Search results

Marketing is the catalyst which maximises gross profit from turnover, and thus marketing and buying are two sides of the same coin. Laurie Leigh, Tesco Managing Director responsible for marketing, buying and distribution takes the view that they are inseparable in practice for one provides the base from which the other operates. But in the past this was not always so.

This paper examined negotiator behavior in a variable‐sum two‐party negotiation task and its impact on individual and joint negotiator out‐come. Specifically, we examined the role of negotiator opening offer, reciprocity and complementarity of the use of tactics, systematic progression of offers, and information sharing in a negotiation with integrative potential. Results indicated that initial offers affect final outcome differently across buyers and sellers. The buyer's initial offer was curvilinearly related to his or her final outcome in the form of an inverted‐U. The seller's initial offer was positive‐linearly related to seller's outcome. Second, negotiators reciprocated and complemented both distributive and integrative tactics. In addition, highly integrative dyads differed from less efficient dyads in their reciprocation of integrative behaviors and complementarity of distributive behaviors. Third, approximately forty percent of offers made represented systematic concessions, but the proportion of offers reflecting systematic concessions was not related to the efficiency of the joint outcome. Finally, while information sharing did appear to have a positive effect on the efficiency of agreements, differences in the amount of information provided did not affect the proportion of outcome claimed by each party.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between innovation and authenticity by developing a conceptual framework that illuminates the key constructs.

The paper adopts a common perspective – the customer – for both innovation and authenticity. A conceptual framework identifying the roles of centrality and distinctiveness in the innovation–authenticity relationship is developed and justified based upon prior research regarding brand extensions and authenticity.

The innovation–authenticity relationship can be visualized and managed using two constructs: centrality and distinctiveness. Centrality is proposed to have a positive relationship, whereas distinctiveness is proposed to have a non-linear (inverted-U) relationship.

The paper contributes a new conceptualization of the innovation–authenticity–loyalty relationship. It applies C–D Mapping in a completely new way to provide managerially relevant visualization of customers’ perceptions of a new innovation vis-à-vis the parent brand to guide strategic decision making. The paper also suggests areas for further research to improve our understanding of successful innovation–authenticity alignment.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.