12.07.2015 Views

Value Co-Creation in Industrial Buyer-Seller Partnerships ... - Doria

Value Co-Creation in Industrial Buyer-Seller Partnerships ... - Doria

Value Co-Creation in Industrial Buyer-Seller Partnerships ... - Doria

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

3.4.1 Overview of the use of the value concept <strong>in</strong> market<strong>in</strong>gWroe Alderson (1957) has been one of the early scholars <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g market<strong>in</strong>g theory.Alderson was the one who <strong>in</strong>troduced the idea of market<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>g the process of match<strong>in</strong>gheterogeneous demand and supply through exchange. Exchange became thus one of thecentral themes of market<strong>in</strong>g. The way Alderson def<strong>in</strong>ed value <strong>in</strong> market<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the fifties is:“ ...market<strong>in</strong>g is, <strong>in</strong> fact, the source of all ultimate value <strong>in</strong> use. <strong>Value</strong> can be createdthrough exchange even when restricted to products as they occur <strong>in</strong> nature, withoutbe<strong>in</strong>g subject to any manufactur<strong>in</strong>g processes” (Alderson 1957, p 198).The Aldersonian view on value <strong>in</strong> market<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>g created <strong>in</strong> the process of exchange givessupport to the idea brought forth <strong>in</strong> this study, that value cannot be viewed as a static th<strong>in</strong>g.<strong>Value</strong> is dynamic; it is created through <strong>in</strong>teraction through a process of exchange. Now letus turn to some of the more recent writ<strong>in</strong>gs about value with<strong>in</strong> market<strong>in</strong>g.Walter el al. (2001) are study<strong>in</strong>g value from the supplier’ s perspective by us<strong>in</strong>g“ functions of a customer relationship” as a way to categorize how the supplier perceivesvalue. They talk about direct and <strong>in</strong>direct functions and mention that a third type offunctions, namely social functions, could be added to make the picture more complete. Bydirect functions of a customer relationship they mean: the profit function, the volumefunction, and the safeguard function. Indirect functions are: the <strong>in</strong>novation function, themarket function, the scout function, and the access function. They argue that the “ supplierperceivedvalue” consists of the above-mentioned functions of a customer relationship (p369).Wilson et al. (1994, 1995) suggest that value can be understood as competence, marketposition, and social rewards (Wilson et al., 1994, 1995, Biong et al. 1997).Ulaga (2001) uses the term “ customer value” and has three different perspectives onthe concept; the “ buyer perspective” , “ the supplier perspective” , and “ the buyer-sellerperspective” . The buyer perspective deals with issues such as how the supplier can createoffer<strong>in</strong>gs that are of superior value to the customer and thus keep the bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly competitive markets. The supplier perspective looks at customers as key assetsof the firm. The buyer-seller perspective is about how buyers and sellers can create valuejo<strong>in</strong>tly through relationships, partner<strong>in</strong>g, and alliances (p 316).Dyer and S<strong>in</strong>gh (1998) discuss the concept “ relational rent” , mean<strong>in</strong>g the value that theparties can get out of a relationship. They argue that effective governance of a relationshipcan generate relational rents by either lower<strong>in</strong>g transaction costs or provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>centives for49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!