1

9th Annual IAABD Conference

May 20-24, 2008

Relationships between Breweries and Retailers in

CameroonSimon Sigué, Athabasca University

Michele Onguetou, HEC Montreal

Patrice Tonye, University of Douala

2

Outline

•Research goal •Context• Conceptual framework• Hipotheses •Methodology

3

The Research goal

To study the impact of the dominant brewer’s influence strategies on small retailers’ economic and non economic satisfaction in the context of dependence

Context

Société Anonyme des Brasseries du Cameroun (SABC) -70.7 %

Guinness Cameroon S.A. - 16.5% Union des Brasseries du Cameroun -

7.0% SIAC Brasseries Isenbeck - 3.8%

4

Four main breweries

Context

A large product assortment that consists of three major product lines: Beers, soft drinks and sodas, and water products

Leading brands in several categories: Coca-Cola, Fanta, 33 Export…

Extensive coverage of the market

5

Distinctive advantages of the leader

6

Supplier

Wholesaler

Non exclusive retailer

Consumers

7

Offer of the leading brands in many categories

Product delivery Credits Rebates Promotion and merchandising

support Refrigeration appliances

8

On-time credit payments Abide by suggested retail prices Carry all the products including those that do not sale

well Sort homogenously empty bottles in cases Make the outlet inviting Return damaged products Provide enough shelf space Maintain refrigeration appliances Serve cold drinks

9

Offerings Supplier Expectations

Satisfiedretailer

Consumers

Conceptual framework

10

Supplier’s use of threats

Supplier’s use of promises

Supplier’s use of noncoerciveinfluence strategies

Retailer’s economicsatisfaction

Retailer’s noneconomicsatisfaction

Conceptual frameworkEconomic satisfaction: Positive affective

response to economic rewards that flow from the relationship with a partner, such as sales, margins, rebates, … (Geyskens et al. (1999))

Non economic satisfaction: Positive affective response to noneconomic, psychosocial aspects of the relationship with a partner. A satisfied partner sees the interactions with the other as gratififyng, fulfilling, and easy (Fisher and Nevin 1996, Geysken et al. 1999).

11

Conceptual frameworkThreats: Influence strategies used when a

source communicates to the target that it will apply negative sanctions should the target fail to perform desired actions (Frazier and Rody 1991)

Promises: Influence strategies used when the source implies that it will provide the target with specific rewards or benefits contingent on the target’s compliance with the source’s desires. (Frazier and Rody 1991, Geyskens et al. 1999)

12

Conceptual framework

Information exchange: Influence strategy whereby the source uses discussions with the target to try and alter the target’s general perception of how its business might be operated to be more profitable (Frazier and Summers 1984)

Recommendations: Influence strategy whereby the source suggests a set of actions that could help the target in improving the performance of its business (Frazier and Summers 1984)

Requests: The source merely communicates the actions it would like the target to take without implying any specific consequence (Frazier and Summers 1984)

13

Non coercive influence strategies

Hypotheses

Building on Anderson and Narus (1990) and Scheer and Stern (1992):

H1: The use of threats affects negatively retailers’ economic satisfaction.

H2: The use of threats affects negatively retailers’ non economic satisfaction.

H3: The negative effect of threats on non economic satisfaction is stronger than on economic satisfaction.

14

Threats

Hypotheses

Building on Frazier and Summers (1986), Frazier and Rody (1991), Geyskens et al. (1999), and Scheer and Stern (1992):

H4: The use of promises affects positively retailers’ economic satisfaction.

H5: The use of promises affects negatively retailers’ non economic satisfaction.

15

Promises

Hypotheses

Building on Frazier and Rody (1991), Geyskens et al. (1999), Mayo et al. (1998), and Scheer and Stern (1992):

H6: The use of non coercive influence strategies affects positively retailers’ economic satisfaction.

H7: The use of non coercive influence strategies affects positively retailers’ non economic satisfaction.

H8: The effect of non coercive influence strategies on non economic satisfaction is stronger than on economic satisfaction

16

Non coercive influence strategies

MethodologyPhase 1: Exploratory study

In-depth interviews with 10 supplier’s sale managers and delivery personnel

In-depth interviews with 30 drinking bar owners and operators (retailers)

Phase 2: Survey Population: bar owners who buy directly their

supplies from SABC and have been in the market for more than 6 months

Sample size: 600 bar owners in Douala and Yaounde

17