外文翻译
原文
Title: Channel Conflict
Material: Channel Conflict Author: Brent Driver & Zach Evans
Channel conflict is not a new concept. It has been frustrating managers in the business world for many years. It has always accompanied the development of new marketing channels, such as the introduction of factory outlet and discount stores in the 1980s (Matta, Mehta 2001). Only recently, with the emergence of the Internet as a new and dynamic distribution channel, has this topic been more of a focal point in boardroom discussions. A recent survey of 50 manufacturers revealed that 66 percent believed that channel conflict was the biggest issue they faced in their online sales strategy (Hogan, Webb 2002). Channel conflicts in the e-commerce age are intensified by the unique channel characteristics of the Internet (Matta, Mehta 2001). Origins of Channel Conflict
Channel conflict emerges as the market evolves and business strategies change. “The primary motivations for supplier firms establishing multi-channel arrangements are the desire to increase market share and to reduce costs. Firms are attempting to reconstruct the supply chain and make it more efficient, a process that will disrupt traditional channels, resulting in conflict both internally among the supplier’s channel managers and externally with distribution partners.” More often than not, objectives among channels cannot be achieved concurrently. If one channel is succeeding, it is likely at the expense of another (Hogan, Webb 2002). This is the norm in multi-channel business strategies. A diverse channel strategy is necessary, however, for survival in the marketplace. “Manufacturers have historically been tentative in their approaches to electronic commerce, primarily out of fear of direct competition with and potential damage to existing sales channels,” (Matta, Mehta 2001). The only thing that manufacturers fear more than alienating resellers is having no e-commerce plan at all. As a result, businesses are forging ahead with e-commerce strategies regardless of the consequences (Bacheldor, Gilbert 2000). It is pretty easy to understand why. According to reports from e-commerce pioneers, using the Internet in a business-to-business application to provide information to
1
customers and process orders can cut down errors and save time and money, as well as increase productivity among the sales staff (Kalin 1998). Many feel that it is ultimately the lure of greater profits that create the desire to sell direct to consumers. However, with that increased profit potential comes the increased risk of losing reseller relationships (Bartholomew 2000).
The expanding role of the Internet has created opportunities for easy and extensive access to customers. Additionally, the economics of materials delivery has been revolutionized by the logistical networks of third-party shippers such as FedEx and UPS (Agrawal, Tsay 2002). “The type and magnitude of channel conflict in the ecommerce marketplace depends on the nature of the industry and the individual company. Companies that don’t own or closely control their offline distribution channels risk damaging sometimes decades-old relationships and revenue streams. However, companies that control their own channels risk cannibalizing revenues with online stores,” (Matta, Mehta 2001).
In their 2002 study, Agrawal and Tsay have set forth the following motivations, which have led many manufacturing firms to start selling direct: (1) resellers do not usually carry the entire line of a manufacturer’s products, (2) direct control of pricing and distribution can lead to higher profit margins, (3) resellers can use their power to extract various concessions from the manufacturers, (4) manufacturers can provide a broader product selection in a better ambiance with higher service in direct outlets, (5) more flexibility to experiment with product attributes, (6) closer contact with customers, and (7) protection from crises faced by resellers. Identifying Channel Conflict
One thing that managers must face is that conflict will always exist to some degree. To eliminate it totally would diminish business opportunities. In other words, in order for a company to grow their business, there must be some conflict. The key is recognizing when it becomes counterproductive. An obvious sign that your company
has taken a misstep is when sales staff and business partners begin leaving. Another less identifiable sign is when the customer actually becomes aware of the conflict. “The bottom line for a company is how to manage the customer relationships with its production strategies,” (McDonald 1999). According to panelists at a 2002 vendor channel roundtable, just by defining the competitive playing field and some rules for channel participation, suppliers can minimize sales conflicts with their channel partners (Burke 2002).
2
Best Practices for Minimizing and Managing Channel Conflict
Channel conflict is often thought of as dysfunctional and, therefore, unwanted. Conflict can, however, be healthy and desirable in certain situations. Conflict can serve to keep channel members from becoming too passive or lacking in creativity. This same conflict can also motivate members to adapt, grow, and seize new opportunities. From the manufacturer’s perspective, multi-channel distribution strategies can be beneficial in a number of ways. First, it does allow the manufacturer to gain much-needed insight into end-consumer’s needs and shopping patterns. Second, manufacturers with “broad product lines can benefit because it is unlikely that a single channel type will be optimal for all products.” Third, excess manufacturing capacity can be better utilized with additional outlets when existing channels are over-supplied. Finally, manufacturers with a multi-channel distribution strategy can focus more on precisely targeting markets and improving their overall competitiveness (Webb 2002).
Propositions for Minimizing Channel Conflict
Kevin Webb (2002), in his paper on Managing Channels of Distribution in the Age of Electronic Commerce, proposes several ways that manufacturers can minimize channel conflict. Once the decision has been made to sell direct to consumers online, lower levels of channel conflict will be experienced.
1. By not pricing products on their web site below the resale price of their partners. 2. By diverting fulfillment of orders places on their web site to their partners. 3. By promoting partners on their web site.
4. By encouraging partners to advertise on their web site.
5. By limiting the offering on their web site to a subset of their products. 6. By using a unique brand name for products offered on their web site. 7. The earlier the products offered on their web site are in the demand lifecycle. 8. The more effectively they communicate their overall distribution strategy. 9. The more effectively they coordinate their overall distribution strategy. 10.The more they make use of superordinate (over-reaching) goals.
These methods for minimizing channel conflict are, at best, idealistic and, at worst, impossible to implement given the pressure that companies are under to create ebusiness strategies that have a positive return on investment. The fact cannot be denied, however, that these propositions would have the desired effect of minimizing channel conflict between manufacturers and their partners. The shrewd manufacturer will make use of the propositions that make the most sense for their
3
given business situation. Conclusions
“While retailers and manufacturers cautiously cross from channel conflict into the demilitarized zone of channel cooperation, consumers readily move between the different camps, sometimes even visiting manufacturers sites more than retailer sites.”
These two camps must do the following if they hope to survive in today’s business environment: (1) satisfy mutual needs, (2) reduce redundancy, and (3) share costs. Why must manufactures and retailers come together and work with each other? “Coexisting with retailers online, manufacturers will sell less than their retail channel partners,” or about $50 billion in sales. However, manufacturers will “influence $235 billion in other sales” by affecting both on- and offline retail sales (Zrike, et. al. 2001).
外文文献译文
标题：渠道冲突
资料来源：渠道冲突 作者：布伦特 德赖弗，扎克 埃文斯 渠道冲突并不是一个新概念。它是一个已经让商业领域的管理者头痛很多年的问题，并且始终伴随着新的营销渠道的发展而发展， 1980年工厂直销店和折扣店的出现就是一个例子（马塔，梅达，2001）。但是直到现在，随着互联网作为一个新的，动态的分销渠道出现，这个概念才被拿到会桌上讨论，并且成为讨论的焦点。最近，一份关于50个厂家的研究显示，百分之66的厂家认为，渠道营销是他们在实行网上销售策略所面临的最大的问题（霍根，韦伯2002年）。在电子商务时代，因特网独特的渠道特征加剧了渠道冲突（马塔，梅达2001）。 渠道冲突的由来
渠道冲突随着市场的发展，经营策略的变化而出现。“供货商建立多渠道模式的主要动机就是想要增加市场份额，同时降低成本。企业都想重建供应链，来使得供应链更加有效，那些对传统渠道有副作用的方法，将会使内部的供应商渠道管理者与外部分销合作伙伴之间产生冲突。”通常，渠道间的目标并不能同时取得，一个渠道的成功往往建立在另一个渠道的代价之上的（霍根，韦伯2002年）。这是多渠道营销策略中常有的事。然而，为了在市场环境中求得生存，多样的渠道策略是必要的。“制造商都曾经尝试用他们的方法来做电子商
4
务，主要是出于害怕直接同现有的渠道竞争并且对现有渠道造成破坏”（马塔，梅达2001年）。完全没有电子商务计划是唯一让制造商比担心疏远经销商还要担心的事情。因此，冒着可能的危险，企业仍然在加强它的电子商务战略（巴切尔德，吉尔伯特2000年）。这其中的原因很容易理解。根据电子商务先驱们的报告，在企业间商务中使用因特网来为客户提供信息处理订单可以减少错误的发生，节省时间，同时降低成本，还可以提高销售人员的生产力（卡林1998年）。许多人认为寻求直销的最终目的是为了得到更多的利润。然而，随着利润的增加，失去经销商的风险也在增加。（巴塞洛缪2000年）。
在他们2002年的研究中，阿格拉瓦尔和蔡已经提出导致许多制造企业开始直接销售的以下原因：（1）经销商通常不能占据制造商的整个产品线，（2）对价格和配送的直接控制可以带来更高的利润空间，（3）经销商可以利用手中的权力从厂家得到各种优惠，（4）在直营的折扣店提供优质服务的更好氛围中，制造商可以提供更广阔的产品选择空间，（5）更灵活地进行产品属性的试验，（6）与客户的关系更加紧密，（7）避免经销商所面临的危机。 渠道冲突的识别
管理者都需要面对的一件事就是一定程度的冲突是不可避免地存在的。如果完全消除渠道冲突，那么就会丧失很多的商业机遇。换句话说，为了让一个公司的业务有所成长，必须有一些冲突。关键是在冲突开始产生负作用的时候将它识别出来。你的公司失策的一个很明显的标志就是公司员工和商业合作伙伴开始离开。顾客开始意识到渠道冲突是失策的另一个不那么明显的标志。“一个公司的底线是如何利用它的产品策略来经营好同客户之间的关系”（麦当劳1999年）。 “根据2002年的供应商渠道圆桌会议中小组成员得出的结论，只要定义好竞争的游戏场地，并且制定一些规则来约束渠道参与，供应商就能够将其与其他渠道成员间的冲突降到最低。”（伯克2002年）。 减少和管理渠道冲突的最佳实践
渠道冲突是通常被认为是不好的，因此，大家都尽量避免。但是，在特定的情形中，渠道冲突可以是健康的，并且可取的。冲突有避免渠道成员变得太过被动或者缺乏创造力的作用。这种冲突也可以激励成员们去适应，成长，抓住新的机遇。从制造商的角度来看，多渠道营销策略在多个方面是有利的。首先，它使制造商获得急需的洞察力来了解终端客户的需求和消费方式。其次，拥有“宽泛的产品线的制造商可以由此获益，因为单一的渠道模式并不是对所有产品来说都是最佳的。”第三，当现有的渠道超负荷运转时，制造业产能过剩可以通过额外的销路得到更好的利用。最后，采取多渠道营销策略的制造商，可以更精确地专注于目标市场并且提高他们的整体竞争力（韦伯2002年）。 渠道冲突最小化议题
5
渠道冲突-外文翻译
