competitive advantages (RBCAs) drive the success of relationment of the basic resources necessary to create competencies

Transcription

1 Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage: The Role of Relationship Marketing in Marketing Strategy Robert M. Morgan UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA Shelby Hunt TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Relationship marketing research to date has focused for the most part on overlook the sustainable competitive advantage that can be two sets of issues. First, what are the benefits of relationship marketing created through long-term relationships. Similarly, we sug- adoption? Second, how are marketing relationships built and maintained? gest, academics have neglected the search for explanations as Although these are important questions for researchers to address, we to how to create sustainable competitive advantages based believe an understanding of the strategic impact of relationship marketing on relationships. Therefore, it is important that relationship is equally important. We hold that relationship marketing should only be marketing scholars begin to theorize how competitive advan- adopted when it offers, or contributes to, a firm s competitive advantage a tages can be built through marketing relationships. competitive advantage that, it is hoped, proves sustainable. As a first step Although the strategy literature offers a variety of aptoward better understanding the strategic role of relationship marketing, proaches that might contribute to understanding RBCAs, readopting a resource-based approach, we first clarify the role that resources source-based theory (Conner, 1991; Penrose, 1959; Wer- gained through relationships may play in marketing relationships. Then nerfelt, 1984) is especially promising. In the creation of we isolate and discuss the various kinds of resources that might be gained sustainable competitive advantages, resource-based theory through relationships. Finally, we develop five propositions for assessing emphasizes the strategic importance of the firm s own re- the strategic worth of these resources in marketing relationships. J BUSN RES sources, which are defined as any entity, tangible or intangible, Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. that the firm has at its disposal to enable it to produce efficiently and/or effectively a market offering that has value for some market segment or segments (Hunt and Morgan, 1995, p. 6). Basic resources variously categorized as financial, legal, physical, human, organizational, informational, and Proponents of relationship marketing encourage firms to seek partners for long-term marketing relationships; relational (Barney, 1991; Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Hunt for example, focusing on customer retention rather and Morgan, 1995) are combined to create higher-order than customer capture (Kotler, 1991; Vavra, 1992). However, resources, or competencies, from which the firm can achieve it is clear that enthusiasm for relationship marketing should a competitive advantage (Foss, 1993; Hunt and Morgan; Lang- be tempered with concern for not only selecting appropriate lois and Robertson, 1995; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Teece partners, but also for engaging in relationships only when it and Pisano, 1994). Building on resource-based theory, schol- is expected that relationship marketing is consistent with the ars have examined the potential competitive advantage of firm s overall marketing strategy. In short, relationship mar- competencies built on a variety of foundational resources. keting should be practiced when it offers, or contributes to, In marketing specifically, competitive advantages in services a firm s strategy for achieving a competitive advantage a (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy, 1993) and market orienta- sustainable competitive advantage. These relationship-based tion (Hunt and Morgan, 1995) have been examined. competitive advantages (RBCAs) drive the success of relationment of the basic resources necessary to create competencies Problems arise, however, when the firm lacks a full comple- ship marketing. Indeed, as Ganesan (1994) notes, most firms and, through them, marketplace positions of competitive advantage. As Levine and White (1961) have noted, resources Address correspondence to Robert M. Morgan, Associate Professor of Mar- are often in scarce supply, creating the need for cooperative keting, Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College interorganizational exchange. Thus, organizations must acof Commerce and Business Administration, University of Alabama, P. O. Box , Tuscaloosa, AL , USA. quire the resources through purchases in the marketplace Journal of Business Research 46, (1999) 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN /99/$ see front matter 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY PII S (98)

2 282 J Busn Res R. M. Morgan and S. Hunt seek to avoid being controlled in exchange relations and that an organization s aversion to establishing interorganizational connections will be proportional to the loss of autonomy anticipated to result from relationship formation. Simply put, resource-dependence theory holds that firms enter relation- ships not only cautiously, but reluctantly, because they view relationships as liabilities and fear that participating in them will result in a loss of power in their own decision making. However, Oliver s empirical test failed to support this fundamental tenet of resource-dependence theory. Clearly, firms often enter relationships not reluctantly but optimistically. They realize that, strategically, to be more com- petitive, they must have access to valuable resources and that relationships often offer the best route to obtaining these resources. This strategic orientation toward resources, we argue, differentiates the resource-based theory approach to under- standing relationships from TCA in economics and resource- dependence theory. Treating resources strategically implies four managerial re- quirements. Resources must be: (1) efficiently acquired or developed; (2) combined skillfully to create complex re- sources; (3) deliberately applied to competitive situations; and (4) dutifully maintained and protected to ensure on-going availability (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy, 1993; Day and Wensley, 1988; Hunt and Morgan, 1995). Understanding each of these requirements is critical to furthering theory on the strategic nature of marketing relationships. Efficiently Acquiring or Developing Resources That Enhance Efficiency Hunt and Morgan (1995) hold that a comparative advantage in efficiency-enhancing resources is a major route to achieving a marketplace position of competitive advantage (see their Figure 1). As Barney (1986) notes, the financial performance of the firm depends upon the cost of implementing strategies as well as the returns enjoyed from those strategies. Similarly, for resources to result in a truly comparative advantage, the cost of acquiring them must be lower than the gains they impart. As Peteraf (1993) argues, this typically implies that competition for the resource is limited at the outset; limited because outcomes of employing the resource are uncertain, bringing about ex ante limits to competition. Efficiency of resource acquisition is often a motive for relationship formation. For example, Ford realized that by using a small network of suppliers in on-going relationships, resources could be acquired more efficiently than by purchasing components through multiple, short-term transactions or producing in- house components (Taylor, 1994). Combining Basic Resources to Create Complex Resources Outside of the relationship literature, several authors propose that critical to the process of deploying resources is how the (transactional exchange), the acquisition of firms having resources (vertical integration), creating or developing the resources internally, or through partnership with other organizations (relational exchange). Resource-based theory, therefore, can contribute to explaining the strategic nature of marketing relationships. Specifically, firms engage in relationships when compatible partners are identified whose complementary resources, when combined with their own resources, provide competitive advantages; that is, RBCAs. There are numerous examples of marketing resource and contexts wherein sharing resources might provide organizations with competitive advantage. For example, the retail outlets provided by a relationship partner, as in many international alliances, may allow a firm to achieve geographical coverage of critical markets that would not be readily available outside of the relationship. Building relationship marketing theory requires isolating the kinds of resources that can be secured through marketing relationships, determining the potential RBCAs, before assessing the sustainability of the individual RBCAs. Advantages are only sustainable to the extent that the resources that produce them cannot be purchased; that is, they are immobile, and/or they cannot be easily imitated, or substitutes cannot be found (Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989). This paper enhances our understanding of relationshipbased competitive advantages. Drawing on the expanding literature of relationship marketing, interorganizational relationship, and resource-based theories, we first clarify the strategic role of resources in marketing s cooperative relationships relationships characterized by commitment and trust. We then isolate and discuss the potential resources to be gained from such relationships and their contribution to the efficiency and effectiveness of participating firms. Finally, we develop five propositions for assessing the strategic worth of these resources in marketing relationships. Strategic Role of Resources in Marketing Relationships Theoretical discussions of interorganizational relationships and resources often focus on transaction cost analysis (TCA) or resource-dependence theory. For example, transaction cost theory holds that idiosyncratic investments; that is, resources whose value is relationship specific, necessarily risk opportu- nistic behavior (Williamson, 1975). Because TCA assumes universal opportunism, this negative view of the effects of sharing valuable resources has been criticized by organizational scholars as guilt by axiom, at worst, or misguided, at best (Donaldson, 1990; Ghoshal and Moran, 1996; Hill, 1990). Likewise, in resource-dependence theory, resources are seen to provide their owners with power and control (Achrol and Stern, 1988; Aldrich, 1979; Frazier, 1983a,b; Pfeffer, 1981). As Oliver (1991, p. 943) notes, resource dependence theorists, in particular, propose that organizations

3 Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage J Busn Res 283 firm combines its assortment of crucial resources to achieve when attempting to establish competitive advantage through superior capabilities. For example, Hofer and Schendel (1978, implementation and practice of Efficient Consumer Response p. 25) contend that, in addition to the scope of its operations, programs (Fiorito, May, and Straughn, 1995). a firm s competitive advantages depend upon the levels and patterns of deployment of its resources and skills. They label Maintaining and Protecting Resources these patterns of deployment distinctive competencies. Similarly, Prahalad and Hamel (1990) point to core competencies, Dierickx and Cool (1989) liken resources and resource main- the combination of resources, as the immediate precursor of tenance to a draining bath tub with flowing faucets. As a competitive advantages. Fiol (1991, p. 191) notes that comflows to maintain the firm s stock of the resource. If the re- resource is used, it must constantly be replaced with new petency thus encompasses more than a firm s stock of tangible assets. It encompasses the cognitive processes by which the source stock is allowed to be exhausted before new flows of stock is understood and translated into action. Reed and the resource are introduced into the system, the organization DeFillippi (1990, p. 89) review the conceptualization of comthe may find that insufficient levels of the resource exist to enjoy petency by several authors and conclude that two consistencstocks previously held advantage. Because the creation of resource ies could be noted throughout: (1) the source of a competency is often time dependent, resource stocks must be mainies is always internal to the firm; (2) competency is produced by tained over time not allowed to become exhausted before the way a firm utilizes its internal skills and resources relative efforts to refresh the stocks are initiated. Therefore, organizato the competition. Reed and DeFillippi s internal thesis is tions must continuously reinvest in the resources that it antici- too narrow, we argue. pates will best serve its strategy (Peteraf, 1993). The implica- It is certainly the case that simply accumulating valuable tion for resources gained through relationships is clear. asset stocks is insufficient to ensure a competitive advantage. Because resource-sharing relationships relationships charac- Indeed, competitive advantages are realized only when the terized by commitment, trust, and cooperation take time to firm combines assortments of basic resources in such a way build (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), they must maintain timely that they achieve a unique competency or capability that is access to the resources they offer. valued in the marketplace. Furthermore, the value that this capability provides puts the firm in a competitive positional advantage. However, mountains of anecdotal evidence point Types of Resources Gained in to the fact that these resources are not necessarily internal to the firm as internal is traditionally conceived. Rather, Marketing Relationships when firms have access to external resources through partner- What types of resources can be shared and exchanged in ships, such resources can be combined with the firm s internal relationships? Based on the works of Alderson (1957), Barney resources to produce a competency that results in a competi- (1991), Day (1990), and Hofer and Schendel (1978), Hunt tive advantage (Gummesson, 1994). and Morgan (1995) suggest that the resources of the firm can be categorized as financial, legal, physical, human, organiza- Positioning Resource Advantages in tional, relational, and informational. Building on that scheme, Competitive Situations we specify further how such resources might be shared and Hunt and Morgan (1995, p. 8) note, Sustained, superior exchanged in marketing s various interorganizational relationfinancial performance occurs only when a firm s comparative ships. Our aim is to demonstrate the role of relationship advantage in resources continues to yield a position of compet- marketing in furthering the strategic efforts of the firm; that itive advantage despite the actions of competitors. If the firm is, in providing the firm with superior, efficient access to a enjoys a comparative advantage in resources over its competi- broad variety of needed resources. tors, but its managers lack the ability to apply that advantage toward a position of competitive advantage, resources are Financial Resources wasted. The situation is further confounded by the fact that the value of a particular resource is often specific to a market Financial resources are the capitalization that the firm has at segment (Hunt and Morgan, 1995). As Collis and Montgomery its disposal. It may exist as cash reserves or as cash available (1995) note, unique capabilities that yield an advantage in through stock issues, loans, bonds, and other financial instruone product market may be of little use in another, despite ments (Hofer and Schendel, 1978). The need for financial having the rareness characteristic identified by Barney resources of other firms is a common driver of many marketing (1991). As with most resource issues, this task of competitive relationships, but it is clearly one of the main drivers of franpositioning becomes even more complex when the efforts of chising decisions. McDonald s enjoys a clear advantage multiple firms must be coordinated. For example, members through the financial strength of its over 9,000 outlets whose of supply chains in the food industry have repeatedly experienced prosperity is owed, in large part, to the brand equity of the the frustrations that this level of coordination requires McDonald s brand, an organizational resource.

4 284 J Busn Res R. M. Morgan and S. Hunt Legal Resources Legal resources are those assets the firm uniquely possesses because of governmental statute or a legally binding agreement between the firm and another party (Alderson, 1965). In- cluded among the firm s legal resources would be contracts, exclusionary licenses, and entitlements. In marketing, licenses to rare and unique assets, such as innovative products, are resources derived from relationships. In such a partnership, licensing allows one firm to gain initial access to a foreign market that would otherwise be difficult to penetrate (Cateora, 1993). In return, the foreign partner receives a valuable addition to its product line which improves its performance. Physical Resources Physical resources are the tangible assets, other than labor and cash, that are used by the firm to produce and market goods and services. Physical resources include raw materials reserves, machinery, land, and production, storage, distribution, service, and retailing facilities (Alderson, 1957; Barney, 1991; Day, 1994; Hofer and Schendel, 1978). In marketing, physical resources help drive manufacturers distribution decisions, where retailers geographical coverage and infrastructure are key. Human Resources Human resources encompass the skills, knowledge, and vision of the firm s employees (Barney, 1991; Day, 1994; Hofer and Schendel, 1978). The selling skills, responsiveness, and breadth of coverage of the sales force, and the ability of marketers to manage their markets can be extremely important among manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers in their relationships with one another. These characteristics drive which manufacturers products are stocked, what trade allowances are offered, and which retailers will be given the opportunity to carry products in heavy demand. Organizational Resources Organizational resources are the assets the firm possesses that arise from the organization itself, chief among these are the corporate culture and climate, the organization s structure, valued brand names, and the administrative history of the firm. Culture is important, because it affects decision making, learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985), and social behavior within the organization. Other organizational resources include the organizational routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) and sys- tematic processes that the firm acquires or develops that are applied to the various functions of the firm, such as extraction or acquisition of raw materials, production of goods and services, strategic planning, or acquiring, storing, and communi- cating information (Collis and Montgomery, 1995). Teece and Pisano (1994) call attention to organizational competencies that enable organizational metamorphosis the ability to re- spond rapidly to changes in the environment. In a relationship marketing context, comarketing relationships might arise because one partner wants the other s expertise at new product development or production processes superior to their s (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Matthyssens and Van den Bulte, 1994). In retailing, a manufacturer s unique resources, such as high demand, innovative products, brand loyalty, or quality in prod- uct design, lead to retailers advances at establishing exclusive relationships to obtain those resources (Ganesan, 1994). Relational Resources Relational resources consist of the relationships: (1) between various constituencies within the organization; and (2) between the organization and its various external partners. For example, in the U.S. automobile industry, manufacturers realize the value of the relationships their dealers have with con- sumers. Dealers relational resources translate into information resources that manufacturers hope to acquire (Brandweek, 1995). In return, some automobile dealers benefit from the relationships their manufacturers have with their employees; for example, Saturn (Aaker, 1994). More commonly, marketers contemplating entry into unfamiliar markets seek relation- ships with others who are more experienced in those markets. Drawing on these partners existing relationships with consumers enhances success in new market entry (Varadarajan and Cunningham, 1995). These relationships including retailers with consumers, wholesalers with retailers, and manufacturers with employees offer unique, value-adding resources to the fortunate firms whose partners secure them (Quinn, 1992; Powell, 1990; Sethuraman, Anderson, and Narus, 1988). Informational Resources Although the knowledge held by individuals is a part of human resources, the collective knowledge of the organization and the processes developed for inducing organizational learning comprise much of a firm s informational resources (Child, 1987; Doz and Prahalad, 1991; Drucker, 1993; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). The importance of this last category to the success of the organization is felt no more powerfully than it is in marketing, where the on-going collection of information and knowledge of markets (customers and competitors) is crucial (Slater and Narver, 1995). Efficient consumer re- sponse, electronic data interchange, just-in-time distribution, and category management depend upon a devotion by market- ers to building this resource and building partnerships with others so to do. By combining their resources with those gained and shared in marketing relationships, organizations can build comparative advantages that, when used properly, result in marketplace positions of competitive advantages for the firm. To the extent that these advantages are sustainable, the organization can enjoy tremendous gains by means of relationships.

5 Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage J Busn Res 285 Table 1. Requirements of Resources to Provide Sustainable Advantage Critical Requirement Explanation Authors Efficiency/effectiveness The resources must continue to contribute to the firm s ability to ef- Hunt and Morgan (1995) ficiently/effectively produce valued market offerings for some market segment(s) Heterogeneity Central to the resource-based view, heterogeneity acknowledges that Barney (1991), Hunt and firms differ significantly in the resources that are at their dis- Morgan (1995), posal; this heterogeneity arises from limited availability of these Peteraf (1993) assets: although some are abundant, others are relatively rare Imperfectly imitable Resources should be difficult for competitors to imitate; this charac- Alderson (1965, p. 205), teristic typically arises from the nature of the process required to Barney (1991), create the assets Dierickx and Cool (1989), Peteraf (1993) Imperfect substitutability It should be difficult to find replacements for resources Barney (1991), Dierickx and Cool (1989), Peteraf (1993) Imperfect mobility Critical strategic assets must have limited tradeability among com- Collis (1991), Dierickx petitors in the marketplace and Cool (1989), Peteraf (1993) Sustainability of Relationship-Based Competitive Advantages: Critical the same resources (Collis, 1991; Hunt and Morgan, 1995), Requirements of Resources the resource-based view recognizes that this is not the case. Because firms have a multitude of resources, obtaining a com- plete inventory is likely to be difficult for those responsible for developing strategy. Nevertheless, as the resource-based approach to analyzing sustainable competitive advantage has progressed, theory has focused on developing a framework for determining those that are crucial to achieving a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Peteraf, 1993). Although no consensus has been reached as to which of these frameworks is most appropriate, a synthesis of their various components shows several common features. Such a synthesis is shown in Table 1. resource-based view. Unlike traditional industrial organization economics, which assumes that all firms have access to Because resources are only available in limited supply, advantages accrue to firms able to acquire them (Peteraf). Studying relationship marketing, Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that the benefits and termination costs that firms attribute to spe- cific relationships led to cooperation, commitment, and other positive outcomes. We maintain that an appreciation of these benefits and termination costs arise from the firm s assessment that the resources it gains from particular relationships are either unique, or, at the minimum, would be difficult to find elsewhere. Therefore, RBCAs should be highly sustainable and valuable when built on resources that: (1) are unique; (2) gained through relationships with partners who are unique in owning them; or (3) are unique in combination with partners resources. Efficiency/Effectiveness Resources should not only be acquired at an efficiency-enabling price (Peteraf, 1993), resources must continue to contribute to Imperfectly Imitable the firm s ability to efficiently/effectively produce valued market To have continued value, competitive advantages must be offerings for some market segment(s). As Hunt and Morgan sustainable. Sustainability becomes problematic when the re- (1995) note in the case of IBM and their reputation for life- sources that are used to create them are easily subject to long employment, resources that once afforded the firm efficient imitation or substitution by competitors. Factors that limit and/or effective performance often may become a strategic hin- imitation and substitution include: (1) causal ambiguity; (2) drance or, even a contraresource. IBM found that their policy producer learning; (3) buyer costs switching; (4) reputation; of job security which fostered employee loyalty and resulted (5) buyer search costs; (6) channel crowding; (7) economies in strong, productive relationships over time was transformed of scale; (8) unique historic conditions; (9) social complexity; an expected entitlement (Hays, 1994). (10) time compression diseconomies; (11) asset mass efficiencies; Heterogeneity (12) interconnectedness of asset stocks; and (13) asset erosion. Certainly, we can easily see how many of these conditions especially Identified by Peteraf (1993, p. 186) as the sine-qua-non economies of scale, social complexity, and of competitive advantage, heterogeneity is the heart of the time compression diseconomies might apply to resources

6 286 J Busn Res R. M. Morgan and S. Hunt gained in marketing relationships. However, causal ambiguity those that are the least mobile, such as dealer loyalty, trust, is especially pertinent. reputation, and R&D capability. Collis (1991) and Peteraf Causal ambiguity results when it is unclear how a firm s (1993) see immobility as the most valuable characteristic, competitive advantage was achieved. Typically, causal ambi- because of the time and cost required to accumulate such guity is used to refer to this lack of clarity on the part of resources. Competitive advantages gained through relationcompetitors, but as Reed and DeFillippi (1990) note, causal ships with other organizations are especially immobile, beambiguity may be so extreme in some cases that even the firm cause the resources involved are often either: (1) idiosyncratic, that possesses the competitive advantage may be unaware offering little or no value outside of the relationship in quesof its source. Arguably, competitive advantages arising from tion; or (2) co-specialized resources combinations of recompetencies that are causally ambiguous are the most secure, sources that are co-dependent (Peteraf). inimitable advantages that a firm can possess. Organizational learning is an example of a causally ambiguous, highly valuable competitive advantage. Strategists often argue that economies Propositions for Evaluating of scope and the organizational learning that accompanies Shared Resources participation in a broad scope of businesses stimulates organizational learning. Similarly, we argue, such learning benefits Once we have established a valid, rigorous classificational accrue to firms that are involved in true relationships with scheme of firm resources and a framework for analyzing those others. resources, we can postulate which resources in general offer Causal ambiguity derives in large part from complexity. firms the best opportunity for achieving sustainable competi- Observing the complexities of relationships Gummesson tive advantage. Therefore, our discussion now turns to an (1994) notes, a network business requires continuous cre- analysis of the scheme using the framework developed above. ation, transformation, and maintenance of networks. Contin- Table 2 offers examples of relationship marketing situations uing with the notion of network, rather than simple, dyadic in which RBCAs might arise from particular categories of relationships, Anderson, Håkakansson, and Johanson (1994) resources, alone or in combination with other basic resources. demonstrate that often it is not the firm s own resources, but In addition, the table provides a summary of our evaluation, those of its network partners, that make it an attractive partner. forming the basis for the propositions listed below. It is impor- As our conceptualization of relationships moves from dyads tant to realize that it is uncommon for RBCAs, as with competito networks, tracing the transfer of resources between partners tive advantages in general, to arise from a single resource. becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. In relation- Rather, RBCAs most often are created by bundling many differships, business experiences are shared, friendly suggestions ent types of resources across relationships as the combinaare made, and it is unlikely that outside observers or particitions become more complicated, the ability of competitors to pants will be able to trace or replicate this process outside of purchase, imitate, invent around, or substitute for those the specific relationship; that is, the process is laden with RBCAs diminishes. causal ambiguity. Imperfect Substitutability Financial Resources To remain sources of sustainable competitive advantage, rethat Financial resources are difficult to duplicate only to the degree sources also must not be subject to substitution by other it is rare for competitors to have significant access to resources. As Barney (1991) notes, such substitutes may be funds. Financial resources can be imitated by competitors similar or dissimilar. For example, in the early 1980s, the healthy enough to acquire debt or equity. For many uses of distribution channels for personal computers were effectively capital, competitors can substitute other means to the ends locked up by such large, established manufacturers as IBM, that financial resources would provide, thorough out-sourcing Tandy, and Compaq. Michael Dell, founder of PC s Limited or leasing. Financial resources are mobile, because they can (later known as Dell Computer), who had been unsuccessful be obtained in the marketplace by trading other resources. at gaining access to traditional retail outlets, developed a mail This reasoning holds in relationships also. Hagedoorn (1993) order channel for selling his merchandise; thereby, substitut- found that among strategic alliances in high technology indusing one resource for another. When the source of these re- tries, financial resources were the least common motivation sources is (are) relationship(s), substitution becomes unlikely for alliance formation. In the case of franchising, it is unlikely as the size and complexity of the resource combinations in- that a competitor, with a similarly valuable business concept, creases. would be unable to secure the financial support of franchisees Imperfect Mobility as well. Therefore, we posit that relationships formed to acquire financial resources are unlikely to result in a sustainable As Dierickx and Cool (1989) note, strategic resources must be nontradeable. Perhaps the most valuable resources are competitive advantage, because of financial resources lack of heterogeneity.

7 Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage J Busn Res 287 Table 2. Evaluation of Resources Potentially Gained in Cooperative Relationships Resource Examples of Relationship Marketing Applications Resource Evaluation Under Critical Requirements Financial Franchising Limited potential as source of RBCA because of wide availability Legal Licensing complementary products Limited potential as source of RBCA because of imitability, substitutability, and limited longevity Physical Distribution decisions; use of manufacturer s excess Limited potential as source of RBCA because of superiorcapacity for private label goods ity of substitute competencies based on combinations of more complex resources Human Merchandise selection; distribution decisions Moderate potential as source of RBCA sustainability is limited by mobility Organizational High-quality customer service driving choices of High potential as source of RBCA because of the ambigpartners for foreign market entry uity and time dependence of their creation Relational Retailers relationships with ultimate customers High potential as source of RBCA resulting from time driving manufacturers choice of retailers for dependence of their creation, coupled with perceived their products ambiguity Informational Foreign market entry partnering decisions; manufac- High potential as a source of RBCA because of the complexturers relationships with Electronic Data Inter- ity of the resource mix required to build unique stocks change (EDI) and Efficient Consumer Response and flows of information (ECR) partnering retailers and wholesalers both partners that are limited only to financial, legal, and physical resources, will generally be unsustainable and will offer little potential for RBCAs. P2: In interfirm relationships, comparative advantages cre- ated from combinations of resources of both partners that include financial, legal, and physical resources, will be more sustainable and offer greater potential for RBCAs when they include human, organizational, relational, and informational resources. Human Resources The focus of much research concerning the resource-based view within the management area is the value of managerial skills in creating a sustainable competitive advantage (Castan- ias and Helfat, 1991). Managerial skills are valuable, because they can be substituted for so many other resources. However, as with scientists, engineers, and technicians, managers and sales personnel can be bought away from the firm. The breadth of coverage of a sales force, whose services are enjoyed by relationship partners, is unsustainable to the extent that a competitor may have the financial resources to develop their own sales force and hire away sales manager. We propose that RBCAs gained through a partner s human resources are moderately sustainable. P3: In interfirm relationships, comparative advantages created singly or from combinations of resources of both partners that are limited to human resources only, will generally be moderately sustainable and offer moderate potential for RBCAs. P4: In interfirm relationships, comparative advantages created from combinations of resources of both partners that include human resources, will be more sustainable Legal Resources The sustainability of advantages derived from contracts and licenses is limited to: (1) the amount of time the contract or licence allows for; or (2) the amount of time required before the contract or the licensed assets can be invented around. The most common legal resource gained in marketing relationships is a license to a valuable product. However, such relationships are commonly initiated with a finite relationship duration in mind, by definition lending limited sustainability to the competitive advantage gained. Moreover, licensing is only one of many ways that firms can enter new markets, lending to the potential for substitutes. Finally, it is uncommon that others could not imitate such a resource. Therefore, we posit that relationships formed to gain legal resources will not enjoy sustainable RBCAs. Physical Resources Land, factories, and other physical resources acquired through relationships are also rarely the basis for sustainable competi- tive advantages. Although geographic location can be a distinct advantage in specific markets, given the lack of geographic barriers to other markets, alternative locations of equal value are quite common. Moreover, through such means as elec- tronic commerce and direct marketing, spatial advantages that derive from locations of outlets are rapidly becoming diminished; a complex combination of organizational and informational resources (e.g., a direct distribution system) is substituted for a simpler physical resource (e.g., an established retail network). Therefore, we maintain that relationships initiated to gain physical resources will not commonly result in sustainable RBCAs. P1: In interfirm relationships, comparative advantages created singly or from combinations of resources of

8 288 J Busn Res R. M. Morgan and S. Hunt both partners that arise from organizational, relational, or informational resources, will be highly sus- tainable and will offer the highest potential for RBCAs. and offer greater potential for RBCAs when they include organizational, relational, and informational resources. Unfortunately, research into the strategic implications of rela- tionship marketing has been largely neglected; therefore, little direction can be offered to managers concerned with the long- term, strategic impact of their firms adoption of relationship marketing. Although strategy research in relationship market- ing is greatly needed, initial efforts in relationship marketing strategy, as with any scientific endeavor, must include identifying and classifying the subject matter, establishing frame- works, and developing basic research propositions (Hunt, 1991). Attempting to initiate those efforts, we adopt Hunt and Morgan s (1995) classification scheme of firm resources, we draw upon literature from resource-based theory to establish a framework for analyzing combinations of those resources, and we develop an initial set of research propositions for relationship marketing strategy. We began our discussion by warning that relationship mar- keting should be adopted only when it offers, or contributes to, a firm s competitive advantage. As a word of caution, therefore, it is important to mention two potential paths to relationship marketing misadventures. First, managers are cautioned to avoid allowing relationship-based resources from becoming a strategic hindrance (Barney, 1991). This in- cludes situations where resources acquired through relationships become a strategic hindrance by leading the firm to make poor decisions regarding investments or courses of action. For example, enjoying access to markets gained through a relationship partner may lull an organization into compla- cency and prevent the firm from searching out new markets for its products on its own. When the long-term costs of existing relationships, and the resources shared in those rela- tionships, outweigh the long-term benefits, we argue that relationship marketing theory urges managers to assess how the relationship can be salvaged. When salvaging the relationship is not in the long-term best interest of all parties, efforts must be taken to dissolve the relationship in such a way that minimizes harm to all partners. Second, despite the resource benefits that can be derived from relationship marketing, managers should avoid allowing exchanges to become nonreciprocal, resulting in an assymetri- cal dependence upon the relationship for resources (Anderson and Weitz, 1989). Ganesan (1994) argues that assymetrical dependence allows the more powerful party to take advantage of the dependent partner. Alternatively, D Souza, Morgan, and Zhao, (1997), in a study of joint ventures, found that the unreciprocal contribution of resources the source of assyme- trical dependence leads to relationship failure through erosion of relationship commitment among the more resource-endowed partners. When relationships fail, both partners will lose. Organizational Resources Proprietary technologies, often gained through organizational learning, are typically more sustainable than financial, legal, and physical resources because of the ambiguity and time dependence associated with their development. For example, new product development or strategic planning superiority may arise from a host of factors, all of which are not apparent to the holder of the superior resource, not to mention outside observers. We hold that RBCAs gained through the organizational resources of partners including organizational culture and routines, valuable brands, and quality control systems are highly sustainable, because they are often imperfectly imi- table, imperfectly substitutable, and highly immobile. Relational Resources Hagedoorn (1993) found that potential partners access to markets was the single most common motivation for strategic alliances in high technology sectors of business. Firms having long-standing relationships with customers especially rela- tionships characterized by trust, commitment, and loyalty in attractive markets become very desirable relationship partners because of this resource they hold. Access to customers gained through marketing relationships can be largely sustainable when the firm holding the relationships with those customers has built the relationships on trust and commitment, or loy- alty. As Dierickx and Cool (1989) note, intangible relationship assets, such as trust, are valuable, advantage-sustaining resources, because they are cultivated only over long periods of time and cannot be stolen away. Day and Wensley (1988), in fact, proposed that loyalty may be the best measure of competitive advantage in marketing contexts. We maintain that RBCAs gained through partners relationship resources will be highly sustainable. Informational Resources A firm s inventory of informational resources is based largely on its ability to learn. As the foundation of informational resources, organizational learning, then, imparts strong sustainability to these assets. In fact, many observers suggest that organizational learning may be the only competitive advantage open to a firm in the future (McKee, 1992). Information is highly perishable, but the systems that organizations develop to gather, disseminate, and apply information all complex, difficult to imitate informational resources perpetuate the possession of valuable information and knowledge. We posit that RBCAs built on partners informational resources will be highly sustainable. P5: In interfirm relationships, comparative advantages created singly or from combinations of resources of Conclusions

9 Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage J Busn Res 289 Relationship marketing is becoming increasingly important Conner, Kathleen R.: A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based to the overall marketing strategy of many firms. Crucial to Theory and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial Organiza- tion Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? Journal understanding this role is to recognize: (1) the resources of Management 17 (1991): needed from the gained through marketing relationships; (2) Day, George S.: Market-Driven Strategy, Free Press, New York the suitability of various partners from economic, strategic, Day, George S.: The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. and social perspectives; and (3) the sustainability of advan- Journal of Marketing 58 (October 1994): tages that arise when relationship marketing strategies, based Day, George S., and Wensley, Robin: Assessing Advantage: A Frameon specific resources, are pursued. The bulk of current rework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority. Journal of Marketing search in relationship marketing focuses on portions of this 52 (April 1988): second component. It is hoped that this paper will call atten- Dierickx, Ingemar, and Cool, Karel: Asset Stock Accumulation and tion to those issues that remain, so that a better understanding Sustainability of Competitive Advantages. Management Science 35 of the role of relationship marketing in the firm s marketing (December 1989): strategy might be gained. Donaldson, Lex: The Ethereal Hand: Organization Economics and Management Theory. Academy of Management Journal 15 (1990): References Aaker, David A.: Building a Brand: The Saturn Story. California Doz, Yves L., and Prahalad, C.K.: Managing Dmncs: a Search for a Management Review (Winter 1994): New Paradigm. Strategic Management Journal 12 (1991): Achrol, Ravi, and Stern, Louis W.: Environmental Determinants of Drucker, Peter F.: Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins, New York. Decision-Making Uncertainty in Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (February 1988): D Souza, Giles, Morgan, Robert M., and Zhao, Liming: Investigating Alderson, Wroe: Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Function- the Effects of Social Factors on the Decision to Continue or alist Approach to Marketing Theory, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homeof Terminate On-Going Joint Ventures. Working paper, University wood, IL Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. (1997). Alderson, Wroe: Dynamic Marketing Behavior: A Functionalist Theory Fiol, C. Marlene, and Lyles, Marjorie A.: Organizational Learning. of Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL Academy of Management Review 10 (1985): Aldrich, Howard E.: Organizations and Environments, Prentice Hall, Fiol, C., Marlene: Managing Culture as a Competitive Advantage: Englewood Cliffs, NJ An Identity-Based View of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Anderson, Erin, and Weitz, Barton A.: Determinants of Continuity Journal of Management 17 (1991): in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads. Marketing Science 8 Fiorito, Susan S., May, Eleanor G., and Straughn, Katherine: Quick (Fall 1989): Response in Retailing: Components and Implementation. Interna- Anderson, James C., Håkansson, Håkan, and Johanson, Jan: Dyadic tional Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 23 (1995): Business Relationships Within a Business Network Context. Journal of Marketing 58 (October 1994): Barney, Jay: Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Management Science 42 (1986): Barney, Jay: Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1991): Bharadwaj, Sundar G., Varadarajan, P. Rajan, and Fahy, John: Sus- tainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions. Journal of Marketing 57 (October 1993): Brandweek, Maintaining Momentum. (January 2, 1995): Bucklin, Louis P., and Sengupta, Sanjit: Organizing Successful Co- Marketing Alliances. Journal of Marketing 57 (April 1993): Castanias, Richard P., and Helfat, Constance E.: Managerial Resources and Rents. Journal of Management 17 (1991): Cateora, Philip R.: International Marketing, 8th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Burr Ridge, IL Child, John: Information Technology, Organization, and the Re- sponse to Strategic Challenges. California Management Review 30 (1987): Collis, David J.: A Resource-Based Analysis of Global Competition: The Case of the Bearings Industry. Strategic Management Journal 12 (1991): Collis, David J, and Montgomery, Cynthia A.: Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review (July Foss, Nicolai J.: Theories of the Firm: Contractual and Competence Perspectives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 3 (1993): Frazier, Gary L.: Interorganizational Exchange Behavior in Marketing Channels: A Broadened Perspective. Journal of Marketing 47 (Fall 1983a): Frazier, Gary L.: On the Measurement of Interfirm Power in Channels of Distribution. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (May 1983b): Ganesan, Shankar: Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer- Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing 58 (April 1994): Ghoshal, Sumantra, and Moran, Peter: Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory. Academy of Management Review 21 (1996): Gummesson, Evert: Is Relationship Marketing Operational? Paper presented at the 23rd EMAC Conference, Marketing: Its Dynamics and Challenges, Maastricht, The Netherlands. May Hagedoorn, John: Understanding the Rationale of Strategic Technology Partnering: Interorganizational Modes of Cooperation and Sectoral Differences. Strategic Management Journal 14, (1993): Hays, L.: Blue Period: Gerstner is Struggling as He Tries To Change Ingrained IBM Culture. Wall Street Journal (May 13, 1994): A5. Hill, C.W.L.: Cooperation, Opportunism, and the Invisible Hand: Implications for Transaction Cost Theory. Academy of Management August 1995): Review 15 (1990):

10 290 J Busn Res R. M. Morgan and S. Hunt Hofer, Charles W., and Schendel, Dan: Strategic Formulation: Analyti- Pfeffer, Jeffrey: Power in Organizations, Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, cal Concepts, West Publishing, St. Paul, MN MA Hunt, Shelby D.: Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosof Organization, in Research in Organizational Behavior, Barry M Powell, Walter W.: Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms ophy of Marketing Science, Southwestern, Cincinnati, OH Staw, and L. L. Cummings (eds.), vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, Hunt, Shelby D., and Morgan, Robert M.: The Comparative Advan- CT tage Theory of Competition. Journal of Marketing 59 (April 1995): Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, Gary: The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review (May June 990): Kotler, Philip: Paper Presented at the trustees meeting of the Market- Quinn, James Brian: Intelligent Enterprise, The Free Press, New York. ing Science Institute, November 1990, Boston, referred to in Marketing Science Institute Review (Spring 1991). Reed, Richard, and DeFillippi, Robert J.: Causal Ambiguity, Barriers Langlois, Richard N., and Robertson, P.L.: Firms, Markets, and Eco- to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Academy nomic Change: A Dynamic Theory of Business Institutions, Routledge, of Management Review 15 (1990): London Sethuraman, Rajagopalan, Anderson, James C., and Narus, James A.: Levine, S., and White, P. E.: Exchange as a Conceptual Framework Partnership Advantage and Its Determinants in Distributor and for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships. Administrative Manufacturer Working Relationships. Journal of Business Research Science Quarterly 5 (1961): (1988): Sheth, Jagdish N., and Parvatiyar, Atul: Relationship Marketing in Matthyssens, Paul and Van den Bulte, Christophe: Getting Closer Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of and Nicer: Partnerships in the Supply Chain. Long-Range Planning the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (1995), (1994): Slater, Stanley F., and Narver, John C.: Market Orientation and McKee, Daryl: An Organizational Learning Approach to Product the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing 59 (July 1995): Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9 (1992): Taylor, A.: The Auto Industry Meets the New Economy. Fortune Morgan, Robert M., and Hunt, Shelby D.: The Commitment Trust (September 5, 1994). Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (July Teece, David, and Pisano, P.: The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms. 1994): Industrial and Corporate Change 3 (1994): Nelson, Richard R., and Winter, Sidney: An Evolutionary Theory of Varadarajan, P. Rajan, and Cunninghma, M. H.: Strategic Alliances: Economic Change, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (1995): Oliver, Christine: Network Relations and Loss of Organizational Autonomy. Human Relations 44 (1991): Vavra, Terry G.: Aftermarketing: How to Keep Customers for Life Through Relationship Marketing, Business One Irwin, Burr Ridge, Penrose, Edith T.: The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New IL York Wernerfelt, Berger: A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Peteraf, Margaret A.: The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: Management Journal 5 (1984): A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 14, (1993): Williamson, Oliver E.: Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press, New York