How Does the Need for Post-Purchase

Services Affect the Digital Transformation of Value Systems?

Student: A.J. Hartman Student Number: S2561646 Supervisor: T.L.J. Broekhuizen Co-assessor: P.J. Steinberg Date: 02 March 2020 Word Count: 13636

Abstract

The impact of digitalisation on value systems has received much attention from business scholars. Nevertheless, little is known about how digitalisation transforms value systems for physical products that require post-purchase services (PPSs) like product commissioning and repair service. Such services are traditionally offered by physical dealers and may strengthen their position, thus affect the digital transformation of value systems. By conducting a case study in the Dutch bicycle market, this study sheds new light on how digital transformation of value systems is affected by PPSs. Findings show that when there is a sufficient need for PPSs, incumbent intermediaries can use PPS resources to protect themselves against disintermediation. Furthermore, findings contradict the prevailing view that digital transformation is a one-way process. Findings evidentially portrait the digital transformation of value systems as a dynamic process; the extent to which activities in value systems are digitized can increase and decrease. Moreover, findings show that a high need for PPSs offers a temporal protection against digital disruption.

Keywords: Activity redistribution, digital disruption, digital transformation, (dis)intermediation, post- purchase services, value systems reconfiguration, vertical integration

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4 Theory ...... 5 Channel Function and Activity Allocation ...... 5 Transaction Cost Economics ...... 6 The Resource Based View ...... 7 Digital Transformation of Value Systems ...... 7 Digital Disruption ...... 7 The Desire of Producers to Bypass Intermediaries ...... 8 The Process of Digital Transformation of Value Systems ...... 9 How Post-Purchase Services Affect Digital Disruption of Value Systems ...... 9 Methodology ...... 11 Research Design ...... 11 Case Selection ...... 11 Data Collection ...... 12 Primary Data Sources ...... 12 Secondary Data Sources ...... 13 Data Analysis ...... 15 Findings ...... 15 Industry Trends ...... 16 Redistribution of Activities ...... 18 Horizontal Redistribution ...... 18 Vertical Redistribution ...... 20 Reconfiguration of Value Systems ...... 24 Entrance of Mobile PPS providers ...... 24 Entrance of Bicycle-as-a-Service Providers ...... 25 Obsolescence of Intermediaries ...... 25 Discussion ...... 26 Interpretation of Findings ...... 26 Theoretical Implications ...... 30 Managerial Implications ...... 31 Research Limitations and Future Research ...... 31 Conclusion ...... 32 References ...... 33 Appendices ...... 37 Appendix A: Product Distribution within the Bicycle Market ...... 37 Appendix B: Subsidiary Producers ...... 37 Appendix C: Additional Primary Data Collection ...... 38

3

Introduction

The advent of the Internet gave birth to decades of new business challenges. Activities within value systems (inter-linked firms active in the same industry) (c.f. Porter, 1985) are getting increasingly interwoven with the Internet. Product orientation has largely moved from physical stores to websites. The Internet has become a vital source for buyers to gather information about product offerings and seems to be increasingly preferred over interaction with physical salespeople (Forrester, 2017). Online selling (e-commerce) has expanded rapidly (UNCTAD, 2019) and continues to grow at a fast rate (Forrester, 2018; Statista, 2019). Moreover, new digital technologies (such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and 3D printing) are emerging and could drastically change the allocation of activities among actors within value systems. Our world is getting increasingly digitized (interwoven with the Internet), which gives rise to new business threats and opportunities. Existing business models adapting to the Internet and the emergence of new types of digital driven business models (hereinafter: digitalisation) questions the structure of traditional value systems. Digitisation of pre-purchase orientation and the rise of e- commerce questions the need for intermediaries (e.g. distributors and resellers) within distribution channels of producers (Broekhuizen, Lampel, & Rietveld, 2013). Furthermore, digitalisation challenges business models of incumbent intermediaries and their activities – sometimes even to the extent that they lose their economic viability. Moreover, it provides ample opportunities for new (digital) entrants to establish themselves in existing markets with new business models and combination of activities. Scholars have paid close attention to the disruptive impact of digitalisation. Previous research concluded that digitalisation disrupts markets as a “double-edged” sword by destroying the value of existing competencies and creating new (digital) opportunities (Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2016; Bakos, 1998; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Sarkar, Butler, & Steinfield, 1995). In a vertical context, digitalisation has the ability to affect actors within value systems and lead to digital transformation. This process can lead to integration in which intermediaries are pushed out as producers can remove or bypass existing intermediaries from value systems (Malone, Yates, & Benjamin, 1987; Sarkar et al., 1995). Furthermore, it can lead to new forms of intermediation in which (new) intermediaries take on and/or create new roles in the value system (Bailey & Bakos, 1997; Chircu & Kauffman, 1999b). Understanding how digitalisation reconfigures value systems and redistributes activities among actors is very relevant from a theoretical perspective. It provides insight into how and why digitalisation leads to certain changes in the value system and to the value chain of firms. Further, it may explain why certain firms shift in roles and activities. Original work of Christensen (1997) assumes that digital disruption favours new entrants that will ultimately conquer (traditional) incumbents, who are inert or incapable of responding. More recent studies show that incumbents are not powerless 4

against the changes by benefitting from existing resources (Broekhuizen et al., 2013; Mol, Wijnberg, & Carroll, 2005). An important limitation to these studies is that they mostly investigate industries with digital or digitizable products like video games, music, or very standardized products (such as physical books, DVDs, etc.). Yet, much less is known about how digitalisation affects the value system and the activities that actors perform for industries for products that require post-purchase services (hereinafter: PPSs) like reparations and maintenance. This research aims to provide more insight into how the need for PPSs shapes the impact of digitalisation on value systems. Previous studies have shown that existing resources can strengthen the position of incumbents (Barney, 1991; Porter, 1979) and buffer against the effects of digitalisation (Broekhuizen et al., 2013). Furthermore, theory suggests that an incumbent’s ownership of resources affects its ability to re-establish into a digitized value system (Chircu & Kauffman, 2000). Products demanding PPS could, in line with these theories, empower incumbents possessing physical resources and therefore greatly affect the distribution of existing and newly emerged activities among actors. To provide an answer to how and why digitalisation reconfigures the value system, and redistributes activities among firms, this study performs a case study in the Dutch bicycle market. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 contains a literature review. Section 3 describes the methodology. Section 4 presents the results of the case study. Section 5 discusses findings, provides theoretical and managerial implications and explains research limitations and future research opportunities. Lastly, section 6 will provide a conclusion.

Theory

This section is structured as follows. Firstly, a description will be given about channel functions and activities. Secondly, two important theories, Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and the Resource Based View (RBV), will be used to explain the structure of value systems. Thirdly, based on prior studies held in industries with digital or digitizable products, the disruptive impact of digitalisation on value systems will be explained. Lastly, the impact of pre-purchase and post-purchase services on digital transformation of value systems will be addressed.

Channel Function and Activity Allocation Peterson et al. (1997) explain the function of intermediaries within value systems by distinguishing three types of channels, namely: communication (displaying products and providing purchase advice), transaction (producing orders and selling) and distribution (product delivery and the logistic activities facilitating product delivery). According to Peterson et al. (1997), intermediation occurs when an independent firm establishes itself in one or multiple of these channels and acts as a middleman

5

between producers and buyers by facilitating their exchanges. Since this study primarily focusses on the disruption of resellers, the allocation of logistic activities (such as transportation and inventory holding) within value systems falls outside the scope of this research. A limitation of the framework of Peterson et al. is the focus on product distribution. Repair and maintenance service is not included in the framework but can be essential for product consumption. In order to explain the structure of value systems with products demanding those services, this research extends the framework of Peterson et al. by adding a channel comprising these activities (see Table 1).

Value System Channel Core Activity o Product Display Pre-Purchase Services Communication Channel o Purchase Advice o Producing Orders Purchase Services Transaction Channel o Selling o Product Commissioning Distribution Channel Post-Purchase Services o Product Delivery Repair and Maintenance Channel o Repair Service

Table 1. Value System Channels

Transaction Cost Economics In the literature, TCE and RBV are often used to explain why producers and buyers choose to perform activities themselves or involve an intermediary during the buying process. TCE supposes that vertical boundaries are determined by the cost of using markets or internal hierarchies (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975). Firms have two ways to organize activities: internal (making) and external (buying) (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975). Buying comes with additional buying expenses, called transaction costs (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975; Williamson, 1985), such as: searching, informing, contracting and monitoring expenses. The last two are the result of preventing undesired buying outcomes as a result of a supplier’s opportunism and mistakes (Williamson, 1985). Cost minimization is seen as the key driver for activity allocation; the decision to make is based on its benefits over buying. As buying expenses include both the purchase price and the transaction costs, the ability of a supplier to produce efficient stimulates and transaction costs discourages buying. In the context of value systems, producers and buyers have the choice to exchange directly, and thus perform all channel activities themselves, or to exchange indirectly, and thus outsource certain activities to intermediaries. Therefore, vertical boundaries of value systems can be seen as the result of producer and buyer “make-or-buy” decisions (Rangan, Menezes, & Maier, 1992). The degree to which intermediaries are involved in producer – buyer exchanges depends, according to TCE, on

6

their ability to add value by reducing exchange costs (Malone et al., 1987). According to the classic economic principle of division of labour, specialization increases efficiency. From this perspective, intermediation occurs because specialisation enables intermediaries to perform activities at lower costs (Rosenbloom, 2002). On the other hand, intermediary services also include purchase costs and transaction costs. If these costs combined are lower than the cost of direct exchange, buyers and producers are expected to use indirect, intermediated, channels (Malone et al., 1987). Otherwise, buyers and producers are expected to use direct channels (Malone et al., 1987). Over time, direct channels may become more cost efficient than indirect channels. This may entice producers to exchange directly with buyers by removing intermediaries from channels or bypassing intermediaries with a direct channel (Mallen, 1973; Malone et al., 1987), an event called activity integration.

The Resource Based View The RBV takes a different approach and focuses on the resources owned by producers and intermediaries. RBV conceptualises firms as “heterogeneous bundles of resources” that try to maximize long-run profits by exploiting and developing resources (Penrose, 1959; Tsang, 2000). Similar to TCE, in an effort to maximize profit, cost minimization is supposed to be a driver for activity integration and outsourcing decisions (Tsang, 2000). The RBV differs from TCE as it takes resource scarcity, resource heterogeneity and value creation by intermediaries into account (Tsang, 2000) and states that a lack of resources (Poppo & Zenger, 1998), collaboration synergy (Zajac & Olsen, 1993) and strategic focus on core competencies (Quinn & Hilmer, 1994) stimulates firms to outsource activities.

Digital Transformation of Value Systems

Digital Disruption The emergence of a disruptive technology, like the Internet, may shift the power of actors within value systems, as it destroys the value of their existing competencies and may increase the value of new competencies (Ansari et al., 2016; Bakos, 1998; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Sarkar et al., 1995). Disruptive technology theory suggests that disruptive technologies lead to the advent of new entrants and the obsolescence of incumbents (reconfiguration of value systems), as well as to reallocation of activities performed by incumbents and entrants via outsourcing or integration (redistribution of activities). In the literature, digital disruption is often analysed from an actor’s perspective (removing of existing and entry of new intermediaries in value systems) and not from an activity perspective. However, digitalisation may disrupt value systems by changing the distribution of activities among actors within value system channels without changing their involvement within value systems. For example, in traditional value systems, incumbent intermediaries (in form of resellers) are often involved in all multiple value system channels. Integration could take place on actor level, bypassing 7

or removing intermediaries in all channels, or on activity level, bypassing or removing of intermediaries within a certain channel. Similarly, new intermediaries may challenge incumbent intermediaries in all or in specific channels. A focus on actors neglects these types of disruptions. As said, according to TCE and RBV intermediaries exist because of their ability to reduce transaction costs and/or ownership of resources necessary for product commercialisation. The Internet offers an alternative way to exchange information and to sell. Therefore it challenges physical channels and the intermediaries operating in these channels. In order to stay economically relevant, incumbent intermediaries need to be able to add value, otherwise they will be replaced by digital intermediaries or their activities will be integrated into the operations of producers (i.e. disintermediation) (Gellman, 1996; Rosenbloom, 2007). According to a study of Mol et al. (2005), if producers perceive an unfair distribution of profit among channel members, defined as a situation where an actors’ value capture exceeds its added value, other actors experience value chain envy. This envy may incentivize them to vertically integrate or enter the desired stage. Their findings show that when functions become easier (i.e., less costly to perform) due to technological improvements, profit margins should be adapted to match the new level of added value, otherwise this imbalance will ensue disintermediation. In an effort to reduce transaction costs between buyers and producers, incumbent intermediaries face the threat of business erosion due to a shift in the composition of transaction costs (Chircu & Kauffman, 1999a; Malone et al., 1987; Sarkar et al., 1995). The Internet makes it easier to spread and gather information, which might decrease the added value of incumbent intermediaries within communication and transaction channels (Malone et al., 1987; Sarkar et al., 1995). On the other hand, the wide availability of online information may overflow customers and increases the need for intermediaries, in form of aggregators, to reduce search costs (Bakos, 1998; Broekhuizen et al., 2013; Malone et al., 1987).

The Desire of Producers to Bypass Intermediaries According to other theories, producers are naturally tempted to disintermediate intermediaries from their value system. Therefore digitalisation may not be a cause of disintermediation but facilitate an already existing desire to exchange directly with buyers. From a coopetition perspective, producer– intermediary relationships are paradoxical as they involve both cooperation for value creation and competition for profit appropriation (Stamboulis, 2007). In an effort to maximize profit, producers aim to capture profit from intermediaries through, for instance, bypassing intermediaries. Moreover, the desire for autonomy is another driver to disintermediate. Relying on external resources makes producers dependent on the performances of intermediaries and may constraint their actions. Therefore, intermediation forms a risk for the survival and success of producers (Pfeffer, 1987). In

8

order to decrease this risk, producers can reduce their external dependence by resource absorption (e.g. vertical integration) and resource substitution (e.g. assessing other markets and resellers) (Pfeffer, 1987). Digitalisation may enable producers to vertically integrate or to decrease their dependence on incumbent intermediaries by involving other (online) intermediaries.

The Process of Digital Transformation of Value Systems Chircu and Kauffman’ (2000; 1999b) introduced the IDR-framework to describe the digital transformation of channels. According to their framework, digital transformation is characterised by three competitive phases: intermediation, disintermediation, and reintermediation. In the first phase, digital intermediaries enter traditional (offline) markets. In the following phase disintermediation occurs; digital intermediaries capture market share and push incumbent intermediaries partially out of the market. In the reintermediation phase, incumbent intermediaries try to re-establish and to recapture some of their lost market share. During reintermediation, incumbent intermediaries enter the e-commerce market themselves (Chircu & Kauffman, 1999b). In order to protect their business, digital intermediaries in their turn, reposition themselves into the value system by licensing assets or partnering with incumbent intermediaries (Chircu & Kauffman, 1999b). The extent to which incumbent intermediaries are able to reposition themselves depends on their ability to leverage physical resources (such as economies of scale) in a digitized value system (Chircu & Kauffman, 2000). If incumbent intermediaries are able to leverage resources for online selling, they could outcompete digital intermediaries which have not developed these resources. Therefore, complementary resources can create a buffer and protect incumbents against digital driven disintermediation (Broekhuizen et al., 2013).

How Post-Purchase Services Affect Digital Disruption of Value Systems Early studies on digitalisation already addressed the impact of product characteristics on digital disruption. For instance, digitalisation was supposed (and is later proven) to be more disruptive for value systems with information goods (such as software, music and movies) than for tangible goods. From an activity point of view, the need for certain services during and after purchasing of a product has long been expected to affect the structure of value systems. For instance, Peterson et al. (1997) explain that the information of buyers during the orientation of products affects the extent to which digitalisation disrupts physical intermediaries. They distinguish two types of product categories: experience and search goods. According to them: “features of a search good can be evaluated from externally provided information, whereas experience goods need to be personally inspected or tried”. During the purchase orientation process, online product display may be sufficient when a product is a search good but a poor substitute when a product is an experience good. Therefore, the need for certain services during the product orientation process affects the disruptive impact of digitalisation

9

of value systems (Peterson et al., 1997). In an example about Mazda’s rotary engine, Teece (1986) mentions that repair facilities are critical for product commercialisation. However, studies building on Teece’s propositions have neglected the impact of PPS needs on the digital transformation of value systems. Literature does give some possible explanations. As explained, TCE fundamentally states that the perceived transaction risk discourages buying. Buyers could perceive a higher risk for inadequate PPS when buying online. Therefore, the need for these services could affect the impact of digitalisation on transaction channels negatively. Moreover, when producers integrate the transaction channel and start selling online, it makes them a direct competitor of their intermediaries. This could harm cooperation between producers and intermediaries (Liu, Luo, Yang, & Maksimov, 2014) and lead to intermediary alienation, causing dysfunctional behaviour, harm to profits, and result in dissolution of producer–intermediary relationships (Etgar, 1977; Eyuboglu & Kabadayi, 2005; Gaski & Ray, 2001), thus provoke disintermediation. When producers depend on intermediaries for current sales and in the fulfilment of PPSs, producers face the challenge to gain support of the intermediaries they try to replace, a so- called “disruptor dilemma” (Ansari et al., 2016). In general, the extent to which producers are dependent on intermediaries determines the risk of harm when upsetting dealers. Therefore, if PPSs are essential for the selling of a product, producers might not want to take actions that upset intermediaries. Thus, PPS needs should likely reduce transaction channel integration. Besides the supposed influence of PPS needs on the digitalisation of transaction channels, online sellers (intermediaries and/or producers) may be forced to rearrange the fulfilment of these services. As Bakos (1998) noticed, online sellers often “freeload” on incumbent intermediaries to provide offline services, which cannot be sustained when e-commerce gains significant market share. According to his view, expansion of e-commerce forces online sellers to search for alternative ways to fulfil this need, which can be done by vertical integration or outsourcing to a new type of intermediary. In summary, literature explains (1) why intermediation occurs and (2) why digitalisation can disrupt value systems. Furthermore, literature gives some insight in (3) the competitive dynamics between actors within value systems during digital transformation of value systems and (4) how the need for services during the purchase process can affect the digital transformation of value systems. Literature, however, lacks an explanation on how PPSs affect the digital transformation of value systems. Since PPSs can play a major role in markets with products that require repair and maintenance service, more insight is needed on the impact of these services to understand how digitalisation affect these types of markets. This study is conducted in order to provide these insights and will therefore contribute to our understanding of the digital transformation value systems.

10

Methodology

Given the explorative nature of this study, an inductive case study has been conducted (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). An inductive approach has found to be useful to deepen understanding about situations and to build theory (Cooper & Schindler, 2003), especially when the research question involves a process and the object of study is not addressed well in extant literature (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009). Moreover, value systems of a multitude of producers and intermediaries are analysed, which adds validity to findings because it enables comparison and therefore improves accuracy and reliability (Eisenhardt, 1991; Yin, 1994). The perspective of this research is both descriptive and prescriptive (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2007). In the Dutch bicycle market (hereinafter: bicycle market) producers and intermediaries are faced with digital disruption due to the emergence of e-commerce and substitutive Internet-enabled business models. Findings will therefore explain how digital transformation of value systems happens and its effect on actors within value systems. Further, findings will help to understand how digitalisation in similar industries may happen in the future.

Research Design Since the goal of this research is to extend theory, case selection has been conducted for theoretical rather than statistical reasons (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The bicycle market was expected to contain data rich enough to deliver new insights and therefore bring sufficient theoretical depth to this study. Since the key objective of this research is to enrich literature with new insights rather than building of generic theory, investigating more industries was considered unnecessary (Miles et al., 2014).

Case Selection The bicycle market has been selected because value systems in this market are drastically changing due to the emergence of e-commerce, rise of other Internet-enabled business models and the increased importance of PPSs. Since bicycle parts wear down during product usage, product consumption is characterised with regular maintenance and reparations. Therefore, independent physical dealers traditionally fulfilled both reselling and repairing roles within value systems. In several European countries, these dealers have been largely removed from value systems by other retailers (such as supermarkets and sporting goods stores) but in the Netherlands, reselling has largely remained with dealers (see Appendix A). The advent of the Internet has led to questioning of the role of physical dealers within value systems. Like in other industries, buyers have become less dependent on physical resellers for product information; websites of producers and product review sites enable buyers to inform themselves 11

before they enter physical stores. Further, online dealers have emerged and expanded rapidly in the bicycle market. Moreover, the Internet has facilitated the entry of producers that only sell via their own webstore. Simultaneously, PPS seems to have become more important in the bicycle market. As mechanical and electrical parts wear down and can break, higher complexity due to the use of more parts increases the need for repair and maintenance service. The advent of E-Bikes could therefore increase the need for PPS in the bicycle market. Moreover, the use of E-Bikes as an alternative way of transport increases the importance of having a proper functioning bicycle and therefore increases the need for PPSs. Because of this duality, digital disruption and increasing importance of PPS, this case was expected to give unique insight in the extent to which the need for PPSs affect the digital transformation within value systems.

Data Collection

Primary Data Sources Interviews have been conducted to get insight in the attitude of intermediaries and producers towards digital transformation of value systems and their view regarding past events and the future structure of value systems. Furthermore, interviews were used to clarify developments and events found in secondary data. In total 5 interviews have been conducted. The interviews were conducted face-to- face and in Dutch. Quotes have therefore been translated. All interviews were, with permission, audio recorded and are word-for-word transcribed. A firm’s attitude towards value system restructuring could be sensitive information and interviewees were therefore ensured confidentiality. Moreover, interviewees were given the opportunity to review this study before its publication. Interviewing took place between May – December, which enabled adaptive data collection. To safeguard the flow and discussion of relevant topics, an interview protocol has been developed. Further, notes of findings in secondary data and statements of other interviewees have been used extensively for interviews, which enabled data triangulation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) and drastically reduced the likelihood of an interview bias. Due to the exploratory and open nature of this research, the interview protocol was not strictly followed; interviewees were given the opportunity to mention everything that came into their mind. During the conversations, interviewees already mentioned many topics themselves and interview protocols have therefore not been used extensively. Because of this reason, interview protocols are not included in the appendices. However, they are available upon request. Interviewing took place in three stages. In the first phase, an interview has been conducted with a producer of an online product configurator. This company operates as an online intermediary and produces a product configurator which uses a solver to calculate technical feasibility of product configurations. Moreover, it enables the user to configure products based on needs rather than technical specifications. According to the interviewee, the configurator is mostly used by dealers.

12

Producers purchase a license for the software and distribute it among dealers, who use it to produce orders (i.e. transaction channel). However, producers could also use the configurator to sell online as the configurator enables buyers to order themselves without mediation of dealers (i.e. transaction channel integration). In order to get a better understanding about the adoption of the configurator as an online selling tool for producers, more insight was needed in how dealer dependence affects the decision of producers regarding the introduction of webstores and how this process takes place. Investigating how the need for PPSs steer digitalisation and allocation of activities within value systems was expected to contribute to this understanding. In the second phase, a producer has been interviewed. This producer has been selected because it had taken steps towards (digital) communication and transaction channel integration. The bicycle producer has actively explored whether they should digitize and integrate its distribution channel in Germany. The producer had a plan to integrate selling by opening a webstore and to outsource PPS to a mobile bike service provider. However, the producer chose not to execute this plan because of the risks involved regarding the ability of the service provider to deliver adequate service. As producers might not be willing to share details about their current strategy, interviewing a producer who has explored how to rearrange its value system was expected to be a good alternative. In the last phase, bicycle dealers have been interviewed. Dealers were selected based on their difference regarding digitalisation: Dealer #1 only sells offline whereas Dealer #2 also sells online. The goal of this selection was to avoid a selection bias; dealers with a webstore might have a different view regarding digitalisation than dealers without a webstore.

Companies Interview Duration Interviewee Job Title Producer Interview: 169 min Assistant Manager Marketing &

Follow up: 75 min Product Development

Configurator Producer Interview: 73 min General Manager & Co-Founder

Dealer #1 Interview: 33 min Two Store Managers

Dealer #2 Interview: 58 min Store Owner

Table 2. The Interview Sample

Secondary Data Sources Secondary data has been gathered to get a broader knowledge about the bicycle market. Data was collected through websites of producers, dealers and other intermediaries, publications on specialized press sites for the Dutch bicycle industry, articles of major Dutch newspapers (e.g. NRC, Het Financieele Dagblad, Nederlands Dagblad, Telegraaf) and external industry reports (by e.g. Rabobank and BOVAG). Data has been collected from September till December. Findings from secondary data have been used extensively as side notes for interviews and new insights from interviews have led to

13

additional data collection. Secondary data about value system integration has been gathered through sampling. The size of the producer samples was based on the theoretical usefulness. Collecting data about producers was stopped after reaching a point of theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). An oversight of the producer sample can be found in Table 5. To be added to the sample, producers had to meet the following requirements: having a direct and/or indirect distribution channel in the Netherlands and manufacturing products in one or multiple categories as described in Table 3.

Categories Kids Urban Sports (Race, Mountain Bike and Trekking) Cargo (Family and Good Transport)

Table 3. Product Categories

Next, producers were chosen based on the availability of information regarding their value systems in e.g. newspapers and whether they were mentioned by interviewees. Several producers have multiple subsidiaries that produce bikes under their subsidiary name. These subsidiaries were also added to the sample if they met the previously mentioned requirements (see Appendix B). Producers with unconventional value systems have enjoyed much media attention and were also included in the sample. In order to cover the wider range of producers, the sample has been supplemented with producers with less integrated value systems. Since this research focusses on the changing role of intermediaries within digital transforming value systems, non-intermediated producers fall outside the theoretical scope of this research. Nonetheless, these producers are included in the sample because neglecting them would give an incomplete and perhaps a distorted picture of the current situation and developments within the bicycle market. Value system integration has been analysed based on the activities as described in Table 4. Information has been gathered through producer websites and news articles. These sources did not always provide sufficient information. Therefore, order to get more information, producers have been contacted extensively (see Appendix C).

14

Value System Channel Core Activity Activity Integration Communication Channel Product Display Product Display on Websites, Physical Producer Showroom, Test on Location

Purchase Advice Online Product Advisor*

Transaction Channel Producing Orders Online Order Functionality

Selling Conducting Selling Transaction

Distribution Channel Product Commissioning Commissioning Service by Producer

Product Delivery At Home and/or Producer Showroom/Store

Repair and Maintenance Repair Service Repair Service by Producer Channel

Table 4. Vertical Integration Framework * An online tool that recommends products based on customer needs and preferences

Data Analysis Data analysis has been conducted in three stages. In the first stage, interviews have been transcribed. In the second stage, data about producer integration has been analysed and used to construct Table 5. In the third stage, the industry has been analysed by looking for related constructs, themes and trends, until the point of theoretical saturation was reached (Miles et al., 2014). During data analysis, interviews and secondary sources have been used to complement and correct the data to ensure reliability of findings (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). Analysis has been conducted through ATLAS.ti, a computer program widely used in qualitative research. Primary data (106 pages of interview transcripts, 9 phone calls, 2 mail and 3 webchat conversations) and secondary data (over 600 pages) have been downloaded into this program and coded according to subject and actor.

Findings

This section is structured as follows. First, a summary will be given about product distribution within the bicycle market, the rise of e-commerce and the impact of electric urban bicycles (E-Bikes) on digital transformation of value systems. Secondly, findings about the redistribution of activities within value systems will be presented. Lastly, attention will be paid to the reconfiguration of value systems regarding the entry of new types of intermediaries as well as the obsolescence of intermediaries (i.e. disintermediation). The initial goal of this research was to investigate the impact of PPS needs on the digital transformation of value systems. However, during data analysis it became evident that the

15

increased importance of product experience profoundly affected the emergence of e-commerce. Results therefore describe both the need for PPSs and physical product experience on the digital transformation of value systems.

Industry Trends In the bicycle market, physical dealers remain to play a central role in value systems of producers. Although new retailers (e.g. hardware stores and online retailers) have started to sell bicycles, they predominantly sell bicycles of lesser-known (and often Asian) brands. Major producers remain to sell their bicycles indirectly via their preferred dealers. Several new producers have entered the market and distribute solely directly to buyers but incumbent producers still largely rely on physical dealers for product selling (see Figure 1 and Table 5). According to the interviewed producer, bicycle producers prefer selling via physical dealers because they also provide PPSs. He said:

“We [producers] need local service points because customers need a place to go when they have questions or when their bike is broken. (…) we either need to contract repair service providers, or integrate it into our own operations because after-sales service is very important.”

A market research of Roland Berger (Versterking Fietsen Retail Nederland) concluded that the average consumers wants to travel at most 5 km to receive repair service. Despite the incumbent producers’ preference for selling via physical dealers and the demand of consumers for local repair service, e- commerce has rapidly gained market share (Figure 1). Further, the advent of major online dealers has increased price competition and, in general, led to a drastic decrease in sales margin. According to BikeDealer #2, providing repair service has therefore become a more important source of revenue. He said:

“Just like with car dealers, that [the workshop] is where we need to make our profit. Five years ago, this was not the case. Those days we earned most of our profit with selling bikes (…) Nowedays, the profitability of our store really depends on the efficency of our workshop.”

In 2017, BOVAG (the Dutch association of, among others, bicycle dealers) made the statement that the number of physical dealers would decrease 20-40% due to growth of e-commerce. However, more recent numbers show a steep decrease in online sales and a recovery of offline sales (Figure 1). Furthermore, according to the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (2019), the number of dealers has slightly increased in comparison to 2014. In a reaction, BOVAG renounced the statement and explained that the recovery of offline sales is caused by the advent of E-Bikes.

16

Figure 1. E-Commerce vs Traditional Commerce Figure 2. Distribution Sales Bicycle Market Source: Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019-2020 Source: Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019-2020

The E-Bike segment has grown substantially and has largely replaced the non-electric urban bicycle segment (Figure 2). In other segments, electric motors are also increasingly used; cargo bicycles are often equipped with electric motors and in the sporting segment, electric road and mountain bikes have entered the market. Since these segments are relatively small (Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019-2020), their impact is limited compared to the impact of E-Bikes. The rise of E-Bikes has skyrocketed the amount of money buyers spend on bicycles. In comparison: in 2018 the average prices of non-electric urban bicycles and E-Bikes were €605 and €2013 respectively (Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019-2020). Furthermore, the different types of electrical component have increased product variety. According to Dealer #2, buyers of E-Bikes have a higher desire to experience products during their orientation phase. He said the following:

“Customers don’t buy an E-Bike like “oh just give me that one”. Sometimes that way of buying happened with urban [non-electric] Gazelle bikes but this has changed. Customers want to try and feel an E-Bike, also because of the [high] price (…) E-Bikes are expensive and customers want to experience them before buying. Buying E-Bikes is something special. Previously, customers didn’t think about buying bikes this way but this has changed (…). Nowadays, buyers enter the store and take time to try and buy a bike”

Further, the rise of E-Bikes has increased the need for PPSs. In regard to product commissioning Dealer #2 stated:

“Conventional city bikes are very easy to setup and adjust; tighten the axle nuts and you’re ready to use it. However, setting up E-Bikes is more complex. (…) If I see what my mechanics have to do to properly deliver a bike to the customer. I can’t even do that myself. You can’t do that at home anymore”

However, since commissioning service can be provided before shipment, the impact of an increased need for commissioning service on the digital transformation of value systems is relatively low. Apart from the wear and tear of mechanical components that non-electric bikes have, E-Bikes also face wear and malfunction of electrical components. Moreover, some consumers use E-Bikes instead of cars or public transport to commute between home and work, which increases the

17

importance of having a well-functioning bicycle, thereby increasing the importance of repair services. Another development is the entrance of corporate leasing of bicycles. A new regulation (Fietsleaseplan 2020) has made corporate lease of E-Bikes financially more attractive and is likely to boost sales and increase the use of E-Bikes for commuting. Leasing might affect the need of consumers for pre- and post- purchase services. Similar to the automobile industry, bicycle lease often includes a package deal (including e.g. maintenance and repair services) and thus it increases the importance of local repair service. At the same time, the lower financial risks might also reduce the desire of consumers to test bicycles during the product orientation phase. Leasing companies often offer a pre- selected set of bicycles that limit the extent to which consumers have to orientate themselves for bicycles. Further, bicycle leasing generally involves operational lease; this means that when a lease contract expires, the bicycle remains property of the leasing company. Since consumers become less often owner of the bicycle, leasing might lower the need to test bicycles before purchasing. In summary, distribution of bicycles remains to occur predominantly through existing physical dealers. E-commerce has gained market share but the rise of E-Bikes seems to have caused a hold on its growth. E-Bikes have increased the desire of consumers to physically touch and test bicycles before purchasing. Moreover, increased technical complexity, commuting dependency and rise of corporate lease have increased the need for PPSs.

Redistribution of Activities

Horizontal Redistribution Overall, there are three major changes in the allocation of activities between dealers. Firstly, major online dealers have become less digital as they have started to (i) add physical product display and selling to their digital channels by opening physical stores, and (ii) are getting more involved in the provisioning of repair service and/or contract independent service providers to function as service points. Traditionally, the provision of sales and repair service has been disconnected (i.e. outsourced) in the value systems of online dealers. In contrast to physical dealers, who offer both selling and repair services, online dealers used to focus solely on online selling. Similar to other industries, physical resellers facilitate physical product orientation; buyers can feel and try out bicycles at a local dealer, switch channels and purchase it from an online dealer. Further, consumers often resort to other repair service providers such as physical dealers. Online dealers often only provided mandatory repair service in case of product failures. The disconnection between sales and service creates a barrier for consumers to purchase a bicycle from online dealers. According to the interviewed dealers, customers who bought their bicycles online sometimes feel uncomfortable to go to physical dealers for repair service. Further, some dealers treat customers who bought a bicycle in their store differently than customers who bought a bicycle elsewhere. For instance, existing customers receive quicker repair

18

service or discounts compared to customers who bought elsewhere. In extreme cases, physical dealers are hostile towards online retailers and refuse to provide repair service on bicycles bought on the Internet. The increased desire to test before purchasing and the increased importance of PPSs have moved major online dealers to open physical stores, that are often located in large cities and fulfil a regional function. Buyers can visit these stores to test, buy and go to these centres for repair service. For local repair service, buyers often still depend on non-contracted repair service providers. As mentioned above, dealers have become more dependent on revenue from repair service. Fietsenwinkel.nl takes advantage of this and has, besides opening regional stores, established a repair service network of independent repair shops and dealers. Secondly, several major producers have started to slim down their physical dealer network. Producers have become more selective about their resellers. Dealers that do not meet sales quantity or service quality criteria are pushed out from transaction channels; they either receive a lower sales margin or are removed from dealer networks. Dealer #1B said:

“Many bicycle producers discontinue dealerships (…) we [dealers] need to achieve a minimum turnover to remain a Gazelle dealer. They [producers] don’t want to put time and effort in dealers that only sell 50 Gazelle bikes annually.”

Further, Dealer #1B mentioned:

“To be a dealer, some producers demand a certain level of service, store appearance and assortment…. and are getting increasingly stricter about this.”

Lastly, in light of changing dynamics in physical commerce (i.e. the introduction regional showrooms by producers (see next paragraph) and physical stores by online dealers and) the Dynamo Retail Group (owner of franchise chains Profile and BikeTotaal) has revised the structure of its franchise networks. Limited store space limits dealers in the number of bicycles they can display and the extent to which bicycles can be tested. To offer wider selection, Dynamo has started to open so- called “Experience Centres”. These are large stores, partially owned by franchisees, function as regional showrooms. Consumers can purchase and pickup their bicycles at these centres, or at stores of local franchisees. Further, repair service is offered both at these centres and at local franchisees. As a result, sales and repair service get disconnected; local franchisees are getting less involved in the selling process. In some cases, Experience Centres take over the role of reseller and thus reduce the role of local franchisees provide local repair service. In sum, the horizontal redistribution of activities as result of digitalization is threefold. The increased importance of physical product orientation and PPSs have shifted the focus from online service to physical service. Online dealers become less digital as they take a more prominent role in facilitating offline repair service by contracting service providers and providing these services at their 19

stores. Further, producers become more involved in service provision. Lastly, physical dealers remain to perform the same activities, but face the threat of disintermediation due to the a greater selectivity of several major producers regarding their distribution network. Digitalisation has not yet resulted in the disposal of activities but within the Dynamo network there is an apparent shift of selling activities from local franchisees to regional Experience Centres.

Vertical Redistribution Table 5 provides an overview of the extent to which producers integrate dealer activities into their own operations. Information regarding parent-subsidiary ties can be found in Appendix B. Producers are categorized according to their level of integration of value system channels. In regard to the role of dealers within value systems, a simple distinction can be made between three levels of dealer involvement:

(1) Dealers as distributors (resellers and providers of PPSs); (2) Dealers as repair service providers; (3) No involvement.

The overview shows that most producers have remained to distribute via dealer networks. These producers integrate both online and offline channels but this has not led to disintermediation of dealers. In response to dealer needs, producers offer additional services that support, and sometimes compete, with dealers. Findings show that producers with dealer networks become more involved in the selling process. The integration of producers into selling occurs mostly online; they use their digital channels not only to inform but also sell bicycles directly to customers in an attempt to push pure- online dealers from their value systems. Furthermore, producers have increased a physical presence by exploiting showrooms at their headquarters. The emergence of producer owned regional showrooms and physical stores indicates that some producers want to get a better hold on or wish to integrate physical commerce. Dealer #1A explained the situation as follows:

“In my opinion there is very much unrest. Many dealers are wondering “What is going to happen?” because a lot is happening. As said, Gazelle and Sparta have taken some steps [to integrate selling] …. but are not able to do it on their own; they still depend on local dealers”

Regarding communication channels, producers introduce and update websites for product display. Some producers also support customers in making a good choice by providing online advice through chat and advisor tools, but the integration of non-digital product display remains limited to exploiting a showroom at producers’ headquarters. Exceptions are the Accell Group (hereafter: Accell) and Pon Holdings (hereafter: Pon). Accell has opened a showroom in which it displays bicycles of multiple

20

Integrated Communication, Value System Value System Fully Intermediated Integrated Communication Integrated Communication Transaction and Fully Integrated Channels Activities (Traditional) Channel and Transaction Channel Distribution Channel Communication Product Display Websites (All) Websites (All) Website (All) Website (All) Websites (All) Channel Showroom (All but 5) Showroom (11, 16, 34, 40) Showroom (38) Physical Store (All) Physical Store (24) Physical Store (31, 35, 39) On Location (2, 3, 32) Purchase Advice Online Product Advisor (4, 5, Online Product Advisor (26, Online Product Advisor (35) Online Product Advisor (32) 30) 33) Showroom (38) Physical Store (All) Showroom (All but 5) Showroom (11, 16,, 34, 40) Physical Store (31, 35) On Location (2, 3, 32) Physical Store (24) Transaction Order Producing Website (All but 11, 34, 40) Website (All) Website (3, 8) Channel Showroom (11, 34, 40) Selling Website (All but 11, 34, 40) Physical Store (31, 35, 39) Website (3, 8) Physical Store (24) Website (All but 35) On Location (2, 32) n.a. Physical Store (All) Distribution Product Producer (All) Producer (All) n.a. Channel Commissioning Place of Delivery At Home (7, 38, 39) At Home and/or in the n.a. In Producer Store (31, 35) Showroom/Store (All) Repair and Repair Service On Location (2, 3, 8, 32) Maintenance n.a. In the Store (32) Channel Producers of Electric Bikes (All Types) 6: Bulls 25: Pegasus 4: Batavus 20: Koga 11: Conway 26: Qwic 7: Canyon* 2: Amslod 10: Colango 27: Raleigh 5: BMC 21: Lapierre 16: Gazelle 33: Stromer 31: Specialized** 3: Babboe**** 12: Cortina 37: Urban 14: Dutch ID 29: Sensa 17: Giant 34: Tern 35: Trek*** 8: Centaur Cargo 13: Cube Arrow 15: Flyer 30: Sparta 22: Liv 36: Union 39: VanMoof* 32: Stella 19: Kalkhoff 18: Haibike 24: Merida 40: Victoria Producers not Producing Electric 1: Alpina 23: Loekie 38: Van Nicholas Bikes 9: Cervélo 28: Santa Cruz Table 5. Value System Integration *Sells only via a direct channel and has started to contract independent dealers as service points; ** Has one physical store for electric sport bicycles and is therefore not categorized as fully integrated; *** Has three stores and is therefore not categorized as fully integrated; **** Sells also via a small chain of dealers (i.e. Juizz).

several of its subsidiary producers (see Appendix B) and has announced that it wants to continue to open more showrooms in collaboration with dealers. Gazelle, a subsidiary of Pon, has opened multiple showrooms across the Netherlands. Another development is the rise of brand stores in which prominent producers establish a network of independent dealers to only sell their products. Regarding transaction channels, producers with dealer networks have started to sell via their company website but offline selling has remained mostly with dealers. In general, showrooms are used to display products and to give advice, but most often they do not facilitate the production of orders. On the other hand, several major producers are experimenting with physical stores. In regard to PPS, producers with dealer networks have not integrated PPS channels. Producers that sell online still involve dealers in product delivery; they rarely distribute bicycles without intermediation of dealers. With the increased need for PPS, the inability of producers to provide repair service deters producers to distribute directly to buyers. The interviewed bicycle producer explained this as follows:

“Nowadays, after-sales service is very important, not only for a products lifetime but also because we want to offer a certain quality and guarantee that when there is a problem, it is solved quickly. (...) The biggest challenge for us is to provide that kind of after-sales services that dealers usually provide. Should we just collaborate with dealers and lower their profit margin? Would they accept a lower margin?”

Some producers have tried to reduce the sales margin of dealers when a product is sold via their website. However, this has led to strong resistance of dealers. To avoid the risk of channel conflicts, producers have decided to offer similar margins when bicycles are sold either via their own websites or via dealers. In regard to the increasing involvement of producers on the selling process, Dealer #1B stated that the role of physical dealers will eventually change. He said:

“In ten years, we will be much more a [repair] service provider instead of a reseller. It seems like we’re heading for that direction, but of course I can’t look into the future. Maybe, it [selling] will come back [to dealers]. However, producers have attempted already a couple of times to …[fully integrate product distribution]”

The advent of the Internet has facilitated the entry of the non-intermediated (direct selling) producers like Canyon and VanMoof, that do not distribute via dealers but focus on online direct selling. Unlike online dealers, these producers do not exploit a service network of contracted physical repair service providers. For regular repair service, buyers need to go to external providers and in case of product failures, bicycles need to be sent to the producer. In a mail conversation, a representative of VanMoof said:

22

“VanMoof bikes are mechanically not different from any other bike. Therefore, [non- contracted] local repair shops can repair and maintain VanMoof bikes. In case of problems with electrical components, VanMoof bikes need to be sent to our store (…) we could also send parts so they can be replaced at a local bike store.”

The grown importance of PPSs has forced Canyon to alter its strategy. Several sources indicate that the company is trying to establish a repair service network by contracting external repair service providers. According to the interviewed producer:

“15 years ago, Canyon entered the Dutch market and expanded very rapidly. (…) On fairs, buyers often told us “Canyon bikes are cheaper but where should we go when something is wrong?”. Previously, bikes had to be sent back to their factory in Germany. Nowadays, consumers are much more demanding; they don’t want to be without a bike 3 or 4 weeks. So, Canyon is changing from an Internet-only producer to a kind of hybrid. They have opened a repair facility in the Netherlands and are trying to establish a repair service network”

In a phone call, a representative of Canyon confirmed this and said:

“There are several local dealers that we know well and have good experience with. We call them “Canyon friendly dealers”. They don’t sell our bikes but you can go to them for reparations, also in the warranty period”

Several fully integrated producers have entered the market. Sometimes these producers use both dealer networks and their integrated channels, however, most producers choose to bypass dealers entirely. In regard to their digitalness, fully integrated producers remain to have a strong physical presence in the selling process by exploiting a network of local stores or test locations. Since these producers entered the market with integrated value systems, disintermediation of dealers has not occurred. Further, it is remarkable that the value systems of Babboe and Centaur Cargo differs from that of other subsidiaries of Accell (see Appendix B). Both companies produce cargo bicycles, which could be considered a niche market, and offer repair service on location. It is likely that Accell uses these brands to establish an integrated repair service network and to gain experience in operating a fully integrated value system. The absence of producers in the repair service channel could drastically change with the emergence of IoT. Several producers have introduced Internet connected bicycles, which offer new features like GPS tracking and theft protection. In regard to PPSs, IoT enables producers to get insight and to coordinate provision of repair service. Some bicycles are equipped with sensors for predictive maintenance, giving producers the ability to alarm local repair service providers in case of a service need. Further, it provides producers with a greater opportunity to tap into a flexible network of

23

dealers and therefore facilitates the provision of quick nearby repair service. Similarly, some bicycles are equipped with fall detection sensors. In case of an accident, these bicycles can automatically call the emergency service. Additionally, these sensors might enable producers to alarm a breakdown service provider to assist consumers when a bicycle is broken. However, these changes are not yet visible in the bicycle market. Overall, vertical redistribution of activities occurs. Producers with dealer networks become more involved in product selling. Activity integration in communication and transaction channels occurs mostly via websites but several large producers have also started with establishing a physical presence by opening regional showrooms and stores. Further, the need for PPSs has a major impact on the extent to which producers with dealer networks integrate selling into their own operations. Dependence of producers on physical dealers for the provision of PPSs deters them from bypassing dealers from the selling process; producers assist product orientation via their showrooms/websites and sell online but steer buyers to physical dealers by delivering bicycles via these dealers. Moreover, the increased importance of PPSs forces producers without dealer networks to facilitate the provision of PPS by contracting local service providers. Lastly, the advent of IoT enables producers to get a hold on the provision of repair service. Several producers have already introduced Internet connected bicycles and have already started to offer maintenance related services.

Reconfiguration of Value Systems

Entrance of Mobile PPS providers As mentioned above, the dependence on physical dealers for the provision of PPSs hinders producers to bypass dealer network. This seems to change with the emergence of new mobile PPS providers. According to the interviewed bicycle producer:

“Beause it [The Netherlands] is a very densely populated country, there are many [local] bicycle dealers and thus there is a very fine-grained [repair] service network. Therefore, there was never a need for mobile repair service providers (…) However, nowadays many producers try to sell via their own sales channels. Eventualy, they might decide “Let’s abandon our [physical] dealer network” and partner up with a service provider that does nothing more than product delivery and providing repair service.”

Several mobile PPS providers have entered the market and compete with local service providers. For instance, ANWB has started to offer ‘breakdown service’ for cyclists who experience breakdowns during their cycle trips. Further, FietsNED and Get Bike Service have entered the market, but their franchise structure does not necessarily cause a strong replacement of physical dealers. However, their advent may force dealers to change their business model and become more oriented on repair

24

service instead of sales (or become a franchisee of their franchise networks). In regard to the service offerings of these franchises, there are some differences. FietsNED started as an independent organisation but is acquired by Pon in 2016. However, it has remained to operate as an independent organisation. Pon is very reluctant in their use of FietsNED to bypass physical dealers. FietsNED does not offer delivery service and subsidiaries of Pon (see Appendix C) only advertise for repair service of FietsNED; they do not offer FietsNED repair services via their own websites. Moreover, Pon has announced that it will not use FietsNED for maintenance and reparation of bicycles of its subsidiary company Lease-A-Bike. However, it is very likely that Pon will eventually use FietsNED to integrate PPSs. Pon has acquired several producers of bicycles and accessories and has opened multiple showrooms across the Netherlands; the consolidation of services and products strongly suggests that Pon wishes to start their own distribution network. Another new PPS provider is Get Bike Service. This franchise chain is not related to a producer and provides both delivery and repair service. Since it offers producers an alternative for dealer networks which makes them a direct threat to the involvement of dealers within value systems.

Entrance of Bicycle-as-a-Service Providers A major shift in the structure of value systems is caused by the emergence of firms that offer bicycles- as-a-service, offered by leasing and rental companies. In regard to the value system configurations and the impact on dealers, the entry of leasing companies could have several effects. Firstly, some leasing companies offer their services via dealers. In this case, leasing companies act as financial service providers and add an activity to transaction channels. Secondly, some leasing companies offer their services online and bypass dealers in terms of the communication and transaction channels. Further, two major rental companies have entered the market NS (a Dutch public transport company that rents bicycles from railroad stations) and Swapfiets (a subsidiary of Pon, which offers bicycles against a monthly subscription) and have started to replace dealers in the buying process. Moreover, physical dealers face the threat of disintermediation from value channels because repair service might be integrated; Swapfiets has already integrated repair service into its own operations.

Obsolescence of Intermediaries Disintermediation from the value system has not occurred; physical and online dealers have been able to maintain their position within value systems. Producers have remained to use physical and online dealer channels for product distribution and provision of PPSs. No producer has fully substituted its intermediated channels with direct selling channels and integrated PPSs. Furthermore, new entrants have not posed a threat to their involvement within value systems because they have gained not enough market share to disrupt dealers or have chosen to collaborate with dealers.

25

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings Table 6 explains the digital transformation of value systems in the bicycle market and the impact of PPSs needs. The table reflects the dynamic nature of digital transformation of value systems, displays the distinctive characteristics of the stages found in the bicycle market and provides an interpretation of the findings. The upper part of the table shows figures of value systems during the digital transformation. The actors are presented as boxes, the size of the box indicates their relative importance in the value system. Lines represent product flow (solid) or PPS flow (dashed). The relative importance of product and PPS flows is expressed in the thickness of the line. The lower part describes the findings per stage and gives an explanation on how PPSs needs affect the distribution of activities in that stage.

Without the Internet, physical dealers dominate both product selling and the provision of PPS. After the introduction of Internet, digital transformation of value systems in the bicycle market can be divided in three stages, 1) Advent of the Internet, 2) Advent of E-Bikes and 3) Entry of other PPS Providers.

• In stage 1, online dealers enter the market, some producers open a direct online selling channel. Physical dealers lose market share and face the threat of disintermediation. • In stage 2, the advent of the E-Bike increases the need for PPSs; due to higher technical complexity and different product consumption, E-Bikes require more PPSs. Non-electric bicycles, which require less PPS, are substituted by E-Bikes. Also physical product display becomes more important for product selling; consumers prefer testing and touching when buying E-Bikes. Therefore, offline commerce gains a competitive advantage over e-commerce and physical dealers partially re-establish their position within value systems. • In stage 3, other PPS providers emerge. Bicycle-as-a-Service providers substitute selling and integrate PPS; they threat intermediaries in traditional product-ownership value systems. Mobile PPS providers substitute location-based PPS resources of physical dealers. Due to alternative PPS resource providers and emergence of alternative distribution channels, the dependence of producers on dealers decreases. This stimulates producers to sell directly to consumers.

At the present moment (early 2020) the bicycle market has passed the phase 1 and 2 and is now in an early phase of stage 3: new intermediaries have entered the market but have not captured sufficient market share to disrupt physical and online dealers.

26

No Internet Stage 1: Advent of the Internet Stage 2: Advent of E-Bikes Stage 3: Entry other PPS Providers

Value System Figure

Findings a. Producers Product High resource intensiveness E-commerce enabled entry of new The advent of E-Bikes causes new entry of Emergence of Bicycle-as-a-Service providers gives Flow of establishing a physical producers which sell solely directly fully integrated producers that bypass both producers alternative distribution channels and distribution network deters via webstores. online and physical dealers. because of the emergence of alternative providers of producers to integrate PPS, producers are less dependent on physical product distribution. Pro- Incumbent producers are getting The advent of E-Bikes leads to a shift from e- dealers. This will likely stimulate integration of ducers therefore fully more involved in the selling commerce to physical commerce and product selling; producers will use webstores and outsource selling to physical process; producers use their reduces the intention of producers to bypass physical showrooms to sell directly to consumers and dealers. websites to display products. physical dealers via direct online selling use mobile PPS providers to offer local repair service. Similar to online dealers, producers channels. Buyers of E-Bikes have a higher Moreover, the decrease of dependence on physical intent to bypass intermediated need to experience products before dealers will stimulate producers to open physical distribution channels but their purchasing. Moreover, the advent of E-Bikes stores. dependence on physical dealers for increases the need for PPSs and makes the current sales hinders them to do so. ability to offer these services more Some producers experiment with important for selling. As a result, physical direct online selling, however, are dealers re-establish their dominant position forced to deliver products via as product resellers. To limit risk of conflicts physical dealers to prevent inter- with physical dealer networks, producers channel conflicts. remain to use webstores and showrooms complementary to dealer channels; producers steer consumers to physical dealers for product delivery.

27

No Internet Stage 1: Advent of the Internet Stage 2: Advent of E-Bikes Stage 3: Entry other PPS Providers PPS Flow Because of the relative low Idem stage 1. Fully integrated producers bypass physical For direct online distribution, producers will use need for PPS, high resource dealers in the provision of PPSs. Further, mobile PPS providers to provide consumers with intensiveness to establish a producers that sell solely via their webstores repair service. In indirect physical distribution local presence and the ability contract physical dealers for repair service. channels, producers will remain to rely on physical of physical dealers to offer Furthermore, producers with physical dealer dealers for PPS. Further, the use of IoT for predictive these services, producers networks remain to rely on physical dealers maintenance and breakdown service enables fully outsource the provision for the provision of PPS as they are unable to producers to be involved in the provision of these of PPS to physical dealers. bypass them in the product distribution services; instead of facilitating consumers with phase. Because product experience and PPS external repair service points, produces can steer have become more important, these how the service is delivered to consumers. This will producers have become more involved in likely help mobile PPS providers to establish the provisioning of these services and have themselves in the market. become more selective about their physical dealer network. b. Physical Product Physical dealers have a Resources to physically sell and The advent of E-Bikes makes resources to With the emergence of other distribution channels Dealers Flow dominant position in selling. provide PPSs proves to be physically sell and provide local repair and PPS substitutes, physical dealers face the threat The need for PPSs has a low insufficient to prevent online service more valuable. Therefore, it enables of substitution. Moreover, they face the threat of impact on their position as dealers from entering the market. incumbent intermediaries to recapture disintermediation due to vertical integration. resellers. Physical dealers lose market share market share lost to online dealers and to to online dealers. reduce the threat of integrated online Since leasing companies offer a financial service, their distribution channels. On the other hand, emergence may not necessarily lead to physical stores of online dealers pose a new disintermediation; leasing companies might use threat to physical dealers. physical dealers as intermediaries and offer their products and/or arrange repair service via these dealers. PPS Flow Because of their local Due the lack of alternative PPS Physical dealers remain the main provider of Physical dealers become less involved in the presence, physical dealers providers, physical dealers remain PPSs. Online dealers try contract physical provisioning of PPSs. Rental companies substitute are the main providers of to be the main providers of PPSs. dealers to function as local repair service physical dealers as they provide PPSs themselves. PPSs. points and compete over PPS because they Further, mobile PPS providers will steal business from also offer repair service in their own stores. physical dealers. However, by joining mobile PPS Integrated producers substitute physical franchises, physical dealers can protect themselves dealers within value systems. from losing business.

28

No Internet Stage 1: Advent of the Internet Stage 2: Advent of E-Bikes Stage 3: Entry other PPS Providers c. Online Product Online dealers penetrate the Due to the increased desire of buyers to Online dealers face the threat of disintermediation. Dealers Flow market with a low-price strategy experience products before buying, online As the emergence of substitute PPS providers enable and capture market share from dealers open physical stores. Further, as producers integrate online selling, producers will try n.a. physical dealers. The inability of producers enlarge their online presence and to push online dealers from value systems online dealers provide local PPS use their websites for selling, online dealers does not hinder them to sell. face the threat disintermediation. PPS Flow Due to the inability of online Due to the increased need for PPSs and the Online dealers may use mobile PPS providers to dealers to provide local PPS grown importance of PPS for product selling, facilitate the provisioning of PPSs. themselves and the lack of other online dealers take up a more prominent PPS providers, online dealers rely role in the facilitation of repair service; they on physical dealers for the contract physical dealers for repair service n.a. provision of repair service. Due to and/or provide these services at their the relative low need for PPSs, the physical stores. need for PPS has a limited impact on their ability to establish themselves in the market. Table 6. Digital Transformation of the Dutch bicycle market

29

Theoretical Implications With regard to the theoretical usefulness of this research, interesting insights have been discovered. Christensen (1997) suggested, digital disruption favours new entrants, that will ultimately replace incumbents that are inert or incapable to adapt to change. However, this study opposes this assertion of Christensen and fits well to other studies suggesting that the disruptive impact of digitalisation on value systems depends on the ability of incumbent intermediaries to defend themselves with existing resources (e.g. Broekhuizen et al., 2013; Chircu & Kauffman, 2000). Besides this affirmation, findings also present several novel insights. Firstly, the extent to which PPS needs affect the digital transformation of value systems depends on the extent to which these services are needed. According to findings, the need for PPSs has to be sufficiently high in order to affect the digital transformation value systems. A low need for PPSs may not enable incumbent intermediaries to leverage PPS resources as a protective barrier against entry of digital intermediaries and digital integration of product distribution channels. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 1: The extent to which the need for PPS affect the digital transformation of value systems depends on the extent to which these services are needed.

Findings contradict the prevailing view that the digital transformation of value systems is a static process. Evidence portrait the digital transformation of value systems as a dynamic process; technical advancements of products and changes in product consumption can empower incumbent intermediaries as they can increase the need for PPSs. The emergence of e-commerce can initially disrupt incumbent intermediaries. However, when the value of their PPS resources increases they might be able recapture market share and cause a shift from e-commerce to physical commerce. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 2: Digital transformation of value systems is a dynamic process; the extent to which activities in value systems are digital can increase and decrease.

Over time, new entrants may emerge and offer substitute PPS resources and alternative distribution channels. Further, new technologies may emerge and decrease the dependence of producers on the resources of incumbent intermediaries. Emergence of substitutes PPS resources and a decreasing dependence of producers on PPS resources of dealers may erode the ability of incumbent intermediaries to use PPS resources to protect themselves against digital disruption. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 3: In case of a high need for PPSs, resources to provide these services will temporarily protect incumbent intermediaries against digital disruption.

30

Managerial Implications Companies with products that require repair and maintenance service should carefully consider how the need for PPSs affects the digital transformation of their value system. They should not limit their focus on the expansion of e-commerce but also consider the impact of product development, changing product consumption and the advent of new digital technologies on the value of the PPS resources within their industry. Producers should expand their view and seek collaboration with alternative (substitute) intermediaries because distributing exclusive via physical dealers creates a great dependency; if other value system configurations emerge, it may limit them to change and take advantage of new opportunities. Moreover, they should investigate how IoT may help to decrease their dependence on PPS resources of physical dealers. Physical dealers should reconsider their strategy. Findings indicate that physical dealers should either provide substitute resources themselves or make producers more dependent on their resources. To increase the dependence, they could increase the collaboration in the provisioning of PPSs. Physical dealers could collaborate with producers for the development of predictive maintenance service, make relation specific investments and therefore make it harder for producers to remove or supplement physical dealer networks with other distribution channels. Further, physical dealers could make their resources more valuable. For example, they could make their services less generic and distinguish themselves by tightening customer-relational ties, providing other complementary services or offering loyalty programs. Online dealers should be aware that their position as online resellers may be difficult to maintain. Entry of intermediaries that offer products as a service and emergence of other PPS providers could weaken the dependence of producers on the resources of physical dealers, which may entice producers to bypass distribution channels of online dealers and to vertically integrate online selling. To withstand this threat, online dealers should make their resources more valuable; producers should become more dependent on their resources or online dealers should add more value by offering other complementary services.

Research Limitations and Future Research Although the design of this research has been chosen carefully there are several limitations. Firstly, the sole focus on the bicycle market limits the generalizability of the findings. The impact of PPS needs on the digital transformation of value systems may be different for markets with products for which it is not possible to offer maintenance service on location (e.g. cars) or with severe economic consequences in case of product failure (e.g. agriculture machinery). Future studies should investigate how the need for PPSs affects the digital transformation of value systems in these types of markets. Secondly, the geographical focus on The Netherlands may limit its generalizability. Since The

31

Netherlands has a fine-grained network of physical dealers, consumers do not have to travel a long distance visit physical dealers. Webstores might therefore have less of an advantage in The Netherlands in comparison to countries where consumers need to travel a longer distance to visit physical dealers. Future research should assess how travel distance affects the impact of PPS needs on the digital transformation of value systems. A third limitation is the retrospective nature of the interviews held. Because the object of research entails a transformation process, this research has tried to establish to adequately reconstruct timelines by conducting interviews. Respondents might have given their (possibly biased) retrospective view of the impact of digitization. Therefore, future research should collect longitudinal interview data to limit for this bias. Lastly, value systems in the bicycle market are still in the process of digital transformation. Although findings present interesting insights it could be useful to conduct a similar research when more dominant structures of value systems in the bicycle market have emerged.

Conclusion

Recent studies stated that the impact of digitalisation on value systems depends on the ability of incumbent intermediaries to protect their position with their extant resources. However, these studies focussed solely on digital or digitizable products and did not pay attention to products that require PPSs. Therefore, this study has been conducted to fill this research gab and to increase our understanding in how the need for PPSs affect the digital transformation of value systems. This study shows that when there is a sufficient need for PPSs, incumbent intermediaries can use PPS resources to protect themselves against disintermediation. Furthermore, this research shows that the digital transformation of value systems is a dynamic process; the extent to which activities in value systems are digitized can increase and decrease. Technological advancements of products and a change of product consumption can alter the need for PPSs. Therefore, digitalisation may initially disrupt incumbent intermediaries but when the need for PPSs increases, they may become better able to compete against digital intermediaries, recapture market share and make a value system less digital. Moreover, this research shows that a high need for PPSs offers a temporal protection against digital disruption; over time, entry of new types of intermediaries and emergence of new technologies can make incumbent intermediaries less able to protect themselves against disintermediation. In conclusion, this study has contributed to the filling of a research gab and has provided several novel insights. Therefore this study has made a valuable contribution to extant literature.

32

References

Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829-1853.

Bailey, J. P., & Bakos, Y. (1997). An exploratory study of the emerging role of electronic intermediaries. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(3), 7-20.

Bakos, Y. (1998). The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 35-42.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Broekhuizen, T. L. J., Lampel, J., & Rietveld, J. (2013). New horizons or a strategic mirage? Artist-led- distribution versus alliance strategy in the video game industry. Research Policy, 42(4), 954- 964.

Chircu, A. M., & Kauffman, R. J. (1999a). Analyzing firm-level strategy for internet-focused reintermediation. Paper presented in proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999

Chircu, A. M., & Kauffman, R. J. (1999b). Strategies for internet middlemen in the intermediation/disintermediation/reintermediation cycle. Electronic Markets, 9(1-2), 109- 117.

Chircu, A. M., & Kauffman, R. J. (2000). Reintermediation strategies in business-to-business electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 4(4), 7-42.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator's Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business Research Methods. McGraw-hill: New york.

Dutch Chamber of Commerce. (2019). Gestage groei aantal fietswinkels in Nederland. Retrieved from: https://www.kvk.nl/over-kvk/media-en-pers/nieuws-en-persberichten/nieuws-en-per sberichten/nieuws-en-persberichten/gestage-groei-aantal-fietswinkels-in-nederland/

33

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.

Etgar, M. (1977). Channel environment and channel leadership. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(1), 69-76.

Eyuboglu, N., & Kabadayi, S. (2005). Dealer-manufacturer alienation in a multiple channel system: The moderating effect of structural variables. Journal of Marketing Channels, 12(3), 5-26.

Forrester. (2017). Forrester updates "Death of a (B2B) salesman" report: Two years later. Retrieved from: https://www.forrester.com/report/Death+Of+A+B2B+Salesman/-/E-RES122288

Forrester. (2018). Mapping the $9 trillion US B2B online commerce market. Retrieved from: https://www.forrester.com/report/Mapping+The+9+Trillion+US+B2B+Online+Commerce+ Market/-/E-RES142735

Gaski, J. F., & Ray, N. M. (2001). Measurement and modeling of alienation in the distribution channel: Implications for supplier–reseller relations. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(2), 207-225.

Gellman, R. (1996). Disintermediation and the Internet. Government Information Quarterly, 13(1), 1- 8.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Liu, Y., Luo, Y., Yang, P., & Maksimov, V. (2014). Typology and effects of co-opetition in buyer– supplier relationships: Evidence from the Chinese home appliance industry. Management and Organization Review, 10(3), 439-465.

Mallen, B. (1973). Functional spin-off: A key to anticipating change in distribution structure. Journal of Marketing, 37(3), 18-25.

Malone, T. W., Yates, J. J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 484-497.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

34

Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019 - 2020. (2019). Amsterdam: Stichting BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit. Retrieved from: https://bovagrai.info/tweewieler/2019/media/MIC-Tweewieler-2019-down load.pdf

Mol, J. M., Wijnberg, N. M., & Carroll, C. (2005). Value chain envy: Explaining new entry and vertical integration in popular music. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 251-276.

Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 246-279.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.

Peterson, R. A., Balasubramanian, S., & Bronnenberg, B. J. (1997). Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 329- 346.

Pfeffer, J. (1987). A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations. Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business, 1(1), 25-55.

Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (1998). Testing alternative theories of the firm: transaction cost, knowledge‐ based, and measurement explanations for make‐or‐buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal, 19(9), 853-877.

Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137- 145.

Porter, M. E. (1985). The competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. NY: Free Press.

Quinn, J. B., & Hilmer, F. G. (1994). Strategic outsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 35(4), 43.

Rangan, V. K., Menezes, M. A. J., & Maier, E. P. (1992). Channel selection for new industrial products: A framework, method, and application. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 69-82.

Rosenbloom, B. (2002). The ten deadly myths of e-commerce. Business Horizons, 45(2), 61-61.

Rosenbloom, B. (2007). The wholesaler's role in the marketing channel: Disintermediation vs. reintermediation. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 17(4), 327-339.

35

Sarkar, M. B., Butler, B., & Steinfield, C. (1995). Intermediaries and cybermediaries: A continuing role for mediating players in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(3), 1-14.

Stamboulis, Y. A. (2007). Towards a systems approach to innovation systems and policy. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 42-55.

Statista. (2019). E-commerce share of total global retail sales from 2015 to 2023. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/534123/e-commerce-share-of-retail-sales-worldwide/

Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2000). Transaction cost and resource-based explanations of joint ventures: A comparison and synthesis. Organization Studies, 21(1), 215-242.

UNCTAD. (2019). Global e-commerce sales surged to $29 trillion. Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/en/pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=505

Van Aken, J. E., Berends, J. J., & Van der Bij, J. D. (2007). Problem-Solving in Organizations: A Methodological Handbook for Business Students (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Versterking Fietsen Retail Nederland. (2017). Roland Berger. Retrieved from: https://mijn.bovag.nl/ downloads/onderzoek-cijfers/versterking-fietsenretail-nederland-(eindrapport-r/bovag- versterken-fietsenretail-nederland.pdf

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York, 2630

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: The Free Press.

Yin, R. K. Z. (1994). Case Study Research - Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zajac, E. J., & Olsen, C. P. (1993). From transaction cost to transactional value analysis: Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 30(1), 131- 145.

36

Appendices

Appendix A: Product Distribution within the Bicycle Market

90% 80% 70%

60% Dealers

50%

40% Non-Dealers 30% ofSales Total Percentage 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 3. Distribution within the Bicycle Market Source: Mobiliteit in Cijfers Tweewielers 2019-2020

Appendix B: Subsidiary Producers

Accell Group BMC Switzerland Giant Hartje Kruitbosch Pon Babboe BMC Giant Conway Alpina Cervélo Batavus Stromer Liv Tern Cortina Gazelle Centaur Cargo Victoria Kalkhoff Haibike Santa Cruz Koga Union Lapierre Urban Arrow Loekie Raleigh Sparta Van Nicholas Table 7. Subsidiaries

37

Appendix C: Additional Primary Data Collection

Producer Information Way of Contact Accell Selling and PPS via experience centre Phone call Amslod PPS via experience centre Mail & phone call Babboe Selling and PPS via test centre Helpdesk chat Canyon Repair facility and repair service network Phone call Gazelle Selling and PPS via experience centre Phone call Merida Delivery and repair service in company store Phone call NS Provider of repair service on bicycles of NS (OV-Fiets) Helpdesk chat Specialized Selling and PPS via test centre Phone call Stella PPS via experience centre Phone call Swapfiets Provider of repair service on bikes of Swapfiets Phone call & helpdesk chat Trek Ownership of Trek stores Phone call VanMoof Provision of repair service Mail

Table 8. Contacted Companies

38