Minimum Advertised Pricing: Patterns of Violation in Competitive Retail Markets

Ayelet  Israeli; Eric  Anderson; Anne  Coughlan

Article | Marketing Science | July–August 2016

Minimum Advertised Pricing: Patterns of Violation in Competitive Retail Markets

by Ayelet Israeli, Eric Anderson and Anne Coughlan

Abstract

Manufacturers in many industries frequently use vertical price policies, such as minimum advertised price (MAP), to influence prices set by downstream retailers. Although manufacturers expect retail partners to comply with MAP policies, violations of MAP are common in practice. In this research, we document and explain both the extent and the depth of MAP policy violations. We also shed light on how retailers vary in their propensity to violate MAP policies and the depth by which they do so. Our inductive research approach documents managerial wisdom about MAP practices. We confront these insights from practice with a large empirical study that includes hundreds of products sold through hundreds of retailers. Consistent with managerial wisdom, we find that authorized retailers are more likely to comply with MAP than are unauthorized partners. By contrast to managerial wisdom, we find that authorized and unauthorized markets are largely separate, and that violations in the authorized channel have a small association with violations in the unauthorized channel. Last, we link our results to the literatures on agency theory, transaction cost analysis, and theories of price obfuscation.

Keywords: Pricing policies; pricing; channel management; legal aspects of business; Price; Governance Compliance; Marketing Channels; Retail Industry;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Israeli, Ayelet, Eric Anderson, and Anne Coughlan. "Minimum Advertised Pricing: Patterns of Violation in Competitive Retail Markets." Marketing Science 35, no. 4 (July–August 2016): 539–564. (Lead article.)

This case provides a post-mortem of the advertising technology (adtech) company Sizmek. Sizmek grew via multiple acquisitions, with the vision of becoming an integrated adtech company that could leverage AI to buy digital media, while creating and serving display and video content. At its peak, one of its acquisitions had an IPO valuation of almost 1 billion dollars. However, Sizmek struggled with an integration that was taking longer than expected, but also with misalignment of agency incentives, stricter data privacy regulations, and the rise of the walled gardens – Google, Facebook, and Amazon – that made the adtech ecosystem very competitive, with dynamics of winners-take-all markets. By 2019 Sizmek had to file Chapter 11, and was sold in pieces. Is there anything Sizmek could have done differently in their go-to-market strategy, product road-map, or overall partnerships to avoid such rapid collapse?

Thingtesting, a brand discovery and testing digital community devoted to uncovering and exploring direct-to-consumer brands, had just received seed funding and was contemplating a second year of growth. The new year brought many challenges, as founder Jenny Gyllander had to decide how to scale her fledgling company. As the company matured, she had to decide what role she would play going forward: should she continue to operate as head curator and content developer of her own reviews or open up her platform to invite and crowdsource the reviews of her followers. Her value proposition positioned her at the nexus of several different audiences: millennial consumers eager to try new brands, venture capitalists eager to invest in them, and the companies and brands themselves, who were interested in seeing their new products succeed. What was the best path to monetizing the business? As Gyllander navigates the emerging landscape of influencer marketing, she needs to decide how to transform her online audience into a co-creating community and how to best wield her own influence to create value for her followers and other constituencies in a way that could fund a profitable business model.

Technical Note | HBS Case Collection | March 2020

Influencer Marketing

Jill Avery and Ayelet Israeli

Despite a heavy barrage of advertising, most consumers declare that their purchases are most influenced by the experiences, advice, and recommendations of others, and not by marketers. Interpersonal communication between and among consumers serves as a potent path for influence, and by 2022, marketing managers are expected to spend $15 billion on influencer marketing, a marketing technique in which companies partner with people with specialized knowledge, expertise, authority, social position, and/or personal relationships that enable them to have influence over others to co-produce marketing messages to promote their brands via offline and electronic word-of-mouth. This technical note provides an overview of influencer marketing and discusses the various roles that influencers play for marketers, including delivering marketing messages in a more authentic voice and setting than that offered by more traditional advertising media where messages are authored by firms. It categorizes different types of influencers, explains the social psychological processes that make interpersonal influence work, and provides guidelines on how to identify people with influence. It discusses the opportunities and challenges related to measuring the performance of influencers and assessing the costs and return-on-investment of influencer marketing programs. Finally, it highlights emerging risks in the contemporary influencer marketing landscape.

Keywords: influencers; Marketing; Marketing Communications; Brands and Branding; Marketing Strategy; Media and Broadcasting Industry; Advertising Industry; Consumer Products Industry;

Citation:

Avery, Jill, and Ayelet Israeli. "Influencer Marketing." Harvard Business School Technical Note 520-075, March 2020. View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

Faculty & Research

Minimum Advertised Pricing: Patterns of Violation in Competitive Retail Markets

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author