2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The process of evaluating business to business relationships facing dissolution: An SME owner manager perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
37
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
(96 reference statements)
0
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to RBV, both of product extensions and brand extensions are important strategic devices that allow a firm to grow, not only by leveraging its current customer base and current (parent) brand image (Balachander & Ghose, 2003;Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986), but also through utilizing other operating resources, such as technology, logistics, and manufacturing capabilities (Essig, Glas, Selviaridis, & Roehrich, 2016;Kaipia, & Turkulainen, 2017;Lacoste, 2016;Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey, 1998). However, in contrast to product extensions, brand extensions require technological and product-market expertise and configurations of business relationships that are different across sectors and face a different set of competitors from those of the existing product (Fleming, Lynch, & Kelliher, 2016;Kohtamäki, & Rajala, 2016;Mudambi, et al, 2017;Nerkar & Roberts, 2004;Peters, Pressey, & Johnston, 2017). This will introduce differential effect of product extensions and brand extensions on firms' performance.…”
Section: Product Extension and Brand Extensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…According to RBV, both of product extensions and brand extensions are important strategic devices that allow a firm to grow, not only by leveraging its current customer base and current (parent) brand image (Balachander & Ghose, 2003;Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986), but also through utilizing other operating resources, such as technology, logistics, and manufacturing capabilities (Essig, Glas, Selviaridis, & Roehrich, 2016;Kaipia, & Turkulainen, 2017;Lacoste, 2016;Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey, 1998). However, in contrast to product extensions, brand extensions require technological and product-market expertise and configurations of business relationships that are different across sectors and face a different set of competitors from those of the existing product (Fleming, Lynch, & Kelliher, 2016;Kohtamäki, & Rajala, 2016;Mudambi, et al, 2017;Nerkar & Roberts, 2004;Peters, Pressey, & Johnston, 2017). This will introduce differential effect of product extensions and brand extensions on firms' performance.…”
Section: Product Extension and Brand Extensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the difference in the number and accessibility of customers between the B2B and B2C markets, the inter-organizational interactions in the B2B market are often deeper and more long-term oriented than are the firm-consumer interactions in the B2C market (Fleming, Lynch, & Kelliher, 2016;Hingley, Lindgreen, & Grant, 2015;Hutt, & Speh, 2012). Firms that operate in a B2B context put significant effort into selecting appropriate exchange partners (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987;Wagner, & Eggert, 2016).…”
Section: Product Extensions and Firm Profitmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Prior to dissolution, every business relationship faces a “relationship gap” (Nordin and Ravald, 2016), where the interests of the supplier and buyer are incompatible. There is a need for expanding extant knowledge concerning B2B relationships in danger of dissolution (Fleming et al , 2016). A specific situation, that commonly tears apart ongoing commercial relationships, is the decision of a customer to implement an online reverse auction (ORA) for the next business cycle or contract.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aurier and N'Goala (2010) put forward that trust enhances customer's level of service usage and cross-buying behaviour of the relationship, whereas relationship commitment positively affects relationship duration and diminishes customer's inclinations to establish multiple relationships with various suppliers. When difficulties arise and B2B relationships face dissolution, close relationship among the B2B stakeholders, characterized by mutual trust and relationship commitment, promote the willingness of exchange partners to repair the dysfunctional relationship and continue cooperation (Fleming et al, 2016). Both of these constructs are relevant in conditions which imply uncertainty and vulnerability of an exchange partner, lack of adequate knowledge of a company of the services provided by the other party, lack of influence of a company over the exchange partner and in instances when the consequences of exchange partner's actions can significantly affect the outcomes of the other party (Moorman et al, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%