ÜRETİCİ – BAYİ İLİŞKİLERİ: BEYAZ ESYA SEKTÖRÜNDE BAYİLERİN İLİŞKİYİ SÜRDÜRME NİYETİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Manufacturer – Dealer Relationships and factors affecting dealers’ intention for relationship continuity: An investigation in household appliances industry In academic literature and working life, the importance given to the development of the manufacturer – dealer relationships becomes more important day by day. Sellers aim to collaborate with manufacturers who will contribute the most to reduce the transaction cost. Therefore, the dealer’s knowledge sharing, his effective communication to solve problems, his reliability and market experience are estimated as an opportunity to maintain commercial relationships in point of dealers. The model we developed was tested on 239 dealer firm in Marmara Region. The results of the survey point out that the increasing knowledge sharing, the efficiency in communication, the dealer’s experience and confidence about the manufacturer firm give the cost advantage to the dealer company and this cost advantage reinforces the idea of maintaining the commercial relationships with the manufacturer

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Information sharing, effective communication, business experience, trust, cost advantage, intention to relationship continuity

ÜRETİCİ – BAYİ İLİŞKİLERİ: BEYAZ ESYA SEKTÖRÜNDE BAYİLERİN İLİŞKİYİ SÜRDÜRME NİYETİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Akademik literatürde ve iş hayatında, üretici-bayi ilişkilerinin geliştirilmesine verilen önem gün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Bayiler, işlem maliyetlerinin düşürülmesinde en fazla hedeflemektedirler. Bunun için üreticinin sağladığı bilgi paylaşımı, sorun çözmek için etkili iletişim kurma, güvenilir olma ve piyasa tecrübesi bayi bakımından ticari ilişki sürdürmede Geliştirdiğimiz model Marmara Bölgesinde 239 bayi işletmesi üzerinde test edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları artan bilgi paylaşımının, etkili iletişimin, üretici tecrübesinin ve üreticiye duyulan güvenin bayi işletmesine maliyet avantajı sağladığı ve bu maliyet avantajının da üreticiyle ticari ilişkiyi sürdürme düşüncesini pekiştirdiğini göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilgi paylaşımı, etkili iletişim, iş tecrübesi, güven, maliyet avantajı, ilişkiyi sürdürme niyeti

Kaynakça

1. Doney, P. M., ve Cannon, J. P. (1997). An Examination
2. of The Nature of Trust in BuyerSeller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 61(April),35–51.
3. Dwyer, F.R. ve Schurr PH, Oh S. (1987), “Developing
4. Buyer – Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.
5. Ganesan, Shankar. (1994), “Determinants of Long –
6. Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, 1-19.
7. Gyrma, Frank M. (1988), “Quality Cost, in Juran’s
8. Quality Control Handbook”, 4

9. Hakanson, H. (1982), “An Interaction Approach,
10. International Marketing ve Purchasing of Industrial Goods”, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 10-27.
11. Heide, Jan B. ve Weises, Allen M. (1995), “Vendor
12. Consideration and Switching Behavior for Buyers in High-Technology Markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 (July),30-43.
13. Hellofs, Linda L. ve Jacobson (1999), “Robert, Market
14. Share and Customers’ Perceptions of Quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63(Jan), 16-25.
15. Johanson J, Mattsson L-G (1997), “Internationalizations
16. in industrial systems: a network approach. In: Ford D, editor. Understanding business markets”, 2nd ed. London: Dryden Press,. pp. 194– 213.
17. Kalafatis, Stavros.P. (2000),“Buyer-Seller Relationship
18. Along Channels of Distribution”, Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 215-228,
19. Lobingier, Patricia Graybeal (1997), “Compensation
20. Choice the Effect on Firm Performance”, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, March 24. 20.Maltz, A.D. (1995), “Building Successful Relationships”, Transportation and Distribution, 36, 63- 65.
21. Mandal, Anukul, ve Deshmukh, S. G. (1994), “Vendor
22. Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modeling”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(6), 52–59.
23. Mayuram S. Krishnan, Venkatram Ramaswamy, (1998),
24. “An empirical Analysis of Customer Satisfaction for Intranet Systems, 24, 45–54. Decision Support
25. McQuist, Daniel H. (2001), “A Conceptual Model for
26. Building and Maintaining Relationships between Manufacturers’ Representatives and Their Principals”, Industrial Marketing Management, 30,165–181.
27. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., ve Deshpande R., (1992),
28. "Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.29, pp.314-329.
29. Morgan, Robert M. ve Shelby D Hunt (1994), “The commitment Theory Trust of Relationship of Marketing”,Journal of Marketing,58(July),20-38
30. Peterson R, Balasubramanian S, Bronnenberg B. (1997),
31. “Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer 25(4):329–46. J.Acad.Mark. Science,
32. Sanzo, Marya Jose, Marya Leticia Santos, Rodolfo
33. Vazzquez, Luis Ignacio Alvarez, (2002), “The effect of market satisfaction”, Industrial Marketing Management, 31 1– 19. buyer–seller relationship
34. Simpson, Penny M., Siguaw, Judy A., Baker, Thomas L
35. (2001), “A Model of Value Creation Supplier Behaviors and Their Impact on Reseller Perceived Value”, Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 119-134.
36. Webb, Kevin L. (2002),”Managing channels of
37. distribution in the age of electronic commerce”, Industrial Marketing Management, pp. 95– 102, Vol. 31.
38. Youssef M.A., Zairi M., Mohanty B. (1996), “Supplier
39. Selection in An Advanced Manufacturing Technology Environment: An Optimization Model”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 60-72.
40. Yu, J. ve Cooper, H., (1983), “A Quantitative Review of
41. Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.10, pp.36-44.