AN ASSEMENT ON THE EFFECT OF BRAND PERFORMANCE ON COMPETITIVENESS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MERGER AND ACQUISITIONS

Öz

Changes in the economic structure of the world and technological developments have led firms to operate in intense competition where gaining competitive advantage has become one of the most important strategies. Firms can follow different methods to obtain competitive advantage. One of these methods can be named as merger and transaction. Thus, advanced production technologies, know how, brand image etc. can be transferred via these transactions which help firms benefit each other’s strengths in order to exist, differentiate and grow in an international competitive environment under the impact of globalization. On the other hand, businesses which want to be successful in the global market give importance to branding activities as well as producing high quality goods. Branding activities provide intangible advantages to firms by increasing their competitive advantage. Distinctive superiorities against competitors can be obtained via branding activities. New customers can be acquired, and market share can be increased by using brand image of the new firm that is established via merger and acquisitions. Measurement of branding activities has been an important issue for scholars and a brand performance concept has been suggested for measuring effectiveness of branding activities. Furthermore, it is possible to say that brand performance is an important consequence of branding strategies and activities of firms and it refers to the power of brand in markets. In summary, brand performance is a concept that reveals the effects of branding activities on reaching tangible targets such as sales volume, profitability etc. The importance of brand performance and competitiveness in the context of merger and acquisitions emerge as a remarkable research field. In this regard, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of brand performance on competitiveness in the scope of national and international mergers and acquisitions between 2010 and 2017. In the study, data was collected from 243 of 1208 firms which have conducted national and international mergers and acquisitions between 2010 and 2017. A general result of the analysis has revealed that brand performance has impact on competitiveness. This finding can be interpreted as a reason for conducting merger and acquisitions in order to increase the competitive advantage. We see that mergers and acquisitions have influence on reputations of firms, brand images and product reliability. The study reveals two dimensions of competitiveness: product competitiveness and operational competitiveness. Product competitiveness includes items such as durability, quality, conformance quality, delivery lead time of products etc. One can say that brand is related with tangible goods in the minds of customers. In this context, companies included in the sample gained product competitiveness through branding and brand performance. On the other hand, operational competitiveness contains items such as offering low priced products, ability to rapidly modify methods for materials and components, manufacturing similar products at a lower cost etc. When brand performance, product competitiveness and operational competitiveness are compared in the context of merger and acquisitions, it is determined that there is no difference among the firms that perform national and international mergers and acquisitions. However, we find that these transactions have different effects on the competitiveness dimensions. Furthermore, we find that the number of firms which performed international merger and acquisitions are more than the number of those which performed national merger and acquisition. It is considered that the different types (national and international transactions) of mergers and acquisitions provide different competitive advantage for the firms. The results revealed that firms gain competitiveness by gathering information and technology via international mergers and acquisitions. The results of T tests showed that there was no difference among the companies which performed national or international mergers and acquisitions in the context of brand performance, product competitiveness and operational competitiveness. Finally, one can affirm that firms are mostly performing mergers when compared to acquisitions. When all these findings are evaluated together, mergers and acquisitions can be used in order to gain competitive advantage. The need of a positive and strong brand image in the market can be met via mergers and acquisitions. Measuring brand performance and competitiveness in the context of merger and acquisitions is a unique aspect of this work. As a result of the analysis, current evaluations of brand performance and competitiveness have been presented for future research. Scholars can investigate the effects of mergers and acquisitions on firms by considering different aspects of these transactions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Merger and Acquisition,Brand Performance,Competitiveness

MARKA PERFORMANSININ REKABET GÜCÜNE ETKİSİ:ULUSAL VE ULUSLARARASI BİRLEŞME VE SATIN ALMALAR AÇISINDAN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, ulusal ve uluslararası birleşme ve satın almalar bağlamında marka performansının rekabet gücü üzerine etkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Çalışmada, 2010–2017 yılları arasında ulusal ve uluslararası birleşme ve satın alma yapmış 1208 işletmenin 243 tanesinden veri toplanmıştır. Araştırmada marka performansının rekabet gücü üzerinde etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Birleşme ve satın alma yapma sebeplerinden birinin de rekabet gücünü artırmak olduğu söylenebilir. İşletmelerin güçlü bir itibar ve marka imajı oluşturmasında aynı zamanda ürün güvenilirliğinde birleşme ve satın almaların katkısı olduğu görülmektedir. Marka performansı, ürün rekabet gücü ve operasyonel rekabet güçleri kıyaslandığında ulusal ve uluslararası birleşme ve satın alma işlemi gerçekleştiren işletmeler arasında herhangi bir farklılık olmadığı saptanmıştır. Fakat bu birleşme ve satın alma işlemlerinin rekabet boyutları üzerinde farklı derecede etkileri olduğu belirlenmiştir. İşletmelerin, ulusal boyuttan daha çok uluslararası boyutta birleşme ve satın alma işlemi gerçekleştirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular ışığında, marka performansı ve rekabet gücü ile ilgili mevcut durumun değerlendirmesi yapılmış ve geleceğe ilişkin öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birleşme ve Satın Alma,Marka Performansı,Rekabet Gücü

Kaynakça

1. Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press. Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. S. & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity management: Evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 12(4). 220-236. Baydaş, A. (2007). Pazarlama açısından markanın finansal değeri ve dış ticaret işletmelerinde bir uygulama. Bilim Dergisi. 42. 127-150. Bridson, K. & Jody, E. (2004). The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 32(8). 403–411. Burns, A. C. & Bush, R. F., Orel, F. D. (çev. ed.) (2015). Pazarlama Araştırması. Ankara: Nobel Yayın. Campbell, M. C. (2002), Building brand equity, International Journal of Medical Marketing. 3(2). 208-218. Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects of brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing. 65(2). 81-93. Cheung, Y., Martin, I. & Chan, M. (2004, October). Sustaining competitive advantages in mergers and acquisitions. In Engineering Management Conference, 2004. Proceedings. 2004 IEEE International (Vol. 1, pp. 183-187). IEEE. Cockburn, J., Eckhard S., Massaoly C. & Sylvain V. (1998). Measuring competitiveness and its sources: The case of Mali’s manufacturing sector. African Economic Policy Paper. Discussion Paper Number 16. Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. & Çinko, M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS ile Veri Analizi. 5. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım. Dünya Ekonomik Forumu (WEF). (1989). World Economic Forum, World Competitiveness Report. Geneva: Imede. Eren, E. (2006). Stratejik Yönetim, 3.Baskı, Eskişehir:T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, No: 1491. Fagerberg, J. (1988). International competitiveness. The Economic Journal. 98(391). 355-374. Franzen, G. (2002). Reklamın Marka Değerine Etkisi, (Yalım, F. Çev.). Mediacat Kitapları. Gegez, A.E. (2015). Pazarlama Araştırmaları. 5. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım. Hatsopoulos, G. N., Krugman, P. R. & Summers, L. H. (1988). US Competitiveness: Beyond the trade deficit. Science, 241(4863), 299-307. Ülgen, H. & Mirze, K. (2013). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim, 8. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık. Hirvonen, S. & Laukkanen, T. (2014). Brand orientation in small firms: An empirical test of the impact on brand performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(1), 41-58. Hounie, A., Pittaluya, L., Porcile, G. & Scatolin, F. (1999). Eclac and the new growth theories. Cepal Review. No 68. Jenkins, R. (1998). Environmental regulation and international competitiveness: A review of literature and some European evidence. The United Nations Univercity Intech Discussion Paper Series. Kapferer, J. (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management. London: Kogan. Knapp, D. E. (2000). Marka Aklı. Ankara:Kapital Medya Hizmetleri. Kocaman, S. & Güngör, İ. (2012). Destinasyonlarda müşteri temelli marka değerinin ölçülmesi ve marka değeri boyutlarının genel marka değeri üzerindeki etkileri: Alanya destinasyonu örneği. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi. 4(3). 143-161. Krugman. P. R. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession, (in Paul Krugman et. all.). Competitiveness: An International Economics Reader. (p.1-19). New York: Foreign Affairs. Kumar, K. & Kee, Y. K. (1984). The Korean manufacturing multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies. 15(1). 45-62. Lambkin, M. C. & Muzellec, L. (2010). Leveraging brand equity in business-to-business mergers and acquisitions. Industrial Marketing Management. 39(8). 1234-1239. Lee, H. M., Lee, C. C. & Wu, C. C. (2011). Brand image strategy affects brand equity after M&A. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8). 1091-1111. Lii, P. & Kuo, F. I. (2016). Innovation-oriented supply chain integration for combined competitiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics. 174. 142-155. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D. & Hoskisson, R. E. (2012). Strategic Management Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning. Markusen, J. R. (1992). Productivity, competitiveness, trade performance and real income: The nexus among four concepts. Economic Council of Canada. McFetridge, D. (1995). Competitiveness concepts and measures (No. 5). Gouvernement du Canada-Industry Canada. Meydan, C. H. & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Detay Yayıncılık. Muzellec, L. & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: Destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?. European Journal of Marketing. 40(7/8). 803-824. Nguyen, T.M.T. (2002). A Study of Relationship Quality in Exporter Markets: The Case of Developing Country-Based Exporters and Foreign Importers. Sydney: University of Technology. Nunnaly, J. (1979). Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw Hill. O’cass, A. & Ngo, L. (2009). Achieving customer satisfaction via market orientation, brand orientation, and customer empowerment: Evidence from Australia. Anzmac. Porter, M. E. ( 1998). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press. President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. (1992). Report of the president’s commission on international competitiveness. Washington D.C. Pulak, M. & Neha, J. (2012). Mergers, acquisitions and export competitiveness: Experience of Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Competitiveness. 4(1). 3-19. Sarıkamış, C. (2003). Satın Almalar ve Yeniden Yapılanma Şirket Birleşmeleri. İstanbul:Avcıol Basım Yayım. Srivastava, R. K. (2012). The role of brand equity on mergers and acquisition in the pharmaceutical industry: When do firms learn from their merger and acquisition experience?. Journal of Strategy and Management. 5(3). 266-283. Şişman, D. (2015). Ulusötesi şirketler ve küresel kriz. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 37(2). 341-368. Tek, Ö. B. & Özgül, E. (2005). Modern Pazarlama İlkeleri. İzmir:Birleşik Matbaacılık. Tolba, A. H. & Hassan, S. S. (2009). Linking Customer-Based Brand Equity with Brand Market Performance: A Managerial Approach. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 18(5). 356-366. TÜSİAD. ( Aralık 1997). Rekabet stratejileri ve en iyi uygulamalar: Türk elektronik sektörü. Urde, M, (1994). Brand orientation – a strategy for survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 11(3). 18-32 Uztuğ, F. (2003). Markan Kadar Konuş, Mediacat Kitapları, İstanbul. Varquez, R., Del Rio, B. A. & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management. 18(6). 27-48. Velloso, J. & P. Des R. (1990). International competitiveness and the creation of enabling environment. In Haque, I. U. (Ed.). International Competitiveness: Interaction of the Public and Private Sectors. Collected Papers From an Edi Policy Seminar Held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, Edi Seminar Series, Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Wong, H.Y. & Merrilees, B. (2007). Closing the marketing strategy to performance gap: The role of brand orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 15(4). 387-402 Wong, H.Y. & Merrilees, B. (2008). The performance benefits of being brand-orientated. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 17(6). 372-383. https://www.slideshare.net (2017). Ernst&Young Türkiye Birleşme ve Satın Alma Raporu 2010 https://www.slideshare.net/selcuke/birleme-ve-satn-alma-ilemleri-2010-raporu-ernstyoung (Erişim Tarihi: 21 Aralık 2017) http://www.ey.com/tr/ (2017). Ernst&Young Türkiye Birleşme ve Satın Alma Raporu 2011-2016 http://www.ey.com/tr/tr/services/transactions/birlesme-ve-satin-alma-onceki-yillar (Erişim Tarihi: 21 Aralık 2017) http://www.ey.com/tr/ (2018). Ernst&Young Türkiye Birleşme ve Satın Alma Raporu 2017