This is a great article that brings a new light on many aspects of interfirm relationships. One important contribution is that the authors propose a new theory to explain the impact of relationships on the survival of business dyads. This is obviously a key issue for all practitioners, especially for those managing relationships exposed to many forms of adversity such as exporters. We just finished a longitudinal study that showed that 20% of the export relationships we studied in 2005 had dissolved after two years. This means that a mid-sized exporter selling to twenty foreign distributors has to find two new agents each year just in order to keep its international distribution network at the same level. This is a serious problem knowing the cost and difficulty of finding new overseas representatives. Thus, the study of the determinants of the survival of business relationships is a crucial issue and Eyuboglu and Bujas should be praised for introducing this subject in the marketing literature.

We are extremely pleased hearing from Prof. Obadia about the importance of relationship survival (and failure) in a specific context, that of export relationships. There is a dearth of information about rates of relationship failure, and a reported failure rate of 20% in a two-year period is therefore a valuable first pointer. Presumably, Prof. Obadia's data will permit some exploration into factors that may affect failure and survival. We are eagerly awaiting his findings!

In the past, most of the survey-based literature has studied existing relationships, but it has never taken into account that these relationships are survivors. The sheer fact of survival has implications as they will certainly differ from those that are never seen in surveys because they failed.

We would like to encourage practitioners to report their experiences with relationship failure, and researchers to go back to their data and look for phenomena that might be better explained by selection than direct causation.

I was delighted to see the recent paper on quasi-Darwinian selection published in JM. I have spent much of the past ten years or so conducting research at the nexus of evolutionary theory and consumption/marketing. Hence, it is indeed encouraging to see an increasing number of marketing scholars recognizing the importance of Darwinian theory across a wide range of consumption/marketing phenomena. For those interested in my work in the area (forgive the self-promotion), you may check out my recently published book titled The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption. I am also listing herewith some of my journal publications in the evolutionary area:

1. Saad, G. The Collective Amnesia of Marketing Scholars regarding Consumers’ Biological and Evolutionary Roots. Marketing Theory, (conditionally accepted).

2. Saad, G. (2008). Advertised Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Online Female Escorts: An Evolutionary Perspective. International Journal of e-Collaboration, forthcoming.

3. Kock, N., Hantula, D. A., Hayne, S., Saad, G., Todd, P. M., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Darwinian Perspectives on Electronic Communication [introductory article to the special issue of the same name]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, forthcoming. [Authors other than lead author are listed in alphabetical order]

4. Stenstrom, E., Stenstrom, P., Saad, G., & Cheikhrouhou, S. (2008). Online Hunting and Gathering: An Evolutionary Perspective on Sex Differences in Web Navigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, forthcoming.

5. Saad, G. (2007). A Multitude of Environments for a Consilient Darwinian Meta-Theory of Personality: The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, Local Niches, the Ontogenetic Environment, and Situational Contexts. European Journal of Personality, 21, 624-626. [commentary]

6. Saad, G. (2007). Suicide Triggers as Sex-Specific Threats in Domains of Evolutionary Import: Negative Correlation between Global Male-to-Female Suicide Ratios and Average per Capita Gross National Income. Medical Hypotheses, 68, 692-696.

7. Saad, G. (2006). Universal Sex-Specific Instantiations of OCD. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 629. [commentary]

8. Saad, G. (2006). Blame Our Evolved Gustatory Preferences. Young Consumers, 7 (4), 72-75. [invited article: special issue titled Responsible Food Marketing to Children].

9. Saad, G. (2006). Sex Differences in OCD Symptomatology: An Evolutionary Perspective. Medical Hypotheses, 67, 1455-1459.

10. Saad, G. & Peng, A. (2006). Applying Darwinian Principles in Designing Effective Intervention Strategies: The Case of Sun Tanning. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 617-638.

11. Saad, G. (2006). Applying Evolutionary Psychology in Understanding the Darwinian Roots of Consumption Phenomena. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 189-201.

12. Saad, G., Gill, T., & Nataraajan, R. (2005). Are Laterborns more Innovative and Non-Conforming Consumers than Firstborns? A Darwinian Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 902-909.

13. Saad, G. (2004). Applying Evolutionary Psychology in Understanding the Representation of Women in Advertisements. Psychology & Marketing, 21(8), 593-612.

14. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective on Gift Giving Among Young Adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20 (9), 765-784.

15. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2001). Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3 (2-3), 171-193.

16. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2000). Applications of Evolutionary Psychology in Marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 17 (12), 1005-1034. Lead Article.

We thank Professor Saad for posting pointers to his work on the application of evolutionary theory to consumption/marketing. This research is indeed relevant. As we see it, evolutionary psychology has the potential to provide underpinnings for Social Exchange Theory (SET), which is the base on which we build our theorizing. While we mostly took the axioms of SET as a given (in particular CL_alt as a driver of selection), it is rather evident that evolutionary psychology should be used to provide underpinnings for at least parts of SET. We noticed that Professor Saad's book has a section on reciprocity, which is an axiomatic concept for SET. This section should be read with an eye toward links with SET.

We should point out, of course, that our theory is not evolutionary but "Quasi"-Darwinian, because it describes selection effects that are visible within one generation; by comparison, Professor Saad's work is about evolutionary theory of behavior. Yet, there is a larger question of whether truly Darwinian multi-generational evolution is at
work also at the level of interfirm relationships. One should expect that firms' behaviors evolve through cultural transmission within firms and lateral 'gene exchange' through job hopping managers. New and successful 'genetic material' could arise rationally through feedback and learning, or randomly through 'stumbling on what works'. We allude to some of these possibilities in our article, but this is a larger topic in need of development.