DruckerPeter F., “The Economy's Dark Continent,”Fortune (April 1962), pp. 103, 265–270.
2.
SternLouis W.SturdivantFrederick D., “Customer-Driven Distribution Systems,”Harvard Business Review (July/August 1987), p. 34.
3.
Arthur Anderson & Company, Inc., Future Trends in Wholesale Distribution (Washington, D.C.: Distribution Research and Education Foundation, 1983), p. 7.
4.
“Industry Markets Goods Through Dual Channels, Says McGraw-Hill Study,”Industrial Distribution (April 1985), p. 15.
5.
This approach to channel strategy ultimately goes back to the seminal work of CopelandMelvin T., “Relation of Consumers' Buying Habits to Marketing Methods,”Harvard Business Review (April 1923), pp. 282–289. Also influential have been AspinwallLeo P., “The Marketing Characteristics of Goods,” and BucklinLouis P., “Retail Strategy and Characteristics of Goods,” and BucklinLouis P., “Retail Strategy and the Classification of Consumer Goods,” both reprinted in editions of Marketing Classics, EnisBen M.CoxKeith K., eds., (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981).
6.
The seminal works here are of course those by WilliamsonOliver E., especially Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1975) and “The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach,”American Journal of Sociology, 87 (November 1981): 548–577. Among the more useful applications of Williamson's theory to specific channels decisions are AndersonErin M.WeitzBarton A., “A Framework for Analyzing Vertical Integration Issues in Marketing,” (Boston, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 1983), and JohnGeorge, “An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a Marketing Channel,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (August 1984): 278–289. In addition, by incorporating attention to technology and market structure, MossScott J., An Economic Theory of Business Strategy: An Essay in Dynamics Without Equilibrium (Oxford, England: Martin Robertson, 1981), provides an important but generally neglected supplement to Williamson's theory.
7.
WilliamsonOliver E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1987), p. 30.
8.
See, for example, McVeyPhilip, “Are Channels of Distribution What the Textbooks Say?”Journal of Marketing, 24 (January 1961): 61–65 and, years later, LambertDouglas M., The Distribution Channel Decision (New York, NY: National Association of Accountants, 1978), pp. 56–59.
9.
CespedesFrank V.KingJon E., “International Business Machines: Changes in Marketing Organization,”Harvard Business School Case Study (N9-588-037), p. 9.
10.
Ibid.
11.
A number of studies have found that firms are far more likely to introduce new products through their existing channels. See, for example, CoughlanAnne T.FlahertyM. Therese, “Measuring the International Marketing Productivity of U.S. Semiconductor Companies,” in GautschiDavid, ed., Productivity in Distribution (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1983); and DavidsonWilliam H.McFetridgeD.G., “Key Characteristics in the Choice of International Technology Transfer Mode,”Journal of International Business Studies, 11 (Summer 1985): 5–21.
12.
CavesRichard E.PorterMichael E., “From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91 (May 1977): 241–261.
13.
CespedesFrank V., “Westinghouse Electric Corporation: Control House,”Harvard Business School Case Study (9-587-161), p. 7.
14.
CespedesFrank V., “Alloy Rods Corporation,”Harvard Business School Case Study (9-586-046), p. 8.
15.
See CoreyE. Raymond, “The Role of Information and Communications Technology in Industrial Distribution,” in BuzzellRobert D., ed., Marketing in an Electronic Age (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1985), pp. 29–51.
16.
“International Business Machines: Changes in Marketing Organization,” op. cit., pp. 12–13.
17.
For documentation and discussion of this trend, see WebsterFrederick E.Jr., “Top Management's Concerns About Marketing: Issues for the 1980s,”Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer 1981): 9–16; and HopkinsDavid S.BaileyEarl L., Organizing Corporate Marketing (New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1984), Research Report #845.
18.
See NarusJ.A.AndersonJ.C., “Turn Your Industrial Distributors into Partners,”Harvard Business Review (March/April 1986), p. 67; and SternLouis W.El-AnsaryAdel I., Marketing Channels, 3rd edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988), pp. 240–248.
19.
For a more detailed discussion of distribution costs, see CoreyE.R.CespedesF.V.RanganV.K., Going to Market: Distribution Systems for Industrial Products (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, forthcoming), Chapter 4.
20.
See CespedesFrank V., “Control Versus Resources in Channel Design,”Industrial Marketing Management, 17 (August 1988): 215–227, for an analysis of the tradeoffs and managerial concerns inherent in these decisions.
21.
CespedesFrank V.RanganV. Kasturi, “Becton Dickinson & Company: VACUTAINER Systems Division,”Harvard Business School Case Study (9-587-085).
22.
PorterMichael E., Competitive Advantage (New York, NY: Free Press, 1985), p. 78.