Transaction Cost Theory: Inferences from Clinical Field Research on Downstream Vertical Integration

A bulk of the marketing research on distribution channel design attempts to resolve the question of when a direct company-owned sales operation would be preferred to an indirect independent distributor operation. The widely accepted theoretical rationale is provided by transaction-cost theory which indicates that the total costs of going-to-market, inclusive of distribution as well as its administration, is likely to be lower for the direct option when the sales transactions require investments in unique assets for effectively serving the end customer. Examples of unique assets are account-specific sales teams and account dedicated repair and maintenance facilities. Conversely, transaction-cost theory indicates that an indirect option would be the more efficient one for sales transactions that require investments only in nonunique assets, such as an inventory of standard parts. Since its formulation in 1975, the transaction-cost framework has been empirically confirmed in a variety of marketing channel settings. It has been our observation, however, that most of these verifications have been of the easier rather than the more difficult problems in the field. Two such complex problems are: (1) the issue of hybrid channels, i.e., channel arrangements involving a sharing of going-to-market tasks between the direct and indirect channels, and (2) the evolution of channels from one form to the other, i.e., a direct channel evolving into an indirect channel and vice versa. To resolve our curiosity regarding the applicability of transaction-cost theory to these complex channel issues, we interviewed 50 key informants in 15 carefully selected manufacturing firms and 20 key informants in 7 related distribution firms. Because the purpose of our field research was to enhance our understanding of complex channel phenomena rather than to test existing theory, we did not gather structured quantitative data. Instead, we let managers describe to us the rationale for their channel choice decisions. In comparing the fit of our field observations to existing wisdom on transaction-cost theory, we reached the conclusion that the theory needs broadening in order to explain the variety and complexity of the real world channels we studied. In this paper, we attempt to suggest some useful directions for such enhancements. Specifically, (1) transaction-cost analysis is more meaningful when applied at the level of a channel function, (2) channel investments are influenced by a firm's uncertainty absorption mechanism, and (3) channel investments serve to raise competitive entry barriers.