The definition on our text tells us that tacit collusion exists when firms coordinate their production and pricing strategies indirectly by observing the output and pricing decisions of other firms. One great example of how Nike plays this game is by their factory schedule. Many of the factories Nike uses, are also used by other competing brands such as Adidas. Interestingly enough, the products have enough similarities in the construct and shipping destinations that allow for multiple brands use the same factory partners.
Starting back in 2005, Nike began assessing how they could leverage collaboration of factories across several brands. Not only looking for a better way to manage factory relations, but also to create industry-wide efficiency for buyers and suppliers.
It will be challenging for Nike to be challenged with price cuts from competitors as Nike pretty well sets the price in the market for athletic footwear and apparel. They hold the greatest amount of share in the industry and most follow their lead.
Now, from a cheating standpoint, I cannot say I've heard or read anything that would suggest the various brands collaborating on factories and production schedules has come to light. Plus, it would stand to reason that it really is in the best interest of those top firms to utilize factories especially if they are taking the same strategy of not investing in brand-owned and operated factories to produce their various lines of business. To increase profits across all brands, it would seem to benefit all by coordinating.
References
Barney, Jay B. (2014-01-17). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage (4th Edition) (Page 246). Prentice Hall. Kindle Edition.
http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/workers-and-factories/3-10-1-our-approach.php?cat=brand-collaboration
No comments:
Post a Comment