This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mads10580522 ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Charley.79 ( talk) 11:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
-- S4485243 ( talk) 06:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the first time I see the Economy of Scope concept restricted to "marketing an distribution" issues. In 1983 Goldhar and Jelinek published an article in Harvard Business Review and presented the Eco of Scope as "an efficiency wrought by variety, not volume" (vs Eco of scale), including production issues (i.e. same plant producing two types of cars). If one of you has some information about this marketing limitation, I would be interested to know more about it. Thanks.
This article [1] suggests that economics of scope exist based on weak cost complementarity, where the marginal cost of producing one good decreases when the quantity produced of another good increases. In other words, producing a greater scope of products results in cost savings. For example, a farm that produces corn might benefit from also producing cattle, because the cow manure could be used to fertilize the corn.
By putting all the links to Marketing topics on the right hand side it makes it appear that economies of scope is limited only to Marketing and doesn't apply to other areas such as production. I think we should remove this. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.86.9 ( talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose working these materials into the article ...
Cheers ... Risk Engineer ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mads10580522 ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Charley.79 ( talk) 11:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
-- S4485243 ( talk) 06:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the first time I see the Economy of Scope concept restricted to "marketing an distribution" issues. In 1983 Goldhar and Jelinek published an article in Harvard Business Review and presented the Eco of Scope as "an efficiency wrought by variety, not volume" (vs Eco of scale), including production issues (i.e. same plant producing two types of cars). If one of you has some information about this marketing limitation, I would be interested to know more about it. Thanks.
This article [1] suggests that economics of scope exist based on weak cost complementarity, where the marginal cost of producing one good decreases when the quantity produced of another good increases. In other words, producing a greater scope of products results in cost savings. For example, a farm that produces corn might benefit from also producing cattle, because the cow manure could be used to fertilize the corn.
By putting all the links to Marketing topics on the right hand side it makes it appear that economies of scope is limited only to Marketing and doesn't apply to other areas such as production. I think we should remove this. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.86.9 ( talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose working these materials into the article ...
Cheers ... Risk Engineer ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)