The Evaluation of Value Chain Marketing Strategies: An Agent-Based Approach

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

Value chain marketing (VCM) has shown to be a promising strategy to overcome immediate customers’ innovation resistance and thus increase the success of supplier innovations. By pursuing VCM, suppliers of entering goods such as raw materials, parts, or components enlarge their target group beyond their immediate customers (manufacturers) and target their downstream customers (applicators) as well. The nature of the VCM process depends on the timing of integrating the immediate customer. Based on the results of multiple case studies focusing on supplier innovations in the field of coatings and sealants, we confirmed that the effectiveness of VCM strategies depends on the newness of supplier innovation and the overlap between the knowledge bases of the involved actors. The analysis further suggested that the newness of innovation and the knowledge overlap are somehow interrelated. In order to assess the overall performance of VCM strategies, we propose an agent-based model and consider a multiplicity of VCM scenarios. In this paper, we provide a theoretical and conceptual foundation for the VCM model to simulate different settings in which supplier innovations are either implemented successfully or fail. We focus on the development of the model and not on the communication of the results of this model.

Keywords

Marketing Flint 

References

  1. Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert GN (2004) Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks (SKIN). Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe 267, Institute of Economics, University of AugsburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert GN (2011) A new model for university links in knowledge-based economies. J Prod Innovat Manag 28(2):218–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asheim B (2007) Differentiated knowledge bases and varieties of regional innovation systems. Innovat Eur J Soc Sci Res 20(3):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99(397):569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conti A, Hoisl K (2012) The speedy road to success: knowledge overlap in R&D teams. In: Proceedings of the DRUID 2012, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan R, Jonard N (2009) Knowledge portfolios and the organization of innovation networks. Acad Manag Rev 34(2):320–342Google Scholar
  7. Delre SA, Jager W, Janssen MA (2007) Diffusion dynamics in small world networks with heterogeneous consumers. Comput Math Organ Theor 13(2):185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dosi G, Faillo M, Marengo L (2003) Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms: an introduction. Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, PisaGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan T, Moriarty SE (1998) A communication-based marketing model for managing relationships. J Market 56(2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fern EF, Brown JR (1984) The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy: a case of insufficient justification. J Market 48(2):68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flint DJ, Woodruff RB, Gardial SF (1997) Customer value change in industrial marketing relationships. Ind Market Manag 26(2):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fussell SR, Krauss RM (1989) Understanding friends and strangers: the effect of audience design on message comprehension. Eur J Soc Psychol 19(6):509–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia R (2005) Uses of agent-based modeling in innovation/new product development research. J Prod Innovat Manag 22(5):380–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia R, Atkin T (2005) Coopetition for the diffusion of resistant innovations: a case study in the global wine industry using an agent-based model. Working paper 05-002, Northeastern University, Institute for Global Innovation ManagementGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia R, Jager W (2011) Agent-based modeling of innovation diffusion. J Prod Innovat Manag 28(2):148–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert GN, Pyka A, Ahrweiler P (2001) Innovation networks – a simulation approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 4(3):8Google Scholar
  17. Gobeli DH, Brown DJ (1987) Analyzing product innovations. Res Manag 30(4):25–31Google Scholar
  18. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221(23):2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grunert KG, Fruensgaard Jeppesen L, Jespersen KR, Sonne A-M, Hansen K, Trondsen T, Young J (2005) Market orientation of value chains: a conceptual framework based on four case studies from the food industry. Eur J Market 39(5/6):428–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillebrand B, Biemans WG (2005) Strategies for dealing with derived demand. Working paper series on research in relationship management, Nijmegen School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillebrand B, Biemans WG (2011) Dealing with downstream customers: an exploratory study. J Bus Ind Market 26(2):72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol Soc 11(2):37Google Scholar
  24. Jeannet J-P (2006) Value chain marketing. In: Kashani K (ed) Beyond traditional marketing: innovations in marketing practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 19–59Google Scholar
  25. Kashani K (2006) Beyond traditional marketing: innovations in marketing practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleinaltenkamp M, Frauendorf J, Kähm E (2007) Business-to-business markets – status quo and future trends. J Bus Market Manag 1(1):7–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleinschmidt EJ, Cooper RG (1991) The impact of product innovativeness on performance. J Prod Innovat Manag 8(4):240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Narver JC, Slater SF (1990) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J Market 54(4):20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. North MJ, Macal CM, St. Aubin J, Thimmapuram P, Bragen M, Hahn J et al (2010) Multi-scale agent-based consumer market modeling. Complexity 15(5):37–47Google Scholar
  30. Prabhu JC, Chandy RK, Ellis ME (2005) The impact of acquisitions on innovation: poison pill, placebo, or tonic? J Market 69(1):181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ram S, Sheth JN (1989) Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. J Consum Market 6(2):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rand W, Rust RT (2011) Agent-based modeling in marketing: guidelines for rigor. Int J Res Market 28(3):181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogers EM, Bhowmik DK (1971) Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication research. Public Opin Q 34(4):523–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers EM, Kincaid DL (1981) Communication networks: towards a new paradigm for research. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Schramm ME, Trainor KJ, Shanker M, Hu MY (2010) An agent-based diffusion model with consumer and brand agents. Decis Support Syst 50(1):234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schulze A (2012) Distance between partner’s knowledge base components as an explanation of joint innovation performance. In: Proceedings of the DRUID 2012, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheth JN, Sisodia RS (2002) Marketing productivity issues and analysis. J Bus Res 55(2):349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Veryzer RW (1998) Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. J Prod Innovat Manag 15(4):304–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ziamou PL (1999) The effect of the degree of newness of a “really new” product on consumers’ judgement. Adv Consum Res 26(1):368–371Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Innovationsmarketing (W-3)Technische Universität Hamburg-HarburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations