Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The antecedents and consequences of manufacturer–distributor cooperation: an empirical test in the U.S. and Japan

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We develop a conceptual model for studying the antecedents and consequences of achieved and optimal levels of manufacturer–distributor (M–D) cooperation. We hypothesized that levels of market turbulence, competitive intensity, and the manufacturing firm’s strategic type (i.e., prospector, analyzer, or defender) affected the optimal level of M–D cooperation. We also hypothesized that the level of under- and overachieving the optimal levels of cooperation negatively affects firm performance. The conceptual model is tested using empirical data collected from 295 manufacturing firms in the U.S. and validated using data collected from 104 distributors in the U.S. We also collect data from 255 Japanese manufacturing firms and 98 Japanese distributors. The empirical results support the model’s hypotheses with only one unexpected finding: in the Japanese sample, overachieving the optimal level of cooperation has a greater negative effect on performance than underachieving. We conclude by discussing theoretical and managerial implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Field interviews with managers from the U.S. and Japan confirmed the managerial relevance and importance of our study. We also used these interviews to complement our theoretical development and to pretest our research instruments.

  2. Industries included: food products, textiles, furniture, paper and allied products, chemicals, printing, electronics, rubber and plastic, metal, mechanical, industrial machinery and equipment, transportation, telecommunication equipment, and instrument related products.

  3. The Japan coefficients were obtained by adding the dummy variable effects. For prospectors, the Japan coefficient is PROSPECTOR + PROSPECTOR*C, or 2.08−0.78 = 1.30. The other coefficients are similarly calculated.

  4. Note: we ran the same analyses using ROS and ROA as performance measures, and the results were similar to those found for ROI; these results are available upon request.

  5. As shown in Table 4, the overfit coefficient for Japan is the coefficient for LOG_OVERFIT + the coefficient for LOG_OVERFIT*C, or −2.01 + (−1.69) = −3.70. Similarly, the underfit coefficient for Japan is LOG_UNDERFIT + LPG_UNDERFIT*C = −1.41 + (−0.07) = −1.48.

  6. The Table 3(a)"" coefficients are interpreted as follows. The trust effect for each country is taken as the sum of the Trust coefficient plus the Trust*C coefficient. For the U.S., this is (0.13 + 0), and for Japan this is (0.13 + 0.24). Since both coefficients are significant, it indicates that trust is significantly related to achieved level of cooperation for both countries, but the effect is higher in Japan since the interaction term is significant. The same interpretation holds for the other independent variables.

  7. We thank a reviewer for this insightful comment, and for many other helpful suggestions throughout the concluding sections of this paper.

References

  • Alpert, F., Kamins, M., Sakano, T., Onzo, N., & Graham, J. (1995). A study of japanese retail buyer decision making, with implications for U.S. sellers. International Business Review, 6(2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. E. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42–58 (January).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsey, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, J. M., & Walker, Jr. O. C. (2004). Selecting influential business-to-business customers in new product development: Relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, L. (1992). Vertical trade relationships: The role of dependence and symmetry in attaining organizational goals. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectation and norms in models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, Jr. W. D. (1999). Buyer–seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 439–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. L. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, G. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica, 28, 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. S., Mokwa, M. P., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1983). Marketing theory with a strategic orientation. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C. A., Jedidi, K., & Song, M. (2006). A constrained latent structure multivariate regression methodology for empirically deriving strategic types. Management Science, 52(6), 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C. A., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the miles and snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1983a). Examining performance of U.S. multinationals in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 51–62 (Winter).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1983b). International marketing research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2006). On improving the conceptual foundations of international marketing research. Journal of International Marketing, 14(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugoni, B. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (1981). Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new employees. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durvasula, S., Andrews, J. C., Lysonski, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Assessing the cross-national applicability of consumer behavior models: A model of attitude toward advertising in general. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 626–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H. (1996). How Chrysler created an american keiretsu. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Ouchi, W. G. (1993). Japanese-style partnerships: Giving companies a competitive edge. Sloan Management Review Fall, 51–63.

  • Dyer, B., & Song, X. M. (1997). The impact of strategy on conflict: A cross-national comparative study of U.S. and Japanese firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(3), 467–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiegenbaum, A. (1997). Competitive strategy and attitude toward risk taking: Integration and modeling. Academy of Management, Proceedings, Business Policy and Strategy Division, Boston, MA, 12–15.

  • Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1988). Attitudes towards risk and the risk-return paradox: Prospect theory explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, D. I., & Bello, D. C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1991). Japan’s distribution system: Institutional structure, internal political economy, and modernization. Journal of Retailing, 67(2), 154–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64, 34–49 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, J. M., & Choe, S. (1998). Trust in Japanese interfirm relations: Institutional sanctions matter. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 589–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R. (1983). Research methodologies for contingency approaches to business strategies. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 398–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J. J., Shankar, V., & Ferraro, R. (2004). The roles of channel-category associations and geodemographics in channel patronage. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagono, T., Nonaka, I., Sakakibara, K., & Okumura, A. (1985). Strategic vs. evolutionary management: A U.S.–Japan comparison of strategy and organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalwani, M. U., & Narayandas, N. (1995). Long-term manufacturer–supplier relationships: Do they pay off for supplier firms? Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, S., Frazier, G. L., & Roth, V. J. (1990). A transaction cost analysis model of channel integration in international markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 196–208 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1992). Introduction to econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., Ross, Jr. W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narus, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Distribution contributions to partnerships with manufacturers. Business horizons, 30, 34–42 (September–October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, K. G. (1993). The distribution system of Japan and the United States: A comparative study from the viewpoint of final goods buyers. Japan and the World Economy, 5, 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 124–141 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, M. E., & Song, X. M. (1993). R&D-marketing interface in Japanese high-technology firms: Hypotheses and empirical evidence. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 125–133 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G. (1993). Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizational supplier–buyer networks. Journal of Management, 19(4), 841–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2003). Interfirm cooperation and customer orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Karckhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., & Bolton, R. N. (2004). An empirical analysis of determinants of retailer pricing strategy. Marketing Science, 23(1), 28–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, A., & Fiegenbaum, A. (1999). Extending the competitive marketing strategy paradigm: The role of strategic reference point theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 442–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2006). Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2001). Marketing’s contribution to the implementation of business strategy: An empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22(11), 1055–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1221–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stayman, D. M., Alden, D. L., & Smith, K. H. (1992). Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taga, T., & Uehara, Y. (1994). Some characteristics of business practices in japan. In T. Kikuchi (Ed.), Japanese distribution channels. New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajima, Y. (1994). Japan’s markets and distribution system. In T. Kikuchi (Ed.), Japanese distribution channels. New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, F. E. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1–17 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J. L., & Doescher, T. A. (1991). A framework for promoting cooperation. Journal of Marketing, 55(2), 38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Ms. Marsha Ma for managing four research assistants during the data collection process of this research project, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA

    Michael Song

  2. Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, 1810 North Thirteenth Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    C. Anthony Di Benedetto

  3. University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, Whitewater, WI, USA

    Yushan Zhao

Authors
  1. Michael Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Anthony Di Benedetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yushan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Anthony Di Benedetto.

Appendices

Appendix

 

Study Measures

Part A: Data collected from SBU managers and the distributors

Achieved level of cooperation

(Construct reliability, 0.71 for U.S. and 0.84 for Japan); adopted from Anderson and Narus (1990); Morgan and Hunt (1994).

How would you characterize the current level of cooperation between your company and this distributor regarding the following activities (anchors: 1 = very low/7 = very high)?

  1. 1.

    Local cooperation

  2. 2.

    Regional cooperation

  3. 3.

    National cooperation

  4. 4.

    International cooperation

  5. 5.

    Inventory level cooperation

  6. 6.

    Determining promotion programs for new products

[We collected data from 295 manufacturing firms in the U.S. and 255 Japanese manufacturing firms. To assess the validity of the data provided by these manufacturing firms, we also collected data from 104 distributors in the U.S. and 98 Japanese distributors. Because the Chao-test results indicated that there were no statistical significant differences between the two perspectives, we reported only the results based on the perspective of manufacturers.]

Part B: Data collected from SBU managers

Trust

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 =  strongly agree); (construct reliability, 0.82 for U.S. and 0.70 for Japan); adopted from Anderson and Narus (1990); Morgan and Hunt (1994)

  1. 1.

    The level of trust our company has in its working relationship with this distributor is very high.

  2. 2.

    In our relationship, this distributor cannot be trusted at times. (R)

  3. 3.

    In our relationship, this distributor can be counted on to do what is right.

  4. 4.

    In our relationship, this distributor has high integrity.

  5. 5.

    The distributor keeps promises it makes to our firm.

Shared values

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.87 for U.S. and 0.86 for Japan); adopted from Heide and John (1992); Morgan and Hunt (1994)

  1. 1.

    To succeed in this business, it is often necessary to compromise one’s ethics.

  2. 2.

    The parties should make adjustments in the ongoing relationship to cope with changing circumstances.

  3. 3.

    It is expected that we keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other party.

  4. 4.

    The parties are committed to improvements that may benefit the relationship as a whole, and not only the individual parties.

Commitment

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.72 for U.S. and 0.76 for Japan); adopted from Anderson and Weitz (1992); Morgan and Hunt (1994)

  1. 1.

    Our relationship with this distributor is a long-term alliance.

  2. 2.

    This distributor is willing to dedicate whatever people and resources it takes to grow sales of our products.

  3. 3.

    The relationship that my firm has with this distributor is something we are very committed to.

Top management support

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.81 for U.S. and 0.77 for Japan); adopted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993)

  1. 1.

    Top managers repeatedly tell employees that our survival depends on a good relationship with our distributors.

  2. 2.

    Top managers often tell employees to be sensitive to the activities of our distributors.

  3. 3.

    Top managers repeatedly emphasize the importance of having a good relationship with our distributors.

  4. 4.

    Top management formally promotes M–D cooperation

Reward system

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.86 for U.S. and 0.87 for Japan); adopted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993)

  1. 1.

    Distributor satisfaction assessments influence senior managers’ pay in our company.

  2. 2.

    Formal rewards (i.e., pay raise, promotion) are forthcoming to anyone who consistently provides good market intelligence to our distributors.

  3. 3.

    Salespeople’s performance in our company is measured by the strength of relationships they build with distributors.

  4. 4.

    Distributor satisfaction is a major component of our performance evaluation.

Market turbulence

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.70 for U.S. and 0.83 for Japan); adopted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993)

  1. 1.

    In our kind of business, customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time.

  2. 2.

    Our customers tend to look for new products all the time.

  3. 3.

    We are witnessing demand for our products and services from customers who never bought them before.

  4. 4.

    New customers tend to have product-related needs that are different from those of our existing customers.

  5. 5.

    We cater to many of the same customers that we used to in the past. (R)

Competitive intensity

Seven-point Likert Scale: (1 = strongly disagree/7 = strongly agree); (Construct reliability, 0.73 for U.S. and 0.87 for Japan); adopted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993)

  1. 1.

    There are many “promotion wars” in our industry.

  2. 2.

    Competition in our industry is cutthroat.

Part C: Data collected from top management

Performance:

  1. 1.

    ROI: What is the return on investment in this business unit? ____ %

  2. 2.

    ROS: What is the return on sales in this business unit? ____ %

  3. 3.

    ROA: What is the return on assets in this business unit? ____ %

Optimal level of cooperation

(Construct reliability, 0.77 for U.S. and 0.73 for Japan); adopted from Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Anderson and Narus (1990).

[Cooperation between a business unit and its distributors could occur in many areas such as local cooperation, regional cooperation, national cooperation, international cooperation, inventory level cooperation, and determining promotion programs for new products. For this research, optimal cooperation is defined the necessary level of cooperation between the business unit and the distributor in order to maximize profitability of the business unit. For this section, we are interested in your assessment of the optimal level of cooperation between this business unit and the selected distributor.]

Please suggest an optimal level of cooperation between this business unit and this distributor regarding the following activities. (Anchors: 1 = very low/7 = very high)

  • Local cooperation

  • Regional cooperation

  • National cooperation

  • International cooperation

  • Inventory level cooperation

  • Determining promotion programs for new products

Organizational strategy

Scale used in DeSarbo et al. (2006), originally adopted from Conant et al. (1990). (Please see DeSarbo et al. (2006) for a complete list of scale items in this scale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Song, M., Di Benedetto, C.A. & Zhao, Y. The antecedents and consequences of manufacturer–distributor cooperation: an empirical test in the U.S. and Japan. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 215–233 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0074-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0074-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation