IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v23y2012i1p207-224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Achieving Demand-Side Synergy from Strategic Diversification: How Combining Mundane Assets Can Leverage Consumer Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Guangliang Ye

    (Hanqing Advanced Institute of Economics and Finance, School of Economics, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China; and Lingnan (University) College, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

  • Richard L. Priem

    (Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129)

  • Abdullah A. Alshwer

    (Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201)

Abstract

We explore the overlooked issue of how certain strategic-level, interindustry diversification options might increase consumer utility. Discussions of inter -industry diversification typically focus on producer synergies obtainable from economies of scope or from skill transfer across business units. Discussions of intra -industry product diversification—generally, the province of marketing—typically focus on synergies obtainable from product bundling, which lowers producer costs or provides convenience for consumers. We take a different tack by linking interindustry diversification and consumer utility. We first separately examine two possible consumer benefits of interindustry diversification: (1) facilitating consumers' accomplishment of two tasks simultaneously or (2) attracting diverse consumer groups to a common platform when intergroup externalities exist. We then assess a simple empirical context that shows potential for simultaneous consumer utilities and two-sided market utility together. We analyze this context and concurrently develop a mathematical model showing how these demand-side synergies can create unique business value. We next introduce asymmetric preferences among consumer subgroups, and we refine our arguments by comparing their conclusions with the empirical data. We learn that combinations of otherwise mundane (i.e., commonplace) assets can create consumer value—“superior” assets are not necessary. Moreover, common ownership is necessary for the pricing flexibility required to deliver (and capture) maximum value through interindustry diversification, especially when consumer groups' preferences may change; the negotiations and settling up required for cooperation through alliances will, without common ownership, increase costs and reduce responsiveness. We discuss the sustainability of demand-side advantages and the implications of these ideas for future research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Guangliang Ye & Richard L. Priem & Abdullah A. Alshwer, 2012. "Achieving Demand-Side Synergy from Strategic Diversification: How Combining Mundane Assets Can Leverage Consumer Utilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 207-224, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:1:p:207-224
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1100.0627?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein & Sandra K. Klein, 2007. "The Entrepreneurial Organization of Heterogeneous Capital," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1165-1186, November.
    3. James A. Robins & Margarethe F. Wiersema, 2003. "The measurement of corporate portfolio strategy: analysis of the content validity of related diversification indexes," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 39-59, January.
    4. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    5. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    6. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 2001. "Competitive Price Discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 579-605, Winter.
    7. Schmalensee, Richard, 1981. "Output and Welfare Implications of Monopolistic Third-Degree Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 242-247, March.
    8. Juan Santalo & Manuel Becerra, 2008. "Competition from Specialized Firms and the Diversification–Performance Linkage," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(2), pages 851-883, April.
    9. Salop, Steven C, 1979. "Strategic Entry Deterrence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 335-338, May.
    10. Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Why Focus? A Study Of Intra‐Industry Focus Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 121-150, June.
    11. Ricardo, David, 1821. "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 3, number ricardo1821.
    12. Michael Shayne Gary, 2005. "Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7), pages 643-664, July.
    13. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    14. Bruno Jullien, 2005. "Two-sided Markets and Electronic Intermediaries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 51(2-3), pages 233-260.
    15. Paul R. Messinger & Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 1997. "A Model of Retail Formats Based on Consumers' Economizing on Shopping Time," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23.
    16. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2001. "Competition in Telecommunications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262621509, December.
    17. Ron Adner & Daniel Snow, 2010. "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1655-1675, October.
    18. Yasemin Y. Kor & Joseph T. Mahoney & Steven C. Michael, 2007. "Resources, Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Perceptions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1187-1212, November.
    19. Hüseyin Tanriverdi & N. Venkatraman, 2005. "Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 97-119, February.
    20. Ji‐Yub (Jay) Kim & Sydney Finkelstein, 2009. "The effects of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance: evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry, 1989–2001," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 617-646, June.
    21. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    22. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    23. Roger Betancourt & David Gautschi, 1990. "Demand Complementarities, Household Production, and Retail Assortments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 146-161.
    24. C. Page Moreau & Darren W. Dahl, 2005. "Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers' Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(1), pages 13-22, June.
    25. Kraaijenbrink, Jeroen & Spender, JC & Groen, Aard, 2009. "The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques," MPRA Paper 21442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Ivo Zander & Udo Zander, 2005. "The Inside Track: On the Important (But Neglected) Role of Customers in the Resource‐Based View of Strategy and Firm Growth," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1519-1548, December.
    27. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    28. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    29. Mingchun Sun & Edison Tse, 2009. "The Resource‐Based View of Competitive Advantage in Two‐Sided Markets," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 45-64, January.
    30. Tim R. Holcomb & R. Michael Holmes Jr. & Brian L. Connelly, 2009. "Making the most of what you have: managerial ability as a source of resource value creation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 457-485, May.
    31. Kathleen R. Conner & C. K. Prahalad, 1996. "A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 477-501, October.
    32. Richard P. Rumelt, 1991. "How much does industry matter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 167-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    2. Manral, Lalit & Harrigan, Kathryn R., 2018. "The logic of demand-side diversification: Evidence from the US telecommunications sector, 1990–1996," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 127-141.
    3. Nicolaï Foss & Nils Stieglitz, 2012. "Modern Resource-based Theory(ies)," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Hutzschenreuter, Thomas & Horstkotte, Julian, 2013. "Managerial services and complexity in a firm’s expansion process: An empirical study of the impact on the growth of the firm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 137-151.
    5. Rietveld, G.J. & Eggers, J.P., 2016. "Demand Heterogeneity and the Adoption of Platform Complements," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2016-003-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. Sharma, Sunil, 2015. "Relevance of Resource Based View Themes for Capability Evolution," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-30, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    7. Foss, Nicolai J. & Klein, Peter G. & Kor, Yasemin Y. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2006. "Entrepreneurship, Subjectivism, and the Resource-Based View: Towards a New Synthesis," Working Papers 06-0121, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    8. Constance E. Helfat & Aseem Kaul & David J. Ketchen & Jay B. Barney & Olivier Chatain & Harbir Singh, 2023. "Renewing the resource‐based view: New contexts, new concepts, and new methods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1357-1390, June.
    9. Kraaijenbrink, Jeroen & Spender, JC & Groen, Aard, 2009. "The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques," MPRA Paper 21442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Gianluigi Giustiziero, 2021. "Is the division of labor limited by the extent of the market? Opportunity cost theory with evidence from the real estate brokerage industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 1344-1378, July.
    11. Aseem Kaul, 2013. "Entrepreneurial Action, Unique Assets, and Appropriation Risk: Firms as a Means of Appropriating Profit from Capability Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1765-1781, December.
    12. Louis Y. Y. Lu & John S. Liu, 2013. "An innovative approach to identify the knowledge diffusion path: the case of resource-based theory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 225-246, January.
    13. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    14. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    15. López Zapata, Esteban & García Muiña, Fernando Enrique & García, Susana María, 2019. "Analysing the relationship between diversification strategy and firm performance: the role of the economic cycle," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    16. Villalonga, Belen, 2004. "Intangible resources, Tobin's q, and sustainability of performance differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 205-230, June.
    17. Claude Crampes & Carole Haritchabalet & Bruno Jullien, 2009. "Advertising, Competition And Entry In Media Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 7-31, March.
    18. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    19. Der-Fang Hung, 2015. "Sustained Competitive Advantage and Organizational Inertia: The Cost Perspective of Knowledge Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 769-789, December.
    20. Wei, Tian & Clegg, Jeremy, 2014. "Successful integration of target firms in international acquisitions: A comparative study in the Medical Technology industry," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 237-255.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:23:y:2012:i:1:p:207-224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.