本文突出了管理的看法和影响，制定计划的多品牌战略。从文献看来，内容和过程合并为两个不同但相关的概念，似乎有战略之间没有直接关系（内容）和策略（过程）但在一定程度上产生和归属于一个开放的社会系统的整体性的关系。最近的一项调查的实证研究（1987）涉及到企业层面的战略，提出了一定的战略，战略决策和组织绩效之间的关系。不过，需要注意的是，中层管理者有没有考虑战略的一部分的过程，除了提供信息的输入和指导实施势在必行，而当代理论和史提芬和比尔的描述（1992）表明，中层管理者经常试图影响策略和经常提供新举措推力。作为“连接销”，中层管理者采取行动，对战略的形成有上下和向下的影响。向上的影响影响高层管理者的组织环境观，而向下的影响，另一方面，影响与战略背景下的组织安排的对齐。因此，文献提供的证据表明，中层管理者的影响延伸超越实施，但有没有理论或可衡量的结构，严格描述中层管理者的战略角色。代写论文 Devising plans for multi brand strategy
This paper highlights the managerial perception and implications in devising plans for multi-brand strategy. From the literature, it appears that content and processes merge as two different but related concepts, and there appears to be no direct relationship between strategy (content) and strategy making (process) but to a certain extent a relationship arising from and attributable to the holistic nature of an open social system. A recent survey of empirical studies Eli (1987) relating to business-level strategies suggested certain relationships among strategy, strategy making, and organizational performance. Nonetheless, it is imperative to note that the middle-level managers have not been considered part of the strategy process except in providing informational inputs and directing implementation, whereas the contemporary theory and descriptions of Steven and Bill (1992) suggests that middle managers regularly attempt to influence strategy and often provide thrust for new initiatives. As ‘linking pins,’ middle managers take actions that have both upward and downward influences on strategy formation. Upward influence affects top management’s view of organizational circumstances, while downward influence, on the other hand, affects the alignment of organizational arrangements with the strategic context. Thus, the literature provides evidence that middle managers’ influence extends beyond implementation, but there are no theories or measurable constructs that rigorously describe middle management’s strategic roles.
According to Stanley and Eric (2001) marketing strategy is the set of incorporated decisions and procedures by which a business anticipates to accomplish its marketing objectives and meet the value requirements of its potential customers. They further elaborate that firm performance is heightened when specific business strategies and specific marketing strategies are linked; reiterating that each of these contingent relationships is unique. Each of the business strategies requires a different marketing strategy comprised of unique combinations of marketing decisions and related practices to achieve superior performance. There is no significant difference among the business strategy types with regard to either profitability or market performance (relative to objectives and competitors) when marketing strategy type is appropriately matched to business strategy type.
Carl and Frank (1975) are of the opinion that strategy formulation process is a crucial step in “matching” internal and external characteristics of the firm. According to them, it is generally accepted that the perceptions of environmental and internal characteristics are the important properties to consider in the strategy formulation process.
Raymond, Charles, Alan and Henry (1978) suggest that strategy formation falls clearly into one of three speculative groupings, or “modes”. The planning mode, comprising the major body of published materials and in the convention of both management science and bureaucratic theory, represents the process as a highly ordered, efficiently incorporated one, with strategies explicated on plan by a persistent organization. In sharp distinction, the adaptive mode reflects the process as one in which many decision-makers with contradictory goals negotiate among them to produce a stream of incremental, disorganized decisions. In some of the journals of conventional economics and modern management, the process is explained in the entrepreneurial mode, where a powerful leader takes bold and risky decisions in the direction of his vision of the organization’s future.
Steven and Bill (1992) are of the view that all managers operating in highly uncertain (or certain) environments do not necessarily perceive the same degree of uncertainty (or certainty) and actions taken by the organization in responding to its environment are consistent with managerial perception rather than with the objective characteristics of the environment. As past research has shown, managers encounter a variety of high and low discretion environments. Given this observation, Henry (1978) has noted that a critical management skill is ‘reading’ the setting e.g. accurately perceiving when one does or does not have the discretion to act. For instance, a manager who masters this skill may be less likely to act when it is fruitless, or to refrain from acting when they can and should act. Moreover, such a skill may also be critical to the managers’ ability to successfully ‘sell issues’ to others.
Mason and Brian (1997) maintain the same concept suggesting that for the manager, the appropriateness of taking specific strategic actions, or any action at all, is therefore highly ambiguous. Indeed, even before strategic choices can be made or strategic actions are taken, managers must first determine which organizational issues are within their domain, or discretionary set, and which issues are beyond their latitude of action.
Stephen and Itamar (1996) discuss various factors related to the competitive context, marketing strategy, and social environment that influence the diffusion of innovation. Evidence has been presented suggesting that the entry of new firms varies directly with firm rivalry, typically measured by the amount of instability in the market shares of the leading firms. John (1981) studies have, however, considered entry in the conventional sense of a new firm gaining presence in a market. The impact of new brand entry by existing firms has been ignored. Evidently, it has been assumed that a new brand enters a market only when a new firm enters. According to Stephen and Itamar (1996) observation of consumer goods markets indicates that the introduction of new brands, and/or the repositioning of old brands by existing firms, is a frequently used form of non-price competition. Furthermore, the exclusive focus of previous investigators on firm market share instability, given a market environment dominated by multi-brand firms, may mask instability occurring at the brand level.
Analyses of new product introduction have drawn on psychometric methods such as multidimensional scaling to form the foundation for empirical studies of Richard and Carmen (1993) decision making under uncertainty, and the economics of industrial organization recommended by Carl and Frank (1975). Despite this apparent diversity, all these approaches assume that product evaluation depends only on perceived or actual characteristics and price, not on the brand name with which a product is associated and the competitive context within which buyers must choose. For example, Carl and Frank (1975) analysis of the role of uncertainty in creating an advantage for pioneering brands ignores perceived differences among brands other than price and quality.
New product introduction has always been a popular strategy for firms seeking growth. However, Srinivas, Susan and Subodh (1994) are of the view that 30-35% of new products fail because the strategy is risky and the consumers may not accept the product. According to Aaker and Keller (1990) a assessment of leading consumer product companies institute that 89% of new product introductions were line extensions (such as a new flavor or package size), 6% were brand extensions, and only 5% were new brands. Srinivas et al. (1994) developed a model that predicts whether a multi-product firm will brand a new product with the established company name. They tested and found that a firm is more likely to use the brand name if the name has not been used in the same market previously. This may imply that firms are aware of the dilution effects of using the same brand name more than once.
Richard and Carmen (1993) define that production is assumed to exhibit strong economies of scope. Vertical product differentiation provides firms with an incentive to increase profits by offering products that appeal to different types of consumers, which is reinforced by the assumption of strong economies of scope. However, if products produced by different firms are perceived by consumers as being close substitutes, a decision to proliferate products is also a decision to compete head-on with a rival firm. The optimal product selection decision depends on the degree of brand-specific differentiation relative to the potential for vertical differentiation in the products offered by a single firm. Firms that are close competitors will prefer to specialize in products that appeal to different types of consumers, thereby reducing their strategic interdependence. Specialization comes at a cost, because firms cannot discriminate among consumers by offering products with different characteristics. Nonetheless, Camillus (1981) suggests that strategic considerations can more than offset the benefits of discriminating among consumers with a larger product line. If firms are not close competitors, profits are higher when the firms produce a full product line.
Mason and Brian (1997) suggest that a competitive process in market with a dominant brand differs significantly from one where all brands are playing on a level field. Rather than “excess” profits attracting entry and price competition, thus producing fair market returns for all firms, asymmetric preferences can create competition in which a dominant brand may attract entry, but that entry places little downward pressure on the incumbent’s profits. This preserves rather than eliminates the incumbent’s competitive advantage. In short, asymmetries in consumer preference can be a source of persistent competitive advantage.
Assuming identical consumer preferences over characteristics across markets, a larger number of brands may mean that any given brand has closer perceived substitutes. That is, the cross-elasticity of demand between brands may vary directly with the number of brands. Then if, some random variation in the relative prices of the brands is injected into the market, one would observe more brand instability the more brands there are.
According to Edwin (1999), today’s consumers want variety and choice which has increased the opportunity for line extensions involving new flavors and sizes, but it has also made consumers harder to reach. Based on Edwinââ‚¬â„¢s study of brand and line extensions, the fit between the extension and the brand is also considered important. Aaker and Keller (1990) define fit as the level of perceived similarity between the extension and the brand’s parent product based on substitutability, complimentarily, and manufacturability. They thus focus on physical similarity.
Mary (1992) suggests that line extensions can be used, not only to keep a brand alive, but also to reinforce or extend its position. More active and careful line extension management is needed when competition and retailer power are high. Under such conditions, line extensions’ success will erode quickly and more added values should be incorporated in the line extension. Companies with leading brands should especially pay attention to the proliferation of supply and market fragmentation. Their brands stand to lose more than smaller brands.
Sundara, Sreeram and Scott (2005) have defined product cannibalization as a process, in which a new product gains sales by diverting sales from an existing product. New product development process has a very strong influence on the performance of a company. In the same context, they state that the risk of cannibalization is a real threat for many new product introductions, while the risk becomes more significant if the new product is launched under the same brand name as an existing product.
Charlotte and George (1994) are of the opinion that product cannibalization is the extent to which one productââ‚¬â„¢s sales are at the expense of other products offered by the same firm. The products with similar attributes / functionalities compete with each other for market share, which is the underlying premise in all types of cannibalization the phenomenon will not occur unless the products compete for a common market share. Although all products may have their own niche in the market, products could also compete for market share outside its niche.
According to Stephen and Itamar (1996), new products are among the most difficult to forecast and the degree of difficulty in the development process of a new product increases as the ââ‚¬Å“newnessââ‚¬Â of a new product concept increases. K. Sridhar (1992) complement that it is not only important to perform new product forecasting prior to introduction into the market, but also anticipating consumer reaction after the new product has been introduced calls for a feedback model that continuously improves its performance i.e. its predictive capability.