Search results

This paper aims to discuss the changing role of the strategic account manager (SAM).

This paper takes the form of an interview.

SAMs, in the future, will be ecosystem captains capable of managing complex relationships and teams, of organizing data and of telling stories with analytics. SAMs in the future will be assessed along with a set of metrics that it is similar to metrics of how top management consultants are evaluated: activities, competencies, intermediary results, sales/margins and quantified business value.

This interview discusses the current and future best practices of strategic account management.

The purpose of this paper is to test the relationship between organizational antecedents, pricing capabilities, and firm performance.

Quantitative survey of 748 managers from mostly large companies globally.

It was found that the following five key organizational resources (the 5 Cs) – center-led price management, organizational confidence, championing behaviors, organizational change capacity, and pricing capabilities – positively influence firm performance. Furthermore, it was found that center-led price management, organizational change capacity, and championing behaviors act as important antecedents to pricing capabilities and, except for the former, to organizational confidence. The authors also examine interaction and mediation effects.

The results thus suggest that generic organizational factors – namely center-led price management – as well as highly idiosyncratic firm, specific capabilities – namely organizational confidence, championing behaviors by top management, organizational change capacity, and pricing capabilities – are key requirements to increase firm performance via pricing.

The literature has paid increased attention to pricing capabilities as a set of distinctive, complex activities, routines, and processes that drive company performance. Despite this emphasis, little research has addressed the pricing-capabilities construct itself, and no accepted measure of pricing capabilities exists. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to document the design, development, and validation of a dedicated pricing-capabilities scale, PRICECAP.

Qualitative plus three quantitative surveys.

The present research describes the development of a ten-item measure, PRICECAP, that can be used to assess organizational capabilities related to pricing.

The reliability and validity of the scales were assessed through three separate quantitative studies using exploratory and confirmatory analysis. The PRICECAP scale has a variety of potential applications and can serve as a framework for future empirical research in marketing theory as well as an instrument to assess, compare, and develop pricing capabilities in marketing practice.

Empirical research has provided scales to measure value creation but a scale to measure value capture – i.e. pricing – capabilites is lacking. This study covers this gap and provides a new, parsimonious, ten-item construct to measure pricing capabilities.

Current research on industrial management strategy is mostly directed at industrial end customers. In doing so, current research overlooks one critical constituency – industrial retailers, i.e. companies selling products manufactured by industrial manufacturers to other companies using these products to create a finished product or service. Since the current literature states that retailers are mostly interested in category profit margins and profitability (regardless of specific brands), it is not clear whether industrial retailers value brands at all. The purpose of this paper is to determine the importance of industrial brands versus other purchase criteria for industrial distributors.

Three studies are conducted to examine the importance of brands vis‐à‐vis other purchase criteria for industrial retailers and end users. In a longitudinal study employing conjoint analysis the authors find that industrial brands have a larger impact on industrial retailer choice than product price or margin.

First, these results suggest that industrial brands are a strong purchase driver also for industrial retailers (and not just industrial end users). Second, industrial marketing managers are thus well advised to invest in brand building to positively impact industrial retailer choice, rather than reducing prices or increasing product margins as the prevailing literature suggests. In conclusion, these studies seem to suggest that retailers use brands not only as associative or predictive cues of product performance, but also as predictive indicator of a product's expected future profitability.

From a theoretical point of view, the authors’ studies suggest that industrial brands not only transmit cues to prospective end‐customers, but also send cues to intermediaries – such as industrial retailers – which influences their decision‐making processes. The strong importance B2B retailers place on brands as key purchase factor is an indicator that retailers use brands not only as associative or predictive cues of product performance, but also as predictive indicator of a product's expected future profitability (i.e. profit margins and asset turnover), which positively affects retailers’ own profitability. The results of this study are also an indication that the relationship between industrial manufacturers and industrial retailers are probably driven more by considerations of cooperation than by considerations of conflict.

As a managerial implication, it is suggested that industrial marketing executives should invest in brand building to positively impact industrial retailer choice, rather than reducing prices or increasing product margins, as the prevailing literature suggests.

In this paper, three separate empirical studies are conducted to examine the role of brands in industrial management practice.

How do pricing methods affect firm performance? From both an academic as well as a managerial perspective this question is important. The literature is silent on the relationship between pricing approach and company performance. The aim of this paper is to address this research gap.

To address this practical and theoretical deficit, the authors surveyed 1,812 professionals involved in pricing to measure the influence of pricing approach on firm performance.

The authors find a positive relationship between value‐based pricing (but not competition‐based pricing) and firm performance. Furthermore, the authors find that the three pricing orientations differently influence firm pricing capabilities, which in turn are positively related to firm performance. This paper is thus the first paper documenting a positive relationship between value‐based pricing and firm performance through a quantitative research design.

These findings have important theoretical as well as practical implications and suggest that all firms, regardless of size, industry or geography, benefit from value‐based pricing.

The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of specific activities and a set of competencies associated with above‐average firm performance.

Quantitative survey of 748 respondents.

It was found that four key competencies differentiate high performing from low performing companies: organizational confidence; pricing capabilities; organizational change capacity; and championing behaviors by top management. The research also identifies a set of specific activities that are linked with superior firm performance: activities directed at the improvement of pricing effectiveness (e.g. trainings, pricing tools; pricing performance reviews); improvements in product differentiation and product quality (e.g. through innovation and research aimed at identifying and creating customer value); increased sense of organizational confidence (e.g. optimism, resilience, “can do”‐attitude); improved support of top management; improved ability to stick to list prices and minimization of discounting behaviors; and finally, enhanced cultural adaptability to respond to changing market conditions.

Through a quantitative research design, the authors document the link between pricing capabilities, organizational confidence and superior firm performance.

The authors identify both specific activities, as well as higher order competencies, practising managers need to develop in order to increase firm performance via pricing. Taking a hypothetical company as example, the authors' data show that, on average, a one point improvement on a seven‐point scale in organizational confidence leads to a 4 per cent improvement in return on sales.

Our research highlights which organizational competencies drive firm performance. Specifically this research is the first quantitative survey which documents a positive relationships between organizational confidence and firm performance.

In the mainstream normative pricing literature, value assessment is virtually non-existent. Although the resource-based literature recognizes that pricing is a competence, value-informed pricing practices are still weakly grounded in theory. The purpose of this paper is to strengthen the theoretical grounds of such pricing practices.

The paper applies the emerging service-dominant logic of marketing to pricing. More specifically, it apples the ten foundational premises of service-dominant logic to pricing and it places pricing in the frameworks of one of the major building blocks of service-dominant logic, namely the resource-advantage theory of competition.

From a service-dominant perspective, price is the reward for the application of specialized knowledge and skills. Pricing is an operant resource, or competence, that assesses customer value, applies it in multi-dimensional price propositions, and implements it in processes of co-creating prices with customers. Value-informed pricing is the central pricing practice within such competences.

Prices vary among others between “good” and “bad”, firms generate competitive advantage not only through value creation, but also through pricing. Learning is key to develop pricing competences.

This paper is the first to ground value-informed pricing at high levels of abstraction in general marketing theory.

The fundamental problem of the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is its lack of predictive ability and its inability to identify, ex ante, those resources and capabilities leading to competitive advantage and superior profitability. This paper aims to propose an extension of the RBV model that incorporates the demand‐based variables of customer needs and size of addressable market segment in the definition of the resources and capabilities that enable competitive advantage and superior profitability.

The paper's approach is to use a literature review and two case studies.

In this model a company has a competitive advantage if its resources and capabilities are valuable, rare, non‐imitable, organized, and if these resources and capabilities address unmet customer needs in market segments large enough to cover organizational fixed costs.

The proposed extension of the RBV is based on current literature and two qualitative case studies. Future longitudinal studies should establish causal links between current resources and capabilities meeting the proposed criteria and future performance.

The model appears to be able to guide decisions about investment in resources and capabilities to further develop existing competitive advantages and to build new ones. The benefit of this model lies in its ability to identify, ex ante, those resources and capabilities leading to competitive advantage and superior firm profitability.

An improved ability to predict future firm performance based on more rigorous tests of current resources and capabilities improves the resource allocation process in firms and thus benefits society.

The benefit of this model lies in its ability to identify, ex ante, those resources and capabilities leading to competitive advantage and superior firm profitability.

Customer value‐based pricing is increasingly recognised by academics and practitioners as the most effective approach to pricing for companies wishing to achieve increased profitability and sustained success. However, despite this apparent support for the implementation of value‐based pricing, the practical reality is that more than 80 percent of companies continue to price their products and services primarily on the basis of costs and/or competitive price levels. The present study investigates this phenomenon and identifies the main reasons for this gap between aspiration and reality.

A two‐stage empirical approach is employed: first, in a qualitative research, the phenomenon of implementation of value‐based strategies with groups of business executives participating in pricing workshops is explored. The result of this qualitative stage was then used to develop a questionnaire which was tested upon a significantly larger and more stratified population. Finally cluster analysis to summarize the results of this quantitative research stage was employed.

Based on a survey of 81 executives representing a wide range of B2B and B2C industries in Germany, Austria, China, and the USA, five main obstacles to the implementation of value‐based pricing strategies have been identified: deficits in value assessment; deficits in value communication; lack of effective market segmentation; deficits in sales force management; and lack of support from senior management. The paper also provides a range of remedies to overcome these obstacles.

In extant literature there exists a gap between: the widespread understanding of the superiority of customer value‐based pricing strategies; and the circumstance that customer value‐based pricing strategies are currently the least widely diffused major pricing approach. We cover thus gap by highlighting which obstacles exist to the implementation of value‐based pricing strategies and provide a series of remedies to overcome these obstacles.