Where the twain shall meet? A study of best practices to resolve retailer–supplier acrimony in post-audit recovery of trade promotion dollars

IF 0.7
Atul Parvatiyar, Janakiraman Moorthy, Naveen Donthu
{"title":"Where the twain shall meet? A study of best practices to resolve retailer–supplier acrimony in post-audit recovery of trade promotion dollars","authors":"Atul Parvatiyar, Janakiraman Moorthy, Naveen Donthu","doi":"10.1080/1046669X.2020.1741297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Deductions and claims to recover trade promotions incentives through post-audit of previous years’ transactions is a highly contentious but prevalent practice in the industry. Retailers, given their low margins of operations, are motivated to seek every opportunity to obtain extra incentives from suppliers to boost their profits. They often hire third-party post-auditors to scrub through all their transactions and “deal sheets” or supplier agreements to search for potential unclaimed trade promotion dollars promised by suppliers in prior years. Third party auditors have an incentive to also make dubious claims as they are compensated on contingency fees of a percent of claims recovered. Such practices lead to acrimony between retailers and suppliers. They often have differing viewpoints and opinions about the contextual terms of the trade promotion deals itself leading to an opinion “chasm” that is sometimes difficult to bridge. The resulting tension among retailers and suppliers, along with regulatory compliance under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, and prevailing questions on the role and practices of post-auditors, motivated this study. Conducted over a 24-month period with extensive collaboration and research discussions between the study team and responsible managers from leading US retail and manufacturing companies. The distinctive mix of academic rigor and practitioner relevance was the hallmark of this study that involved three retail summits conducted with industry participants to discuss the research method and its resultant findings. Evidence suggests that transactional discrepancies will continue to happen, despite technological advances, because of large volume of transactions and multiplicity of complex trade promotion methods in vogue in the retail world. So, as long as there are claim opportunities, post-audit recovery practices will continue, confounding the darker side of the retailer–supplier relationship. Through a multi-stage and multi-level study, and data from a variety of sources, we identify best practices in post-audit recovery and suggest ways to reduce associated conflict and improve relationship satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":45360,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marketing Channels","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1046669X.2020.1741297","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marketing Channels","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2020.1741297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Deductions and claims to recover trade promotions incentives through post-audit of previous years’ transactions is a highly contentious but prevalent practice in the industry. Retailers, given their low margins of operations, are motivated to seek every opportunity to obtain extra incentives from suppliers to boost their profits. They often hire third-party post-auditors to scrub through all their transactions and “deal sheets” or supplier agreements to search for potential unclaimed trade promotion dollars promised by suppliers in prior years. Third party auditors have an incentive to also make dubious claims as they are compensated on contingency fees of a percent of claims recovered. Such practices lead to acrimony between retailers and suppliers. They often have differing viewpoints and opinions about the contextual terms of the trade promotion deals itself leading to an opinion “chasm” that is sometimes difficult to bridge. The resulting tension among retailers and suppliers, along with regulatory compliance under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, and prevailing questions on the role and practices of post-auditors, motivated this study. Conducted over a 24-month period with extensive collaboration and research discussions between the study team and responsible managers from leading US retail and manufacturing companies. The distinctive mix of academic rigor and practitioner relevance was the hallmark of this study that involved three retail summits conducted with industry participants to discuss the research method and its resultant findings. Evidence suggests that transactional discrepancies will continue to happen, despite technological advances, because of large volume of transactions and multiplicity of complex trade promotion methods in vogue in the retail world. So, as long as there are claim opportunities, post-audit recovery practices will continue, confounding the darker side of the retailer–supplier relationship. Through a multi-stage and multi-level study, and data from a variety of sources, we identify best practices in post-audit recovery and suggest ways to reduce associated conflict and improve relationship satisfaction.
他们将在哪里相遇?解决贸易促进美元审计后回收中零售商与供应商争执的最佳实践研究
摘要通过对前几年交易的后审计来收回贸易促进激励的扣除和索赔是一种极具争议但普遍存在的行业做法。鉴于零售商的经营利润率较低,它们有动机寻求一切机会,从供应商那里获得额外的激励,以提高利润。他们经常聘请第三方事后审计人员来审查所有的交易和“交易表”或供应商协议,以寻找供应商在前几年承诺的潜在无人认领的贸易促进资金。第三方审计人员也有动机提出可疑的索赔,因为他们得到赔偿索赔的百分比的应急费用。这种做法导致零售商和供应商之间的争执。他们往往对贸易促进协议本身的背景条款有不同的观点和意见,导致有时难以弥合的意见“鸿沟”。由此产生的零售商和供应商之间的紧张关系,以及萨班斯-奥克斯利法案下的监管合规,以及关于后审计师角色和实践的普遍问题,促使了这项研究。在为期24个月的研究期间,研究团队与来自美国领先零售和制造公司的负责任经理进行了广泛的合作和研究讨论。学术严谨性和实践者相关性的独特组合是这项研究的标志,该研究涉及与行业参与者进行的三次零售峰会,以讨论研究方法及其结果。有证据表明,交易差异将继续发生,尽管技术进步,因为大量的交易和复杂的贸易促进方法在零售业流行的多样性。因此,只要有索赔的机会,审计后的恢复实践就会继续,从而混淆了零售商与供应商关系的阴暗面。通过多阶段和多层次的研究,以及来自各种来源的数据,我们确定了审计后恢复的最佳实践,并提出了减少相关冲突和提高关系满意度的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Marketing Channels is the first and only professional marketing journal to focus exclusively on distribution systems, strategy, and management. The journal recognizes the growing importance of distribution as a key strategic variable in marketing management. Indeed, if one looks realistically at the major strategy variables of the marketing mix—product, price, promotion, and distribution—the greatest potential for achieving a competitive advantage now lies in distribution. The reason? Rapid technology transfer has made product advantages increasingly difficult to maintain. International operations seeking lower costs have made price advantages much harder to sustain because everybody seems to be “playing the same game.” Even promotion, which relies so heavily on mass media advertising, has become a battle of who can spend the most money. But distribution still offers a new frontier for competing successfully especially if the emphasis is placed on the design and management of superior marketing channel systems to provide excellent customer service. A competitive advantage gained through better distribution is not easily copied by the competition and hence becomes a long-term sustainable competitive advantage. Yet designing optimal marketing channel systems, formulating innovative distribution strategies, and managing marketing channel systems effectively is no simple task. In fact, professional marketing expertise of a very high order is required to meet these challenges, especially given the growing competitive role and rapid pace of web-based marketing. The Journal of Marketing Channels helps provide the knowledge and tools needed to develop superior distribution systems, strategies, and management. Leading authorities from around the world present the most up-to-date and in-depth thought, analysis, and research on these topics in this refereed international quarterly journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信