IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v58y2015i6p607-613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade secrets: Managerial guidance for competitive advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Crittenden, William F.
  • Crittenden, Victoria L.
  • Pierpont, Allison

Abstract

While scholars have explored the construct and ramifications of intellectual property, most research efforts have focused on patents as a means of protecting a firm's intellectual capital. Yet Hemphill (2004) suggested that trade secrets can affect the difference between economic success and failure of the firm. When trade secrets are discussed, there is a tendency to focus on the more famous secrets that have received considerable hype in the popular press (e.g., Coca-Cola, KFC, McDonald's). To address this shortage of trade secrets storytelling, the research reported here engaged in a historiographic approach to capturing and compiling an in-depth look at various company trade secrets and elaborating on the strategic intent behind many of the secrecy efforts. Product and process secrets were seen to be used to develop positive brand perceptions, establish consistent brand purchasing, aid in distinguishing products and services from competitive offerings, and build market share. We suggest that managers should regularly assess which assets are suitable for patent, product design, trademark, copyright, or trade secret status and work diligently to protect the firm's intangible assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Crittenden, William F. & Crittenden, Victoria L. & Pierpont, Allison, 2015. "Trade secrets: Managerial guidance for competitive advantage," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 607-613.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:58:y:2015:i:6:p:607-613
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681315000853
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hannah, David & Parent, Michael & Pitt, Leyland & Berthon, Pierre, 2014. "It's a secret: Marketing value and the denial of availability," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 49-59.
    2. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2004. "Little Patents and Big Secrets: Managing Intellectual Property," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 1-22, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan Li & Yutao Li, 2020. "The effect of trade secrets protection on disclosure of forward‐looking financial information," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 397-437, March.
    2. Fedorenko, Ivan & Berthon, Pierre & Edelman, Linda, 2023. "Top secret: Integrating 20 years of research on secrecy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fedorenko, Ivan & Berthon, Pierre & Edelman, Linda, 2023. "Top secret: Integrating 20 years of research on secrecy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    3. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    5. Nagler, Markus & Sorg, Stefan, 2019. "The Disciplinary Effect of Post-Grant Review," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 155, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Vincenzo Denicolò & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2004. "Patents, Secrets, and the First‐Inventor Defense," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 517-538, September.
    7. Campbell, Colin & Marks, Lawrence J., 2015. "Good native advertising isn’t a secret," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 599-606.
    8. Salvatore Di Novo & Giorgio Fazio & Jonathan Sapsed & Josh Siepel, 2022. "Starving the golden goose? Access to finance for innovators in the creative industries," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 46(2), pages 345-386, June.
    9. Yildirim, Huseyin, 2005. "Contests with multiple rounds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 213-227, April.
    10. Ponce, Carlos J., 2011. "Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 418-434.
    11. Gabrovski, Miroslav, 2015. "The Patent System as a Tool for Eroding Market Power," MPRA Paper 81330, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Sep 2017.
    12. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    13. M. D. Beneish & C. R. Harvey & A. Tseng & P. Vorst, 2022. "Unpatented innovation and merger synergies," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 706-744, June.
    14. Illoong Kwon, 2008. "Patent Portfolio Race and Secrecy," Discussion Papers 08-05, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    15. Barankay, Iwan & Contigiani, Andrea & Hsu, David, 2018. "Trade Secrets and Innovation: Evidence from the “Inevitable Disclosure†Doctrine," CEPR Discussion Papers 13077, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m0533i43h is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2008. "Patent--Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 142-158.
    18. James J. Anton & Hillary Greene & Dennis A. Yao, 2006. "Policy Implications of Weak Patent Rights," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 1-26, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2010. "Choosing Intellectual Protection: Imitation, Patent Strength, and Licensing," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 241-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    21. Xiaoyang Zhao, 2019. "Patenting Or Secret? The Interaction Between Leading Firms And Following Firms Based On Evolutionary Game Theory And Multi-Agent Simulation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-22, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:58:y:2015:i:6:p:607-613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.