Srivastava Et Al

8/12/2019 Srivastava Et Al

1/18

Rajendra K. Srivastava , Tasadduq A. Shervani, Liam Fahey

Market-Based Assets andShareholderValue:A Framework for Analysis

The authors develop a conceptua] framework of the marketing-finance interface and discuss its implications for thetheory an d practice of marketing. The framework proposes that m arketing is concern ed w ith the task of developingand managing market-based assets, or assets that arise from the commingling of the firm with entities in its exter-nal environment. Examples of market-based assets include customer relationships, channel relationships, and part-ner relationships. Market-based assets, inturn, increase shareholder value by accelerating and enhancing casflows,lowering the volatility and vulnerability of cash flows, and increasing the residual value of cash flows.

Too often marketing tends to focus on sales growth andmarket share, and it fails to recognize the impact of mar-keting decisions on such variables as inventory levels,working capital needs, financing costs, debt-to-equityratios, and stock prices. To assume such factors are purelythe responsibility of finance is to be guilty of a kind ofmarketing myopia not less damaging than that originallyenvisioned by Levitt (1960).P aul Anderson, The Marketing Managem ent/Finance Interface

There is a quiet revolution in the positive way thatmarketing activities are being viewed by some mar-keting professionals, enlightened senior managers,and innovative managers in other functions, particularlyfinance. Old inviolable assumptions about the purpose,content, and execution of marketing slowly are giving wayto assumptions that more accurately reflect how it is prac-ticed in leading organizations. In this article, we identifythe new assumptions pertaining to the marketing-financeinterface and discuss their consequences for the theory andpractice of marketing.

Although they often are unstated, assumptions underlie,shape, and constrain both theory and practice (Hunt 1983;Senge 1990). Therefore, it is imperative that marketers con-tinually identify and articulate changes in the underlyingassumptions regarding the field of marketing. In particular,as the movement to adopt shareholder value-based measuresof firm performance continues, marketing's traditionalassumptions must be extended to address the marketing-finance interface. These new assumptions about the rela-tionship between marketing and finance do not replace thetraditional assumptions; rather, they add to and incorporatethem. Marketing's traditional assumptions and the addi-

Rajendra K. Srivastava is Senior Associate Dean and Jack R. CrosbyRegent's Chair in Business, Graduate School of Business; and TasadduqA. Shervani is an assistant professor, Department of Marketing, Universityof Texas at Austin. Liam Fahey is an adjunct professor, Babson Collegeand Cranfield University (UK). The authors are grateful to three anony-mous reviewers for their helpful comments.

tional assumptions regarding the marketing-finance interface are summarized in Table I.Traditionally, marketing activities focus on success inthe product marketplace. Increasingly, however, top management requires that marketing view its ultimate purposeas contributing to the enhancement of shareholder retums(Day and Fahey 1988). This change has led to the recognition that the relationship between marketing and finaticemust be managed systematically; no longer can marketerafford to rely on the traditional assumption that positiveproduct-market results will translate automatically into thebest financial results. As a result, marketers are adoptingthe perspective that customers and channels are not sitnplythe objects of marketing's actions; they are assets thamust be cultivated and leveraged (cf. Hunt and Morgan1995). These assets can be conceptualized as marketbased assets or assets that arise from the commingling othe firm witb entities in its external environment. Leveraging such assets requires marketers to go beyond the traditional inputs to marketing analysis, such as marketplacand organizational knowledge, and to include an understanding of the financial consequences of marketing decisions. Indeed, it also expands the external stakeholders omarketing to include explicitly the shareholders anpotential shareholders of the firm and requires broadeinput into marketing decision making by other functionamanagers .

Another shift in the mind-set of marketers is occurrinin the direction of expanding the set of measures of the success or failure of marketing activities. Marketers are movinbeyond traditional financial measuressuch as sales volume, market share, and gross marginto include additionafinancial measures, such as the net present value of casflows and hence shareholder value (Anderson 1979; Daand Fahey 1988; Pessemier and Root 1973). Indeed, it interesting to note that as marketers are m oving to assess thimpact of marketing activities on shareholder value, accountants and finance professionals are broadening their thinkinto include nonfinancial measures of firm performance as means to develop a more balanced scoreca rd (cf. Kapla


2/18

TABLE 1Assumptions About the Marketing Finance Interface

Traditional Assumptions Emerging AssumptionsPurpose of marketing

Relat ionship between marketingand f inance

Perspective on customers andchannelsInput to marketing analysis

Conception of assets

Marketing decision-makingparticipants: internalMarketing stakeholders: external

What is measured

Operat ional measures

Create value for customers; win in theproduct marketplacePositive product-market resultstranslate into positive financialresultsThe o bject of marketing s actions

Understanding of the marketplaceand organizat ionPrimarily specific to the organization

Principally marketing professionals;others if deemed necessary

Customers, competitors, channels,regulatorsProduct-market results; assessmentsof customers, channels, andcompetitorsSales volume, market share,customer satisfaction, return onsales, assets, and equity

Create and manage market-basedassets to deliver shareholder valueMarketing-f inance interface must bemanaged systematically

A relational asset that must becult ivated and leveragedFinancial consequences of marketingdecisionsResult from the commingling of theorganizat ion and the environmentAll relevant managers irrespective of

function or positionShareholders, potent ial investors

Financial results; configuration ofmarket-based assets

Net present value of cash flow;shareholder value

A.S the tiew tnarketing assutnptiotis etnerge, the questioni.s tiot whether tnarketing activities are useful atid valuablebut why tnarketitig has played such a limited role in theprocess of strategy formulation (cf. Atiderson 1981, 1982;Day 1992; Webster 1981, 1992). In our view, an importantreason is that the marketing comtnunity historically hasfoutid it difficult, if not nearly impossible, to identify, mea-sure,and cotntiiunicate to other disciplines and top manage-tiietit the financial value created by marketing activities.Altnost a decade ago. Day and Fahey (1988, p. 45) high-lighted the increasing importance of new measures of firmperformance that are linked closely to shareholder value:' Managers of diversified cotnpanies are rapidly replacingtheir usual yardsticks of performance, such as market share,growth in sales, or return on investment, with approachesthat judge market strategies by their abilities to enhanceshareholder value.

Although Day and Fahey (1988) and Day (1992) hopedthat increasing acceptance of shareholder value as a yard-stick for judging market strategies would encourage a closeintegtation of marketing and financial perspectives, this hashappened only to a litnited extent. Despite the growingitnportance of shareholder value creation as a criterion forevaluation of strategic initiatives, attention to the role ofmarketing strategies in the creation of shareholder value hasbeen relatively sparse in the marketing literature. Among thenotable exceptions are event studies that link even ts, such

ments, celebrity endorsement announcetnents, and so on, toabnom ial chang es in the stock prices of finns (cf. Aaker andJacobsen 1994; Agrawal and Kamakura 1995; Chaney,Devinney, and Winer 1991; Horsky and Swyngedou w 1987;Lane and Jacobsen 1995; Simon and Sullivan 1993).' At thesame time, the finance literature has all but igtiored the con-tribution of marketing activities to the creation of share-holder value. Con.sequently, financial appraisals of market-ing strategy seldom involve trying to value long-temi mar-keting strategies with uncertain outcomes (Barwise, Marsh,and Wensley 1989).The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual

fratnework that tiiakes explicit the contribution of tnarketingto shareholder value. To do so, we advance the notion ofmarket-based assets as a principal bridge between tnarketingand shareholder value. Although internal ptocesses, such assuperior product developtnent orcustotner intelligence, alsocan be leveraged to enhance shareholder value, our focushere is exclusively on extemal, tnarket-based assets. AsConstantin and Lusch (1994) point out, marketing activities

' In addilion, a substantial body of literature links marketing con-structs, such as customer satisfaction, brand equity, and quality, tovarious accrual accounting measures of business performance,such as profits and return on investment (cf. Anderson, Foniell, andLehmann 1994; Rust, Zahorik, and Keiningham 1995). However,these studies stop short of linking marketing variables to the cre-


3/18

are primarily external in their focus and are largely off thebalance sheet.The absence of a comp rehensive conceptual frameworkthai identifies and integrates the many linkages betweenmarketing and finance has grave implications for the fund-ing of marketing activities and the financial well-being ofthe firm. Aake r and Jacobsen (1994) note that assets that are

harder to measure are m ore likely to be underfunded. In theabsence of a strong understanding of the marketing-financeinterface, marketing professionals cannot but have great dif-ficulty in assessing the value of marketing activities. This, inturn, limits investment in marketing activities, which canrestrict the ability of the firm to create shareholder value.Indeed, there is a growing recognition that a significant pro-portion of the market value of firms today lies in intangible,off-balance sheet assets, rather than in tangible book assets. Ma rket-to-boo k ratios for the ortune 500 are approxi-mately 3.5, which suggests that more than 70% of the mar-ket value of the ortune 500 lies in intangible assets(Capraro and Srivastava 1997). As Lu.sch and Harvey (1994,p. 101) note, Organizational performance is increasinglytied to intangible assets such as corporate culture, customerrelationships and brand equity. Yet controllers, who monitorand track firm performance, traditionally concentrate ontangible, balance-sheet assets such as cash, plants andequipme nt, and inventory. Furthermore, as Lusch and Har-vey (1994) observe, little has been done in the past 20 yearsto project more accurately the true asset base of the cor-poration in the global marketplace. Thus, a failure to under-stand the contribution of marketing activities to shareholdervalue continues to diminish the role of marketing thought incorporate strategy.

We expect the framework developed in this article toadvance both the conceptual understanding of the market-ing-finance interface and the assessment and measurementof the value created by marketing activities. Following theexample of Day and Fahey (1988), we discuss this frame-work partially in the language of finance, so that the com-munication of the value of marketing activities to otherfunctions and top management is facilitated. To the best ofour knowledge, this is the first attempt to develop a com-prehensive framework of the impact of marketing activitieson shareholder value.^The rest of the article is organized as follows: We firstdefine and describe what we mean by market-based assets.Next, in the context of discussing financial valuationapproaches, we brietly discuss methods of asset valuationand identify the key drivers of shareholder value. Followingthis, we draw the linkages between market-based assets andthe drivers of shareholder value and discuss how market-based assets can be leveraged to drive shareholder value. Weconclude with a deliberation of the implications and poten-tial applications of the framework.

-Our focus in the article is on marketing activities and not on themarketing department. This is consistent with the work on marketotieniation by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater(1990). As they do, we focus on marketing activities regardless ofwhere in the otganization they take place and who in the organiza-tion performs them.

Market Based AssetsTo define, categorize, and leverage market-based assets(Sharp 1995), it is essential first to clarify the meaning,importance, and principal characteristics of the base con-structassets. Although there is much debate in the man-agement, marketing, finance, and economics literature as towhat constitutes an asset or a resource (Mahoney and Pan-dian 1992), anassetcan be defined broadly as any physicalorganizational, or human attribute that enables the firm togenerate and implement strategies that improve its effi-ciency and effectiveness in the marketplace (Bamey 1991).Thus, assets can be tangible or intangible, on or off the bal-ance sheet, and internal or extetnal to the firm (cf. Constan-tin and Lusch 1994). However, regardless of the type ofasset, the definition clearly em phasizes that the value of anyasset ultimately is realized, directly or indirectly, in theexternal product marketplace.

But which assets contribute to winning strategies or realadvantage in prolonged marketplace rivalry? Which assetscreate and sustain value for customers and shareholders?And how can those assets that contribute more to value gen-eration be distinguished from others? Or, stated differently,what makes an asset valuable? These questions constitutefundamental theoretical and practical issues at the heart ofresearch in finance (Fama and Miller 1972; Stein 1989),strategy (Grant 1991), organizational economics (Barneyand Ouchi 1986), industrial organization (Conner 1991),and marketing (Glazer 1991).

The resource-based perspective on what accounts forcompetitive success (Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Hunt andMorgan 1995; Itami 1987; Peteraf 1993) suggests that anasset is more likely to contribute to value generation when itsatisfies the following four tests:1.It is convertible: If the firm can u.se the asset to exploit anopportunity and/or neutralize a threat in the external envi-ronment, then the potential to create and sustain value isenhanced.2. It is rare: If the asset is possessed by multiple rivals, itspotential to be a source of sustained value is diminished.3. It is imperfectly imitable : If it is difficult for rivals to imitate the asset, the potential to sustain value is enhanced.4.It does not have perfect substitutes: If rivals do not possesstrategically equivalent convertible assets and it is difficulto develop them, then the potential to sustain value isenhanced.Therefore, if market-based assets are to contribute tocustomer and financial value, they must satisfy these fourtests to some extent. However, before considering whethethey do, we must refine the notion of market-based assets.

TypesofMarket Based ssetsMarket-based assets are principally of two related typesrelational and intellectual. Such assets are primarily externato the firm, generally do not appear on the balance sheet, andare largely intangible. Yet stocks of these assets can bedeveloped, augmented, leveraged, and valued. And, as wediscuss subsequently, because of their characteristics, theyare suited particularly to meeting the resource value testnoted previously.


4/18

Relaiiotialmarket-based assets are outcom es of the rela-tionship between a firm and key external stakeholders,including distributors, retailers, end customers, other strate-gic partners, community groups, and even governmentalagencies. The bonds constituting these relationships and thesources of them can vary from one stakeholder type toanother. For example, brand and channel equity rellectbonds between the firm and its customers and channels.Brand equity may be the result of extensive advertising andsuperior product functionality. Channel equity may be inpart a result of long-standing and successful business rela-tionships between the firm and key channel members.

Iniellectual market-based assets are the types of knowl-edge a firm possesses about the environtiient, such as theemerging and potential state of market conditions and theentities in it, including competitors, customers, channels,suppliers, and social and political interest groups (cf. Non-aka and Takeuchi 1995). The content or elem ents of knowl-edge include facts, perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, andprojections. The content of each type and its sources varygreatly from one to another. Thus, a finn may develop pro-jections of ihe way its industry will evolve so that it knowshow it will react when total industry sales decline by a par-ticular percentage or when a substitute product mightetnerge. Or a finn may develop over time unique facts,beliefs, and assumptions about its customers' tastes, manu-facturing processes, or proclivities to respond in certainways to promotion, sales, and pricing moves (cf. Glazer1991).The development and evolution of relational and intel-lectual market-based assets intertwine in many ways. Bothevolve in part out of the firm's unavoidable interaction with

entities in its environmen t. Intimacy of relationships enablesknowledge to be developed, tested, and refined. Knowledgeof the environment guides the firm in choosing which enti-ties to align with, how to do so, and when. Relationshipswith and knowledge of specific entities often are developedby the same set of individuals. Customer service personnel,because of the relationships they develop with multiple dis-tinct sets of customers, often generate unique insight intocustomers' backgrounds, behaviors, and propensities. Rela-tional and intellectual market-based assets also share severalcommon characteristics. Both assets are intangible; theycannot be inventoried or divided physically into specificportions. Yet both can be assessed in terms of their stock andHow. Stock refers to a specific amount or extent of brandequity or knowledge of customers' purchasing criteria pos-sessed by a firm. low refers to the extent to which a stockof a particular asset is augmenting or decaying. Thu s, a firmcan strive to augment its knowledge of a corporate cus-tom er's buying processes, the persons involved in it, and theorganizational systems supporting them.Market BasedAssets Three PropositionsThere are several interrelated research streams in the mar-keting literature that contribute to the concept of market-based assets; brand equity (cf. Aaker 1991; Keller 1993;Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert 1994), customer satisfac-tion (cf. Anderso n and Sulliv an 1993; Yi 1990), and the

management of strategic relationships (cf. Anderson andNarus 1996; Bucklin and Sengupta 1993). These researchstreams collectively demonstrate that stronger customerrelationships are created when the firm uses knowledgeabout buyer needs and preferences to build long-term rela-tional bonds between external entities and the firm. Ourpurpose is not to provide an extensive review of this litera-ture but to summarize their implications in an integrativeframework.

Three central propositions for market-based assets nowcan be stated. First, the greater the value that can be gener-ated from market-based assets for external entities, thegreater their satisfaction and willingness to be involved withthe firm and, as a consequence, the greater the potentialvalue of these marketplace entities to the firm. Second, themore market-based assets satisfy the asset tests noted previ-ously, the greater the value they generate and sustain forexternal entities. Third, shareholder value is created to theextent that the firm taps or leverages these market-basedassets to improve its cash Hows.Market BasedAssets Generating CustomerVaiueThe concept of market-based assets, as delineated previ-ously, can be refined and extended through comparison withthe more familiar notion of tangible, balance-sheet assets.Perbaps the distinguishing characteristic of internal, tangi-ble, balance-sheet assets, such as plant and equipment, rawmaterials, supplies, inventory, and finished products, is thatthere is a market for them they can be bo ught and sold (seeTable 2). However, the value of such assets to any organiza-tion ultimately is not only their market or trade value, butalso their value in use. Unless assets possess some value inuse, they fail the critical initial test of potential contributionto competitive success noted previously; they are not con-vertible. In a nutshell, tangible assets can be leveraged by anorganization to

1. Lower costs by enhancing productivity;2.Enhance revenues through higher prices if, for example, theraw materials and equipment lead to superior product func-tionality, features, and durability;3.Serve as a barrier to entry or mobility barrier because othersmust make similar investments;4. Provide a competitive edge to the extent that they makeother assets (e.g., employees) more valuable; and5.Provide managers with options, for example, if the plant orequipment can be shared across products.For these reasons, the value of many tangible assets,such as plant and equipment, raw materials, and finishedproducts, historically has been measured and presented onbalance sheets. Some tangible assets, such as plant andequipment, are capitalized and amortized over time. Unfor-tunately, compared with tangible assets, the value of market-based assets is harder to measure, does not appear on bal-ance sheets, and therefore is less likely to be recognized.Furthermore, marketing expenditures to acquire and retaincustomers, develop brands, and create channel and otherpartnerships most often are expensed 'that is, they can-not be depreciated over time. Therefore, as less visibleassets that must be paid for immediately, it is not surprising


5/18

that market-based assets often are not valued and nurtured inthe same way a.s asset.s that are important for, by way ofexample, supply-chain effectiveness and efficiencies. How-ever, it is important to recognize that market-based assetscan be utilized in the same manner as tangible, balance-sheet assets. They also can be leveraged by the firm to

1.Lower costs; superior relationships with and knowledge ofchannels and customers lead to lower sales and servicecosts;

2.Attain price premiums; brand and channel equity lead tohigher perceived value;3.Generate competitive barriers; customer loyalty and switch-ing costs render channels and customers less inclined to pur-chase from rivals;4.Provide a competitive edge by making other resources moreproductive (e.g., satisfied buyers are more responsive tomarketing efforts); and5. Provide managers with optionsfor example, by creatingtrial for brand and category extensions.Not only can market-based assets be used for much thesame purposes as tangible, balance-sheet assets, but they

also are more likely to serve as a basis of long-term, sus-tained customer value for three specific though related rea-sons. First, market-based assets are more likely to satisfy thefour resource-based tests noted previously. Second, they addto the value-generating capability of physical assets. Third,they are suited ideally to exploit the benefits of organiza-tional netw orks. We discuss each separately.

Satisfy resource based tests. Unless relational and intellectual assets are convertible into customer value, theremaining resource-based tests are irrelevant (Barney 1991).Knowledge is perhaps the ultimate source of opportunity(Drucker 1993; Leonard-Barton 1995): It is etnbedded inresearch and development; it guides product innovation; itenergizes marketing and sales. Relationships now are sowidely viewed as essential to opportunity creation that theyare encapsulated in what has becom e known as relationshipmark eting (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). Furtherm ore, rela-tionships with end users can be exploited in building rela-tionships with other entities (e.g., distributors).

Knowledge and relationships are often rare and in somecases may be unique. For example, some firnis' ability toproject the future evolution of market sectors using scenar-ios and related tools provides a unique insight into emergingopportunities, how best to exploit these opportunities, whatcontingent strategies should be developed, and how to mon-itor which future is em erging (Van der Hijden 1996). Suchknowledge enables firms to exploit first-mover advantages,respond appropriately to the moves of competitors, andavoid the penalties associated with brash market moves(Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992).

The intangible nature of market-based assets rendersrelational and intellectual assets extremely difficult to imi-tate (Hall 1992, 1993). Knowledge and relationships aresocially complex and tacit phenomena. The intimacy of rela-tionships with channels and customers attained by such

TABLE 2Attributes of Balance-Sheet and Off-Balance Sheet Assets

Property Balance-Sheet Assets Off-Balance-Sheet AssetsType of assetExamples

Can they be bought andsold?Can they be leveraged tolower costs?

Can they be leveraged tocommand higher pricesor share?Can they generate entrybarriers?Can they provide acompetit ive edge?

Can they create optionsfor managers?Are asset acquisitioncosts capitalized?

Largely tangiblePlant and equipment

Yes. Tangible property has salvagevalue.Yes, by enhancing productivity.

Yes. Superior product quality orfunctionality can be used to justifyhigher prices.Yes. Others must make similarinvestments to be competit ive.Yes. They can make other assets,such as employees, moreproductive.Yes, if plant and equipment can beshared across products.Yes. Plant and equipment can bepaid for over several years.

Largely intangibleMarket-based assets such as customer/brandand channel relationshipsYes. For example, AT&T's acquisition of McCawCellular.Yes. They can result in lower sales and servicecosts due to superior knowledge of customersand channels.Yes. Brand and channel equity lead to higherperceived value that may be tapped throughprice or share premiums.Yes. Customer switching costs and loyalty reducecompetitive vulnerability.Yes, by making other resources more productive(e.g., satisfied buyers are more responsive tomarketing efforts).Yes. Satisfied customers are more likely to trybrand and category extensions.No. Marketing costs are expensed and must bejustified in the short run.


6/18

firms as Home Depot, Nordstrom, and Johnson Controls hasproved almost impenetrable by many rivals (Treacy andWiersema 1995). Moreover, efforts to replicate these assetsoften necessitate extensive investments in marketing, sales,service, and human resources developm ent w ith little, if any,guarantee of success.

Finally, knowledge and relationships present profounddifficulties to rivals .seeking to develop direct substitutes,that is, assets that enable them to pursue similar strategies. Ifa firm pos.sesses truly unique knowledge of its customers,then a competitor must develop either another form ofknowledge (such as technology knowledge) or another typeof asset (perhaps a one-of-a-kind manufacturing process)that will enable it to achieve the same marketing outcomes.If, for exam ple, the firm is using its distinct customer knowl-edge to customize its .solutions (Pine 1993), it might beextremely difficult for rivals to develop substitute e quivalentassets that will enable them to customize their solutions.

Ackl value to tatigihie assets The role and importance ofmarket-based assets is augmented further when the fre-quency with which they add to the value-generating capa-bility of physical assets is recognized (Lane and Jacobsen1995). For example, knowledge of customers' changingtastes and buying criteria enables a firm to adapt its manu-facturing and engineering processes to produce productswith the functionality and features demanded by customers.Strong customer relationships, manifested in channel andbrand equity, enable a firm to commit human resources toentrepreneurial activity such as developing new products,extending existing product lines (Leonard-Barton 1995),and customizing existing solutions (Pine 1993). A firm'smarket-based assets can create value by exploiting not onlythe firm's own tangible assets, but also the tangible assets ofpartner firms. Thus, a manufacturing firm's relationshipwith a retailer (a market-based asset) can be used to lever-age the retailer's physical asset (e.g., shelf space) to createvalue for the manufacturing firm.Indeed, a strong argument can be made that relationaland intellectual assets are necessary to invigorate andunleash the customer value-generating potential embeddedin tangible assets such as plant and machinery and products.Without knowledge of and relationships with external enti-ties, such as custom ers, channe ls, suppliers, and other strate-gic partners, marketing capabilities inherent in organiza-tional processes, such as new product development, orderfulfillment, and speed to market (Day 1994), can be neithercreated nor leveraged. Knowledge and relationships arees.sential sources of these capabilities and, in turn, areextended and augmented by the successful execution ofthe.se capabilities. Recent research (e.g., Badaracco 1991;Quinn 1992) has provided evidence of conceptual quag-mires and managerial conundrums that ensue whenresearchers and managers fail to recognize that knowledgeand relationships not only undergird every form of distinc-tive customer advantage but also are the essential buildingblocks of every form of competence or capability.

E xploit the benefits of netw otks Finally, market-basedassets underlie benefits that can be derived from netw orks

or product ecosystems. As individual firms increasinglybecome the nodes in an interconnected web of formal andinformal relationsbips with external entities (Quinn 1992),including suppliers, channels, end customers, industry andtrade associations, technology sources, advertising agencies,universities, and in many instances even competitors, theircapacity to generate, integrate, and leverage knowledge andrelationships extends considerably beyond the resourcesthey own and control. For example, Intel's Pentium micro-processor's successful defense against both Digital Equip-ment Corporation's Alpha and the IBM/Motorolit/ApplePowerPC chips is in part related to its network of users,original equipment manufacturers, and software vendors.Each network link enables customer value generationbeyond w hat could be created by the nodal firm alone or anyother network entity operating on its own. Therefore, a net-work can be viewed as a coordinated set of knowledgesources and cooperative relationships.Illustrations of the role and importance of networkedmarket-based assets are widely evident. A firm's offerings to

customers become stronger when bolstered with superiorservice by mem bers of the network. A car manufacturer canprovide superior products that become even more valuablewhen accompanied by outstanding service provided by itsdealers. A software publisher is likely to be more attentive toa hardware manufacturer with a dominant buyer installedbase. Collectively, networked producers of complementaryproducts are more valuable to buyers. Consequently, net-worked market-based assets help a firm create value overand above that created by market-based assets individually.Thus, the value of a network of market-based assets can begreater than the sum of its individual components.Impact of Market B ased AssetsTo assess the value of market-based assets, we present aconceptual framework that links the contribution of theseassets to the financial petiormance of the firm and begins tosuggest ways in which the value of marketing activities canbe identified, measured, and communicated. Figure 1depicts the proposed framework.In the first column in Figure 1, we present the two typesof market-based assetscustomer and partner relation-shipsthat we focus on in this article. These relationshipsare formed on the basis of value delivered to customersthrough enhanced product functionality, such as superior per-formance, greater reliability and durability, unique features,better product and service quality, wider availability, greaterease of use, lower levels of perceived risks, higher levels oftrust and confidence, and better reputation and image. Thisvalue is the basis for customer satisfaction and its surrogates.If customers are end consumers, customer satisfaction islinked directly to brand equity. For each brand, there aretho.se who like and buy that brand and those who do not.Hence, it is important to note that brand equity is linked tothe installed base of users. If customers are channel mem-bers, the same concepts apply, but the specific attributesmight be different. For exam ple, whereas autom obile buyersmight focus on manufacturer-provided leasing programs,dealers might be responsive to inventory financing program s.


7/18

FIGURE 1Linking iVIarket Based Assets to Shareholder Value

Market BasedAssetsCustomerRelationships:

BrandsInstalled Base

Partner Relationships:ChannelsCobrandingNetwork

MarketPerformanceFaster MarketPenetrationFaster TrialsFaster ReferralsFaster Adoption

Price PremiumShare PremiumExtensionsSales/Service CostsLoyalty/Retention

ShareholderValueAccelerate Cash Flows

Enhance Cash FlowsReduce Volatility andVulnerability of CashFlowsEnhance Residual Valueof Cash Flows

The entries in the first column of Figure represent out-comes of activities designed to deliver value to customers,and those in the second column summarize the conse-quences of customer behavior that are considered desirableby firms. That is, the second column d eals with outcom es ofcustomer satisfaction or brand equity and represents variousmeasures of market performance. For example, researchover the past decade shows that marketing activities such asadvertising can lead to more differentiated and thereforemore monopolistic products characterized by lower own-price elasticity (Bou lding, Lee , and Staelin 1994). Brandequity can be tapped in a variety of ways. It enables firms tocharge higher prices (Farquhar 1989), attain greater marketshares (Boulding, Lee, and Staelin 1994), develop more effi-cient communications programs because well-differentiatedbrands are more responsive to advertising and promotions(Keller 1993; Smith and Park 1992), command greaterbuyer loyalty and distribution clout in the marketplace(Kamakura and Russell 1994), detlect competitive initia-tives (Srivastava and Shocker 1991), stimulate earlier trialand referrals of products (Zandan 1992), and develop andextend product lines (Keller 1993; Keller and Aaker 1992).These conclusions are similar to findings from research onthe effects of customer satisfaction and relationship market-ing. The conseq uences of customer satisfaction include pay-offs, such as buyer willingness to pay a price premium, usemore of the product, and provide referrals, as well as lowersales and service costs and greater customer retention andloyalty (Reichheld 1996; Reiehheld and Sasser 1990).

Although market-based assets can be expected to boosmarket performance and lower risks, little is known abouhow the stock market values the capability of market-basedassets to enhance current and potential market performanceIn the next section, we attempt to alleviate this shortcominby examining asset valuation approach es to identify key drvers of shareholder value. These driversacceleration anenhancement of cash tlows, reduction in the volatility anvulnerability of cash flows, and growth of residual valueare listed in the last column in Figure 1.

Asset Valuation Methods andDrivers of Shareholder ValueThe valuation of assets is controversial. A variety of financial and accounting approaches has been proposed, eacwith its own set of problems. One way to value assets is othe basis of their costs. For example, the hook v lue of firm is based on the accounting value (costs less depreciation) associated with creating the finn s assets. But historcal costs associated with creating businesses do not reflectrue costs today, leading som e financial acc ountants to arguthat the value of a firm should be based on the repl cernev lue of the assets it owns. U nfortunately, replacement costare notoriously hard to estimate, especially for intangiblassets, such as intellectual property, brand names, and customer relationships. Consequently, book values and replacement values typically ignore the value of intangibles.

In recent years, it has become accepted widely that thdifference between the book value and the market value o


8/18

the finn is accounted for by intangible assets that are notrecognized by today's standard accounting practices(Lowenstein 1996; Rappaport 1986). To the extent that themarket value of a firm is greater than the book or replace-ment values, the differences can be attributed to intangibleassets not captured by current accounting practices (Laneand Jacobsen 1995; Simon and Sullivan 1993). With mar-ket-to-book ratios averaging 3.5 and marke t-to-replace-ment cost ratios (or Q-ratios) averaging approximately 1.9for the ortune500, it is clear that a substantial portion of afinn's market value is in intangible assets (Capraro and Sri-vastava 1997).

That financial m arkets are willing to pay price prem iumsin excess of book values for most firms leads to the questionof how intangible assets are valued. According to Lane andJacobsen (1995), intangible assets, such as brand names,enhance the ability of the firm to create earnings beyondthose generated by tangible assets alone. In the paradigm offinancial valuation based on present value of future earn-ings, firms with intangible strengths, such as well-knownbrand names, channel dominance, or an ability to innovate,should have higher net present values because of incremen-tal earnings beyond those associated with tangible assetsalone. The need to value intangible assets and the difficul-ties of doing so is refiected in the plethora of approaches thathave been advocated in the past few years. Theseapproaches include price premium, earnings valuation, androyalty paym ents (cf. Tollington 1995); determining thevalue of intangible assets as part of the value of intellectualcapital (Simon and Sullivan 1993; Smith and Parr 1997);cost, market, and income approach methodologies (Reilly1994); determination of brand mu ltiples (Murphy 1990);and the use of tnomentum accounting to measure brandassets (Farquhar, Han, and Ijiri 1991).Perhaps the most widely used basis for a brand-valua-tion approach is the Price-E arnings (PE) Mu ltipleapproach used by the InterBrand Group (Penrose 1989), inwhich the value of brands is estimated on the basis of incre-tnental earnings associated with brand names multiplied bya PE multiple based on brand strength and product categoryattractiveness (higher for strong brands in more desirablecategories). Intuitively, PE multiples and thus valuation oftoday's earnings increase with mitigation of risk andenhancement of future growth potential.

Although the PE Multiple is an often-quoted valuationmeasure, it has the probletns associated with a reliance onearningsan accrual accounting measure of firm perfor-mance (Fisher and McGow an 1983). Although the literaturehas yet to resolve which is the best measure of finn perfor-mance, there is a shift in recent years to use cash tlows(Ker in, Mahajan, and Varadarajan 1990). Schola rs in thefinance area have argued that the market value of a firm isthe net present value of al| future cash fiows expected toaccrue to the firtn (cf. Rappaport 1986). Thu s, the share-holder value approach , based on discounted cash flowanalysis, is becoming increasingly important in strategicdecision making for purposes of resource allocation amongoptions that offer growth but are inherently risky. Theimportance of this perspective is underscored by the fact

that a large proportion of the value of firms is based on per-ceived growth potential and associated risks, that is, value isbased on expectations of future performance. The itnplica-tions of this for the marketing profession are immense. Ifresources allocated to m arketing strategies are not viewed asinvestments that create assets that can be leveraged toenhance future petformance, provide potential for growth,or reduce risk, then contributions by marketers are likely tobe perceived as marginal by corporate decision makers. Thechallenge then is to demonstrate and measure the value cre-ated or driven by marketing investments and strategies.

The shareholder value-planning approach proposed byRappapo rt (1986) is based on several value drive rs (Kim ,Mahajan, and Srivastava 1995). Because shareholder, valueis composed of the present value of (I) cash fiows duringthe value growth period and (2) the long-term, residualvalue of the product/business at the end of the value growthperiod (for a detailed description of the approach, see Dayand Fahey 1988), the value of any strategy is inherently dri-ven by^1. An acceleration of cash flows (earlier cash flows are pre-ferred because risk and time adjustments reduce the value oflater cash flows);2.An increase in the level of cash flows (e.g., higher revenuesand/or lower costs, working capital, and fixed investments);3. reduction in risk associated with cash flows (e.g., throughreduction in both volatility and vulnerability of future cashflows) and hence, indirectly, the firm's cost of capital; and4.The residual value of the business (long-term value can beenhanced, for example, by increasing the size of the cus-tomer base).

Market Based Assets and Shareholder ValueWe turn now to a d iscussion of how market-based assetsinf luence the four dr ivers of shareholder value identif ied inthe previous section . We f irs t d iscuss the inf luence of mar-ket-based assets on the accelerat ion of cash f lows or thereceip t of cash f lows sooner than o therwise. We then exam-ine how market-based assets enhance the level of cashf lows. Next, we d iscuss how market-based assets lower thevolati l i ty and vulnerabil i ty of cash f lows. Finally , we assesshow market-based assets inf iuence the res idual value ofcash f lows. Although each market-based asset potential ly

'Prior attempts in the marketing literature to develop a concep-tual framework of the value of intangible as.sets such as inlbrma-tion typically have stopped short of shareholder value. Glazer's(1991) influential work on the value of information describes valueas arising from the capability of the information to (I) generaterevenues from transactions higher than otherwi.se, (2) make cost offuture transactions lower than otherwi.se, and (3) generate revenuesfrom the information it self The present framework extendsGlazer's work in three ways. First, it adds new components ofvalue, such as the capability to accelerate cash tlows and lowertheir vulnerability and volatility. Second, it describes the four com-ponents of higher cash flow (i.e., higher revenues, lower costs,lower working capital levels, and lower levels of fixed invest-ment). Third, it includes the value of relationships, or relationalas.sets, and not just the value of information and knowledge.


9/18

can influence every driver of shareholder value, for reasonsof brevity we discuss a select few of all the possible link-ages. The goal is to illustrate rather than provide an exhaus-tive assessment of the influence of market-based assets onthe drivers of shareholder value.

It also should be noted that there may be trade-offs orsynergies involved in the influence of market-based assetson the four drivers of shareholder value. For example, it ispossible that marketing activities to speed up cash flowsalso could have the effect of increasing the volatility of cashflows. Conversely, it is also possible that marketing activi-ties to speed up cash flows simultaneously could increasethe residual value of cash flows. Therefore, the criteria forchoosing between investment opportunities in market-basedassets must include the impact of the proposed marketinginvestments on all the drivers of shareholder value.Market asedAssets Influence on AcceleratingCash FlowsMarket-based assets can enhance shareholder value byenabling the firm to accelerate the receipt of cash flows orgenerating cash flows sooner than otherwise. As depicted inFigure 2, the faster the receipt of cash flows, the higher theirnet present value. To the extent that m arket-based assets canhelp accelerate the receipt of cash flows, such assets caninfluence positively the shareholder value of the firm.

There is considerable evidence in the marketing litera-ture that market-based assets can accelerate cash flows by

increasing the responsiveness of the marketplace to market-ing activity. For example, Keller 1993) argues that brandequity can be captured in the differential effects of brandknowledge on consumer response to how the brand is mar-keted. Thus, if brand awareness and brand attitude are posi-tive, customers are likely to respond with greater speed tothe marketing efforts of the brand. Therefore, when exposedto a brand of which they are aware and to which they are dis-posed positively, customers are more likely to try the brand,adopt the brand, and begin to refer the brand to otherssooner than otherwise.

Empirical evidence from industry studies also suggeststhat the more positive the brand attitude, the quicker theresponse of custom ers to new products. Zandan 1992) findsthat brands with the strongest images in the personal com-puter industry, such as IBM, Compaq, and Hewlett-Packard,typically can expect customers to adopt their next-genera-tion products three to six months sooner than brands withweaker images. Furthermore, his study also suggests thatcustomers generally are willing to refer these brands to oth-ers three to six months sooner than they are for weakerbrands. Therefore, customers with whom the firm has devel-oped stronger long-term relational bonds through brand- andloyalty-building investments are likely to respond faster tomarketing programs designed to stimulate earlier purchasesand faster referrals, which leads to the acceleration of cashflows and thus greater shareholder value.

FIGURE 2Accelerating and Enhancing Cash Flows

^5

Price/market share premiumsCross-sell products/servicesDevelop new usesLower sales and service costsReduce working capitalBrand extensionsCobranding.aiid-emarfceting

Faster response to marketpg^ffortsEarlier brand trials ai^di-eferralsT ime to m ark e t> ec^ tanc eStrategic-^Hiances, cross-promotions

im


10/18

There is increasing recognition in the marketing andnew product development literature that speed to market i.sa crucial variable. However, Robertson (1993) highlightsthat though there is a tremendous focus on speeding the newproduct development cycle, relatively little attention hasbeen paid to achieving reductions in time-to-market accep-tance for new products. Consequently, Robertson (1993)argues that being quick to m arket with a new product is onlyhalf Ihe ballle, the other half being the ability of the firm topenetrate the market quickly with the new product or reducethe market penetration cycle time. Jain, Mahajan, andMuller (1995) demonstrate that seeding the market (i.e.,using promotions to establish an installed base) and tbenleveraging these early adopters to facilitate word-of-mouthadvertising can speed up product life cycles and thereforecash flows. Recent research on network externalitiesdemonstrates the importance of the installed base (and buy-ers ' expectations of the future installed base) in driving theadoption process. Network externalities lead to increasingreturns with the growth of the installed base and have beenused to justify marke ting activities that focus on licensingand standardization as a way of developing and leveragingthe buyer installed base (Besen and Farrell 1994; Conner1995). In the framework of network externalities, bothclones and unauthorized (pirated) copies lead to the devel-opment of de facto standards (Conner and Rumelt 1991;Takeyama 1994). To the extent that market-based assetshelp reduce market penetration cycle time, the receipt ofcash flows will be accelerated, and the net present value ofcash flows will increase.

In addition, m arket-based assets also have network-leveleffects on market penetration cycle times. Strategic partner-ships can help a firm reduce the speed with which productsare able to penetrate the marketplace. Robertson (1993)points out that few firms have the capability to penetrate allmarkets around the world before a new product loses itsinnovative advantage. If so, alliances with partners canaccelerate cash Hows by penetrating a greater portion of theglobal market in the same time frame. Although the firmwill need to part with the margins that are needed to createpartnerships, the lower margins could be more than com-pensated for by the increase in the net present value of cashflows due to the acceleration of cash flows. In particular,this is more likely to be the case if the pace of technologydevelopment is rapid or the technology pioneer has a shortwindow in which to establish the product.

The appropriate use of partnerships also enables firmsto respond more quickly to market needs by taking advan-tage of existing networks. For example, a recent trend inthe fast-food industry is to seek new locatio ns in institu-tional markets, such as airports, gas stations, retail stores,and universities. Thus, McDonald's has an arrangementwith Wal-Mart to place restaurants in the new Wal-MartSuperccnters, which enables McDonald's to penetrate newmarkets with greater speed, albeit at the cost of sharingmargins with Wal-Mart.Marketers traditionally have focused on financial met-

rics such as sales volume, market share, gross margin, andso fotth. As such, marketing expenditures that are aimed at

tion cycle time are difficult to justify in the contex t ofresource allocation within a firm. To the extent that theimpact of marketing investments on shareholder value caninclude the additional value created by the acceleration ofcash flows, the value of marketing activities such as brandbuilding, product sampling, and comarketing alliances willbe understood better and valued more appropriately bysenior management and other functional executives.Market asedAssets Influence on EnhancingCash FlowsMarket-based assets can increase shareholder value byenhancing the level of cash flows or generating cash flowsthat are higher than otherwise. As shown in Figure 2, highercash flows translate into higher shareholder value. Cashflows can be enhanced by (1) generating higher revenues,(2) lowering costs, (3) lowering working capital require-ments, and (4) lowering fixed capital requirements.Although the first two have been discussed in the marketingliterature (Glazer 1991), the impact of marketing activitieson the fixed and working capital requirements of the firm,though it has received some attention lately, generally is notwell understood.Although great care must be taken not to overextendbrands, a great deal of evidence in the marketing literaturesuggests that brand extensions are important mechanismsfor enhancing revenues (cf. Aa ker 1991; Srivastava andShocker 1991). Well-established and differentiated brandscan charge a price premium on the basis of their monopolis-tic power attributable to customer switching costs and loy-alty (Boulding, Lee, and Staelin 1994; Farquhar 1989).Brand equity also is associated with a customer base that ismore responsive to advertising and promotions (Keller1993). Therefore, the marginal costs of sales and marketingare lower for higher equity brands. Brand extensions enablefirms to fill out their product lines, expand into related mar-kets, and increase revenues by licensing brand names for usein other product categories. Furthermore, Smith and Park(1992) demonstrate the positive impact of brand extensionson market share and advertising efficiency and present evi-dence for how brand extensions help lower costs. Althoughbrand extensions give rise to the danger of diluting brandequity, Dacin and Smith (1994) show that the number ofproducts associated with a brand can even strengthen thebrand, provided a consistency in quality is maintainedacross all products associated with the brand. Indeed, Wern-erfelt (1988) argues that brand extensions can be interpretedas a firm's use of its accumulated investment in the brand,and future cash Hows from other products affiliated with thebrand as a bond or collateral for the quality of the exten-sion, which signals to customers the firm's faith in the brandextension.

There is a growing recognition in the literature that cus-tomer relationships enhance cash Hows by reducing thelevel of working capital and fixed investments. The trendtoward relationship marketing has created, in manyinstances, closer relationships between suppliers and cus-tomers (cf. Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995; Weitz and Jap 1995).These relationships have enabled both parties to achieve


11/18

relationship between Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart hasresulted in efficiencies in managing order placement, orderprocessing, cross-docking, and inventory holding that haveprovided both finns with cost savings. In the absence ofstrong supplier-customer relationships, the ability of eitherparty to create partnerships that lead to the more efficientuse of working capital and fixed assets, such as manufactur-ing capacity and warehouses, is extremely limited. Thus,strong relationships make it possible for firms to conceiveand implement new policies and programs that otherwisewould be nearly impossible.

Networked market-based assets also infiuence share-holder value by positively affecting cash flows. Andersonand Narus (1996) highlight how channel members can col-laborate to help provide superior service to customers thatotherwise would not have been possible. Thus, by poolinginventories at the network level, each member of the chan-nel can promise and deliver improved customer service lev-els while lowering the investment required in inventoriesby each member of the network. Anderson and Narus(1996) cite inventory reduction s of 15 -20 andimproved customer service as a result of better utilizationof channel relationships.

In addition, cooperative ventures, such as cobrandingand comarketing alliances, also enable firms to enhancecash flows (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993). The essence ofcobranding and component branding is that both partnersgain access to the other's customer base. Cooperation thatinvolves sharing brands and customer relationships enablesfirms to (1) lower the cost of doing business by leveragingothers' already existing resources, (2) increase revenues byreaching new markets or making available others' products,and (3) avoid the fixed investment of creating a new brandaltogether or of establishing or extending the customerbase.Although researchers in marketing have addressed theissue of how marketing activities lower costs and enhancerevenues, they have paid little attention to how market-based assets belp reduce working capital and fixed invest-ment needs. A notable exception is the recent literature onrelationship marketing, which has brought to the fore issuessuch as the ability of partnerships to create efficiencies inthe use of capital. If such a recognition has occurred, thewillingness to invest in customer and partner relationship-building activities is apparent. However, the vast majority ofmarketing practitioners and top managers have yet todevelop an appreciation for the role of marketing in influ-encing the capital needs of the business.Market BasedAssets Influence on theVulnerability and Volatility ofCashFlowsMarket-based assets also can increase shareholder value bylowering the vulnerability and volatility of cash flows.Lower volatility and vulnerability reduce the risk associatedwith cash flows, which results in a lower cost of capital ordiscount rate. Thus, cash fiows that are more stable andpredictable will have a higher net present value and conse-quently create more shareholder value. Therefore, thecapability of m arket-based assets to reduce the volatility and

vulnerability of cash flows has a strong infiuence on the cre-ation of shareholder value (see Figure 3).The vulnerability of cash flows is reduced when cus-tomer satisfaction, loyalty, and retention are increased

When the firm has a satisfied and loyal base of customersthe cash fiow from these customers is less susceptible tocompetitive activity. As a relatively rare and inimitableasset, the loyalty of the installed base represents a significant entry barrier to competition and makes the firm's cashfiow less vulnerable. A variety of marketing programs aregeared toward increasing customer loyalty and switchingcosts by increasing benefits (e.g., American Airlines' AAdvantage program) and reducing risks (e.g., through unconditional money-back guarantees) to more loyal customersFurthermore, research from the services industry demonstrates that customer switching behavior is attributable moreoften to inadequate and indifferent customer service than tobetter products or prices (Reichheld 1996). This sug geststhat experiential as opposed to search attributes are moreimportant for facilitating customer retention and loyalty. Inaddition, cross-selling of multiple products and servicesand therefore increasing the number of bonds between firmsand their customerscan increase switching costs.

Although marketers do focus on how to generate customer loyalty, they often fail to communicate its value. Oneway to do this could be by looking at the consequences ofdisloyalty. For example, the average retention rate in theautomob ile insurance industry is 80 . San Antonio-basedUSAA has a retention rate of more than 99 . So whereathe average insurance company must replace approximately50 of its customers after three years, USAA must replaceless than 3 . With customer acquisition costs running aleast five times retention costs, the mathematical justification of a marketing focus on customer loyalty and retentionis not difficult (for detailed analyses and arguments, seeReichheld 1996).The volatility of cash fiows is reduced when the firm'srelationship with customers and channel partners is arrangedin a manner that promotes stability in operations. This is, inpart, the motivation for packaged goods manufacturers athey attempt to forge relationships with retailers that createoperations that result in fewer and smaller peaks and valleyin sales. Customer and partner relationships enable firms tcoordinate activities across the value chain, which enhancethe ability of all members of the value chain to make theicash fiows more stable. Thus, customer and channel partnerships that lead to greater sharing of information, automatic ordering and replenishment, and lower inventoriecan help reduce the unpredictability of cash fiows. Volatilitalso is reduced when the firm is able to retain a large proportion of customers, as the cost of retaining customers ilikely to be more predictable than the cost of acquiring newcustomers. Finally, companies such as General Electric andKodak have followed the approach pioneered by Xeroxleasing imaging and medical equipment and generating stable cash fiows from consumables and services that are thenless vulnerable to competitive actions.

Although marketing activities can be structured treduce the volatility and vulnerability of cash fiows, suc


12/18

marketing activities often can be faulted for increasing thevolatility and vulnerability of cash fiows by using promo-tion and pricing strategies that encourage custotners andchannel partners to buy more unevenly than they otherwisewould. Only in the past few years, as is so aptly illustratedby the current problems of America Online, have marketersbegun to recognize the im pact of their actions on the level ofvolatility in their businesses. As this recognition has grown,marketers have begun to look at measures beyond the levelof sales and market share, such as the volatility and vulner-ability of sales volume and market share.Market BasedAssets Influence on the ResidualValueofCash FlowsResidual value is the present value of a business attributableto the period beyond a reasonable forecast period and gen-erally accounts lor a significant proportion of the net presentvalue of business Rapp aport 1986). As such, it refiects theexpected value of the business beyond the planning horizon.Naturally, this expectation is linked to sources of expectedcash fiow in the future. As Figure 4 depicts, a strong ca.secan be made for the link between market-based assets andresidual value. For example, users of earlier versions ofproducts and/or services not only can buy later versions butalso can buy related products and services and brand exten-sions. More important, they contribute to growth by alsoreferring these products and services to other potential usersand therefore aid the adoption process. In many industries in

which cash fiows can be linked directly to custotners e.g.,magazine subscriptions, cable television, cellular telephoneservices), the residual value of the business is linked closelyto the size and quality of the custom er base Kim, Mahajan,and Srivastava 1995).Some of the satne factors that contribute to enhancingcash flows and reducing volatility and vuhierability also

lead to higher residual values. For example, the larger thecustomer base and the higher the quality of the custotnerbase as tneasured by usage volutne, willingness to pay aprice pretnium, lower sales and service costs, and so on), thehigher the loyalty and therefore the lower the risk or vul-nerability) and the residual value. This understanding isimportant because to create shareholder value, companiesnot only must grow the customer base but also must refineit i.e., eliminate less profitable custom ers). Furthem iore, along-temi goal of less vulnerable cash fiows suggests ahigher priority for customer retention versus acquisition,because customer loyalty is associated with higher revenue,lower sales and service costs, and lower risk. Finally, it isitnportant to recognize that sustained, long-term customerloyalty results in more stable businesses and therefore alower cost of capital. This further enhances the residualvalue of businesses.

Research on custome r satisfaction, retention, and loyaltydemonstrates the impact of marketing on the size and qual-ity of the custotner base of business cf. Anderson and Sul-livan 1993; Johnson, Anderson, and F omell 1995; OliverFIGURE 3Reducing Volatility in Cash Flows

f

oNet Present Value NPV) of a cashflow with the same mean but lowervariance and financial risk) is higherbecause of lower capital costs. ThisNPV enhanc ement can be achieved byenhancing loyalty and switchingcosts,shifting to services and consumables,an dintegrating operations to reducecapital requirements.

im


13/18

FIGURE 4Enhancing the Residual Value of Cash Flows

Residual Value of Business = Increasing unction of Size Loyalty and Q ualityofCustom er Base

ener tion 4

ener tion 3

ener tion Grow Installed Base, Cross-Sell Produc tsand Services, Brand Extensions, Upgrades

1980; Yi 19 9 0). Satisfied customers are more loyal. Satis-fied customers also extend their relationships with vendorsto include other products and services. Finally, satisfied cus-tomers also are willing to pay higher prices. Furthermore,the possession of a large and loyal customer base confers adeg ree of legitimacy on the organization that is difficult forcompetitors to emulate. As a socially com plex, difficult-to-imitate, and relatively rare asset, the customer base createsbarriers for competition and thus increases the residualvalue of a business.

is ussionAlthough the assertion that marketing activities create finan-cial value is well accepted, marketing practitioners histori-cally have found it difficult to measure and communicate toother functional executives and top management the valuecreated by investments in marketing activity. Prior frame-works that assess the value of marketing activities typicallyhave addressed the issue of customer valtie, but relativelylittle has been said about how m arketing creates shareholdervalue. It is this gap that we hope to address by developing aconceptual framework that links marketing activities to thecreation of shareholder value. In this discussion, we focuson the potential impact of the framework on marketing the-ory development, empirical research, and the teaching andpractice of marketing.mplications for Marketing heoryAs a multifaceted discipline, marketing lacks a single, inte-grating theory cf. Hunt 1 98 3). What is clear is that as thepractice of marketing evolves, as the influence of market-

ing increases within organizations, and as the need fogreater integration of marketing with other disciplines sucas finance and manufacturing becomes necessary, markeing theory has not kept pace. In the absence of dev elopmenof its underlying theory, marketing as an academic field oinquiry cannot avoid further intellectual disintegration cDay 1992), and as a field of practice, it is likely to losinfluence within organizations in the battle for manageriattention.

Although it is not offered as a solution to these ills, a significant contribution of the framework presented in this artcle is its potential to influence the development of theory imarketing. Fundamentally, the framework is a powerful tooto help understand the changing contours of marketingwhat it is and what it is not, how and why it is evolving ispecific directions as suggested by the changing assumptions about marketing noted at the beginning of the articleand the role of marketing in broader business issues ancontexts. Specific to this article is the contention that theories of marketing must be extended and broadened tinclude developments in finance, as indeed, theories ofinance must be extended and broadened to include recedevelopments in marketing.In at least one respect, the framework presented herrepresents a paradigm shift of modest proportions in thdomain of marketing theory. If theory is the stipulation ocause and effect, given particular conditions, then markeing theory must incorporate more explicitly market-baseassets as an input to marketing strategy choices that affec

financial performance measures such as cash flowAlthough we have made an attempt to define and delineacarefully the concept of market-based assets, we are fa


14/18

from developing a theory that refines the concept of mar-ket-ba.sed as.sets, identifies the range and extent of suchassets, and develops sets of indicators to measure theirstock and (low. Moreover, theory development in this areamust address the trade-offs and synergies involved in accel-erating cash fiows, increasitig cash flows, lowering thevolatility and vuhierability of cash flows, and iticreasingthe residual value of cash fiows. W ithout such theory devel-opment, critical distinctions among types of market-basedassets are likely to remain far too coarse-grained. We hopethis article stitnulates such theorizing.Implications for mpirical esearchin MarketingBy adding shareholder value-based criteria to assess theeffectiveness of tnarketing activities, the fratnework has thepotential to infiuence empirical research on the value ofmarketitng by (I) highlighting under-researched variables intnarketing and (2) exatnining hitherto unexplored pathsamong existing variables.

Under researched variables. Cash fiow is a relativelyunderutilized variable in marketing theory and research.Prior research has examined the impact of marketing onvariahles such as brand loyalty and customer satisfaction.Many studies also have examined the infiuence of market-ing activities on financial measures, such as return on sales,return on assets, and return on equity. However, these areaccrual accounting variahles and as such are not always thetnost appropriate measures of firm performance (Rappaport1983, 1986). Atnong the probletns with accrual accountitigtneasures of finn perfortnance are that (1) they refiect pre-vious perfonnanc e and are not forward looking, (2) they arenot adjusted for risk, and (3) they can be distorted byaccounting laws and conventions (Bharadwaj and Bharad-waj 1997; Fisher and McGowan 1983; Montgotnery andWernerfelt 1988). Although the debate on the pros and consof alternative measures of firm perfortnance is far frotnresolved, cash fiow is viewed increasingly as less suscepti-ble to the probletns associated with accrual acc ounting mea-sures (Day atid Fahey 1988). Th us, the iticlusion of cashfiow as a variable in tnarketing studies will help marketersbetter understand the infiuence of marketing activities onshareholder value.

Yet another variable that has received litnited attentionin marketing is speed. With the exception of the new prod-uct development literature, speed has not been a popularvariable in tnarketing research. A focus on speed as a vari-able of interest undoubtedly will alter the focus of market-ing activities and reframe research questions around theinfiuence of marketing variables in attaining more rapidmarket penetration and hence greater shareholder value. Inparticular, the effect of speed on the capability of a finn toincrease the net present value of cash fiows is an interestingarea that remains unexplored.

Uttexplofed relationships. The fratnework also has thepotential to highlight sotne relationships that retnain unex-plored in the marketing literature. For example, the linkbetween custotner loyalty and the reduction of the vulnera-bility and volatility of cash fiows as of yet has not heenunderstood adequately. Likewise, the linkage between tnar-

keting strategies and the capital requiretnents of the firmretnaitis relatively less understood. Further research in theseareas will help sharpen tnarketers understanding of theimpact of marketing activities on shareholder value.By considering hitherto underutilized variables andunderstanding these unexplored relationships, the currentframework has the potential to infiuence the na ture, content,

and tone of the marketing conversation. Traditionally, stud-ied variables, such as market share, market orientation, cus-totner satisfaction and loyalty, and brand equity, tnust belinked to their infiuence on cash fiows as research in mar-keting increasingly focuses on the creation of shareholdervalue.Implications forTeachingMarketingThe fratnework also has implications for how tnarketing istaught. First, it enables marketing acadetnics to provide acoordinated treatment of concepts from the marketing,finatice, and accounting disciplines. Second, it al.so allowsfor the development of course materials to aid in the teamteaching of courses ihat integrate marketing, finance, andaccounting perspectives. Given the demands placed on busi-ness schools to develop integrated courses that prepare stu-dents to work more effectively in cross-functional environ-ments, this framework and others like it can serve a valuablerole in guiding the way the nature, scope, and value of mar-keting activities are taught in the future.Implications for Marketing PracticeA critical itnplication of this article is that both the input andoutput ditnensions of many practitioners mental models ofwhat tnarketing is tnight need to be amended radically. Anappreciation of tnarket-based assets, shareholder value para-meters, and, more important, the linkages between thetncould lead to nothing short of a paradigm shift in how manymarketing managers understand the scope and content oftnarketing, its role in the organization, and how to cotntnu-nicate with managers in the top echelon and other functionalareas. Although the change in tnarketing assutnplions enu-merated at the beginning of this article suggests that thisparadigm shift is at least in the early stages in sotne organi-zations, the thrust of the managerial implications suggestedhere is that it must occur on a grand er scale and at a consid-erably more rapid rate.

A fundamentally new challenge for tnany tnarketingtnanagers at the strategy input end is the identification of themarket-based assets they now possess. This involves noth-ing shott of cataloging each relational and intellectual asset.In the spirit of the marketing-finance fratnework presentedhere, cross-functional teams can aid in both listing suchassets and affording an opportunity to begin the necessarydialogue across organizational boundaries about tnarket-based assets and their impact on financial performance.The tnarket-based as.seis an organization possesses tnaynot he those it needs. Using current and potential marketingstrategies as a guide, tnanagers should ask what relationaland intellectual assets would be required ideally to attract,win, and retain customers. Such judgtnents would compelmanagers to think in terms of market-based assets. Man-


15/18

agers then must make assessments about asset stocks (thatis , how much of each asset they pos.sess) and flows (that is,whether each asset is augmenting or atrophying). The chal-lenge here is to determine relevant stock and fiow parame-ters. Some organizations might be unaware of market-basedasset parameters they already possess, such as customer andchannel surveys, third-party reports, and managers' ownjudgm ents that are contained in their reports of visits to cus-tomers, channels, and other strategic partners. Articulatingand measuring such parameters, however crude they mayb e , will familiarize m anagers with the notion of market-based assets.

The central managerial challenge is how to leveragemarket-based assets for marketplace success. Consideration'of how intellectual and relational assets might be leveragedin developing new products or solutions, reaching new cus-tomer sets, and establishing new modes of differentiationcould lead managers to identify new opportunities or waysto exploit existing opportunities better. Managers can askwhether the stock of each asset is being exploited fully. Forexample, some organizations will discover that their strongrelationships with specific channels are underutilized, thechannel could take more throughput, or they could do a bet-ter job of detailing and pushing the firm's products to cus-tomers. At a minimum, assessing how such assets can beleveraged will give managers a greater appreciation of theirrole and importance in developing and executing marketingstrategy.At the output end, managers must assess, even if theyonly do so crudely to begin with, how leveraging theseassets affects cash flows. Again, learning both the analysismethodology and the underlying thought process, as articu-

lated here, is essential. For example, marketing managersmust assimilate and use the concepts and vocabulary now

second nature to financial and accounting managers. Imany organizations, it also will necessitate reconfigurinthe core of marketing decision analysis: The output or peformance measures now will include financial as well amarketplace parameters. Managers can begin by carefullidentifying how a marketing strategy or individual markeing programs, such as a sales promotion program or a newadvertising campaign, might affect cash fiows. Indeed, thfew organizations that do leverage their market-based assetwell provide excellent guidelines for how other firms alscan create and use market-based assets. At a minimumadditional marketing decision levers will be added to tharsenal of marketing managers.

ConclusionThe focus of this article is to enhance the understanding othe marketing-finance interface by developing a framework that captures the linkages between marketing activties and the creation of shareholder value. The frameworproposes that marketing is concerned with the task odeveloping and managing market-based assets, or assethat arise from the commingling of the firm with entitiein its external environment. Examples of market-baseassets include customer relationships, channel relationships, and partner relationships. Market-based assets, iturn, infiuence shareholder value by accelerating anenhancing cash flows, lowering the volatility and vulnerability of cash flows, and increasing the residual value ocash fiows. It is our hope that this framework will influence the nature, content, and tone of the marketing conversation and enable marketing professionals to assess ancommunicate the value of marketing activities to othedisciplines.

R F R N SAaker, David A. (1991),Managing Brand Equity: Capitaiizing onth e alue of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Pres.s.and Robert Jacobsen (1994), The Financial InformationContent of Perceived Q uality, Journal of Marketing Research,31 (May), 191-201.Agrawal, Jagdish and Wagner Kamakura (1995), The E conomicWorth of Celebrity Endorsers: An Event Study Analysis, Jour-

nal of Marketing, 59 (July), 56-62.Amit, R. and R J. H. Schoem aker (1993), Strategic Assets andO r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e n t , S t r a t e g ic M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l 1 4 ( I ) ,33-46.Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann(1994), Cus tom er Satisfaction, Market Share and Profitability:Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July),53-66.and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), The Antecedents and Con-sequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firnis, Marketing Sci-ence, 12 (Spring), 1 2 5 ^ 3 .Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1996), Rethinking Dis-tribution: Adaptive Channels, Harvard Business Review, 74(July/August), 112-22.

Anderson, Paul (1979), The Marketing Managem ent/FinanceInterface, American M arketing Association Educators Con-ference Proceedings, Nell Beckwith et al., eds. Chicago: Amer-

(1981), Marketing Investment Analysis, in Research Marketing, Vol. 4, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAPress, 1-37.- (1982), Marketing Planning and the Theory of the FirmJournal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 15-26.

Badaracco, Joseph L. (1991), The Knowledge Link: How FirmCompete Through Strategic Alliances. Boston: Harvard Buness School Press.Bainey, Jay (1991), Firm Resources and Sustained Com petitivAdvantage, Journal of Management, 17 (I) , 99-120.and William Ouchi (1986), Organizational EconomicToward a New Paradigm for Studying and U nderstandinOrganizations.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Barwise, Patrick, Paul R. Marsh, and Robin Wensley (1989 Must Finance and Strategy Clash? Harvard Business Revie67 (September/October), 85-90.Besen, Stanley M. and Joseph Fanell (1994), Choosing How Compe te: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization, Journal Economic Perspectives,8 (Spring), 117-31.

Bharadw aj, Anandhi S. and Sundar G. Bharadwaj (1997), Infomation Technology Effects on Firm Performance as Measureby Tobin's q, working paper, Goizueta B usiness SchooEmory University.Boulding, William, Eunkyu Lee, and Richard Staelin (1994


16/18

Force Activities LeadtoDifferentiation? Journal of MarketingResearch,3\ (May), 159-72.Bucklin, Louis P. and Sanjit Sengupta (1993), Organ izingSuc-cessful Co-Marketing Alliances, Journal of Marketing, 57(April),32^6.

Capraro, A nthonyJ. and Rajendra K.Srivastava (1997), Has theInfluence of Financial Performance on Reputation MeasuresBeen Overstated? Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1),86-93 .Chaney, Paul, Timothy Devinney,and Rus.sell Winer (1991), TheImpactof New Product Introductionson the Market Valuationof Firms, JournalofBusiness,64 (4),573-610.Conner, Kathleen R.(1991), Historical ComparisonofResource-Ba.sed Theory and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial

Organization Economies:Do We Have a NewTheoryof theF\rmT Journal of Managem ent, 17,121-54.

(1995), Obtain ing Strategic Advan tage from BeingImi-tated: WhenCan Encouraging 'Clones' PnyT Management Sci-ence,4\ (February), 209-25.

and Richard P. Rumelt (1991), Software Piracy: AnAnalysis of Protection Strategies, Management Science, 37(February), 125-39.Cotistantin, JamesA. and Robert F. Lusch (1994),UnderstandingResource Management. Oxford, OH:ThePlanning Fonini.Dacin, Peter A.andDanielC. Smith (1994), TheEffect ofBrandPortfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of BrandExtensions, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May),229-42.

Day, George (1992), Marke ting's Contribution to the StrategyDialogue, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,20(Fall), 323-30.(1994), The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organiza-tions. Journal of Marketing,59 (October), 37-52.and Liam Fahey (1988 ), Valuing Market Strategie s,Journal of Marketing,52(July), 45-57 .Drucker, Peter (1993), Post-Capitalist Society.NewYork: HarperBusiness.Fama, Eugeneand Meiton Miller (1972),TheTheoryof Finance.New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), Ma naging Brand Equity, MarketingResearch, I (September), 24-33., JuliaY Han, andYuji ljiri (1991), Reco gnizingand Mea-suring Brand As.sets. Report No. 91-119. Cambridge, MA:Marketing Science Institute.Fisher, Franklin and John McGowan (1983), On the MisuseofAccounting RatesofReturnto Infer Monopoly Profits, Amer-ican Economic Review,73. 82-97.Glazer, Rashi (1991). Marketing in an Information-IntensiveEnvironment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an

fKf.^eX, Journal of M arketing,55(October), 1-19.Grant, Robert M.(1991), The Re.source-Based Theory of Com-petitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation,California Mcm agenient Review,33(Spring), 114-35.Hall, Richard (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible

Rfiowxcf., Strategic Management Journal. 13 (2), 1 3 5 ^ 4 .(1993), A Framework Linking Intangible Re.sourcesandCapabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage, StrategicManagement Journal, 14 (8),60 7 -1 8 .Horsky, Dan and Patrick Swyngedouw (1987), Does It Pay toChange Your Company's Name? A Stock Market Perspective,Marketing Science,6(Fall) . 320-35.Hunt, Sheltiy D. (1983). Marketing Theory: The PhilosophyofMarketing Science. Homewood. IL:Richard D.Irwin.and RobertM. Morgan (1995). TheComparative Advan-tage TheoryofCompetition, Journal of Marketing,59(April),1-15.Itanii, Hiroyuki (1987), Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Jain, Dipak, Vijay Mahajan, and Eitan Muller (1995), AnApproach for Determining Optimal Product Sampling for theDiffusion of a NewProduct, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 12(March), 29-3 7.Johnson, Michael D., Eugene W. Anderson, and Claes Fornell

(1995), RationalandAdaptive Petforniance Expectations in aCustomer Satisfaction Framework, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 21 (March), 695-707.

Kamakura, W agnerA.andGaryJ.Russell (1994), UnderstandingBrand Competition Using Micro and Macro Scanner Data,Journal of Marketing Research,31(May), 289-30 3.Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton (1992), The BalancedScorecardMeasures That Drive Performance, Harvard Busi-ness Review,70 (January/February), 71-79.

and (1993), Putting the Balanced Scorecard toWork, Harvard Business Review, 71 (September/October),134-47.Keller, Kevin L.(1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring,and Man-aging Customer-Ba.sed Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing,57 (January), 1-22.

and David A. Aaker (1992), The Effects of SequentialIntroductions of Brand Extensions, Journal of MarketingResearch,29 (February), 35-50.Kerin, Roger, Vijay Mahajan, and R Rajan Varadarajun (1990),Contemporary Perspectives on Strategic Market Planning.Boston: Allynand Bacon.

, P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson (1992), First-Mover Advantage:ASynthesis, Conceptual Framework,and Research Propositions, Journal of Marketing, 56(Octo-ber), 33-52.Kim, Namwoon, Vijay Mahajan, and Rajendra K. Srivastava(1995), Determining the Going Value of a Business in anEmerging Information Technology Industry:TheCasefor Cel-lular Communications Industry, Technological Forecastingand Social Change,49 (July), 257-79.Kohli, Ajay K. andBernard Jawoiski (1990), Market Orientation:

The Construct, Research Propositions,andManagerial Implica-tions, Journal of M arketing,54(April), 1-18.Lane, VickiandRobert Jacobsen (1995), Stock Market Reac tionsto Brand Extension Announcem ents:TheEffects ofBrand Atti-tude and Familiarity, Journal of Marketing, 59 (January),63-77.Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge:Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.Lowenstein, Roger F (1996), The 'Q' :When Is a Burger Not aBurger? The all Street Journal,(May 30), C1.Luseh, Robert F and Michael G. Harvey (1994), Opinion:TheCasefor anOff-Balance-Sheet Contro ller, Sloan Management/?ei/en,35 (Winter), 101-105.Mahoney, Joseph T and J. Rajendran Pandian (1992), TheResource-Based View Within the Conversation of Strategic

Management, Strategic M anagement Journal, 13 (5),363-80.Montgomery. Cynthiaand Biiger Wenierlelt (1988), Diversifica-tion, Ricardian Rents, and Tobin's q, Rand Journal of Eco-nomics, 19 (Winter), 623-32.Murphy, John M. (1990), Brand Strategy. New York: PrenticeHall.Narver. JohnC. andStanleyFSlater (1990), TheEffect of Mar-keting OrientationonBusiness Performance, Journal of Mar-keting,54 (October), 20-35.Nonaka, Ikujiroand HiioTakeuchi (1995).TheKnowledge Creat-ing Company.New York: Oxford University Press.Oliver, RichardL.(1980), ACognitive Modelof theAntecedentsand Consequencesof Satisfaction Decisions, JournalofMar-keting Research, 17(November), 46 0-69.


17/18

Penrose , Noel (1989), Valuation of Brand Names and Trade-marks, inBrand Valuation: Establishing a rueand Fair ViewJohn Murphy, ed. London: The Interbrand Group, 32-46.Pessem ier, Edgar and H. Paul Root (1973), The Dim ensions ofNew Product Planning, Journal of Marketing 37 (January),10-18. eteraf Margaret (1993), The Cornerston e of Com petitiveAdvantage: A Resource-Based View, Strategic ManagetttetitJournal 14(3), 179-91.Pine, Joseph B., II (1993),Mass Customization: T he New Frontierin Busitiess Competition. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.Quinn, James Brian (1992), The Intelligent Enterprise.New York:The Free Press.Rappap ort, Alfred (1983), Corporate Performanc e Standards andShareholder Value, Journal of Business Strategy 4 (Spring),28-38.(1986), Creating Shareholder Value.New York: The FreePress.Reichheld, Frederick F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect. Bo.ston: Har-vard Bu.siness School Press.and Earl W. Sasser (1990), Zero Defections: Qua lity

Comes to Services, Harvard Business Review 68 (Septem-ber/Octoher), 105-11.Reilly, Robert F. (1994), Valuation of Intangible Assets for Bank-ruptcy and Reorganization Purpcses, The Ohio C P Journal53 (4), 25-3 0.Robertson, Thoma s S. (1993), How to Reduce Market PenetrationCycle Times, Sloan Management Review 35 (Fall), 87-96.Rust, Roland, Anthony J. Zahorik, and Timothy L. Keiningham(1995), Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service QualityFinancially Accountable, Journal of Marketing 58 (April),58-70.Senge, Peter (1990),T he Fifth Discipline: T he Art and Practice ofthe Learning Organization. New York: Douhleday-Currency.

Sharp, Byron (1995), Brand Equity and Market-Based A.ssets ofProfessional Service Firms, Journal of Professional ServicesMarketing 13(1), 3-13.Sheth, Jagdish N. and AtuI Parvatiyar (1995), Relatio nship M ar-keting in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences,Joutnal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (Fall),255-71 .

Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava. and Robert W. Ruekert(1994), Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Manage-ment: An Introduction to the Special Lssue, Journal of Market-ing Research 31 (May), 149-58.

Simon, Carol J. and Mary Sullivan (1993), The M easurement andDeterminants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach, Marketing Science 12 (Winter), 28-52.Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Pa

Documents

Srivastava Et Al