|
Convergence: The Changing Nature of Advertising and Marketing
Heather M. Schulz University
of December 8, 2007 Abstract Various aspects of the issue of convergence are examined in both the academic and business environments. Several theories are applied to these phenomena in order to facilitate comprehension. In the academic environment, the current trend is actually divergence. However, it is through the application of convergence that these issues will be resolved. In the business environment, the current trend is in fact convergence. The challenge is the management of these varying levels of convergence. Overall, marketing, advertising (and other related fields) are not in actuality converging and diverging. It is only the application and perception of these business practices that are converging and diverging. Introduction Although marketing and advertising are often thought of as distinct academic as well as business departments, the two are linked in an intangible way. Marketing develops a business strategy and then communicates this strategy to their consumers through an advertised message. Advertising uses marketing strategy to develop communication messages which are designed to impact large masses of people. Even though the actual actions of marketers and advertisers are unique, and the people performing these actions often approach their task from a different standpoint (marketing usually from a business standpoint and advertising from mass communication and creative standpoints) they both need each other and they both work together to fully complete the transaction of business strategy. Marketing and advertising are intrinsically linked, however people’s viewpoints on their convergence and divergence is often in flux. The latest trend was divergence, segmentation, fragmentation, etc. Boundaries between these two groups were becoming more and more explicit. However, the current tide is turning and not only are marketing and advertising viewed in a more converging manner, but other related departments are also being pulled into the scope. These include areas such as public relations, sales, the online environment, organizational management, etc. Therefore, it is important to study what new trends have emerged from this fresh viewpoint and how this is affecting both the academic and business world. Theoretical frameworks will be utilized from various academic areas in order to further asses, explain and predict the current convergent phenomena. Aspects of Convergence: The
Academic World The Maturation Effect Although advertising and marketing are still relatively new areas of study in the academic world, both have existed in the business world since the beginning of the business industry itself. As long as someone wanted to sell something, they needed to develop a plan of how to sell it and what to say to potential consumers. However, the official study of the distinct topics of advertising and marketing have only recently developed on their own in the last century. This is especially true compared to some of the “hard” sciences such as math, science, economics, etc. or the “pure” sciences such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, English, etc. Even though marketing and advertising are still relatively “new,” they have developed in the last few years into mature areas of study. With the maturation of these departments come growing pains. Marketing and advertising are no longer the unexplored frontiers where new insight was virtually around every corner. In a way, some of the current research being done on advertising and marketing are less revolutionary and more a remake of the past. Less innovative ideas are emerging in journals, and more solidly studied ideas are only being tweaked. Even though the advent of the Internet has created some interesting new avenues for both academics and professionals, in a way it is still just another medium and will be positioned into the media planning strategy in a similar way that all new media is positioned. Although the Internet is one of the most revolutionary devices to be developed during the lifetimes of many people today (myself included), let us not forget that it was just as revolutionary during the times of our ancestors with the introduction of all new media: print, radio, television, etc. Looking at the maturation effect of the advertising and marketing academic departments through the eyes of social cognitive theory/social learning theory sheds some light on why new science and research breakthroughs can become difficult. Because job promotion is heavily dependent on journal publications for many academic researchers, a high incentive exists for researchers to produce papers that will make it through the gauntlet of the peer review editorial process. Therefore, researchers often look at what a journal has deemed publishable in the past, and then the research topic, concept, methodology, theory, format, etc. is often mimicked with the hopes that the journal will publish their paper because it falls in line with past papers that were published. In other words, potential academic research publishers “learn” what “good research” is by studying the old instead of creating the new. Although this process will produce at best some good papers and at worst many mediocre papers, the long-term, aggregate trend is that no huge theoretical or methodological breakthroughs are published, often because they are not accepted because they are “unfamiliar” or deemed “atheoretical” (Rust, 2006). To sum up, the convergence of academic thought into homogenized research aspirations is a potential detriment to the marketing and advertising academic field as a whole. Theory Development A major opportunity for advertising and marketing academic departments exists in their ability to develop new ideas, theories, constructs, etc. on their own by relying less on the need to directly link their ideas to building blocks such as psychology, sociology, etc. As Rust (2006) points out, some researchers think that marketing and advertising theory must always show a direct link to the fundamental theories of core disciplines. This prevents advertising and marketing researchers from developing new theories that may only apply to their department. Rust argues that the only way for marketing and advertising to continue to grow is for not only researchers to develop theories on their own, but also for editors and reviewers to accept and publish these new (what Rust calls “homegrown”) ideas. It is important to remember that it is the applied nature of advertising and marketing which sets it apart from the “pure” sciences. This applicable nature has manifested itself into higher academic salaries for marketing and advertising faculty. The divergence of other applied fields (such as engineering and economics) from their building blocks (such as math and physics) has allowed them to develop theories that do not always translate back to their building block disciplines. Advertising and marketing need to make the same leap. Using cultivation theory, one can argue that advertising and marketing were indeed dependent on the pure sciences as their building blocks for theory development in the early days. But now, through decades of research focused specifically on advertising and marketing, gradual insight has developed that applies solely to these research areas. It is now time for advertising and marketing take another step away from the pure sciences and create theoretical framework that specifically describes advertising and marketing. The building blocks of psychology, sociology, etc. have converged to form a strong background to current theory development, but now it is time for them to fade even further into the background in order for new light to be shed on innovative advertising and marketing theories. Academic Journals McAlister (2005) argues that the continual expansion in the number of academic researchers has not been matched with the continual expansion of the number of pages in “premiere” academic journals. Therefore, more and more people are trying to publish in the same top tier journals, but the acceptance rate has dramatically dropped because the number of articles printed per issue remains stagnant. Like previously stated, for many faculty academic tenure is dependent on publication in top journals. Therefore, in order to get published, authors must study topics they believe will please journal editors and reviewers. This has led to less adventurous topics in order to beat the odds of acceptance. Looking at this phenomena from the viewpoint of agenda setting theory, it can be argued that the editors of academic journals have so much power (because they control what articles will be published) that they are able to “set the agenda” on what topics they determine are salient to the scientific field. Whatever articles these “gatekeepers” decide are publishable will influence future research topics and create a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of what is “important research” because people who desire publication will study what has been published in the past and therefore feel an incentive to cover similar research topics. Plus, Bouerly, Johnson and Singh (2005) point out that the readability of academic journals has substantially increased over the years. This causes academic work to become less applicable to the business world, which in turn causes the academic and business world to become isolated. This phenomenon is often called the “ivory tower” complex, where the academic elites are removed from the “real world” because their overly complex discussions no longer resonate to practitioners who decide to obtain their information from other areas. One could argue that the ivory tower complex creates a knowledge gap. Although knowledge gap theory often looks at socioeconomic status and people’s access to new technology, here a knowledge gap would exist between the academic researchers who are heavily embedded in the culture of academic journal jargon versus the advertising and marketing practitioners who spend less time studying, conducting, and creating academic research. Eventually, the two groups are less and less able to communicate, which indirectly stagnates future academic research. One solution would be to expand the amount of academic work that is published. Although some may argue that this will only create more “mediocre” published work, this work will be more readable, and therefore more relevant to practitioners, which will in turn facilitate communication and convergence between the academic and professional environment. Specialization MacInnis (2005) argues that the ideal of marketing and advertising using multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological approaches is not occurring. Instead, she argues that a divergence has occurred where academics are now identifying themselves as either “behaviorists” (i.e. experimentalists) or “modelers.” Although behaviorists are able to develop insight, often through the method of ethnography, which in turn can be used to develop theory, it is at the expense of generalizibility because instances that may occur in isolated (and artificial) situations is often not mirrored in the business world. Plus, modelers are so focused on data that an actual theory explaining the phenomena studied is not developed. MacInnis states that the convergence of these two approaches to research is imperative for the future of marketing and advertising. However, this will not occur until editors and reviewers (who are also heavily divided into behaviorists and modelers) begin to accept the proposed cross-pollinated, multi-disciplinary and multi-methodological papers. Other authors agree that until the cycle of editor, reviewer and researcher (and even doctoral student) creating and accepting homogenized (i.e. safe, familiar, and “valid”) research is broken, then the problems that will continue to arise include: 1) overemphasis on empirical articles at the expense of big theoretical development, 2) an increase of marketer and advertiser myopia and 3) suffocation of the ability of marketing and advertising to influence the business and academic world (Leone & Schultz, 1980; Belk, 1987; Lutz, 1989; Andreasen, 1993; Richins, 2000; MacInnis, 2004; Lehmann, 2005; Staelin, 2005). Aspects of Convergence:
Interaction of Academic and Business
World Advertising and Marketing
CEOs Raju (2005) makes the important point that although many
marketers come from business schools, people with advertising and
marketing Ph.D.’s often do not enter the business world. Every academic department’s
doctoral program is designed to train students to be researchers and
future professors. However,
some departments (for example medicine) require students to get real world
experience. Although Raju is
not recommending a similar requirement for marketing and advertising, he
is making the point that this should not be discouraged. Since marketing and advertising
are focused on a business’s customers and communication, then a CEO with a
background in marketing and/or advertising could provide substantial and
unique insight that would not otherwise appear with a CEO with a
background in engineering, finance, economics,
etc. Function of Marketing and
Advertising Wilkie (2005) argues that another issue marketing and advertising need to tackle is the broadening of the definition of marketing and advertising, thereby creating new avenues of theory and business application. Specifically, Wilkie argues that marketing should not be constrained to individual organizations because globalization and the Internet are effectively blurring these lines. Like stated previously, strategy (marketing) and communication (advertising) flow through every aspect of business life. Therefore, academic and practitioners should reflect this in their research and actions. Aspects of Convergence:
Business World Role of Department in a
Company Brown (2005) makes the argument that since advertising and marketing deal with strategy and communication (the background to all aspects of business), then marketing and advertising researchers should not limit themselves to topics strictly connected to marketing and advertising, but to the business world in general. For example, the current trends of mergers and acquisitions occurring in all industries and at many different levels has created the situation where people from different departments, companies and/or industries are now thrown together and expected to communicate in order to pull off a successful business strategy. However, people from different departments often have a difficult time negotiating with each other primarily because they come to the situation with different perspectives (which they inherently believe is the “correct” or “best” perspective) and therefore have difficulties working out solutions and negotiations with each other. This would be a prime situation for advertising and marketing practitioners and researchers to step in and encourage cooperation and integration because of their past experience. The multi-disciplinary methods that marketers and advertisers must deal with each and every day is an asset they can utilize to assist the company to head in the right direction. Technology Rust (2006) also points out that new
advances in technology affect the development and implementation of
marketing and advertising strategy.
The latest advances in information technology, especially those
related to the Internet, have made it easier not only to communicate with
current and potential consumers, but also allows them to talk back (i.e.
feedback). Rust argues that
this provides not only more information for marketers and advertisers but
also allows them to provide better customer support and therefore improve
customer relationships. This
is true not only in Co-branding Kumar (2005) discusses the phenomenon of “co-branding” which involves not only the extension of brand meaning from the parent company to the individual brand, but also the counter-extension of brand meaning from the individual brand back to the parent company. Brand extension is the process of utilizing brand equity from current successful brand to create and translate that brand equity in a new brand category (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis, 1986; Aaker, 1991). However, there are two types of brand extensions: co-branding and solo-branding. The advantage of co-branding over solo-branding is that marketers and advertisers are able to synchronize communication efforts and therefore provide consistent images across the varying levels of brands. Co-branding is also helpful for consumers, because they are able to tap into their schema of existing information about a brand and carry it over to the new, co-brand (Cohen & Murphy, 1984; Hampton, 1987; Eysenck & Keanne, 1990; Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1991; Rao & Ruekert, 1994; Park, Jun & Shocker, 1996; Samu, Krishnan & Smith, 1999; Simonin & Ruth, 2001). Although dominance and submission does occur during co-branding (i.e. one brand is viewed as more influential than the other), both are benefited from the combined efforts (Murphy, 1988; Hampton, 1988). One example of co-branding include Yum! Brands restaurants that offer both Long John Silver’s and KFC selections (or Pizza Hut and Taco Bell). Another example is the Smucker’s Dove ice-cream topping. Compound Relationships As mentioned above, mergers and acquisitions in the business world bring about new relationships. One problem is that newly joined firms are playing several roles at one time with each other. At varying levels, companies under the same parent company may be competitors, partners, suppliers, customers, etc. to each other. Ross and Robertson (2007) call these multiple relationships occurring between two firms “complex relationships” because these two companies are connected to each other by more than one simple relationship. It is the ability of firms to handle these complex, sometimes incongruent agendas that will provide the competitive advantage among the increasingly dynamic business environment (Kanter, 1994; Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Lado, Boyd & Hanlon, 1997; Sivadas & Dwyer, 2000; Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001). In order to do this, companies need to see the larger picture and realize that how they handle the more direct simple relationships indirectly affects the larger, sometimes almost intangible compound relationships. Also, it is important to remember that just like in co-branding, one brand may be more dominant than another, in a complex relationship, one simple relationship may be more salient than another, and which simple relationship is more salient will also change with time and marketplace situations. Factors that may help determine which simple relationship is more salient are: primacy and economic/strategic/political importance (Ross & Robertson, 2007). Improvement of the simple relationships that make up the complex relationships discussed here could be handled utilizing various interpersonal communication theories. The rate of information disclosure studied using social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), or the conversational expectations of interpersonal deception theory (Grice, 1975), or the information-seeking process of uncertainty reduction theory (Berger, 1987) could greatly assist management of the simple relationships every organization must deal with both inside and outside of the company. Co-optetion Unlike a complex relationship which consists of multiple simple relationships that are occurring simultaneously between firms, Luo, Slotegraaf, and Pan (2006) discuss the phenomena of “co-optetion,” which deals directly with the parallel situation of competition and cooperation that occurs between different departments within a single firm. Co-optetion is especially obvious for many firms when it comes time to divvy up the financial resources. Because of this, marketing, engineering and manufacturing departments may face communication boundaries and reluctance to share information. This is harmful for the firm as a whole, but may provide competitive advantage for a department in particular. Therefore, it is imperative for management to competently recognize and prioritize the overall goals of the firm and to keep inter-departmental rivalry to a minimum (Griffin & Hauser, 1992; Menon & Varadarajan, 1992; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994; Maltz & Kohli, 1996; Szulanski, 1996; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Houston, Walker Hutt & Reingen, 2001; Gilmour, 2003; Gray & Meister, 2004). Indirect Network Effects Indirect network effects describe the dynamic relationship between a primary product and its complements. The interaction between these two components is often studied in the form of the sales of the primary products and its relation to the amount of available complementary components (Church & Gandal, 1992, 1993; Katz & Shapiro, 1994; Hill, 1997; Cottrell & Koput, 1998; Caillaud & Jullien, 2003). Typically in the technology industry, the primary product is defined as the “hardware” and the complementary products are dubbed the “software.” Examples of hardware are radios, CD players, video game consoles, and computers. Examples of corresponding software include radio programming, CDs, video games and computer programs. Indirect network effects studies the introduction of either new technological devices (i.e. the introduction of the radio) or the introduction of a reinvention of an existing technological device (i.e. the introduction of Super Nintendo) and how the consumer acceptance rate of hardware corresponds to the introduction rate of manufacturers who provide the software. A common metaphor used for this research perspective is the “chicken-or-the-egg” dilemma, because it is uncertain which aspect entices consumers to accept new technology: the hardware or the software. Many consumers are reluctant to go out and buy a new technological device until more software choices are made available. However, software manufactures are often reluctant to invest a lot of time and money into software development and release until they are sure that consumers are accepting of this new hardware (Gupta, Jain & Sawhney, 1999; Gandal, 2002). Stremersch, Tellis, Franses, and Binken (2007) describe three types of indirect network effects. They are 1) demand side (software is the dominant aspect), 2) supply side (hardware is the dominant aspect) and 3) demand and supply side indirect network effects (neither hardware or software are dominant). Stremersch et.al. conducted several case studies of the introduction of different types of new technology to see which type of indirect network effects occurred. The table below shows the results:
As one can see, when there is a relationship between software and hardware, the acceptance of hardware almost always precedes the introduction of a variety of software. Only in the case of the CD-ROM did software precede hardware, and evidence shows that this only occurred through the large amount of investment put in to this technology by a software company (Microsoft) before the sufficient hardware was produced, which is very rare. Their study also shed light on the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma, by showing strong evidence that hardware acceptance almost always precedes a wide variety of software availability, which goes against the grain of many research studies of the past (Bayus, 1987; Yoder, 1990; Bucklin & Sengupta, 1993; Midgette, 1997; Sengupta, 1998; Clements, 2004). Diffusion theory ( Marketing and Sales Although many people may think that since by nature the marketing and sales departments of a businesses depend on one another, then collaboration and cooperation would be instantaneous and continuous. The reality is, the opposite is often the case (i.e. the interaction between the marketing and sales departments is often full of tension and friction) (Piercy, 1986; Strahle, Spiro & Acito, 1996; Cespedes, 1996; Workman, Homburg & Gruner, 1998; Panigyrakis & Veloutsou, 1999; Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000). This tension and friction arises out of the different goals, perspectives, priorities, etc. According to Cespedes (1994), sales often has short-term goals and their priorities often focus on customer relations, while marketing has longer-term goals and a primary focus on product development. Lawrence and Lorsch (1969) are noted as one of the first researchers to describe the topic of “departmental orientation.” Deshpandé and Webster (1989) call this concept departmental “thought worlds,” and question whether this interdepartmental difference is advantageous or disadvantageous to the company as a whole. Dougherty (1992) categorizes type of thought world dimensions into two categories: 1) “funds of knowledge” (i.e. competence) and 2) “systems of meaning” (i.e. orientations about time, goals, and information processing). Homburg and Jensen (2007) studied which type of thought world is good or bad for the company. They found that varying levels of competence has a negative effect on the company’s market ability as a whole, while varying levels of orientation has a positive effect on the company’s market ability. Therefore, they concluded that the “kind of difference makes a difference.” Utilization of framing theory would help both marketing and sales people understand the different perspectives each group brings to the business strategy table. Not only would each side better understand the information the other party is communicating, but each side would also better understand the context that is being used to frame each perspective (Bryant & Miron, 2004). Multi-channel Shopping Today, many businesses are interested in having their customers purchase goods or services through multiple channels (Wind & Mahajan, 2002). However, the only way customers will continue their business with a company is if they feel satisfied with their prior experiences and if incentives are offered so they feel like they are making smart decisions. Venkatesan, Kumar, and Ravishanker (2007) list several variables that are associated with the multi-channel aspect of customer relations they include: 1) purchase-related attributes (basket size, cross-buying, proportion of returns, etc.), 2) frequency-related attributes (purchase frequency, communication between supplier and customer (i.e. advertising), etc.), and 3) socio-demographic variables. This is another business process where the application of interpersonal theories would increase customer-supplier relations. Through the introduction of the Internet, customers are more able (and more likely) to provide immediate feedback as well as other information to suppliers that will in the future be used to enhance customer experience and eventually satisfaction. Outsourcing Lowering Risk Levels McAlister, Srinivasan, and Kim (2007) make the argument that in order to achieve more stable internal financial support, marketers and advertisers should show how marketing research and development and advertising expenditures lower systematic risk of the company’s stock. Instead of a company’s financial department trying to hold marketing and advertising money spent accountable in relation to topics such as sales revenue, customer loyalty/satisfaction/awareness, etc. (which will affect how much money will be allocated to marketing and advertising in the future), the authors argue that because of “intangible assets” created by marketing and advertising, the company becomes protected from varying stock market prices. This will directly affect shareholder’s views of the importance of money invested in marketing and advertising. Other authors also agree that marketing and advertising need to communicate their worth better to the rest of the departments in a company (especially financial departments) (Ambler, 2003; Srivastava & Reibstein, 2005). Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey’s (1998) market-based assets theory proposes that the “intangible assets” created by marketing and advertising are brand equity which in turn affects future sales, market share and profits, which will indirectly affect stock prices. Several other authors have noted similar findings (Erickson & Jacobson, 1992; Boulding & Staelin, 1995; Joshi & Hanssens, 2004; Rao, Agarwal & Dahloff, 2004; Frieder & Subrahmanyam, 2005; Singh, Faircloth & Nejadmalayeri, 2005; Madden, Fehle & Fournier, 2006). Conclusion As one can see, in the academic environment, the current trend is actually divergence. Examples include the divergence of research perspectives, methodologies, etc. However, it is through the application of convergence that these issues will be resolved. Only through collaboration in academic research will advertising and marketing be able to develop theoretical breakthroughs. In the business environment, the current trend is definitely convergence. Examples include co-branding, co-opetition, multi-channel shopping, indirect network effects, etc. The challenge is the management of these varying levels of convergence. It is not just enough for aspects of business to converge, it must be done correctly to have a positive impact. Finally, it is important to restate that marketing, advertising (and other related fields) are not in actuality converging and diverging. It is only the application and perception of these business practices that are converging and diverging. WORKS CITED Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity.
Altman, . Ambler, T. (2003). Marketing and the Bottom
Line. Andreasen, A. R. (1993). A Social
Marketing Research Agenda for Consumer Behavior Researchers. In L.
McAlister & M. Rothschild (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research
(Vol. 20). Bauerly, R. J., Johnson, D. T., & Singh, M. (2005) Readability and the Impact of Marketing. In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Bayus, B. L. (1987). Forecasting Sales of New Contingent Products: An Application to the Compact Disc Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4 (4), 243–55. Belk, R. W. (1987). Happy Thought. In
M. Wallendorf & P. Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating
Under Uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook
of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 439-499). Boulding, W., & Staelin, R. (1995). Identifying Generalizable Effects of Strategic Actions on Prior Performance: The Case of Returns to Research and Development Spending. Marketing Science, 14 (3), G222–36. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff,
B. J. (1996). Coopetition. Brown, S. W. (2005). When Executives Speak, We Should Listen and Act Differently. In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and Research in Mass Communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 662-704. Bucklin, L. P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). The Co-Diffusion of Complementary Innovations: Supermarket Scanners and UPC Symbols. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10 (2), 148–60. Caillaud, B. & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken & Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers. RAND Journal of Economics, 34 (2), 309–328. Carson, S. J. (2007). When to Give Up Control of Outsourced
New Product Development. Journal of Marketing, 71 (Jan.),
49–66. Cespedes, F. V. (1994). Industrial Marketing: Managing New Requirements. Sloan Management Review, 35 (Spring), 45–60. Cespedes, F. V. (1996). Beyond Teamwork: How the Wise Can Synchronize. Marketing Management, 5 (1), 25–37. Church, J., & Gandal, N (1992). Integration, Complementary Products, and Variety. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 1 (4), 651–75. Church, J., & Gandal, N. (1993). Complementary Network Externalities and Technological Adoption. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11 (2), 239–60. Clements, M. T. (2004). Direct and Indirect Network Effects: Are They Equivalent? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (5), 633–45. Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L. (1984). Models of Concepts. Cognitive Science, 8 (1), 27–58. Cottrell, T., & Koput, K. (1998). Software Variety and Hardware Value: A Case Study of Complementary Network Externalities in the Microcomputer Software Industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15 (4), 309–338. Deshpandé, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53 (Jan.), 3–15. Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2000). The Sales–Marketing Interface in Consumer Packaged-Goods Companies: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20 (2), 109–119. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science, 3 (2), 179–202. Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (1992). Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Discretionary Expenditures: The Returns to R&D and Advertising. Management Science, 38 (9), 1264–79. Eysenck, M. W., & Keanne, M. T.
(1990). Cognitive
Psychology. Frieder, L., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2005). Brand Perceptions and the Market for Common Stock. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 40 (1), 57–85. Gandal, N. (2002). Compatibility,
Standardization, and Network Effects. Gilmour, D. (2003). How to Fix Knowledge Management. Harvard Business Review, 81 (Oct.), 16–17. Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping
Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R.
(2001). Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural
Embeddedness Perspective. Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. (2004). Knowledge Sourcing Effectiveness. Management Science, 50 (6), 821–34. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and
conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech
Acts.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge Flows Within Multinational Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4), 473–95. Gupta, S., Dipak C. J., & Sawhney, M. S. (1999). Modeling the Evolution of Markets with Indirect Network Externalities: An Application to Digital Television. Marketing Science, 18 (3), 396–416. Hampton, J. E. (1987). Inheritance of Attributes in Natural Concept Conjunctions. Memory and Cognition, 15 (1), 55–71. Hampton, J. E. (1988). Over-Extension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (1), 12–32. Hill, C. W. L. (1997). Establishing a
Standard: Competitive Strategy and Technological Standards in
Winner-Take-All Industries. Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The Thought Worlds of Marketing and Sales: Which Differences Make a Difference? Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 124–142. Houston, M. B., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (2001). Cross-Unit Competition for a Market Charter: The Enduring Influence of Structure. Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 19–34. Joshi, A., & Hanssens, D. M. (2004). Advertising Spending and Market Capitalization. Working Paper No. 388, Marketing Studies Center, Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 96–108. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems Competition and Network Effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (2), 93–115. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383–97. Kumar, P. (2005). The Impact of Cobranding on Customer Evaluation of Brand Counterextensions. Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 1–18. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., &
Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, Cooperation, and the Search for
Economic Rents: A Syncretic Model. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W.
(1969). Organization and
Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.
Lehmann, D. R. (2005). Journal Evolution and the Development of Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (Spring), 137–142. Leone, R. P., & Schultz, R. L. (1980). A Study of Marketing Generalizations. Journal of Marketing, 44 (Jan.), 10–19. Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006).
Cross-Functional “Co-opetition”:
The Simultaneous Role of Cooperation and Competition Within Firms.
Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 67–80. Lutz, R. J. (1989). Positivism,
Naturalism and Pluralism in Consumer Research: Paradigms in MacInnis, D. J. (2004). Where Have All the Papers Gone? Reflections on the Decline of Conceptual Articles. Association for Consumer Research Newsletter, (Spring), 1–3. MacInnis, D. J. (2005). Them Versus Us: Woes on the Bifurcation of the Academic Marketing Discipline. In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Madden, T. J., Fehle, F., &
Fournier, S. (2006). Brands Matter: An Empirical Demonstration of the
Creation of Shareholder Value Through Branding. Journal of the Maltz, E. & Kohli, A. (1996). Market Intelligence Dissemination Across Functional Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (Feb.), 47–61. McAlister, L. (2005). Unleashing Potential. In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. McAlister, L., Srinivasan, R., & Kim, M. (2007). Advertising, Research and Development, and Systematic Risk of the Firm. Journal of Marketing, 71 (Jan.), 35–48. Menon, A., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). A Model of Marketing Knowledge Use Within Firms. Journal of Marketing, 56 (Oct.), 53–71. Midgette, A. (1997). Video: DVD’s Debut. The Wall Street Journal, (April 21), A20. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending Complex Concepts. Cognitive Science, 12 (4), 529–62. Nonaka, Panigyrakis, G. C., & Veloutsou, C. A. (1999). Brand Managers’ Interfaces in Different Consumer Goods Industries. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8 (1), 19–37. Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. Journal of Marketing, 50 (Oct.), 135–45. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite Brand Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (Nov.), 453–66. Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (Sept.), 185–93. Piercy, N. F. (1986). The Role and Function of the Chief Marketing Executive and the Marketing Department. Journal of Marketing Management, 1 (3), 265–89. Raju, J. S. (2005). Revitalizing the Role of Marketing in Business Organizations: What Can Poor Academics Do to Help? In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How Is Manifest Branding Strategy Related to the Intangible Value of a Corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68 (Oct.), 126–41. Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. (1999). Signaling Unobservable Product Quality Through a Brand Ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 258–68. Richins, M. (2000). Consumer Behavior
as a Social Science. Advances
in Consumer Research (Vol. 28). Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of
Innovations. Ross, W. T. Jr., & Robertson, D. C. (2007). Compound Relationships Between Firms. Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 108–123. Rust, R. T. (2006). From the Editor: The Maturation of
Marketing as an Academic Discipline. Journal of Marketing, 70
(July), 1-2. Samu, S. H., Krishnan, S., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Using Advertising Alliances for New Product Introduction: Interactions Between Product Complementarity and Promotional Strategies. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Jan.), 57–74. Sengupta, S. (1998). Some Approaches to Complementary Product Strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (4), 352–67. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (Feb.), 30–42. Singh, M., Faircloth, S., &
Nejadmalayeri, A. (2005). Capital Market Impact of Product Marketing
Strategy: Evidence from the Relationship Between Advertising Expenses and
Cost of Capital. Journal of
the Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000) An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New Product Success in Internal and Alliance-Based Processes. Journal of Marketing, 64 (Jan.), 31–49. Srivastava, R. K., & Reibstein, D. (2005). Metrics for Linking Marketing to Financial Performance. Report No. 05–200e, Marketing Science Institute. Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62 (Jan.), 2–18. Staelin, R. (2005). Influencing the Practice Through Big New Ideas. In R. N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Strahle, W. M., Spiro, R. L., & Acito, F. (1996). Marketing and Sales: Strategic Alignment and Functional Implementation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16 (Winter), 1–20. Stremersch, S., Tellis, G. J., Franses, P. H., & Binken, J. L. G. (2007). Indirect Network Effects in New Product Growth. Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 52–74. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), 17–43. Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., & Ravishanker, N. (2007). Multichannel Shopping: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 71 (April), 114–132. Wilkie, W. L. (2005). Needed: A Larger Sense of Marketing and Scholarship. In Ruth N. Bolton (Ed.) Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice and Infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69 (Oct.) 1-25. Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (2002).
Convergence Marketing:
Strategies for Reaching the New Hybrid Customer. Workman, J. P. Jr., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing Organization: An Integrative Framework of Dimensions and Determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 21–41. Yoder, S. K. (1990). Sony to Market
Digital Tape Decks in |