Search results

Multimarket competition is an area of competitive dynamics focused on studying situations where firms compete against each other simultaneously in more than one market. The intensity of competition depends on the aggressiveness and the market contingencies, influencing the competitive strategies. Particularly, the purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of multimarket competition and market contingencies on innovation.

An exploratory qualitative approach using the Grounded Theory is applied with conceptual purposes. The data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and additional observations with senior strategies and decision-makers. The paper follows an extensive narrative to understand decision-taking processes on competitive strategy with the support of analytical software. The paper was performed in the automotive components industry making seats in two different countries to acknowledge the influence of market contingencies.

The results suggest that multimarket competition does not reduce the level of aggressiveness, but it offers a background that favors opportunities for companies and new business in circumstances of crisis associated to innovation. Depending on the market contingencies, strategies can foster a higher technological innovation, in those cases of high development in the industry, or diversification, when the development is lower.

This paper contributes to enrich multimarket competition theory with the study of innovation strategies in different market conditions, a topic not much explored in multimarket literature. Additionally, it suggests implications for managers attending to different market contingencies.

Studies of multimarket contact typically hypothesize (and find) that the relationship of contact levels between firms and the likelihood of aggressive competitive behaviors is linear and negative. This includes the likelihood of entry moves by multimarket rivals. However, a linear negative relationship between market entry and multimarket contact, which implies that deterrence exists at lower levels of contact, makes it unlikely that firms' will enter into each others' markets in order to create that deterrent.

We address this theoretical issue by distinguishing between multimarket contact and multimarket competition. Lower levels of multimarket contact provide models for a focal firm that both guide and legitimize its strategic moves. As multimarket contact levels increase, multimarket competition eventually ensues as multimarket rivals recognize their mutual interdependence and further entry into shared markets is deterred. We develop the logic for this non-linear relationship by incorporating theory from the strategic, institutional, and decision-making literatures that has direct implications for the way in which contact between firms across multiple markets is likely to affect managerial cognitions and firm actions.

Since firms must enter into the markets of their (multimarket) competitors to build multimarket structures which yield competitive benefits, we conclude by developing several propositions about how such entry might best be achieved to avoid retaliatory responses by multimarket competitors.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of multimarket contacts on bank stability in the Vietnamese banking system between 2006 and 2015.

The system generalized method of moments proposed by Arellano and Bover (1995) is used to examine the relationship between multimarket contacts and bank stability.

The findings show that multimarket contacts among Vietnamese commercial banks improve bank stability. In addition, more x-efficient banks appear to be more stable. The same is true for banks with less holding liquid assets, for those with less excessive lending, for smaller banks, for those with the greater level of intermediation and for those with a higher level of foreign ownership. Listed banks are found to be less-risk taking than unlisted banks.

This study is the first attempt to examine the relationship between multimarket contacts and bank stability in an emerging market in the Asia-Pacific region.

This study aims to draw attention to the familiarity effect among international multimarket contact (MMC) firms on coopetition in the global container shipping industry and to better understand the contingency model of structural holes and in-degree centrality on joint price elevation actions and subsequent performance.

Drawing on competitive dynamics and the literature on networks, a panel data model is developed from 6,489 competitive and 7,146 cooperative actions of the top 21 shipping firms in 18 global arenas with a structured content analysis method being applied.

Stronger MMC by firms requires increased levels of cooperative actions to elevate prices. This coopetition relationship is enhanced or weakened when the focal firm occupies a higher level of structural hole or position of competitive in-degree centrality.

Shipping liners seeking to cooperate with joint action in oligopolistic markets are offered guidelines and strategies to increase their performance through their actions.

This study contributes to the literature on coopetition networks by further analyzing interfirm relationships and interactions that enhance performance, while exploring network positioning strategies to mitigate risks.

In this paper we differentiate between the creation and subsequent exploitation of multimarket contact. We examine specific factors that influence the likelihood that a firm will seek to develop a purposive set of overlapping markets with specific competitors, as opposed to developing naë contacts based on an internally derived logic. We suggest that competitor identification, organization structure, ease of competitive response and industry structure (including the presence of network externalities, barriers to entry, and industry growth rate) all play important roles in determining the ability of managers to seek rivalry-reduction that has been found to follow the development of market overlap. We offer several propositions that serve to define the boundaries of research into mutual forbearance and multimarket competition, and that may help to explain empirical results obtained to date.

The growing literature on multimarket contact and mutual forbearance in management and economics has produced an inflation of multimarket contact measures. The lack of validation of these multiple measures has hindered the accumulation of consistent knowledge and comparison of empirical findings. This paper investigates the measurement of the multimarket contact concept. Specifically, we review the existing measures of multimarket contact, identify the main differences among them, and evaluate their reliability and discriminant and predictive validity at multiple levels of analysis, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The results indicate substantial differences in the reliability and discriminant validity of these measures. Predictive validity depends critically on the level of measurement and on whether longitudinal or cross-sectional correlations are considered.

Two duopoly market structures are experimentally constructed. Payoff tables describe basic conditions in an X market and a Y market. In one market structure two rivals choose X quantities and a different set of rivals choose Y quantities. These markets develop equilibria independently. A second market structure creates a multiproduct producer that chooses both an X and Y output. Separate X and Y duopolists are rivals to the multiproduct producer. The multiproduct/multimarket rival creates a horizontal connection for the X and Y markets. Subjects choose outputs from payoff tables for at least thirty five periods. Compared to the independent duopolies, the horizontal connection raises outputs in the X market and lowers outputs in the Y market. These impacts are statistically significant. We find Granger causality for output choices moving from X to Y and from Y to X in the connected markets; however learning that moves through the horizontal connection is less influential than learning within the market. Further testing shows that competitive learning travels better than cooperative learning through the multimarket firm.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how firms with multimarket contacts in both product and geographic markets make foreign direct investments (FDI) location choices and to advance the understanding about how managers with cognitive limits cope with opportunities to take the advantage of mutual forbearance in two types of markets.

Drawing upon the literatures on multimarket contact and decision making, the authors develop original hypotheses on how multimarket contacts in two types of markets influence firms’ choice of destination for foreign investments. The authors test the hypotheses using longitudinal archival data on foreign market entries of Japanese auto parts makers.

The authors find that when choosing FDI locations, firms reduce the cognitive burdens of coping with multimarket contacts in the two types of markets by focussing exclusively on what is perceived as relevant to the decision at hand. The authors also find that this propensity is particularly significant for large firms, whereas small firms use different decision rules and avoid entering markets with the greater degree of multimarket contact with prior entrants, whether in product or national market.

Although heuristics simplify competitive environments and reduce managers’ cognitive burdens, such a cost-saving orientation could increase the risk associated with international entry that may end in severe counterattacks from prior entrants, wasteful foreign investments, and substantial entry failures.

This study contributes to the literature by adopting multimarket contact theory to foreign market entry, jointly analyzing two types of multimarket contacts, testing three alternative hypotheses about how boundedly rational managers cope with multimarket contacts in two markets, and demonstrating that managers focus on multimarket contacts only in one type of markets when making entry decisions.

Informed by the resource-based and resource-advantage theories, this study, a comparative study, aims to examine the core dimensions of nation brands – culture, tourism, exports, foreign direct investment, migration and governance – from the company-based brand equity perspective in a sample of 48 countries clustered into three groups (strong, moderate and weak nation brands) from 2011 to 2019 to identify the most critical predictors of nation brand strength in each cluster.

A clustering technique was applied to the modified Country Brand Index to cluster the included countries into strong, moderate and weak nation brands. The authors were then able to analyze each cluster in an effort to explore the relative importance of the predictor variables and determine if that importance varied across the clusters.

This approach revealed novel findings of great importance to policymakers and academics. The results indicate the resources that contribute the most to nation brand equity in each cluster. Such information can guide policymakers in effectively leveraging these strategic resources. First, the cultural dimension was a more critical predictor concerning countries with moderate and weak nation brands than countries with strong brands. Second, tourism exhibited the highest predictive importance concerning all the clusters. For academics, these findings help foster a better understanding of the determinants of nation brand strength, as aligned with the resource-based and resource-advantage theories.

The findings of this study contribute to the literature concerning nation brand management, particularly the stream related to nation brand equity monetization.