In this study, the effect of Distribution efficiency through the fishery production base distribution center (FPC) on the production site board facility was studied. FPC is a new distribution system for Korean fishery products that has been promoted in earnest since 2012, and in this study, the effect before and after the introduction of FPC was analyzed using the DID (Difference in Difference) model for the effect of FPC in the fishery industry. The results of analysis shows that in the case of Wando Geumil FPC, the volume and unit price of consignment sales decreased during the analysis period, which was statistically significant. In the case of Sokcho FPC, the volume of consignment sales decreased during the analysis period, which was statistically insignificant. But the unit price of consignment sales rose during the analysis period, which was statistically significant. In the case of Gyeongju FPC, the volume of consignment sales increased during the analysis period, which was statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. But the unit price of consignment sales fell during the analysis period, which was statistically significant.

Introduction: To analyze the impact of marketing losses on efficiency in transacting banana in Kurnool district of SRZ in Andhra Pradesh and to assess the opinions of the farmers on the constraints in transacting banana. Research back ground, Materials and Methods: The study relies exclusively on primary information obtained from the banana farmers of Kurnool District. Purposive sampling procedure was followed for the selection of the study area. Top two mandals in the district and top two villages in each mandal are selected in accordance with the area under cultivation of banana. Probability proportion to size was followed regarding the selection of sample farmers and accordingly 60 marginal, 37 small and 23 other farmers were selected and thereby, the total sample size was 120. Result and Discussion: Three marketing channels were identified in the marketing of banana in Kurnool district viz., Producer → Local-exporter → Wholesaler → Retailer → Consumer (Channel-I), Producer → Wholesaler → Cart-vendor → Consumer (Channel-II) and Producer → Juice-holder → Consumer (Channel-III). With the inclusion of marketing losses in the price spread analysis of banana in all the three channels, the marketing costs of all the intermediaries were increased and thereby, the farmer’s share in consumer’s rupee and Net Marketing Margins of the agencies are on the decline. So, without inclusion of marketing losses, the farmer’s share in consumer’s rupee and Net Marketing Margins of all the agencies are overvalued. The higher the marketing losses, the more is the negative impact on farmer’s net selling price, net marketing margins of the intermediaries and marketing efficiency. The sample farmers are facing major problems in marketing of banana like frequent price fluctuations, unorganized marketing and lack of transportation facilities on priority basis. Suggestions: It is suggested to educate the farmers regarding the optimum maturity index for harvest, use of mechanical harvesters, proper placement of fruits during storage and ripening, better packaging and cushioning technologies to absorb shocks during transportation, strengthening of storage facilities and transport facilities, encourage co-operative marketing etc., to promote marketing efficiency of banana in the study area.

A well-known dilemma in strategic marketing is whether a firm can be simultaneously both efficient in its existing business and innovative in creating new business (Atuahene-Gima 2005; Christensen 1997). Beleaguered companies such as AOL, Kmart, Motorola, Nokia, Polaroid, and Sears are examples that were once highly efficient in serving customers, but partly due to that efficiency in their existing business, paradoxically failed to introduce innovations. The potential tension “between innovation and efficiency—is one that’s bedeviling CEOs everywhere” (Hindo 2007). Two questions regarding the efficiency–innovation tradeoffs are especially intriguing to researchers and managers alike. First, to what extent are such tradeoffs driven by efficient firms’ lack of eagerness or willingness to innovate in the first place, or lack of ability to innovate and promote innovations? Second, can certain strategic marketing factors mitigate the tension of such tradeoffs? Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that not all firms that are efficient in their current business (e.g., Charles Schwab, Capital One) lack innovative thrust. In fact, efficient firms may actually be eager to innovate: Nokia, for instance, originally innovated an online “app store” service as well as touchscreen smartphones and Internet tablets in the 1990s and 2000s, much earlier than Apple (Ben-Aaron 2009; MobileGazzette 2008). Similarly, Polaroid was originally a pioneer in developing digital cameras and imaging services in the 1980s (Tripsas and Gavetti 2000). The eventual failures of Nokia’s and Polaroid’s innovation efforts, thus, do not seem to be due to their lack of eagerness to innovate, but perhaps the inability to manage the efficiency–innovation tension. In contrast, other companies seem to be able to manage this tension. For instance, in financial services, Charles Schwab is often commended both for its efficiency and its innovativeness, and the firm itself feels the “need to invest in innovation to maintain a competitive edge” (Gilson 2012). Against this backdrop, we focus on two questions: (1) What exactly are the tradeoffs and tensions between a firm’s existing efficiency, innovativeness in its new offerings, and new offering performance? And (2) how can strategic marketing assets such as customer base and advertising intensity mitigate the tradeoffs? Should such assets help to alleviate the inherent tension, they would give executives tools to pursue both efficiency and innovation at the same time and succeed with their new innovative offerings. Empirically, we focus on the service sector, whereby the actual technical development of innovations is not very costly in tangible financial terms (Crawford and di Benedetto 2008; Droege et al. 2009; Thomke 2003)―making the intangible firm capabilities most likely determinants of (innovation) performance rather than tangible resources (cf. Vorhies, Morgan, and Autry 2009). Therewith, we examine our research questions with a comprehensive census dataset of all new service introductions (n≈500) in one national market: The Finnish mutual funds industry (1997–2010). The sector of financial services is especially relevant for the efficiency–innovation tradeoffs because in this sector, many firms are compelled to engage in both efficient operations and effective (financial) innovations. Our empirical focus on all firms in one market precisely identifies and measures the efficiency levels of all competing firms, relative to the best-performing competitors, as well as innovativeness (earliness) in introducing new services compared to all rivals. For a marketing perspective, we focus on firms’ existing customer-perceived service efficiency (over the entire portfolio of existing services, i.e., funds)—defined through the ratio of output value that customers obtain from the firms’ current services to the (customer) cost inputs. We also carefully delineate between (a) innovativeness of a new service introduction and (b) its performance. Doing so can reveal the potentially contradictory effects of existing efficiency on new service innovativeness (willingness to innovate) vis-à-vis new service performance (ability to make innovations succeed). As our key results, we firstly identify and explicate the baseline efficiency–innovation tradeoffs. Specifically, our results suggest that while existing service efficiency increases the innovativeness of new services introduced by the firm, it simultaneously (1) leads to decreased business performance for the new services introduced and (2) diminishes the positive influence of innovativeness on performance. In sum, these findings imply that on the baseline, highly efficient service firms may be too eager to innovate, considering the sub-par performance they are likely to receive for those innovations. Secondly, our results reveal two strategic marketing factors, which have the potential to mitigate the tradeoffs. We find that the firm’s (a) focused customer base and (b) high advertising intensity can nullify the negative effect of existing service efficiency on innovativeness and the negative moderating effect of efficiency on the innovativeness–performance link.

The study was conducted to indentify systematically current marketing structure and markeiing efficiency of major cash crops such as red peppers and garlics. That various data and information have been used to analyze the problems related, some of them have come from secondary sources, but major parts of real circum stances were primarily obtained from the scheduled field survey. Some of valuable facts and consequences stemmed from the research can be summarized as fellows: First of all, the commercial rates of peppers and garlics produced by sample farms were 87.5 percent and 69 percent, respectively. On the other hand, annual handling volumes per marketing firm of those two crops were on the average estimated into 51,000 kyun(about 600gr) for peppers and 20,000 hundred bulbs of garlic. As seen physical losses over the entire marketing channels of each crop, it was approximately calculated in 14.7 percent of peppers and 21.1 percent of garlic, respectively. Secondarily, it was found that marketing chanells of these crops are very diversified and complex. However, the five-staged chanell is typical: i.e., from producers to local consigners, to local carry-out merchants, to consigner-wholesales, and finally to retailers. Thirdly, it was also estimated that gross marketing margin, marketing cost and profit based on average grade of peppers were 56.1 percent, 22.6 and 33.5 percent, respectively, having 43.8 percent of farmer's share, and those of garlic 38.9, 17.1, 21.8 and 61.1 percent, separately. To the end, it seems that current collective bargaining power of farmers' cooperatives is virtually weak compared to free individual marketing firms in terms of bssiness volumes and quantity handled over the year.