Let's turn back the clock to Summer, 2004, Kansas City MO/KS. Voters were determining whether or not to levy an arena tax on the rental car and hotel industries to finance the proposed Sprint Center, an arena designed to revitalize the downtown area and potentially entice a professional basketball or hockey team to relocate to Kansas City. Standing in opposition to this arena tax was the newly-formed Coalition Against Arena Taxes. Points for creativity on the name.
The Coalition Against Arena Taxes consisted of around 30 members from different local businesses including one rental car agency that we will refer to as Every-prize Rent a Car (as well as a few other rental agencies). Every-prize's argument against the arena tax centered on their concern regarding the disproportionate increase in expenses - in some cases up to a 40% - on their local renter. Their goal was to have the arena tax limited to airport location and to be decreased from a $4/day tax to a $2/day tax of which Every-prize shared common ground with their competitors. Other CAAT members voiced their concern over the potential for a trickle down tax on their businesses should the financing partners either pull out of the non-binding agreement or should total funding be insufficient.
While an alliance was created between Every-prize and a few of its rental car competitors aligning their mutual concern over such a significant tax imposition, when the debate grew more heated in the last few weeks, it was Every-prise alone that received the negative backlash from the powers that be in Kansas City. The news media spun the Coalition's objections as an attempt from Every-prize, a St Louis based company, to stifle the attempts of Kansas City to gain a professional sporting team in the hopes that such a team would prefer St Louis. While an absurd claim, it succeeded by reinforcing the Napoleonic complex and biases of the Kansas City citizens against St Louis. Apparently winning the 1985 World Series over the Cardinals was insufficient.
While Every-prize was tacking a lashing in the news and through boycotts and picketing, their "allies" determined that the best way to handle the situation was to avoid the spotlight and let Every-prize take the heat. We have discussed the benefit of alliances in a few courses now, including NPD, and I thought it important to mention that whether vertical or horizontal alliances are created between two competing companies over a mutual desire to launch a new product or to protect themselves from an industry-wide occurrence, beware of those with whom you ally.

1 comments:

  1. Aric Rindfleisch said...

    Good point John. In fact, my research (Rindfleisch and Moorman 2003, Journal of Marketing Research) suggests that firms that cooperate with competitors run the risk of diminishing their customer orientation. So, the choice of alliance partners is a critical decision with significant ramifications.  


 

Est. 2008 | Aric Rindfleisch | Wisconsin School of Business | Banner Image by Bruce Fritz