The impact of internet exchanges on business-to-business distribution
Tóm tắt
The authors review an incumbent business-to-business distributor of electronic components faced with the entry of more than 50 Internet-based competitors and offer an explanation for why the distributor prevailed. Underlying the explanation is an assertion that the appropriate unit of analysis is the buyer-distributor-seller triad, not the buyer-seller dyad. In the case examined, the channel activities were interrelated such that when each party calculated the costs and benefits of the activities that occurred within this three-way relationship, they outweighed the net gains from disintermediation or Internet intermediation. Particular conditions favoring the status quo included existing activities for sharing customer identification information between the distributor and the seller, a high proportion of negotiated distributor-customer contracts, and new entrants’ reliance on open technologies. While no claims are made about the generalizability of this explanation beyond the case studied, the authors believe their assertion and hypotheses may have broader applicability.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baumol, William J., John C. Panzar, and Robert D. Willig. 1988.Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cunningham, Micheal J. 2000.B2B: How to Build a Profitable E-Commerce Strategy. Boston: Perseus.
Doyle, Ted and Judy Melanson. 2001. “B2B Web Exchanges: Easier Hyped Than Done.”Journal of Business Strategy 22 (3): 10–13.
Kaplan, Steve and Mohan Sawhney. 2000. “E-Hubs: The New B2B Marketplaces.”Harvard Business Review 78 (3): 97–103.
Lief, Varda. 1999.Net Marketplaces Grow Up. Cambridge: Forrester Research, Inc.
Narayandas, Narakesari. 1998. “Arrow Electronics, Inc.” Case 598-022. Harvard Business School.
Raisch, Warren. 2001.The eMarketplace: Strategies for Success in B2B E-Commerce. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rangan, V. Kasturi, Raymond E. Corey, and Frank Cespedes. 1993. “Transaction Cost Theory: Inferences From Clinical Field Research on Downstream Vertical Integration.”Organizational Science 4 (3): 454–478.