Prof. Dr. Alexander Himme

Abstract

Extensive research has examined the effect of market share on profitability and, in general, has found a significantly positive relationship between the two metrics. However, this article demonstrates that the digital transformation of companies has substantially altered this relationship and its underlying mechanisms. The authors first theoretically develop the different influences of digital transformation on the traditional market share–profitability framework. Subsequently, they estimate a firm–profitability model based on a sample of 6,389 observations from 824 U.S. firms over 25 years that accounts for companies’ degree of digital transformation by text mining their financial statements using a self-developed and validated dictionary. The authors find a significantly negative interaction between the degree of digital transformation of a company and the impact of market share on profitability. However, they also show that this effect is moderated by i) a firm’s digital transformation emphasis (i.e., digital transformation of internal vs. external processes; digital transformation through platformization), ii) a firm’s general strategic emphasis (value appropriation relative to value creation), and iii) a firm’s general market environment (B2C versus B2B). The findings suggest that managers and investors of digital companies should exercise caution when relying on market share as a metric for performance.

Abstract

Firms usually undertake layoffs to improve financial performance. However, layoffs often have negative effects on various stakeholders, including consumers. In this paper, we examine the magnitude and duration of the potential negative effect of layoff announcements on brand strength. We also examine how a firm's communication accompanying a layoff can potentially counteract the observed negative effect of layoff announcements on brand strength. We compare how advertising communication intensity, social media communication (i.e., brand-initiated tweets), public relation (PR) communication, and communication of CSR initiatives moderate the main effect of layoff announcements on brand strength. Using an error correction model and drawing on 366 announcements of layoff events in Germany, this study identifies the magnitude and duration of the main effect. An examination of five years of weekly consumer brand perception data across multiple industries and domestic and foreign firms shows that advertising communication intensity and social media communication amplify the negative impact of layoff announcements on brand strength. Conversely, PR communication and communication of CSR initiatives help mitigate the negative effect. These findings provide guidance on the best way for firms to design firm communication in the context of layoff announcements.

Abstract

In this study, we examine stock market reactions to corporate downsizing using a neo-institutional perspective. Over the course of the 1990s, a time period in which shareholder value orientation gained momentum, downsizing became an institutionalized management practice. We argue and propose that the growing legitimacy of this practice is displayed in investors’ reactions to downsizing announcements. Using a sample of 391 downsizing announcements of the S&P 100 firms for the period 1990–2006, we show that the announcement year has a positive (diminishing) effect on the abnormal stock market return and that prior downsizings in the focal firm’s institutional field have a positive linear impact on abnormal stock market return. In addition, we provide evidence that these relationships are positively moderated by proactive downsizing motives and firm size. Our results contribute to a deeper understanding of the performance effects of corporate downsizing and investors’ role in legitimizing this prevalent business practice.

Abstract

The impact of market share on financial firm performance is one of the most widely studied relationships in marketing strategy research. However, since the meta-analysis by Szymanski, Bharadwaj, and Varadarajan (1993), substantial environmental (e.g., digitization) and methodological (e.g., accounting for endogeneity) developments have occurred. The current work presents an updated and extended meta-analysis based on all available 863 elasticities drawn from 89 studies and provides the following new empirical generalizations: (1) The average raw market share–financial performance elasticity is .132, which is substantially lower than the effectiveness of other intermediate marketing metrics. This result challenges a widely used strategy that solely focuses on increasing market share. (2) Elasticities differ significantly between contextual settings. For example, they are lower for business-to-business firms than for business-to-consumer firms, for service firms than for manufacturing firms, and for U.S. markets than for emerging and Western European markets. The authors also observe differences between countries with respect to a general time trend (e.g., lower elasticities in recent times for Western European markets) and recessionary periods (e.g., lower elasticities in the United States, higher elasticities in non-Western economies).

Abstract

Marketing and finance executives follow different objectives and focus on different stakeholder groups. Marketers want to create sales impact. Finance executives are concerned about the financial health of the firm. As a result, both worlds tend to be rather disconnected in their daily business. We argue that this does not reflect the dynamics of the firm where important marketing and financial metrics in fact interact. As long as marketing and finance officers do not fully appreciate the interplay of their key metrics, their decisions are likely to be suboptimal.

This article proposes a simultaneous equation model that reflects the interaction of marketing and finance-domain variables in the value creation process. We focus on brand-building activities and the attraction of capital as major tasks of marketing and finance officers. Our model shows how advertising and other investments increase customer-based brand equity (CBBE) that in turn impacts financial leverage and credit spread and ultimately elevates the level of financial resources.

Based on a broad sample of 155 firms covering various B2C industries, we test for the empirical relevance of our model. We also assess the practical significance of our results by transforming them into elasticities. Our results suggest that marketing and finance executives need to consider the dynamic interaction of their decision and performance variables to fully evaluate the effects of their decisions on the firm's financial health.