学习者需要选择一个（由华为公司提供的）实战商业机会，或者自己工作中的例子，仔细地评估，并清晰地表述给同学、沃顿教职员以及相关行业合作伙伴高管。 学习目标： 分析一个现实商业机会的收益与风险 提出一套如何利用这个商机的策略 准确并清晰地与他人交流你的分析和方案。学习者需要提供一个战略计划，以幻灯片或者视频的形式，展示针对这个商机的”市场进入”战略。 学习者需要明确商机的意义，分析其主要收益和风险，并提供一个“市场进入”方案，包含以下关键方面： 市场营销：针对新的产品，设计一个以消费者中心的传播/市场营销计划。 金融/财务：针对可行的项目，设计一个金融模型（比如净现金流模型），包含对成本和收益的预测。 运营管理：针对新项目，构建一个生产以及（或者）服务计划。
水平冲突
Loading...
來自 University of Pennsylvania 的課程
沃顿商务基础毕业项目 (中文版)
3 個評分
從本節課中
营销视频回顾
與講師見面
Christian TerwieschAndrew M. Heller Professor at the Wharton School, Senior Fellow Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics Co-Director, Mack Institute of Innovation Management
The Wharton School
[MUSIC]
So let's dig a little bit more into this notion of show-rooming,
which is an extreme form of horizontal free riding.
For better or for worse, the share rooming is better facilitated by technology,
both mobile technology and other internet technologies, even our laptops and
our desktops.
So the data I'm showing you here is the data that's going through 2011, and
it shows the fraction of consumers actually even increased through 2012 and
2013 of people who actually used their device,
their mobile device to find the better price while shopping in a store.
Many of you may have done this yourselves, you've been in a local store.
You've been gathering information doing a little bit horizontal free riding, and
then you picked up your mobile phone, and you're going to Amazon or
another supplier to buy it.
So let's look at some additional data that gets into the hood a little bit and
see what happens here.
So if you're someone who is blunt to do this, who's prone to do it,
who's looking at mobile phone information and prices and so forth while shopping,
the good news is that some of these people actually will buy from the website of
the store that they're currently in.
But notice also, about 25% of these individuals end up buying from somebody
else, Amazon or a competitor.
So the question becomes, for the traditional retailer,
what can be done to push back or fight back against this practice?
Now, you'll see, as we go through the statistics, it relates back to some of our
early discussion about why omnichannel retailing now makes sense, and you need
to touch customers both in the physical world and the virtual world as well.
Again, here's some more data on the kinds of product categories that are more
susceptible to showrooming.
Right at the top there is the consumer electronics and
then it declines a little bit through apparel and clothing and so on.
My own hypothesis about why consumer electronics are at the top is this is
a product category where we like to be fully well-informed before we
make a purchase, so we may want to actually interact with the salesperson.
But because it's a pretty big ticket item,
what ends up happening is we may then be persuaded or maybe inclined.
So after having figured it out from the salesperson or the physical store
the best product to buy, so then go online and do it at a much cheaper price,
just simply because of the value of the items involved.
So how could manufacturers and retailers fight back against this practice?
One thing that's happening now is literally the same TV
produced by a big manufacturer like of Sony or somebody else may
end up having a slightly different modeling for different suppliers.
So then, it becomes more difficult for me to compare the price and to buy one
electronically as supposed to buying it in the store where I end up shopping.
There is, however, some good news for retailers in physical stores
about how they can push back against this practice of showrooming.
So the chart that I'm showing you now is the purchase intentions of
individuals who are engaging in the showroom in behavior,
namely being in a physical store then taking out friendly mobile phone and
looking for information in the virtual world and then thinking about buying it.
So a third of them always plan to buy the product online.
These are the hardcore horizontal free riders.
I'm going to go into Chris's hi-fi store, learn everything I can,
and then just buy it at the cheapest possible online website.
However, the other 60 odd percent actually planned to buy it in store,
but something happened that caused them to end up buying it online instead.
So let me say a little more about that opportunity represented by the 56 or
close to 60% of individuals that say, you know what?
I would have bought the product in the store, but
I ended up buying it online instead.
So my two colleagues are Tony Moreno at the Kellogg School of Management and
Santiago Galano.
They are at the tech school, investigated this through something called BOPS,
Buy Online, Pick Up in Store, as a way for
traditional retailers to fight back against this phenomenon of sharerooming.
So the idea of buy online, pick up in store is the following.
I can go to the website of a large retailer, and Tony and Santiago looked at
a large retailer operating both within the United States and
Canada that had about 80 or 100 stores in this analysis.
And the retailer implemented a program where you could buy the product online
then go to the store and pick it up, BOPS, Buy Online, Pick up in Store.
And so what they found was the following.
You might hope, actually, that sales at the websites would then go up.
Because now as a consumer, I can go onto the website,
I can see that this coffee maker that I'm interested in is in stock, and
then I can buy it online and go to the store on the way home and pick it up.
So the hope was that by offering consumers this option,
that the sales at the website would increase.
And I should mention that the retailer in question, I cannot disclose the name,
but the retailer in question was mainly selling products that are for your homes.
So bedding, towels, coffee makers those kinds of things, and
this is very important for the explanation that comes later on.
Now, what Tony and Santiago found is instead of sales at that website going up,
sales at the website actually went down.
It doesn't sound too good, but there's a silver lining.
They found, after this BOPS was implemented, sales in the stores went up.
So what was happening?
So imagine myself as a consumer.
I want to buy a coffee machine from this particular retailer.
I go to the website, I see that the product is in stock and the price is good.
But because it's a coffee machine, I'd still like to perhaps taste the coffee or
touch the sweater or try out the bedding.
So because most of what this retailer was selling were products that required some
physical inspection by the customer to make them feel comfortable,
what the customers were doing were going online to make sure the product was there,
then going into the store and actually purchasing in the store right then and
there.
So offering that option was very valuable, and
it actually leads to an overall increase in sales at that retailer so much so
that the new acronym, instead of BOPS, Buy Online, Pick Up in Store,
Tony and Santiago referred to this as ROPO, R-O-P-O,
research online, purchase offline.
So again, those of you who are facing this kind of omnichannel problems, and
horizontal free riding, showrooming for your own business, this shows that there's
potentially clever ways out by really understanding what the consumers want.
They want information first, but they want to touch and feel the product, and if you
can deliver them that package, you can get yourself out of some of these traps.
Now, let me just summarize what we've talked about in terms of horizontal free
riding and how this can be illuminated.
There's essentially three broad strategies that can be put into place in
a particular market to try and eliminate this problem between Chris and
Amy where Chris is the high price, high service seller, and
the customer goes to his store to get the information and
then goes to Amy's store to get the lower price.
The first thing that you could do is you could make sure that in different
territories, different products are available.
So give Chris some of the product line, and give Amy something else,
so there's no direct competition between them.
Related to that, you might need to think carefully about the appropriate level of
distribution intensity.
If a lot of horizontal free riding is going on, you might want to make
your distribution intensity a little bit lower and be more exclusive or
more selective, meaning that local retailers have a local monopoly.
And then finally, the other thing that you could do is you could introduce different
brands for different retailers.
So literally just call the product different names, so
Chris's product has a slightly different label on it than Amy's does, and
this again works against the problem of direct comparison,
which is an important component of horizontal free riding.
So now, let me summarize everything that we've been talking about so
far in this module with respect to conflict.
Here's the three rules of thumb that have been discovered through academic research
and to just generally what causes more conflict in a channel of distribution or
system of distribution.
So three things we're going to look at,
first of all are the length of the channel.
So how many players are there between the person who provides the product initially,
or creates it, and the person that needs up buying it.
Secondly, how much autonomy is there on the channel?
Are all the channel members owned by the corporate entity?
So they're all stores owned by Starbucks.
Are they mainly franchise?
So McDonald's might have franchised.
These are rather all their completely independent agents.
And then thirdly, how much density is there in the channel?
Is there only one retailer or distributor in the particular market?
Are there two or are there multiple?
So this is what the researchers found with respect to these three important factors.
So generally, as the channel gets longer and longer, there is just
more potential for conflict, and there's really one fundamental reason for this.
This is a term that was developed by a French economist many centuries ago,
and it is called double marginalization.
It's a fancy term, but it's a simple idea.
It says every time you add someone between the producer and
the end consumer, you're adding a markup and a layer of margin.
So if you have one retailer between the customer and the end, sorry,
between the manufacturer and the end user, there'll be two levels of markup,
from the manufacturer to the retailer, and then the retailer to the customer.
If you have two intermediaries, there will be three levels of markup, manufacturer
to the distributor, distributor to the retailer, retailer to the customer.
So as you link from the channel, you're always adding in additional markup to
the margin, and you're adding more people, so there's more potential for conflict.
That's fairly unambiguous.
Secondly, if you look at the label of autonomy from having completely-owned
distributors to franchise distributors to completely independent, again,
as people become independent, there's more and more conflict, the conflict increases.
So those two, I think, are fairly ensured, are fairly obvious.
The last one is lease, so until you hear the story, and
this is why I think it's interesting.
So the researchers who looked at this issue also looked at the density of
the channel.
Now, you have a fairly low level of conflict if there's just
one exclusive outlet for territory.
Of course, as you increase to two, the conflict goes up,
because now I'm in competition with that store in the territory next door.
He's stealing some of my customers, I'm stealing some of his.
However, what the researches noticed is interesting, is the level of competition
or conflict starts to decrease when density gets really, really large.
Why is that?
Well, it's because there's now an attribution problem.
If I see my market share is going down, and
I have eight different competitors in my local area that I'm competing against,
I don't really know which one of those guys is taking my market shares.
So paradoxically, when you have more density of retailers in a given location,
sometimes the overall conflict can go down.
Okay, the last little task I'd like you all to think about as you're
working through this material, and you're thinking about what it means,
both how channels get created in terms of who is doing what, the hypergrid,
the other elements of design like intensive versus exclusive versus
selective distribution, and finally, this whole area of minimizing conflict.
I think to bring it all together,
it would be good to have an exercise to percolate on.
What I'd like you to do is to try and
think about a company that really innovated in the area of distribution.
Either they took over some existing activity,
they eliminated the activity, they turned a hard good into a soft good,
they completely changed the way customers procure the product, and in so
doing, really developed an advantage over their competitors.
So try and think about that, because I think a lot of the really interesting
innovations that are going to occur in markets are going to be innovations around
the area of distribution and access to products and services.
Particularly, as I've said many times, but it bears repeating,
that there's about a billion of us running around on the planet, it will be more
than that soon who are carrying computers in their pockets that can have all kinds
of things distributed to us and things that we can also respond to.
[MUSIC]
