USC, with his last award being in May 2008 when he was given a Golden Apple Teaching Award for a second time in the Marshall School of Business. Dr. Frazier teaches courses in channel management, sales force management and marketing strategy.