Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocal value sharing in manufacturer-retailer relationships: the case of new product introductions

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior literature examined reciprocity in the context of value creation. However, research has yet to examine whether reciprocity exists in value sharing. To address this gap, the authors examine retailer’s reciprocal value sharing with its manufacturer in relation to new product introductions. The authors test, via a survey of retail managers, whether reciprocal value sharing is influenced by an interaction of manufacturer’s prior new product success with innovativeness of a manufacturer’s products and the frequency of new product introduction. The results indicate that a retailer’s reciprocal value sharing is greater when the manufacturer historically launched successful new products, and that this effect is decreased with the innovativeness of a manufacturer’s products but increased with the frequency of new product introduction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdul, A. (2000). The impact of innovativeness and development time on new product performance for small firms. Marketing Letters, 11(2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achrol, R. S. (2012). Slotting allowances: A time series analysis of aggregate effects over three decades. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K. L., Bradlow, E. T., Draganska, M., Nijs, V., Rooderkerk, R. P., Sudhir, K., Wilbur, K. C., & Zhang, J. (2010). Empirical models of manufacturer-retailer interaction: A review and agenda for future research. Marketing Letters, 21(3), 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability: Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, Y., Sheng, S., & Zhou, K. Z. (2012). Network-based market knowledge and product innovativeness. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, P. N., Gundlach, G. T., & Cannon, J. P. (2000). Slotting allowances and fees: Schools of thought and the views of practicing managers. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A.M., & Nalebuff, B.J. (1997), Co-Opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation: The game theory strategy That’s changing the game of business. Currency Doubleday.

  • Dean, T., Griffith, D. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2016). New product creativity: Understanding contract specificity in new product introductions. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desiraju, R. (2001). New product introductions, slotting allowances, and retailer discretion. Journal of Retailing, 77(3), 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esmark, C. L., Noble, S. M., Bell, J. E., & Griffith, D. A. (2016). The effects of behavioral, cognitive, and decisional control in co-production service experiences. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. R. E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. R. E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, A. J., & Anderson, E. (1997). Patterns of credible commitments: Territory and brand selectivity in industrial distribution channels. The Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, M., & John, G. (1999). Governance value analysis and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan M. (2012). Coles Boss Dismisses Talk of Suppliers Under Siege. Retrieved 23 Sept, 2016 from http://www.theage.com.au/business/coles-boss-dismisses-talk-of-suppliers-under-siege-20120712-21yu7.html

  • Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppner, J. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppner, J. J., Griffith, D. A., & White, R. C. (2015). Reciprocity in relationship marketing: A cross-cultural examination of the effects of equivalence and immediacy on relationship quality and satisfaction with performance. Journal of International Marketing, 23(4), 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S. D. (2001). Pie sharing in complex collaboration contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 68–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabadayi, S., Eyuboglu, N., & Thomas, G. P. (2007). The performance implications of designing multiple channels to fit with strategy and environment. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, P. J., & Dant, R. P. (1992). The dimensions of commercial exchange. Marketing Letters, 3(2), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (1995). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilien, G. L., Grewal, R., Bowmand, D., Ding, M., Griffin, A., Kumar, V., Narayandas, D., Peres, R., Srinivasan, R., & Wang, Q. (2010). Calculating, creating, and claiming value in business markets: Status and research agenda. Marketing Letters, 21(3), 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Brown, J. R. (1996). Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintel (2016), “GNPD–Global New Products Database,” (accessed 7 Oct 2016), http://www.mintel.com/global-new-products-database.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quelch, J. A., & Kenny, D. (1994). Extend profits, Not Product Lines. Harvard. Business Review, 72(5), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokkan, A. I., Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2003). Specific Investments in Marketing Relationships: Expropriation and bonding effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubera, G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., Olson, E., & Finnegan, C. (2011). Business strategy, marketing organization culture, and performance. Marketing Letters, 22(3), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinhas, A. S., Chatterjee, S., Dutta, S., Fein, A., Lajos, J., Neslin, S., Scheer, L., Ross, W., & Wang, Q. (2010). Channel design, coordination, and performance: Future research directions. Marketing Letters, 21(3), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, C. J., Conant, J. S., & Echambadi, R. (2003). Marketing strategy development styles, implementation capability, and firm performance: Investigating the curvilinear impact of multiple strategy-making styles. Marketing Letters, 14(2), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cornelia Droge, David Hardesty, and Ranjani Krishnan for their comments and assistance in the development of this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank Raji Srinivasan and Brian Murtha for suggestions in advancing this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Ball State University, WB 321, Muncie, IN, 47306, USA

    Tereza Dean

  2. Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, Rauch Business Center, 365, 621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA, 18015-3117, USA

    David A. Griffith

  3. Department of Marketing, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University, N307 Business College Complex, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1122, USA

    Roger J. Calantone

Authors
  1. Tereza Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger J. Calantone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tereza Dean.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Construct measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dean, T., Griffith, D.A. & Calantone, R.J. Reciprocal value sharing in manufacturer-retailer relationships: the case of new product introductions. Mark Lett 29, 87–100 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9450-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9450-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation