Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Significance of pricing and product-line strategies

In new research, Ramnath Chellappa, associate professor of information systems & operations management, and coauthor Amit Mehra (U Texas) investigate the business practice of IT “versioning,” whereby a company creates different models of a product in order to charge varying prices for each one. Much research takes into account economies of scale and a company’s marginal costs—the price of making an additional unit of a product. However, Chellappa and Mehra note that companies also need to consider consumer usage costs when they decide to create various versions of the same IT product. But for IT products and services, the “costs” are not monetary. The pair note the “time commitment and physical effort” to use IT products or services. They use the example of mobile devices: “One cannot enjoy these information goods without them consuming resources such as memory and processing power.” They determine that “this consumption-related disutility” is critical to feature bundling and consumer segmentation. The researchers create a model to test the consumer cost impact, using a “digital goods firm with a unique production cost structure and agents—consumers who face resource constraints in consuming these goods.” Given the usage costs, they determine that individuals may not necessarily prefer products with more features to lower-quality items. The pair concludes “marginal cost and consumers’ usage costs have the same impact on versioning strategy.” Source:

Managers’ performance measures and their work behavior

Management accounting literature devotes considerable attention to the “controllability principle.” This principle stipulates that managers should only be held responsible for the results they directly control through their actions. The literature argues that the use of less controllable performance measures reduces managerial motivation and causes stress. However, Karl Schuhmacher, assistant professor of accounting; Michael Burkert (U Fribourg); Franz Fischer (independent researcher); and Florian Hoos (HC Paris) argue that there can also be positive effects associated with a lack of controllability. The researchers conducted a survey with 432 business managers, asking questions related to the measures used for their performance evaluations. They concluded that less controllable measures do create stress but also induce proactive work behaviors. In fact, the lack of controllability stimulates managers to cope with stress by interpreting their roles more flexibly and cooperating with peers to seek solutions for organizational problems they cannot control individually. The authors suggest further research to determine how organizations modulate between the positive and negative effects of disregarding the controllability principle. Source:

The role of behavior in managing mergers

Despite corporate interest in M&As as a growth strategy, research indicates that financial returns on such deals often fall short of expectations. Corporate leaders spend considerable time looking at the financial and quantitative aspects of mergers and acquisitions; however, Sandy Jap, Sarah Beth Brown Professor of Marketing; A. Noel Gould (Texas State U); and Annie H. Liu (Texas State U) argue that factoring in people should also be a major consideration when it comes to a proposed deal. Their research indicates that better employee and customer management is especially critical to an organization’s M&A strategy and implementation success. The trio analyzed ANZ New Zealand’s horizontal merger with the National Bank of New Zealand to better understand the impact of employee and customer behavior on the deal. They contend that this brand and technology merger succeeded due to ANZ’s commitment to ensuring customer satisfaction and addressing employee concerns about the merger. ANZ New Zealand also focused on business efficiencies and rebranding efforts. Jap, Gould, and Liu note that collaboration became a big key to the success of the merger with ANZ’s financial, IT, marketing, and communications personnel working closely together to retain customers. Source:

Markdown Management and Shopping Behavior

Consumers face the trade-off of immediately paying tag price for an item or waiting for a time when it might be marked down but out of stock. In new research, Nikolay Osadchiy, assistant professor of information systems & operations management, Manel Baucells (U of Virginia), and Anton Ovchinnikov (Queen’s U) argue that retailers can better optimize markdowns by paying more attention to this particular type of consumer behavior. The researchers approach the consumer waitor-buy decision as a “multidimensional trade-off between the delay in getting an item, the likelihood of getting it, and the magnitude of the price discount.” Those dimensions need not be independent; for example, the consumer patience (or sensitivity to delay) could depend on the magnitude of markdown. By optimizing the model, they find that retailers can substantially increase revenues by offering larger markdowns than the current state of the art suggests. In the experiments involving business school students as well as Amazon Mturk participants, which is an on-demand, scalable workforce, the trio found that the expected revenue gains are between 1.5% and 2%. Source:

The impact of economic prosperity on CEO ethics

Prior research suggests that economic booms are associated with overconfidence and risk-taking. In a new paper, Emily Bianchi, assistant professor of organization & management, and coauthor Aharon Mohliver (London Business School) build on that research by showing that prosperous times are also associated with more ethical lapses. The authors examined whether CEOs were more likely to backdate their stock options during prosperous economic times. Backdating stock options was relatively common during the late 1990s to early 2000s. It was also unethical. A backdating CEO would receive a stock option grant on one day but report that the options were assigned on an earlier date when the stock price was lower. This would allow the CEO to realize greater gains when he or she sold the stock. Also, it required lying to the SEC and came at the expense of company profits. To test their theory, Bianchi and Mohliver looked at the backdating patterns of 2,139 CEOs of US publically traded companies between 1996 and 2005. They found that CEOs were more likely to backdate in good economic times. They also found that “CEOs who began their careers in prosperous times were more likely to backdate stock option grants later in their careers.” The findings indicate that economic prosperity influences the likelihood of corporate misconduct. Source:

CFOs & earnings misrepresentation

The quality of a company’s earnings is determined by controllable factors, such as internal controls and corporate governance, and noncontrollable factors, such as industry and economic conditions. But CFOs also have considerable influence over the communication and presentation of those earnings. In a new research study, Ilia Dichev, Goizueta Foundation Chair, professor of accounting, and coauthors John Graham (Duke U), Campbell R. Harvey (Duke U), and Shiva Rajgopal (Columbia U) note that discretion in accounting methods allows CFOs to misrepresent earnings. CFOs are motivated to misrepresent earnings in order to increase stock price and meet earnings targets, as well as boost their own compensation and career profile. The authors conducted a survey of 375 CFOs to explore their definition of earnings quality and ways to determine earnings misrepresentation. The authors concluded that “in any given period, a remarkable 20% of companies intentionally distort earnings, even while adhering to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).” The study found a number of red flags for earnings misrepresentation, including “a lack of correspondence between GAAP earnings and cash flows from operations, and unexplained deviations from peer and industry norms.” Source:

Synergies between product placements and TV ads

As television watchers get inundated with commercials, the temptation to flip the channel grows. In the hopes of better connecting with consumers, advertisers are increasing their efforts to get product placements directly into TV shows. In a research study, David Schweidel, Goizueta Term Chair, Caldwell Research Fellow, and associate professor of marketing, and coauthors Natasha Zhang Foutz (U of Virginia) and Robin J. Tanner (U of Wisconsin) took a look at how the synergy between product placements and traditional commercials can keep viewers from flipping past the ad. The trio found that by simply putting a product in a television show and then immediately following it up with a commercial featuring the same product, viewers were more likely to stay tuned to the commercial. “The audience loss during the ad decreases by 5%,” they note. The effect was intensified when differing products from the same brand were shown in a program and then in a commercial immediately following the TV show. They write, “This indicates a positive synergy between the two activities that can reduce audience decline by more than 10%.” When products of different brands were featured in a television program and in a subsequent commercial, audience loss increased. Source:

Why negotiations fail

For business leaders engaged in negotiations, it’s essential to constantly analyze and revisit their negotiation strategy to avoid many of the errors typically made in the process. In the Handbook of Conflict Management Research, Erika Hall, assistant professor of organization & management, and coauthors Brian Lucas (U of Chicago) and Leigh Thompson (Northwestern U) offer a window into negotiation methods and some of the mistakes negotiators make along the way. The trio discovered and defined three specific errors that occur in negotiations, including what they label as domain myopia, the self-preoccupation effect, and the script hijack effect. Domain myopia is described as the “tendency for negotiators to fail to see meaningful parallels across negotiation situations that might appear different on the surface, but have meaningful underlying similarities.” Hall and her coauthors also describe the self-preoccupation effect, where negotiators let their emotions win the day and subsequently lose perspective. The third scenario that they define is the script hijack effect, which they describe as “the tendency for negotiators to feel compelled to follow a script, often based on stereotypes.” According to the authors, the problems they document apply across a variety of industries. Source:

Supply network structure and systemic risk

Demand uncertainty can present a serious challenge for any business, especially when it comes to managerial decisions on inventory. But when an economic downturn happens, the challenge becomes systemic. According to research by Nikolay Osadchiy, assistant professor of information systems & operations management, and coauthors Vishal Gaur (Cornell U) and Sridhar Seshadri (Indian School of Business), systemic risk is more greatly felt depending on where a company sits in the supply chain. The trio discovered that while an economic downturn presented a serious hurdle for retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers alike, manufacturers were more prone to systemic risk given their placement upstream in the supply chain. Manufacturers had “a more dispersed customer base,” which the authors noted was more closely “associated with higher systematic risk.” Manufacturers also experienced greater systemic risk due to the effect of aggregation of orders over time. They wrote, “A market shock in one period may affect sales over several periods due to lead times and time lags in managerial decision making.” Source:

Using social media to assess public sentiment

Large corporations, government agencies, and political campaigns increasingly are using social media listening platforms and software to monitor public sentiment online. According to research from David Schweidel, associate professor of marketing, and Wendy Moe (U of Maryland), the information gleaned from social media can provide useful insights for decision making, but only if the “comments are measured appropriately.” Since prior marketing research has focused on one social media venue or failed to acknowledge the differences in multiple social media venues, Schweidel and Moe discovered that these measurements of public sentiment fell short. Instead, they analyzed brand sentiment for an enterprise software company and a telecommunications business across a variety of social media platforms. Accounting for factors that varied across different social media platforms, the authors derived a measure of general brand impression (GBI). They showed that general brand impression was a leading indicator of shifts in brand tracking studies and stock price movements. Taken together, Schweidel and Moe’s “measure of GBI effectively captures movement in the underlying sentiment toward the brand.” Source: