"How a regional structure was used to conceal the true identity of a major client"

The customers of a supplier to the luxury goods market included two businesses that were owned by the same parent company. Their names were different, businesses were based in separate parts of the world, and, while there was some overlap in their activities, one focused mostly on retailing while the other focused primarily on manufacturing and wholesale distribution. Key account managers from the two organizations were assigned to manage them separately for a variety of reasons, including the fact that their respective offices were located in diametrically opposed corners of the world. The two clients were regarded as borderline key accounts, and both key account managers believed they could grow the business even further with additional resources; yet, the business case for neither customer individually warranted a larger commitment.

These two businesses were essentially just the upstream and downstream activities of the same company in different locations. Whatever they were called or where they were based, they should all have been overseen by the same key account manager, regardless of their location. He would have been able to develop a more understandable and thorough picture of the customer's activities, and he would have been able to make a compelling economic case for helping them at the key account level.

Compare the impact of traditional structures and centralized key account management organizations on key account management success using the information above, assuming they have different structures (traditional and centralized)