When should original equipment manufacturers use Branded component contracts with suppliers?

Mrinal G Ghosh, George John

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Branded components are becoming increasingly popular in industrial markets; yet extant research provides limited understanding of the use of such arrangements in the real world. The authors use the governance lens of transaction cost economics to propose that leveraging the vendor's brand reputation and safeguarding the vendor's customization investments are key motivators for choosing branded component contracts. Data on 191 contracts from three engineering-intensive industry sectors provide support to the authors' hypotheses. The authors find that firms are more likely to choose branded component contracts when the supplier's brand name adds significant differentiation (leveraging) and when the component supplier has made significant component customization investments (safeguarding). This safeguarding motivation is relevant even to suppliers with modest brand reputation. The authors also investigate the normative consequences of these contracting decisions and find significant adverse outcomes from choosing the "wrong" contract form. Furthermore, they find that these outcomes are asymmetric in nature. In particular, choosing a "white box" contract when the theory argues for a branded component contract leads to more adverse outcomes than choosing a branded component contract when the theory predicts a "white box" contract. Finally, the authors draw key conclusions for theory and managerial practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)597-611
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Marketing Research
Volume46
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2009

Fingerprint

Original equipment manufacturers
Suppliers
Vendors
Customization
Brand reputation
Industrial markets
Governance
Transaction cost economics
Managerial practices
Contracting
Brand names
Industry

Keywords

  • Business-to-business marketing
  • Component branding
  • Organizational relationships
  • Self-enforcing agreements
  • Transaction cost analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business and International Management
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Marketing

Cite this

When should original equipment manufacturers use Branded component contracts with suppliers? / Ghosh, Mrinal G; John, George.

In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, No. 5, 10.2009, p. 597-611.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c5eafeaa19434139b58ba342a388fae5,
title = "When should original equipment manufacturers use Branded component contracts with suppliers?",
abstract = "Branded components are becoming increasingly popular in industrial markets; yet extant research provides limited understanding of the use of such arrangements in the real world. The authors use the governance lens of transaction cost economics to propose that leveraging the vendor's brand reputation and safeguarding the vendor's customization investments are key motivators for choosing branded component contracts. Data on 191 contracts from three engineering-intensive industry sectors provide support to the authors' hypotheses. The authors find that firms are more likely to choose branded component contracts when the supplier's brand name adds significant differentiation (leveraging) and when the component supplier has made significant component customization investments (safeguarding). This safeguarding motivation is relevant even to suppliers with modest brand reputation. The authors also investigate the normative consequences of these contracting decisions and find significant adverse outcomes from choosing the {"}wrong{"} contract form. Furthermore, they find that these outcomes are asymmetric in nature. In particular, choosing a {"}white box{"} contract when the theory argues for a branded component contract leads to more adverse outcomes than choosing a branded component contract when the theory predicts a {"}white box{"} contract. Finally, the authors draw key conclusions for theory and managerial practice.",
keywords = "Business-to-business marketing, Component branding, Organizational relationships, Self-enforcing agreements, Transaction cost analysis",
author = "Ghosh, {Mrinal G} and George John",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1509/jmkr.46.5.597",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "597--611",
journal = "Journal of Marketing Research",
issn = "0022-2437",
publisher = "American Marketing Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When should original equipment manufacturers use Branded component contracts with suppliers?

AU - Ghosh, Mrinal G

AU - John, George

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - Branded components are becoming increasingly popular in industrial markets; yet extant research provides limited understanding of the use of such arrangements in the real world. The authors use the governance lens of transaction cost economics to propose that leveraging the vendor's brand reputation and safeguarding the vendor's customization investments are key motivators for choosing branded component contracts. Data on 191 contracts from three engineering-intensive industry sectors provide support to the authors' hypotheses. The authors find that firms are more likely to choose branded component contracts when the supplier's brand name adds significant differentiation (leveraging) and when the component supplier has made significant component customization investments (safeguarding). This safeguarding motivation is relevant even to suppliers with modest brand reputation. The authors also investigate the normative consequences of these contracting decisions and find significant adverse outcomes from choosing the "wrong" contract form. Furthermore, they find that these outcomes are asymmetric in nature. In particular, choosing a "white box" contract when the theory argues for a branded component contract leads to more adverse outcomes than choosing a branded component contract when the theory predicts a "white box" contract. Finally, the authors draw key conclusions for theory and managerial practice.

AB - Branded components are becoming increasingly popular in industrial markets; yet extant research provides limited understanding of the use of such arrangements in the real world. The authors use the governance lens of transaction cost economics to propose that leveraging the vendor's brand reputation and safeguarding the vendor's customization investments are key motivators for choosing branded component contracts. Data on 191 contracts from three engineering-intensive industry sectors provide support to the authors' hypotheses. The authors find that firms are more likely to choose branded component contracts when the supplier's brand name adds significant differentiation (leveraging) and when the component supplier has made significant component customization investments (safeguarding). This safeguarding motivation is relevant even to suppliers with modest brand reputation. The authors also investigate the normative consequences of these contracting decisions and find significant adverse outcomes from choosing the "wrong" contract form. Furthermore, they find that these outcomes are asymmetric in nature. In particular, choosing a "white box" contract when the theory argues for a branded component contract leads to more adverse outcomes than choosing a branded component contract when the theory predicts a "white box" contract. Finally, the authors draw key conclusions for theory and managerial practice.

KW - Business-to-business marketing

KW - Component branding

KW - Organizational relationships

KW - Self-enforcing agreements

KW - Transaction cost analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349900276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349900276&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1509/jmkr.46.5.597

DO - 10.1509/jmkr.46.5.597

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 597

EP - 611

JO - Journal of Marketing Research

JF - Journal of Marketing Research

SN - 0022-2437

IS - 5

ER -