IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 1

ABSTRACT
Multi-channel distribution has become an increasingly important phenomenon in marketing. However, multi-channel
distribution strategies offer tremendous advantages to insurers, but they also inevitably trigger of f some multi-channel
conflicts. Unfortunately, objective and scientific approaches to academic research are limited, especially in terms of exploring
the causes of multi-channel conflict in an insurance sector and investigating the frequency of causes of channel conflict. In
order to fill this research gap, this study employs Delphi study and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to identify and analyze the
causes of multi-channel conflict while selling insurance in banks and to assess the frequency of factors that cause insurance
distribution channel conflict.
According to result of this study, the most important three causes triggering off multi -channel conflict in the insurance sector
are differences in perception of reality used in joint decision making, using coercive powers, and incompatibility of
goals.

Keywords: Multi-Channel Conflict, Insurance, Delphi Study, Grey Relational Analysis (GRA).

1. INTRODUCTION
Employing various channels to serve a given market is becoming a major part of the marketing plans of product and
service suppliers [10, 21, 33]. A distribution activity is one of the four main strategic decision areas of most companies
and in relation to its marketing composition, which include the decision areas of product/service, price and
communication. However, after the composition of a distribution channel, changes are usually more difficult to be
implemented than other strategy decision [12]. The popular channels that have been employed by insurance providers
include internet-based channels, company-based channels, bank-based channels, agent-based channels, broker-based
channels, and other cybermediaries (e.g., telephone and TV stations) [28, 32, 36].
Moreover, multi-channel distribution strategies provide tremendous benefits to insurers. However, they also trigger
certain challenges. Interestingly, many prior studies (e.g., [21, 32]) have found that both intrachannel and interchannel
conflict may have positive, negative, and neutral effects on distribution performance [2, 4, 12]. Webb and Hogan (2002)
[21] also found that channel performance is significantly affected by the frequency of channel conflict. Minimizing the
occurrence of channel conflict is a means of improving channel performance. Therefore, managing distribution conflict
to improve and maximize distribution performance is an important issue for firms.
Unfortunately, prior studies have provided few insights for insurance decision makers related to multi-channel conflict.
Objective and scientific approaches to academic research are limited, especially in terms of exploring the causes of
multiple channel conflict in an insurance sector and investigating the frequency of causes of channel conflict.
The purpose of this research is to identify the factors that cause distribution channel conflicts in the insurance industry.
This study also contributes to both the insurance marketing literature and the insurance marketing management
literature by assessing the frequency of the factors that cause insurance distribution channel conflict.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Motivations for Multiple Distribution Channels
The use of multiple channels to serve a given product market is becoming the rule rather than the exception [10, 33].
The principal incentives for firms to develop multiple distribution channels are to increase market share, to reduce costs
[11, 18, 27], to reach target markets [16, 31], to reach new market segments [13, 27], and to share information and
knowledge about customers [27]. Moreover, many firms worldwide have adopted multiple channel marketing
strategies. This increasingly prevalent trend, which is also known as multiple distribution strategy, has dramatically
changed the demands that are placed on channel managers [21, 30].

Analysis of Multi-Channel Conflict While Selling
Insurance in Banks: A Perspective of Conflict
Frequency

Chiang Ku Fan
1
, Li-Tze Lee
2
, Ling-Yi Wu
3
and Michael S. W. Du
4


1
Professor, Department of Risk Management and Insurance, Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting and Information, Overseas Chinese University, Taichung, Taiwan.
3
Graduate Student, Department of Finance and Banking, Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan.
4
Associate Professor, Department of Risk Management and Insurance, Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan.

IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 2

2.2 Multiple Distribution Channel Conflicts
Conflict is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another
party [17]. Although some conflict can be functional and enhance a channels performance, much of the literature
indicates that conflict is injurious to the channel [19]. To adopt multiple channels may create conflict in the demand for
internal company resources and conflicting objectives for various channels, and such conflicts increase the potential for
customer confusion and dissatisfaction [16, 21, 23, 27]. Similarly, concurrent channels eventually create intrabrand
competition among the suppliers channels. This is because independents have grounds to suspect the supplier of
creating a tilted playing field that is designed to favor its employees [1]. Moreover, a study by Chen and Chang (2010)
[30] found that insurers that adopted a direct distribution system were more efficient than those that employed a multi-
distribution system. Samaha et al. (2011) [35] also found that consistent with prior literature, and expect conflict to
have negative effects on both channel member cooperation and flexibility.

2.3 Causes of Distribution Channel Conflict
To manage channel conflict, it is necessary for marketing distribution managers to identify the causes of channel
conflict and to minimize this conflict. Many channel conflict studies (e.g., [21, 37]) agree that there are two types of
channel conflict. The first type is intrachannel conflict, which is also termed vertical conflict and refers to the friction
between a firm and the members of its distribution channels. The second type is interchannel conflict, which is also
termed horizontal conflict and refers to the friction between two or more channels at the same level. An interchannel
conflict stems primarily from competition between channel participants and fear of channel cannibalism.
Interchannel conflict is distinct from intrachannel conflict, which has been the focus of most studies. Interchannel
conflict occurs when one coalition believes that another coalition is seeking to gain scarce resource at its expense [22].
Therefore, marketing management expects multiple channel conflict to be a common occurrence when firms have
multiple channels and limited resources. A lack of channel management on the suppliers part is also a cause of
interchannel conflict because it is likely to produce a confusing situation in which interchannel competition becomes
interchannel conflict [1, 21].
Many other studies have observed that poorly designed channel structures, poor alignment with customer segments,
communication difficulties, and the use of coercive powers constitute additional causes of interchannel conflict.
Conflict between authority and responsibility occurs when an unsuitable channel structure design is used. As a result,
channel implementation and performance suffer [29]. Other relative studies reveal that the negative effect of conflict
overshadows the benefits associated with all other positive relationship marketing activities [35].
In addition to inappropriate channel structure design, targeting the same customers is also a cause of channel conflict.
Because most producers sell through several channels simultaneously, channels typically compete to reach the same
consumer segments. Furthermore, customers evolve, belong to different segments, and contact different channels at
different points in time. In these situations, it becomes difficult for the manufacturer to prevent its two channels types
from competing for the same customer [1]. In such a context, channel conflict is virtually guaranteed [6]. Two or more
channels target the same customer segments is going to result in: (1) channel economics deteriorate; (2) threatened
channel stops performing or retaliates against the suppliers.
An investigation of U.S.-Mexican channel relationship performance conducted by LaBahn and Harich (1997) [9] found
that enhancing communication among marketing channels can reduce conflict because marketing channels are
typically composed of multiple companies, each pursuing its own interests, and because these interests are competing.
Another cause of channel conflict, in addition to relying on poorly designed channel structures, targeting the same
customer segments, and experiencing communication difficulties, is the use of coercive powers. Cather and Howe
(1989) [8] found that conflict was positively correlated with the use of coercive power for both independent and
exclusive agency insurers; this result suggests that punitive agency management strategies are associated with increased
tension between insurers and agency channels.
The studies by Rosenberg and Stern (1970; 1971) [25, 26] and Rosenberg (1974) [24] indicated that goals, domains
(roles), and perceptions are causes of intrachannel conflict. The authors explained that goals between and among
vertically linked firms often differ and may be incompatible and even mutually exclusive. In the interdependent
arrangement of firms in a single channel system, one firms goals may comprise another firms constraints, resulting in
conflict. Similarly, using survey data from automobile dealers, a study demonstrated that relationships with greater
interdependence exhibit less conflict than relationships with lower interdependence [34].

2.4 Relationship between Distribution Channel Conflict and Its Performance
The relationship between channel conflict and its performance has been explored in previous studies. Rosenberg (1974)
[24] found that channel conflict may affect a distributors performance. Webb (2002) [20] and Chen and Chang (2010)
[30] obtained similar findings and showed that multiple channels enable firms to capture customers in different market
segments and yield higher sale volumes, although such channels also pose many challenges, such as channel conflicts.
IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 3

Moreover, the direct negative effect of perceived unfairness on relational behaviors (channel member cooperation and
flexibility) and, subsequently, financial performance is similar to or greater than the effects of conflict and opportunism
[35]. However, merely identifying the causes of multiple channel conflict cannot decrease channel conflict or improve
the performance of distributors. Webb and Hogan (2002) [21] found that channel performance is significantly affected
by the frequency of channel conflict. In other words, distribution administrators who want to improve a channels
performance must identify and manage the most frequent causes of channel conflict.

3. METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the objectives of this study, the methodology in this study consists of two phases (see Figure 1). In
the first phase, the causes of multi-channel conflict while selling insurance in banks were confirmed by using Delphi
study and Kendalls test. Delphi study is employed to evaluate the experts attitude tendency toward the factors of
multi-channel conflict. Kendalls test is conducted to estimate whether the experts attitude tendency toward factors
of channel conflict is consistent or not. In the second phase, the relative frequency of factors causing multi-channel
conflict is calculated effectively by employing the Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). The sample, the Delphi study and
GRA are described as follows:



















Figure 1. The Structure of The Methodology
3.1 Participants and Sampling
The Delphi panel (N =12) was selected by purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling is mainly used for
opinion surveys [5, 7]. For this study, participants were employed by different model banks or insurance companies in
Taiwan with a known involvement or expertise in market. Interviews were conducted via e-mail or face to face with 12
Delphi panel participants, six and six from model life insurance companies and banks in Taiwan. All 12 panelists had
already expressed their willingness to participate in this research.

3.2 Validity and Reliability
The possible causes of multi-channel conflict were derived first from the literature, and then were evaluated by a Delphi
study panel at least three times. According to Johnson and Christensen (2000) [3], cross-checking information and
conclusions through the use of multiple procedures or source strategies promotes qualitative research validity. Similar
Delphi panel interview questions were used in the first, second, and third round of Delphi study procedures. This
minimized variation in the questions posed, and improved the reliability of the interviews. Instruments used in this
Delphi study minimized the variation of the questions posed to interviewees.

3.3 The Grey Relational Analysis
The second purpose of this study was to identify the frequencys ranking of causes triggering off multi-channel conflict
while selling insurance in banks. The grey system method, as developed by Deng (1989; 1999) [14, 15], has been
extensively applied in various fields, including decision science. The GRA is calculated as follows:
Let X
0
be the referential series with k entities (or criteria) of X
1
, X
2
, , X
i
, , X
N
(or N measurement criteria). Then:
{ }
0 0 0 0 0
(1), (2), ..., ( ), ..., ( ) X x x x j x k = ,
Delphi study
and
Kendalls test
Identify the causes of multi-channel conflict while
selling insurance in banks.
GRA
Identify the frequencys ranking of causes
triggering off multi-channel conflict.
The First Phase
The Second Phase
Process / Method Achievement
Literature Review Develop Delphi study protocol.
IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 4

{ }
1 1 1 1 1
(1), (2), ..., ( ), ..., ( ) X x x x j x k = ,

{ } (1), (2), ..., ( ), ..., ( )
i i i i i
X x x x j x k = ,

{ } (1), (2), ..., ( ), ..., ( )
N N N N N
X x x x j x k =
.
The grey relational coefficient between the compared series
i
X and the referential series of
0
X at the j-th entity is
defined as:
0
0
min max
( )
( ) max
i
j
j
j
A + A
=
A + A
, (1)
where
0
( )
j
j A denotes the absolute value of difference between X
0
and X
i
at the j-th entity, that is:
0 0
( ) ( ) ( )
j i
j x j x j A = , and
0
max maxmax ( )
j
i j
j A = A ,
0
min minmin ( )
j
i j
j A = A .
The grey relational grade (GRG) for a series of X
i
can be expressed as:
0 0
1
( )
K
i j i
j
w j
=
=

, (2)
Where w
j
represents the weight of j-th entity. If the weight does not need to be applied, take
K
j
1
= for averaging.
Before calculating the grey relation coefficients, the data series can be treated based on the following three kinds of
situation and the linearity of data normalization to avoid distorting the normalized data. They are:
(a) Upper-bound effectiveness measuring (i.e., larger-the-better)
*
( ) min ( )
( )
max ( ) min ( )
i i
j
i
i i
j j
x j x j
x j
x j x j

, (3)
where max ( )
i
j
x j is the maximum value of entity j and min ( )
j
j
x j is the minimum value of entity j.
(b) Lower-bound effectiveness measuring (i.e., smaller-the-better)
*
max ( ) ( )
( )
max ( ) min ( )
i i
j
i
i i
j j
x j x j
x j
x j x j

, (4)
If min ( ) ( ) max ( )
i ob i
j j
x j x j x j s s , then
*
( ) ( )
( )
max ( ) min ( )
i ob
i
i i
j j
x j x j
x j
x j x j

, (5)
If max ( ) ( )
i ob
j
x j x j s , then
*
( ) min ( )
( )
( ) min ( )
i i
j
i
ob i
j
x j x j
x j
x j x j

, or (6)
If ( ) min ( )
ob i
j
x j x j s , then
*
max ( ) ( )
( )
max ( ) ( )
i i
j
i
i ob
j
x j x j
x j
x j x j

. (7)
where x
ob
(j) is the objective value of entity j.
Thus, GRA method can detect the priority of the frequencys ranking of causes triggering off multi-channel conflict
based upon twelve experts opinions. The procedures of detecting order of the priority are:
(a) Sample twelve experts and measure their quality characteristics for eight ranks.
(b) Decide the referential series and the compared series.
(c) Make data normalization for determining
*
( )
i
x j .
(d) Compute
0
( )
i
j A .
(e) Compute the relational coefficient,
0
( )
i
j , of all compared series.
(f) Compute the GRG,
0i
I and can be to see the order for eight ranks based upon the experts opinion.

4. RESULTS
4.1 Results of Delphi Study and Kendalls Test
IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 5

The interviews were conducted through e-mail, or face to face. Seventy-five percent of Delphi panelists had over 11
years of experience in insurance marketing. Delphi panelists were asked to justify their answers to interview questions
and to rate their level of agreement toward the causes of multi-channel conflict, ranging from strongly agree (SA) (5) to
strongly disagree (SD) (1). The interview protocol was developed based on the literature review. The interview explored
more fully the perceptions of experts about the causes of multi-channel conflict.
Descriptive statistics of attitude toward each factor triggering off multi-channel conflict at interview were showed as
Table 1. In the final round, twelve Delphi panelists strongly agreed that differences in perception of reality used in
joint decision making was one of causes for multi-channel conflict. Eleven Delphi panelists strongly agreed that
using coercive powers was cause to trigger off multi-channel conflict. Ten Delphi panelists strongly agreed that
resource scarcity and incompatibility of goals were causes for multi-channel conflict. Moreover, nine Delphi
panelists strongly agreed that communication difficulties, poorly designed channel structure, and poor channel
management were causes for multi-channel conflict. Only eight Delphi panelists strongly agreed that relationship
with lower interdependence was one of causes for multi-channel conflict. There were no undecided (UD) (3), disagree
(D) (2) and strongly disagree (SD) (1) answers for cause item at round 3.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Attitude toward The Causes of Multi-Channel
Conflict at Interview Round 2 and Round 3
The Causes of Multi-Channel Conflict
Attitude toward Causes*
SA A UD D SD
R2 R3 R2 R3 R2 R3 R2 R3 R2 R3
Communication difficulties 8 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
Poorly designed channel structure 8 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
Poor channel management 8 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
Relationship with lower interdependence 8 8 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
Resource scarcity 8 10 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
Differences in perception of reality used in joint decision
making
9 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incompatibility of goals 9 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Using coercive powers 9 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: *Five Attitudes toward Causes: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Undecided (UD), Disagree (D), and Strongly
Disagree (SD).

As stated in the methodology, the issues of divergence and convergence of opinion are fundamental to a Delphi study.
Based on the result of a Kendalls test (Correlation Coefficient = 0.838, Sig. = 0.000), no significant attitude
difference toward each cause of multi-channel conflict was found between R2 and R3. Moreover, all experts agree
proposed eight causes triggering off multi-channel conflict at R3. Thus, no more round of Delphi study is necessary and
eight items proposed by this study can be identified as the causes of multi-channel conflict.

4.2 Result of GRA
The GRA questionnaire was developed based on the result of Delphi study and distributed to 12 experts same as the
panelists in Delphi study.
Table 2: Summary of the GRG
0i
I

The Causes of Multi-Channel Conflict
0i
I Rank
Communication difficulties 0.7333 5
Poorly designed channel structure 0.5476 7
Poor channel management 0.6944 6
Relationship with lower interdependence 0.5060 8
Resource scarcity 0.7667 4
Differences in perception of reality used in joint decision making 1.0000 1
Incompatibility of goals 0.8667 3
Using coercive powers 0.9000 2

After conducting the grey relational analysis, this research showed the rank of eight causes of multi-channel conflict
from the most frequency to the lowest frequency, but still crucial, causes are showed as followings (see Table 2): (1)
differences in perception of reality used in joint decision making, (2) using coercive powers, (3) incompatibility of
IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 6

goals, (4) resource scarcity, (5) communication difficulties, (6) poor channel management, (7) poorly designed channel
structure, and (8) relationship with lower interdependence.

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
The above analysis supports the argument that, there are many causes which trigger off multi-channel conflict. In view
of this, because of the limitation of resources in life insurance companies, attempt to deal with the most important
causes is an appropriate approach to improve the efficiency of multi-channel design, and provide the suggestion for
bancassurance to enhance the banks and life insurance companies performance. According to result of this study, the
most important three causes triggering off multi-channel conflict are differences in perception of reality used in joint
decision making, using coercive powers, and incompatibility of goals.

5.2 Suggestions
(a) Role Shift in Joint Decision Making. Joint decision making requires a partnership among providers and various
distributors working together to share the marketing segments, design policies or plan market positions based on
distributor preferences, provider experience and marketing research evidence. This often necessitates a shift in the
perceived roles of providers and distributors, the provision of evidence-based information about realities in insurance
market ensure that insurers and distributors are actively engaged. Failure to deal with the differences when distributors
perceive the job in negative terms will result in increased absenteeism and turnover and lower job satisfaction.
(b) Balance the Leadership Power Using. An essential component of management is to influence the people or units
administers manage so that they do what administers want them to do. Coercive power is a common method of
influencing employee behavior. A manager uses coercive power by forcing employee compliance through use of threats.
While coercion may work in the short-term, firms do risk long-term problems including low employee job satisfaction
resulting in high employee turnover. Productivity may even decrease in the long-term. Coercion also tends to be an
obstacle to employee creativity and innovation because of the fear and insecurity it creates. Therefore, to avoid using
coercive power, an effective marketing manager is suggested to rely heavily on Expert Power and Reverent Power to
rouse their teams and to prompt the most desirable outcomes.
(c) Reframing goals to Resolve Incompatibility. In many cases, providers and distributors are absolutely convinced they
have opposing goals and cannot agree on anything to pursue together. However, if goals are reframed or put in a
different context, the parties can agree. To face the problem of incompatibility of goals among the distributors, the win-
win approach suggested by this study is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both distributors
through collaborative problem solving. This method focuses on the needs and constraints of both distributors rather
than emphasizing strategies designed to conquer. Full problem definition and analysis and development of alternatives
precedes consensus decisions on mutually agreeable solutions.

References
[1] A. S. Vinhas, E. Anderson, How Potential Conflict Drives Channel Structure: Concurrent (Direct and Indirect)
Channels, Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), pp. 507-515, 2005.
[2] A. T. Coughlan, E. Anderson, L. W. Stern, A. I. El-Ansary, Marketing Channels, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2006.
[3] B. Johnson, L. Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Boston, MA, US:
Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
[4] B. Rosenbloom, Marketing Channels: A Management View, 7th ed., Cengage Learning, New York, NY, 2003.
[5] B. Williams, A Sampler on Sampling, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
[6] C. B. Bucklin, P. A. Thomas-Graham, E. A. Webster, Channel Conflict: When Is It Dangerous? The McKinsey
Quarterly, 3, pp. 36-43, 1997.
[7] D. Singh, F. S. Chaudhary, Theory and Analysis of Sample Survey Designs, New York: J ohn Wiley and Sons,
1986.
[8] D. A. Cather, V. Howe, Conflict and Channel Management in Property-Liability Distribution Systems, The
Journal of Risk and Insurance, 56(3), pp. 535-543, 1989.
[9] D. W. LaBahn, K. R. Harich, Sensitivity to National Business Culture: Effects on U.S.-Mexican Channel
Relationship Performance, Journal of International Marketing, 5(4), pp. 29-51, 1997.
[10] G. L. Frazier, Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27(2), pp. 226-240, 1999.
[11] G. L. Frazier, K. D. Antia, Exchange Relationships and Interfirm Power in Channels of Distribution, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), pp. 321-326, 1995.
IPASJ International Journal of Management (IIJM)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJM/IIJM.htm
A Publisher for Research Motivation........ Email: editoriijm@ipasj.org
Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 ISSN 2321-645X

Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014 Page 7

[12] G. S. Milan, E. Dorion, Jose Alberto da Rosa Matos, Distribution Channel Conflict Management: A Brazilian
Experience, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19(1), pp. 32-51, 2012.
[13] H. H. Friedman, Channel Policy and Physical Distribution, Brooklyn College of City University of New York,
2010. [Online]. Available: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/mmchannel.htm. [Accessed:
Sept. 01, 2013].
[14] J. L. Deng, Introduction to Grey System Theory, Journal of Grey System, 1(1), pp. 1-24, 1989.
[15] J. L. Deng, Grey System Theory and Applications, Kao-Li, Taiwan, 1999.
[16] J. M. Gallaugher, E-Commerce and the Undulating Distribution Channel, Communications of the ACM, 45(7),
pp. 89-95, 2002.
[17] J. A. Wall, R. R. Callister, Conflict and Its Management, Journal of Management, 21(3), pp. 515-558, 1995.
[18] K. Nothofer, D. Remy, The Role of Multi-Channel Management in the Hospitality Industry, Les Roches
International School of Hotel Management, Crans-Montana: Switzerland, 2009.
[19] K. A. Hunt, The Relationship Between Channel Conflict and Information Processing, Journal of Retailing,
71(4), pp. 417-436, 1995.
[20] K. L. Webb, Managing Channels of Distribution in the Age of Electronic Commerce, Industrial Marketing
Management, 31(2), pp. 95-102, 2002.
[21] K. L. Webb, J. E. Hogan, Hybrid Channel Conflict: Causes and Effects on Channel Performance, Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(5), pp. 338-356, 2002.
[22] K. L. Webb, N. M. Didow, Understanding Hybrid Channel Conflict: a Conceptual Model and Propositions for
Research, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 4(1), pp. 39-78, 1997.
[23] L. Goldkuhl, Multiple Marketing Channel Conflict with a Focus on the Internet: A Dual Perspective, Thesis of
Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, 2007.
[24] L. J. Rosenberg, A New Approach to Distribution Conflict Management, Business Horizons, 17(5), pp. 67-74,
1974.
[25] L. J. Rosenberg, L. W. Stern, Toward the Analysis of Conflict in Distribution Channels: A Descriptive Model,
Journal of Marketing, 34(4), pp. 40-46, 1970.
[26] L. J. Rosenberg, L. W. Stern, Conflict Measurement in the Distribution Channel, Journal of Marketing Research,
8(4), pp. 437-442, 1971.
[27] L. T. Gamarra, C. Growitsch, Single-versus Multi-Channel Distribution Strategies in German Life Insurance
Market, The X European Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Bad Honnef: Germany, 2008.
[28] M. B. Sarkar, B. Butler, C. Steinfield, Intermediaries and Cybermediaries: A Continuing Role for Mediating
Players in the Electronic Marketplace, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(3), pp. 1-14, 1995.
[29] M. J. Valos, Structure, People and Process Challenges of Multichannel Marketing: Insights from Marketers,
Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 16(3), pp. 197-206, 2009.
[30] M. S. Chen, P. L. Chang, Distribution Channel Strategy and Efficiency Performance of the Life Insurance
Industry in Taiwan, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 15(1), pp. 62-75, 2010.
[31] P. OConnor, J. Murphy, Hotel Yield Management Practices Across Multiple Electronic Distribution Channels,
Information Technology and Tourism, 10(2), pp. 161-172, 2008.
[32] R. E. Dumm, R. E. Hoyt, Insurance Distribution Channels: Markets in Transition, Journal of Insurance
Regulation, 22(1), pp. 27-47, 2003.
[33] R. T. Moriarty, U. Moran, Managing Hybrid Marketing Systems, Harvard Business Review, November-
December, pp. 146-155, 1990.
[34] S. Hogarth-Scott, S. T. Parkinson, Retailer-Supplier Relationships in the Food Channel: A supplier Perspective,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 21(8), pp. 11-18, 1993.
[35] S. A. Samaha, R. W. Palmatier, R. P. Dant, Poisoning Relationships: Perceived Unfairness in Channels of
Distribution, Journal of Marketing, 75(3), pp. 99-117, 2011.
[36] T. W. Malone, J. Yates, R. I. Benjamin, Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies, Communications of the
ACM, 30(6), pp. 484-497, 1987.
[37] W. N. Seung, Managing Channel Conflict: From a Korean Life Insurance Industry Perspective, LIMRAs
MarketFacts Quarterly, 29(3), pp. 82-90, 2010