Maria Cristina Longo

Purpose: This research explores how firms manage the complex technologies standardization in action groups. It considers the strategic issues that technology producers face when involving lead users in architecture design. Drawing on the multi-mode standardization literature, this study addresses two dilemmas regarding value creation and appropriation by technology producers within coalitions. The first dilemma is how to create value by developing solutions in compliance with industry standards. The second one is how to appropriate value while ensuring the technology sharing with action groups. The answers to these two dilemmas contribute to filling the research gap on value creation and appropriation in multi-mode standardization. Design/methodology/approach: The research focuses on technology producers participating in action groups where lead users play a crucial role. We conducted a qualitative analysis based on the standardization experience of a Japanese company specializing in smart robotics. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews with key actors. Action groups are defined operationally as a set of stakeholders including competitors of the technology producers, component suppliers, end users, services providers, research centers and academia. The case study is suitable for highlighting specific aspects of the standardization process during its manifestation. It reveals how firms create and appropriate value, providing details about its standardization strategy. Findings: Our findings show that smart robotics standardization is drivn by collaborative models, where the two dilemmas of value creation and appropriation are evident. Firstly, the case revealed that standardization is lead users oriented. Secondly, lead users’ involvement is crucial to customize technologies. Thirdly, the firm’s position is to share a part of the value with the members. The IPR policy is a matter of interest within action groups, since the collaboration is based on open innovation models to share patents and licenses related knowledge. Research limitations/implications: This research has some limitations attributable to the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative analysis. In addition, this study considers the perspective of technology producers, but should also take into account the perspective of both collective actions itself and the lead users. Findings have some implications in the strategy negotiation. Participating in action groups is not enough to ensure a competitive advantage. Involving lead users is of strategic importance to acquire a competitive advantage. Lead users contribute to the producers’ technology design, helping firms to differentiate solutions from the industry standard and create value from customized technologies. Practical implications: This study helps practitioners understand the competitive side of collective actions, clarifying the value capture and appropriability in standardization. The research provides insights to policymakers and standard development organizations committees when they are called to harmonize standards considering the fallouts on the sector’s competitiveness. Findings suggest appropriate property rights policies to manage the issues related to the value appropriability and technology sharing, recognizing action groups members for their contribution in value creation. Originality/value: This study shows how firms deal within action groups with the two dilemmas of variety versus technology conformity and property rights versus technology sharing. It fills the research gap in collective actions, emphasizing the perspective of the individual firm in the group rather than the coalition strategy itself. This topic highlights the crucial role of lead users within action groups in managing the two dilemmas, offering a new perspective for understanding critical issues of multi-mode standardization. Reflecting on mechanisms and tools to manage the two dilemmas allows firms to protect their competitive advantage in coalitions.

This chapter is about charting the path for enduring licensing programs. Section 1 explores the current state of brand licensing, highlighting its distinctive assets whose value lies in the reputation, image, quality and stylistic standards associated with the brand. Sections 2, 3 and 4 consider the strategic value of brand licensing in looking at the licensor and licensee perspective. Sections 5, 6 and 7 provide some examples of enduring partnership, which involve respectively licensees, agents and multi-level licenses (many licensors and licensees). Section 8 examines the brand licensing process steps. This process requires effort, commitment and planning for building long-term successful programs. Section 9 displays an example of a successful long-term brand licensing program in the field of sport.

This chapter examines the key issue of how to create value through brand licensing strategy. It is focused on the valuable brand components needed for crafting a licensing program and on the metrics to use for evaluating the brand growth and its abilities to expand. Section 1 depicts the importance of brand positioning in choosing the category and the partners to be involved in the program. Section 2 concerns how to define the brand positioning statement, identifies the key elements of the brand architecture and how to analyze the points of parity and points of difference between the brand and its competitors. Section 3 is focused on brand growth to unlock licensing latent value distinguishing between brand extension, brand expansion and brand internationalization. Section 4 is about how to measure the power of the brand to be license-able. Section 5 provides an example of a brand growth in multiple directions, starting from extension to expansion into new categories and from the US to other continents.

With a market size in 2022 of $315.5 billion globally with a growth rate of 8 percent over prior year, the brand licensing industry is projected to reach $384.5 billion by 2028 and grow to $422.6 billion by 2031 according to Business Research Insights (Brand Licensing Market Report, 2023). As such, brand licensing today has a profound influence on the competitive strategies of all companies. The goal of this book is to introduce brand owners and managers to the world of brand licensing. Brand licensing is a growth strategy that is based on the ability to leverage brand value (Gupta et al., 2020) by expanding and extending it into other product categories. Through partnerships with producers, distributors and agents, the brand-owning (Börjeson & Boström, 2018) company can focus on growth based on the valorization of intangible resources and assets. Brand licensing strategy allows licensors to have non-monetary benefits (Christensen & Nikolaev, 2013) in terms of increased brand breadth, greater brand depth, technology transfer and higher business value.

This chapter examines how the world of licensing works providing a general overview of the main aspects related to brand licensing programs. This topic is analyzed, focusing on strategic issues related to designing, implementing and running a brand licensing program. In particular, sections 1, 2 and 3 analyze what makes licensing programs fail or succeed. Section 4 describes the different types of licensing including corporate, character, music, sports and technology. Section 5 introduces how licensing is used in digital platforms, and Section 6 discusses how IP is managed in the digital world. The section concludes with the analysis of three case studies reflecting on the opportunity and limitations of digital brand licensing.

This book presents a roadmap for a brand licensing strategy to enable companies to leverage brand value and expand into other product categories or into different markets. Readers will understand both the risks and the benefits of partnerships, how to make the most of a brand's potential in the digital platform, and how to extend a product portfolio through established brands. Brand licensing can be of interest to many stakeholders, including large companies, entrepreneurs, retailers, agencies and even celebrities. This is also a relevant strategy for small and medium-sized enterprises that want to expand their business abroad, reconciling their limited size with their flexibility. Examples of long-standing partnerships are presented and analyzed, with detailed consideration of what has made them so successful. Through the presentation of case studies in the sectors particularly interested in brand licensing, including the art, character, entertainment, fashion, jewelry, sports and toys sectors, this book aims to highlight opportunities, limits and challenges from both the licensor and licensee’s perspectives. In particular, these case studies represent an effective basis for comparing different experiences and brand licensing strategies, allowing readers to understand both best practices and pitfalls to avoid when building an effective and enduring licensing program. Chapter objectives, summaries, key learning points and discussion questions reinforce understanding and aid reflection. Practical yet theoretically grounded, this book is particularly suitable for postgraduate, MBA and executive education students interested in strategic brand management, licensing strategy and brand expansion. This book can also serve as a valuable guide for professionals interested in expanding their brand portfolio. This book provides effective tools to evaluate the strategic side of brand licensing and the selection of the appropriate company to be a licensee. Online resources include PowerPoint slides, a test bank of exam questions, a case list and discussion questions.

This chapter explores how to execute a brand licensing program. It begins with choosing the licensor according to the LASSO (Lateral, Addictive, Storied, Scalable and Ownable) Method. Section 2 details how to choose the licensee based on an assessment check. Section 3 lists the components of a brand licensing program. Section 4 provides tools including destination metrics, application and projections, due diligence, deal terms alignment, contract negotiation, licensing contract and deal memo, orientation session, business plan and monitoring, and core program elements. Section 5 gives a best-in-class example of executing a brand licensing program where the licensor and the licensee are committed to an agreement that lasts for 100 years.

Not all licensing programs are successful. Some of them end with financial loss or damage to the brand’s business. This chapter concludes with the most frequent pitfalls to avoid when operating a licensing agreement. Section 1 recognizes the mistakes most encountered with the licensing partner and suggests how to deal with them. Section 2 highlights the risk-taking and the risk-mitigation that characterize licensing programs. We start with discussing growth mitigation risk, then product development mitigation risk, then market mitigation risk and then operational mitigation risk. The flip side of these types of risk-mitigation for licensors is an increase in brand risk. We then shift to examples of risk-taking that come from Brand Licensing. Section 3 illustrates how a case where these pitfalls can be avoided and overcome in order to create value and an enduring brand licensing program.

Purpose: This paper aims to assess whether incubation affects the technical efficiency of innovative firms after entering the market. The study of efficiency allows firms to understand how well resources have been used in production processes. The research intends to contribute to the literature on the performance of incubated firms.Design/methodology/approach: This study estimates the relative efficiency of innovative firms adopting a DEA-based two-stage semi-parametric method. Incubation, firm age and initial capital are used for explaining the relative performance of previously incubated firms compared to non-incubated ones over a six-year period of activity. This research focuses on Italian innovative firms using a large sample of companies.Findings: Results show that incubators have a positive and significant effect on efficiency for firms that have been in the market for more than two years. Efficiency also improves with age and with the level of initial capital of the firm.Research limitations/implications: This analysis is limited to the quantitative dimension of inputs as reported in the balance sheets, without qualitative considerations.Practical implications: Findings enhance firms' understanding of the role of incubators as neutral places to develop a business culture of efficiency. From an empirical standpoint, this study provides useful insights to start-uppers who intend to attend incubation programs. Overall, incubators matter to the extent that they enable new firms, net of those that fail to survive in the first two years of activity, to improve their efficiency in the use of inputs. This research also suggests incubators consider the start-ups’ potential of being efficient.Social implications: Findings provide tips to policymakers when they are called upon to propose funding programs to support prominent firms entering the business scalability.Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature on the relative performance of post-incubated firms, highlighting the efficiency frontier analysis. This methodological approach is relatively new in this field. It allows researchers to study the innovative firms' performance in relative terms, that is with respect to the input level. It integrates the performance-based with efficiency frontier analysis. Also, this study reinforces the idea that incubators prepare start-ups to develop capacities and managerial skills, which will be useful in post-incubation life to improve their cost competitiveness.