Search results

This paper aims to investigate the impact of brand equity (BE) on stock performance (i.e. stock return, volatility and beta), and compare the performance of a high brand equity stocks (HBES) portfolio with that of the overall market during market downturn, market upturn and total disturbance periods of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Stock performance data and brand valuation estimates are obtained from various sources to assemble a portfolio of HBES and conduct the analyses. Econometric models are estimated to examine the impact of BE on stock performance and compare the HBES portfolio performance versus the overall market.

BE was positively associated with stock return and negatively associated with both types of risk (volatility and beta) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, during the market downturn period, BE was positively related to stock return and negatively related to stock volatility; during the market upturn period, BE was negatively associated with both types of risk; and during the total disturbance period, BE was positively associated with stock return and negatively associated with both types of risk. Finally, the HBES portfolio outperformed the market (S&P 500 index).

The findings advance the extant research by providing evidence pertaining to brands' role in mitigating the impact of unpredictable market shocks and crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, on stock performance. While brands are mostly viewed as drivers of sustained competitive advantage and profitability, their protective role in crisis times is noteworthy.

The research findings potentially help marketing and brand managers to justify marketing spending and craft their strategies to enhance firm performance during crises similar to COVID-19.

The marketing–finance interface can benefit from insights offered by the COVID-19 pandemic, as such crises are becoming prevalent and are capable of damaging various stakeholders' outcomes (firms, investors and customers). The empirical examination is separately conducted on the market downturn, market upturn and total disturbance period attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how incumbent firms’ marketing deterrence strategies, price-cuts and quality improvement, influence potential entrants’ (PEs) entry timing into incumbents’ markets and examine the moderating role of incumbents’ market-level resources and capabilities (R&Cs).

To test the hypotheses, an accelerated failure time model is applied to a rich data set of entry threats between 1997 and 2019 in the US airline industry.

The findings show that while quality improvements delay PEs’ entry, price-cuts expedite it. Furthermore, PEs are more likely to be deterred by price-cuts when incumbents possess high market-level R&Cs. However, such R&Cs do not moderate the link between incumbents’ quality improvement and PEs’ entry timing.

Market entry in this research is conceptualized and defined as a large resource deployment into a market and operationalized as a binary variable. However, PEs might rather choose a minor resource deployment instead to establish a foothold in new markets. It would be fruitful for future research to examine various levels of participation in a new market and examine how the incumbents’ marketing deterrence strategies affect PEs’ entry timing. Doing so would provide us with a deeper understanding of the difference between actual/full market entry and micro/minor market entry.

This research examines the impact of incumbents’ marketing deterrence strategies in a contingency framework and highlights the crucial role of R&Cs in implementing such deterrence strategies. Doing so provides actionable insights to managers who craft strategies to protect their markets against PEs.

Previous research illustrates that incumbent firms commonly respond to competitors’ entry threats by cutting prices and improving quality. While antecedents of these deterrence strategies have been extensively investigated, the consequences have yet to be empirically examined.

The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the impact of incumbents’ defensive strategies, specifically price-cut and capacity expansion, on new entrants’ (NEs) exit decisions and examine the moderating role of incumbents’ relational market-based assets (RMBAs).

Drawing upon real options theory, an empirical study using logistic regression is conducted on a rich, multi-market data set of NE exits between 1997 and 2019 in the U.S. airline industry.

Contrary to intuitive expectation, the results show that cutting prices in response to entry reduces NEs’ likelihood of market exit. However, when incumbents possess strong RMBAs, using a price cut proves to be effective in pushing NEs out of a market. Moreover, an NEs’ exit likelihood is higher when incumbents expand capacities in response to entry.

In this study, market exit is defined as a complete withdrawal from the market and operationalized as a binary variable. Future research could examine different degrees of downscaling by NEs while remaining in the market.

This research demonstrates the opposing effects of price-cut and capacity expansion and the crucial role of RMBAs and advises managers to be cautious and consider trade-offs when implementing their defensive strategies to push NEs out of their markets.

This study contributes to the literature by examining the impact of incumbents’ defensive strategies, price-cut and capacity expansion, side by side and exploring the moderating role of RMBAs. Extant research has focused on antecedents of defensive strategies, whereas the consequences are the focus of this research.