Skip to main content

Sleeping with competitors: the impact of NPD phases on stock market reactions to horizontal collaboration

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume 43, pages 490–511 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Firms are increasingly collaborating with their competitors for new product development (NPD), yet the literature is almost silent on stock market reactions to these horizontal collaborations. Given the different skills and activities needed in each NPD phase, we analyze the differential stock market reactions to horizontal collaborations in the initiation, development, and commercialization phases of NPD. Analyses of a unique and comprehensive dataset with 831 NPD announcements of horizontal collaborations over 12 years reveal that, on average, the stock market reacts favorably to NPD-related horizontal collaboration in the initiation phase, but unfavorably in the development and commercialization phases. Further, these effects are asymmetrically moderated by the innovativeness of the new product and the collaborating competitor’s relative market and technological powers. Overall, our results highlight that failing to examine the specific NPD phase leads to an incomplete understanding of stock market reactions to horizontal collaboration for NPD. We offer theoretical and managerial implications regarding horizontal collaboration for each NPD phase, along with the relevant NPD project and competitor contingencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. We use the terms “horizontal collaboration,” “horizontal alliance,” and “competitor collaboration” interchangeably throughout the paper. We use the terms “alliance” and “collaboration” interchangeably since the literature reveals few differences between them.

  2. Our investigation focuses on the stock market returns to a firm that collaborates with a competitor during the NPD process since the product has yet to produce sales during the NPD process.

  3. As an additional check on this assumption, we examined differences of stock market abnormal returns due to announcements, interviews, or reports, and no significant difference is found. Press reports of publicly-traded firm events without firm confirmation often use words such as may, guess, conjecture, and speculate; these reports are usually labeled as “rumor.” To ensure accuracy of the announcements, we did not include these reports in our sample.

  4. If there is more than one collaborating competitor, we compare the mean of the collaborating firms’ sales revenues with that of the focal firm. This method is also employed for the competitor’s relative technological power.

  5. When the difference in patent stock is less than 5% of the focal firm’s patents, we compared means of the patents over the past five years. This method is also employed for the competitor’s relative market power.

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10 (pp. 123–167). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, T. J., Fang, E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspara, J. (2010). “How do institutional actors in the financial market assess companies’ product design? the quasi-rational evaluative schemes”, knowledge. Technol Policy, 22(4), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, D. H. (1993). An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 83(2), 253–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, L. P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calomiris, C. W., Fisman, R., & Wang, Y. (2010). Profiting from government stakes in a command economy: evidence from Chinese asset sales. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(3), 399–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. H., Kensinger, J. W., Keown, A. J., & Martin, J. D. (1997). Do strategic alliances create value? Journal of Financial Economics, 46(2), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P. K., Devinney, T. M., & Winer, R. S. (1991). The impact of new product introductions on the market value of firms. Journal of Business, 64(4), 573–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. S., Ho, K. W., Ik, K. H., & Lee, C. (2002). How does strategic competition affect firm values? a study of new product announcements. Financial Management, 31(2), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. M. (1977). Marketing research and the new product failure rate. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Charles Merle and C. Anthony Di Benedetto (2008), New products management: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Cui, A., & O‘Connor, G. (2012). Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, S., Sen, P. K., & Sengupta, S. (1998). Impact of strategic alliances on firm valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di, B., & Anthony, C. (2012). “The JPIM thought leadership symposium,”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(3), 344–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Ansary, A. I., & Stern, L. W. (1972). Power measurement in the distribution channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Ruebsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, marketing, and research-and-development cooperation across new product development stages: implications for success. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. P. H., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2007). Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84(2), 330–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. (2011). The effect of strategic alliance knowledge complementarity on new product innovativeness in china. Organization Science, 22(1), 158–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, G. L. (1983). Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: a broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaski, J. F. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjerde, P., Kathy, A., Slotnick, S. A., & Sobel, M. J. (2002). New product innovation with multiple features and technology constraints. Management Science, 48(10), 1268–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, K. C., Mathur, I., Wiggins, R. A., & III. (2003). Evidence on value creation in the financial services industries through the use of joint ventures and strategic alliances. Financial Rev, 38(2), 213–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P. N. (2000). Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long-term market share stability. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 156–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1993). Pioneer advantage: marketing logic or marketing legend? Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 158–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (1997). Delays in new product introductions and the market value of the firm: the consequences of being late to the market. Management Science, 43(4), 422–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Bornemann, T., & Totzek, D. (2009). Preannouncing pioneering versus follower products: what should the message be? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 310–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, Jan, E., Griffin, A., Robben, H. S. J., & Hart, S. (1998). In search of generic launch strategies for new products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3), 269–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & West, J. (1997). Technology integration: turning great research into great products. Harvard Business Review, 75(3), 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 278–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelm, K. M., Narayanan, V. K., & Pinches, G. E. (1995). Shareholder value creation during R&D innovation and commercialization stages. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 770–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2002). Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Management, 32(4), 269–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D‘Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald, K., Incorvia, M., & Johnson, A. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end”. Res Technology Manag, 44(2), 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K., Wang, T., Cheung, Y.-L., & Jiang, P. (2011). Privatization and risk sharing: evidence from the split share structure reform in China. Review of Financial Studies, 24(7), 2499–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Homburg, C. (2008). Satisfaction, complaint, and the stock value gap. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A., & Tse, D. K. (2007). Working with rivals: the impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Zhang, R., Zhang, W., & Aspara, J. (2014). Do institutional investors pay attention to customer satisfaction and why?”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T., Yao, L., Shi, X., & Yin, Q. (2013). How do investors respond to Green company awards in China? Ecological Economics, 94, 1–08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). Event studies in management research: theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 626–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, S., Kalwani, M. U., & Robinson, W. T. (2006). Market pioneer and early follower survival risks: a contingency analysis of really new versus incrementally new product-markets. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 324–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Slotegraaf, R. J. (2013). Building an innovation base: exploring the role of acquisition behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 705–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2002). Managing the paradox of inter-firm learning: the role of governance mechanisms. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(4), 282–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., Wies, S., Mizik, N., & Spencer, F. J. (2012). Firm innovation and the ratchet effect among consumer packaged goods firms. Marketing Science, 31(6), 934–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, N. H., & Wang, D. Y. (2013). Stock dividends in China: signalling or liquidity explanations? Acc Finance, 53(2), 513–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noordewier, T. G., John, G., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noordhoff, C. S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., Pauwels, P., & Dellaert, B. G. C. (2011). The bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation. Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nord, Walter R. and Sharon Tucker (1987), Implementing routine and radical innovations: Lexington Books Lexington, MA.

  • Parkhe, A. (1993). “ Messy” research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 227–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Nowak, P. (1976). Joint ventures and interorganizational interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 398–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., & Pollock, T. G. (1999). Industry categories and the politics of the comparable firm in CEO compensation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 112–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raassens, N., Wuyts, S., & Geyskens, I. (2012). The market valuation of outsourcing new product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 682–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: a strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2003). Interfirm cooperation and customer orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 421–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankaranarayanan, R. (2007). Innovation and the durable goods monopolist: the optimality of frequent new-version releases. Marketing Science, 26(6), 774–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R. A. J., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 701–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. B., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). Are really new product development projects harder to shut down? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 111–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, G. M., & Porteus, E. L. (2000). The impact of an integrated marketing and manufacturing innovation. Manuf Serv Oper Manag, 2(4), 317–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotegraaf, R. J., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2011). Product development team stability and new product advantage: the role of decision-making processes. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1996). What separates Japanese new product winners from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(5), 422–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2009). Do innovations really pay off? total stock market returns to innovation. Marketing Science, 28(3), 442–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A. B., & Spanjol, J. (2008). Innovation’s effect on firm value and risk: Insights from consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 114–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 82–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A., Shankar, V., & Kushwaha, T. (2007). New product preannouncements and shareholder value: Don’t make promises you can’t keep. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 468–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes, and shareholder value: an organizationally embedded view of marketing activities and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink, M., & Song, M. (2007). Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration on new product development time and competitive advantage. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 203–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K. H. (2009). Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy, 38(5), 765–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turk, T. A., & Ybarra, C. E. (2011). Commitment to high-tech strategic alliances: a comparison of direct-competitor and non-competitor alliances. Strateg Manag Rev, 5(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T. and S. D. Eppinger (2000), Product design and development: McGraw-Hill.

  • Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (2000). Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 324–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiles, M. A., Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2012). The effect of brand acquisition and disposal on stock returns. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 38–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zantout, Z., & Chaganti, R. (1996). New product introductions, shareholders’ wealth, and first-mover advantages. J Financ Strateg Decis, 9(3), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the support from research grants of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, project No. 71072060). We also acknowledge the insightful feedback from Aric Rindfleisch, Eric Fang, Barry Bayus, and Alina Sorescu. One of the authors (Aspara) is grateful for related research grants from Nasdaq OMX Nordic Foundation and Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Antai College of Economics & Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Qingsheng Wu

  2. Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Xueming Luo

  3. Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Rebecca J. Slotegraaf

  4. School of Business, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

    Jaakko Aspara

Authors
  1. Qingsheng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xueming Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca J. Slotegraaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaakko Aspara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingsheng Wu.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 51 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 51 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Q., Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R.J. et al. Sleeping with competitors: the impact of NPD phases on stock market reactions to horizontal collaboration. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 490–511 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0396-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0396-3

Keywords

  • Horizontal collaboration
  • Investors
  • Stock market reactions
  • New product development (NPD)
  • Emerging markets