Search results

This paper aims to explore whether consumer goods brands (CGBs) have more brand equity than exclusively professional brands (EPBs) do in the context of the industrial detergents market.

The author conducted direct customer interviews at the outlets of two large wholesale distribution retail chains. The sample included 211 respondents.

The study shows that CGBs do have brand equity in business-to-business (B2B) market. First, they enjoy a greater top-of-mind awareness than do EPBs. Second, they have a distinctive brand image, as they are perceived as being more efficient and more expensive than are EPBs.

There are three main limitations. First, the results may reflect industry-specific factors that are not representative of all professional markets. Second, the products studied are relatively low in price compared to other categories of professional products. Third, the sample market is a mature market characterized by a modest growth rate and limited development in related markets. However, these limitations do not discredit the results of the study. Conversely, they invite further research on the subject of CGBs extending into professional markets. Future research could examine other product categories as well as the use of an experimental approach to validate and generalize the primary results.

This research has implications for business-to-consumer marketing professionals looking to leverage the equity of their CGBs in the B2B space. In addition, this work can help B2B marketing professionals better defend their market share in the face of well-known CGB entering their market.

This study represents an exploratory analysis, as the author has not any found prior work on this topic. In addition to these original results, the paper contributes to a better understanding of the concept of brand equity in B2B for academics and provides new insights for industrial marketers regarding branding in B2B.

Successful innovation requires a significant financial commitment. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between internal and external financing and the degree of innovation in European firms.

An empirical investigation is carried out using a longitudinal data set including 146 large, quoted, European firms over ten years, resulting in 1,460 firm years.

The authors find that only firms in the energy sector will be more innovative when they are profitable. For the sectors of basic materials, manufacture and construction, services, financial and property services, and technology and telecommunications, profitability is negatively related to innovation. External financing in the form of debt reduces the focus on innovation in profitable firms.

The authors analyze the findings through the lens of evolutionary economics. The model is not valid for firms in the consumer-goods sector, which indicates a need for adapting the model to each sector. We conclude that the impact of profitability on innovation varies across sectors, with debt financing as a moderating factor.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes the internal and external financing and the degree of innovation in European firms on a longitudinal basis.

The majority of studies on supply chain management (SCM) emphasize the importance of cooperative relationships for improving the integration of business processes into a supply chain. It seems accepted that SCM will be a source of competitive advantage if, and only if, firms that participate in it formalize a strategic partnership between each other beforehand. This article questions whether this really is the case, given that the corporate cultures currently in place are largely founded on a tradition of adversarial relationships, the creation of large groups and the development of vertical concentrations. SCM could, in contrast, in such a case be the catalyst for powerful future strategic partnerships that could gently break arm’s‐length competition.