IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v33y2014i1p114-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Make, Buy, or Ally? Choice of and Payoff from Announcements of Alternate Strategies for Innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Abhishek Borah

    (Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195)

  • Gerard J. Tellis

    (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

Abstract

Firms constantly grapple with the question of whether to make, buy, or ally for innovations. The literature has not, to our knowledge, analyzed the choice of and payoff from these alternate routes to innovation for the same firm. To address this issue, we collect, code, and analyze the choice of and payoff from 3,522 announcements of make, buy, and ally for 192 firms across 108 industries over five years.We find that announcements to make or ally generate positive and higher payoffs than announcements to buy, which generate negative payoffs. Nevertheless, firms continue to buy for two reasons. First, firms seem to have no memory of the payoff from buy, even though they have a memory of the payoff from make. Second, firms tend to buy when they lack commercializations, even though this strategy does not always seem to pay off. These results suggest that firms see buy as a signal to investors that they have a solution for what may be a deep strategic problem. Nevertheless, the negative returns to a buy can be mitigated if the acquirer is experienced, and the target is related and offers high customer benefit. We offer explanations for and implications of the results.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhishek Borah & Gerard J. Tellis, 2014. "Make, Buy, or Ally? Choice of and Payoff from Announcements of Alternate Strategies for Innovations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 114-133, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:33:y:2014:i:1:p:114-133
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2013.0818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2013.0818
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2013.0818?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hitt, Michael A. & King, David & Krishnan, Hema & Makri, Marianna & Schijven, Mario & Shimizu, Katsuhiko & Zhu, Hong, 2009. "Mergers and acquisitions: Overcoming pitfalls, building synergy, and creating value," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 523-529, November.
    2. Fama, Eugene F., 1998. "Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 283-306, September.
    3. Krishnan, Hema A. & Park, Daewoo, 2002. "The impact of work force reduction on subsequent performance in major mergers and acquisitions: an exploratory study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 285-292, April.
    4. Verbeek, Marno & Nijman, Theo, 1992. "Testing for Selectivity Bias in Panel Data Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(3), pages 681-703, August.
    5. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    6. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    7. Gerard J. Tellis & Joseph Johnson, 2007. "The Value of Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 758-773, 11-12.
    8. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1995. "Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 115-132, July.
    9. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. "On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    10. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    11. Fama, Eugene F, et al, 1969. "The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "Survivor: The role of innovation in firms' survival," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 626-641, June.
    13. Ashish Sood & Gerard J. Tellis, 2009. "Do Innovations Really Pay Off? Total Stock Market Returns to Innovation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 442-456, 05-06.
    14. Seshadri Tirunillai & Gerard J. Tellis, 2012. "Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 198-215, March.
    15. Fama, Eugene F, 1991. "Efficient Capital Markets: II," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(5), pages 1575-1617, December.
    16. Amit M. Joshi & Dominique M. Hanssens, 2009. "Movie Advertising and the Stock Market Valuation of Studios: A Case of “Great Expectations?”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 239-250, 03-04.
    17. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    18. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    19. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    20. Nijman, T.E. & Verbeek, M.J.C.M., 1992. "Testing for selectivity in panel data models," Other publications TiSEM 7ec34a6c-1d84-4052-971c-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    21. Markus Kreutzer, 2012. "Selecting the right growth mechanism: The choice between internal development, strategic alliances, and mergers & acquisitions," Management for Professionals, in: Giulia Mennillo & Thomas Schlenzig & Elmar Friedrich (ed.), Balanced Growth, pages 77-94, Springer.
    22. Gary Erickson & Robert Jacobson, 1992. "Gaining Comparative Advantage Through Discretionary Expenditures: The Returns to R&D and Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(9), pages 1264-1279, September.
    23. Friedrich Trautwein, 1990. "Merger motives and merger prescriptions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 283-295, May.
    24. Michael A. Wiles & Shailendra P. Jain & Saurabh Mishra & Charles Lindsey, 2010. "Stock Market Response to Regulatory Reports of Deceptive Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Omission Bias and Firm Reputation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 828-845, 09-10.
    25. Xueming Luo, 2009. "Quantifying the Long-Term Impact of Negative Word of Mouth on Cash Flows and Stock Prices," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 148-165, 01-02.
    26. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    27. William Boulding & Richard Staelin, 1995. "Identifying Generalizable Effects of Strategic Actions on Firm Performance: The Case of Demand-Side Returns to R&D Spending," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 222-236.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alina Sorescu & Nooshin L. Warren & Larisa Ertekin, 2017. "Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 186-207, March.
    2. Ashish Sood & Gerard J. Tellis, 2009. "Do Innovations Really Pay Off? Total Stock Market Returns to Innovation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 442-456, 05-06.
    3. Lu Zhang, 2017. "The Investment CAPM," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 23(4), pages 545-603, September.
    4. Kothari, S. P., 2001. "Capital markets research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 105-231, September.
    5. Seshadri Tirunillai & Gerard J. Tellis, 2012. "Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 198-215, March.
    6. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2013. "Understanding Asset Prices," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    7. Dionysia Dionysiou, 2015. "Choosing Among Alternative Long-Run Event-Study Techniques," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 158-198, February.
    8. Hu, May & Tuilautala, Mataiasi & Kang, Yuni, 2019. "Bandwagon effect: Special dividend payments," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 339-363.
    9. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, March.
    10. Schwert, G. William, 2003. "Anomalies and market efficiency," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 15, pages 939-974, Elsevier.
    11. Tirunillai, S. & Tellis, G.J., 2011. "Does Online Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 25817, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Nicolau, Juan Luis & Sharma, Abhinav, 2022. "A review of research into drivers of firm value through event studies in tourism and hospitality: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research curated collection on drivers of firm value through event stu," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2013. "Corporate campaign contributions and abnormal stock returns after presidential elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 285-307, July.
    14. Sonntag, Dominik, 2018. "Die Theorie der fairen geometrischen Rendite [The Theory of Fair Geometric Returns]," MPRA Paper 87082, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Fernando Rubio, 2005. "Eficiencia De Mercado, Administracion De Carteras De Fondos Y Behavioural Finance," Finance 0503028, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Jul 2005.
    16. Edeling, Alexander & Srinivasan, Shuba & Hanssens, Dominique M., 2021. "The marketing–finance interface: A new integrative review of metrics, methods, and findings and an agenda for future research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 857-876.
    17. Tuli, Kapil R. & Mukherjee, Anirban & Dekimpe, Marnik G., 2012. "On the Value Relevance of Retailer Advertising Spending and Same-store Sales Growth," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 447-461.
    18. Stefan J. Hock & Sascha Raithel, 2020. "Managing Negative Celebrity Endorser Publicity: How Announcements of Firm (Non)Responses Affect Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1473-1495, March.
    19. Ferguson, Colin & Finn, Frank & Hall, Jason & Pinnuck, Matt, 2010. "Speculation and e-commerce: The long and the short of IT," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 79-104.
    20. Kaserer Christoph & Hanauer Matthias X., 2017. "25 Jahre Fama-French-Modell: Erklärungsgehalt, Anomalien und praktische Implikationen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(2), pages 98-116, June.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:33:y:2014:i:1:p:114-133. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.