Innovations in Retail Business Models

Sorescu, Alina; Frambach, R.T.; Singh, Jagdip; Rangaswamy, Arvind; Bridges, Cheryl

doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.005

Cited by 444 publications

(407 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

341

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our newly developed coding scheme integrates the literatures on organisational fields and business models (e.g., George and Bock, 2011;Morris et al, 2005;Quirke, 2013;Sorescu et al, 2011;Zott and Amit, 2007) and conversations with managers and owners of family offices. Three independent coders content-analysed all websites.…”

Section: Assessing Business Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The global field of multi-family offices: An institutionalist perspective

Decker

Lange²

2016

J Financ Serv Mark

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We apply the notion of the organisational field to internationally operating multi-family offices.These organisations specialise on the preservation of enterprising and geographically dispersed families' fortunes. They provide their services across generations and countries. Based on secondary data of Bloomberg's Top 50 Family Offices, we show that they constitute a global organisational field that comprises two clusters of homogeneity. Clients may decide between two different configurations of activities, depending on their preferences regarding asset management, resource management, family management, and service architecture. The findings also reveal that multi-family offices make relatively similar value propositions all over the world. The distinctiveness of the clusters within the field is not driven by the embeddedness of the multifamily offices in different national environments or their various degrees of international experience. Rather, it is weakly affected by two out of four possible value propositions, namely the exclusiveness and the transparency of services.

show abstract

Section: Assessing Business Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The global field of multi-family offices: An institutionalist perspective

Decker

Lange²

2016

J Financ Serv Mark

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brandenburger and Stuart 1996;Bowman and Ambrosini 2000). A notable exception is Sorescu et al (2011), who propose concrete practices in retail industry associated with value creation and value capture.…”

Section: Value Creation Value Appropriation and The Value Propositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of these articles, however, can be found in management journals. Attempts to study business models in marketing are scant, and typically focus on specific sectors of the economy (e.g., Wieland et al 2017 on services, andSorescu et al 2011 on retailing) or on specific types of business models (e.g., Kind et al 2009;Pauwels and Weiss 2008). Moreover, while value creation and appropriation have separately received attention in marketing, they have been rarely studied in combination, which is a prerequisite to understanding business models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A marketing perspective on business models

Gatignon

Lecocq

Pauwels

et al. 2017

AMS Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…BMI can be also instrumental in driving down traditional cost structures (Mitchell and Coles, 2004a;Pohle and Chapman, 2006). Sorescu et al (2011) note several examples in the retail industry where firms achieved significant revenue growth due to BMI that emphasised operational efficiency. Firms are also able to diversify their revenue sources when they engage in BMI through product or service modifications (Lindgardt et al, 2009;Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002;Chesbrough, 2010;Mitchell and Coles, 2004a).…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Bmimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firms engaging in BMI through product diversification, i.e., expand their product or service portfolio, are able to reach new customers (Bock et al, 2012;Hamel and Skarzynski, 2001;Mitchell and Coles, 2004b). Firms engaging in BMI can 1 create entirely new markets (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004) 2 reach under-served markets to attract new customer segments (Sako, 2012) 3 strengthen their position in the marketplace (Lindgardt et al, 2009;Sorescu et al, 2011).…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Bmimentioning

confidence: 99%

The introduction of a competing business model: the case of eBay

Comberg

Velamuri

2017

IJTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's highly competitive business environment, the reasons for companies to engage in business model innovation (BMI) are manifold. The pressure on firms to innovate their business models results in either an adaptation of the incumbent business model, or the introduction of a new competing business model. Based on extant theory, we found that the reasons for a firm to engage in BMI can be clustered into three categories: 1) increased profitability; 2) improved strategic positioning; 3) customer attraction. By conducting an exploratory single case study approach, we confirmed these categories by identifying the distinct reasons for eBay to introduce a competing business model. We then highlight the impacts on the focal firm as a result of the new business model. We find that the introduction of a competing business model can create novel sources of value for the company and its customers. In total, the study emphasises that when firms launch competing business models, intended and unintended consequences can be both positive and negative.

show abstract

Innovations in Retail Business Models

Cited by 444 publications

References 46 publications

The global field of multi-family offices: An institutionalist perspective

The global field of multi-family offices: An institutionalist perspective

A marketing perspective on business models

The introduction of a competing business model: the case of eBay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About