Market definition in industrial high-technology markets

This dissertation analyzes how marketers define markets in technology-based industries. One of the most important strategic decisions marketers face is determining the optimal market for their products. Market definition is critical in dynamic high technology markets characterized by high levels of market and technological uncertainty. Building on literature from marketing and related disciplines, this research is the first in-depth study of market definition in industrial markets. Using a national, probability sample stratified by firm size, 1,000 marketing executives in nine industries (automation, biotechnology, computers, medical equipment and instrumentation, pharmaceuticals, photonics, software, subassemblies and components, and telecommunications) were surveyed via a mail questionnaire. A 20.8% net response rate yielding 203 surveys was achieved. The market structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm from industrial organization provided a conceptual basis for testing a causal market definition model via LISREL. A latent exogenous variable (competitive intensity) and four latent endogenous variables (marketing orientation, technological orientation, market definition criteria, and market definition success) were used to develop and test hypothesized relationships among constructs. Research questions relating to market redefinition, market definition characteristics, and internal (within the firm) and external (competitive) market definition were also investigated. Market definition success was found to be positively associated with a marketing orientation and the use of market definition criteria. Technological orientation was not significantly related to market definition success. Customer needs were the key market definition characteristic to high-tech firms (technology, competition, customer groups, and products were also important). Market redefinition based on changing customer needs was the most effective of seven strategies tested. A majority of firms regularly defined their market at the corporate and product-line level within the firm. From a competitive perspective, industry, industry sector, and product-market definitions were used most frequently.

The impact of CEO compensation and CEO horizon on a firm's discretionary research and development expenditures

Agency costs are said to arise as a result of the separation of ownership from control inherent in the corporate form of ownership. One such agency problem concerns the potential variance between the time horizons of principal shareholders and agent managers. Agency theory suggests that these costs can be alleviated or controlled through performance-based Chief Executive Officer (CEO) contracting. However, components of a CEO's compensation contract can exacerbate or mitigate agency-related problems (Antle and Smith, 1985). According to the horizon hypothesis, a self-serving CEO reduces discretionary research and development (R&D) expenditures to increase earnings and earnings-based bonus compensation. Agency theorists contend that a CEO's market-based compensation component can mitigate horizon problems. This study seeks to determine whether there is a relationship between CEO earnings- and market-based compensation components and R&D expenditures in the largest United States industrial firms from 1987 to 1993.^ Consistent with the horizon hypothesis, results provide evidence of a negative and statistically significant relationship between CEO cash compensation (i.e., salary and bonus) and the firm's R&D expenditures. Consistent with the expectations of agency theory, results provide evidence of a positive and statistically significant relationship between market-based CEO compensation and R&D.^ Further results of this study provide evidence of a positive and statistically significant relationship between CEO tenure and the firm's R&D expenditures. Although there is a negative relationship between CEO age and the firm's R&D, it was not statistically significant at the 0.5 level. ^

An Analysis of Stock Market Performance:The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Three Top Performing Lodging Firma: 1982-1988

In their dialogue - An Analysis of Stock Market Performance: The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Three Top Performing Lodging Firms 1982 – 1988 - by N. H. Ringstrom, Professor and Elisa S. Moncarz, Associate Professor, School of Hospitality Management at Florida International University, Professors Ringstrom and Moncarz state at the outset: “An interesting comparison can be made between the Dow Jones lndustrial Average and the three top performing, publicly held lodging firms which had $100 million or more in annual lodging revenues. The authors provide that analytical comparison with Prime Motor Inns Inc., the Marriott Corporation, and Hilton Hotels Corporation.” “Based on a criterion of size, only those with $100 million in annual lodging revenues or more resulted in the inclusion of the following six major hotel firms: Prime Motor Inns, Inc., Marriott Corporation, Hilton Hotels Corporation, Ramada Inc., Holiday Corporation and La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.,” say Professors Ringstrom and Moncarz in framing this discussion with its underpinnings in the years 1982 to 1988. The article looks at each company’s fiscal and Dow Jones performance for the years in question, and presents a detailed analysis of said performance. Graphic analysis is included. It helps to have a fairly vigorous knowledge of stock market and fiscal examination criteria to digest this material. The Ringstrom and Moncarz analysis of Prime Motor Inns Incorporated occupies the first 7 pages of this article in and of itself. Marriot Corporation also occupies a prominent position in this discussion. “Marriott, a giant in the hospitality industry, is huge and continuing to grow. Its 1987 sales were more than $6.5 billion, and its employees numbered over 200,000 individuals, which place Marriott among the 10 largest private employers in the country,” Ringstrom and Moncarz parse Marriott’s influence as a significant financial player. “The firm has a fantastic history of growth over the past 60 years, starting in May 1927 with a nine-seat A & W Root Beer stand in Washington, D.C.,” offer the authors in initialing Marriot’s portion of the discussion with a brief history lesson. The Marriot firm was officially incorporated as Hot Shoppes Inc. in 1929. As the thesis statement for the discussion suggests the performance of these huge, hospitality giants is compared and contrasted directly to the Dow Jones Industrial Average performance. Reasons and empirical data are offered by the authors to explain the distinctions. It would be difficult to explain those distinctions without delving deeply into corporate financial history and the authors willingly do so in an effort to help you understand the growth, as well as some of the setbacks of these hospitality based juggernauts. Ringstrom and Moncarz conclude the article with an extensive overview and analysis of the Hilton Hotels Corporation performance for the period outlined. It may well be the most fiscally dynamic of the firms presented for your perusal. “It is interesting to note that Hilton Hotels Corporation maintained a very strong financial position with relatively little debt during the years 1982-1988…the highest among all companies in the study,” the authors paint.