Santrala İlişkin Özsermaye Nakit Akışları

The above hypotheses have focused on the internal factors of an organization.

However, we argue that it is also important to consider aspects from the external environment that can impact the development of the BMS. More specifically, we expect that reputational assets, and competitive intensity can act as catalysts to its development.

2.4.3.1 Reputational Assets, and the BMS

Levitt (1965), cited in Brown (1995, 172), defines company reputation as “buyer’s perception of the extent to which a particular vendor company is well known, good or bad, reliable, trustworthy, reputable and believable”. According to the research within marketing, reputational assets have been viewed as an intangible resource highly correlated to a firm’s success (Olavarrieta and Friedman 1999, 218). It represents knowledge in the minds of consumers, which potentially can lead to competitive advantage (Day, and Wensley 1988). Additionally,

reputational assets are a market-based resource with the dimension of credibility, and also impact a wider array of stakeholders, e.g. suppliers, distributors, and customers (Hooley et al. 2005).

Reputational assets consist of tacit knowledge built up over time, which makes it idiosyncratic to a firm with the potential to generate superior advantages (Hooley et al. 2005, 19). Keller (1993, 1) suggests that customer-based brand equity is the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of

reputation is in fact a separate construct of brand attitudes, and it performs better than brand attitudes in explaining the effect of brand advertising on brand equity outcomes (Chaudhuri 2002, 33). Studies show that corporate reputation has an effect on management decision-making and reputational management actions (Weiss, Anderson, and Maclnnis 1999; Bromely 1993; Fombrun and Shanley 1990) - e.g. building the BMS. Consequently, we expect that strong reputational assets will positively impact the BMS – as there will be an existing motivation, and recognition to retain a good reputation. Hence, reputational assets act as an important facilitator to the BMS.

H10: Reputational assets has a positive effect on the BMS

2.4.3.2 Competitive Intensity, and the BMS

In line with Auh and Menguc (2007), this study looks at the notion of competitive intensity to comprise the following two competitive forces: threat of substitute products, and rivalry among existing firms that are present in the firm’s environment. The latter force contains aspects such as promotion wars, price competition, and new competitive moves. Porter (1980) argues that to gain market share in an environment with many players, firms are prone to frequently change their strategies. Conversely, in highly concentrated markets with few players, the management can build discipline on the market with a long-term, and more consistent strategy (Porter 1980). Even though competitive intensity sometimes is evaluated in a negative way, O´Cass, and Weerawardena (2010) oppose these assumptions and find that industry competitive intensity in fact influences marketing learning activity, and marketing capability development - which ultimately lead to higher brand performance.

Day and Wensley (1988, 15) pinpoint that superior skills and resources are revealed in competitive product markets - and where real advantages are only achieved and determined by the market segment. Hunt and Morgan (1996, 109) share this notion, and view competition from the perspective of

resource-advantage. They argue that the process of competition itself leads to

organizational learning, as relative financial performance among competitors act a feedback loop of current position of resources and market position (Hunt and Morgan 1996).

Some authors even link the competitive intensity to firms’ capability building activities by referring to a ‘competition leads to competence’- approach (O’Cass, and Weerawardena 2010, 527; Barnett, Greve, and Park 1994; Levinthal, and Myatt 1994). In short, firms can develop valuable resources and capabilities as they learn how to overcome specific competitive challenges, which in turn can provide important competitive advantages in subsequent competitive situations.

For those firms that did not have to deal with and respond to these specific competitive challenges, consequently do not possess these competencies as they did not have to develop them (Barney, and Zajac 1994, 6). It is found that competitive intensity improves the results of exploitation-related capabilities, which is considered as part of a dynamic capability (Molina-Castillo, Jimenez-Jimenez, and Munuera-Aleman 2011).

Considering the dynamic capability of BMS, which entails an external driven-dimension with continuous analysis of market evolution - the ultimate objective of the BMS is to allow for permanent renewal of the firm’s skills and resources to develop strong brands (Santos-Vijande et al. 2013, 150). Thus, we expect that competitive intensity will in fact act as a catalyst that triggers the firm to

reconfigure its resources, and capabilities, in order to select the appropriate course of action in how to build strong brands in a competitive environment. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H11: Competitive intensity has a positive effect on the BMS