Public companies that placed greater relative emphasis on marketing than research and development were more likely to pursue acquisitions instead of alliances, according to a study of US firms.
The research covered 1,053 listed businesses and more than 6,500 acquisition and alliance transactions from 2009 through 2016. The findings describe patterns in that sample, not a rule that tells a particular company which deal will succeed.
Girish Mallapragada, Raghu Bommaraju, Alok Kumar and Kiran Pedada published the study in the Journal of Marketing Research in 2025. An American Marketing Association discussion revisited the results in October 2026.
Buying control or sharing capabilities
An acquisition gives a business ownership of another company or its assets. A strategic alliance lets separate firms work together, for example by combining distribution and technical expertise under an agreement.
Both can give a company access to capabilities it does not possess internally. They also create different demands. An acquisition may require substantial capital and integration work; an alliance requires partners to agree on responsibilities, information sharing and the division of returns.
In their published paper, the researchers examined a firm’s relative emphasis on what they call value appropriation, associated with marketing assets, and value creation, associated with research and development. The terms describe where firms focus their resources in the study; successful businesses may need both.
Companies with a stronger relative emphasis on marketing were more likely to choose acquisitions over alliances. The authors’ explanation concerns the difficulty of assessing and protecting the value of assets such as customer relationships and brand reputation when firms cooperate.
Leadership and information
The association between strategic emphasis and a preference for acquisitions was weaker among firms with a chief marketing officer and among those followed by more financial analysts. The researchers investigated those factors as possible influences on how companies manage relationships and communicate their position.
That pattern does not establish that hiring a chief marketing officer causes better alliances, or that an executive’s title alone makes a partnership safe. The study uses historical observations of publicly listed US businesses, and the authors did not analyze every industry separately.
A company assessing a partnership still needs to establish who owns intellectual property, how customer information may be used and what happens if the relationship ends. A buyer needs to evaluate the purchase price, financing, integration costs and the possibility that employees or customers leave after a deal.
Market conditions can change those calculations. Interest rates affect financing costs, while competition rules, technology and the availability of suitable partners can limit the choices open to a business.
The study offers an explanation for one pattern in past decisions. It does not provide a universal formula for choosing an acquisition or guarantee that either approach will deliver higher returns.
