• Have any questions?
  • info.zbook.org@gmail.com

Research In Marketing Strategy - White Rose Research Online

4m ago
30 Views
0 Downloads
514.56 KB
56 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Rosa Marty
Share:
Transcription

This is a repository copy of Research in marketing strategy.White Rose Research Online URL for this n: Accepted VersionArticle:Morgan, NA, Whitler, KA, Feng, H et al. (1 more author) (2019) Research in marketingstrategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1). pp. 4-29. ISSN 0092-0703https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0598-1 Academy of Marketing Science 2018. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version ofan article published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. The finalauthenticated version is available online at: ms deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unlessindicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted bynational copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use ofthe full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online recordfor the item.TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us byemailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal terose.ac.uk/

RESEARCH IN MARKETING STRATEGYNeil A. Morgan*Indiana UniversityKelley School of Business1309 E. Tenth St.Bloomington, IN 47405-1701Phone: (812) 855-1114Email: namorgan@indiana.eduKimberly A. WhitlerUniversity of VirginiaDarden School of Business100 Darden BoulevardCharlottesville, VA 22903Email: Whitlerk@darden.virginia.eduHui FengIowa State UniversityCollege of Business3337 Gerdin Business BuildingAmes, IA 50011-1350Phone: (515) 294-3815Email: huifeng@iastate.eduSimos ChariUniversity of ManchesterAlliance Manchester Business SchoolBooth Street West,M15 6PB, United kingdomEmail: Simos.Chari@Manchester.ac.uk*Corresponding AuthorForthcoming in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science1

RESEARCH IN MARKETING STRATEGYAbstractMarketing strategy is a construct that lies at the conceptual heart of the field of strategicmarketing and is central to the practice of marketing. It is also the area within which many of themost pressing current challenges identified by marketers and CMOs arise. We develop a newconceptualization of the domain and sub-domains of marketing strategy and use this lens toassess the current state of marketing strategy research by examining the papers in the six mostinfluential marketing journals publishing such papers over the period 1999 through 2017. Weuncover important challenges to marketing strategy research—not least the increasingly limitednumber and focus of studies, and declining use of both theory and primary research designs.However, we also uncover numerous opportunities for developing important and highly relevantnew marketing strategy knowledge—the number and importance of unanswered marketingstrategy questions and opportunities to impact practice has arguably never been greater. To guidesuch research, we develop a new research agenda that provides opportunities for researchers todevelop new theory, establish clear relevance, and contribute to improving practice.INTRODUCTIONDeveloping and executing marketing strategy is central to the practice of marketing. Recentreports regarding the top challenges facing marketers (Table 1) reveal numerous questions withinthe domain of marketing strategy including: (i) how to create organizational structures that betterenable development of marketing strategies that help navigate and adapt to changing customerand firm needs; (ii) how to choose the optimal set of marketing strategies to drive outcomesgiven competing priorities and myriad internal and external stakeholders; and (iii), how to leadenterprise-wide executives in developing and implementing strategies that create greatercustomer centricity and engagement. As a result of its centrality to practice, marketing strategy isalso a key area of business school pedagogy, pivotal in marketing theory explanations of firmperformance, and a focus of inquiry among academic researchers. However, while there has beena growing research interest in the general field of strategic marketing (i.e. marketing-relatedphenomena and decisions that are important to understanding the long-term performance ofproduct/brands, SBUs, and firms), it is unclear how much of this research relates to marketing2

strategy—the central construct within the field of strategic marketing. 1Since developing and executing marketing strategy is central to what marketers do inpractice, research germane to understanding these activities is key to establishing the relevanceof the academic discipline of marketing. Better understanding the state of marketing strategyknowledge is also important for developing theoretical understanding in marketing. For example,knowing what theories have been drawn on in past research and which aspects of marketingstrategy have received little attention is a pre-cursor to any attempt to develop indigenousmarketing theory. Systematic analyses of the use of different research approaches and methods ina particular domain, and how these have changed over time can also uncover insights for thedevelopment of new approaches and methods. As a result, periodic reviews of research in adomain are useful in consolidating knowledge and enabling cumulative knowledge development(e.g., Palmatier, Houston & Hulland 2018).The last major review of research in marketing strategy was undertaken by Varadarajan& Jayachandran (1999). Clearly, much has happened in the worlds of both practice and researchin the past twenty years, making the present study needed and timely. This study thereforeundertakes a comprehensive review of the strategic marketing literature since 1999, with threespecific objectives: (a) to develop a framework through which to assess the current state ofresearch conducted within marketing strategy; (b) to illuminate and illustrate the “state ofknowledge” in core sub-domains of marketing strategy development and execution; and (c), todevelop a research agenda identifying aspects of marketing strategy that require greater.In addressing these objectives, this study makes a number of contributions to strategic1We follow Varadarjan’s (2010) distinction using “strategic marketing” as the term describing the general field ofstudy and “marketing strategy” as the construct that is central in the field of strategic marketing—just asanalogically “strategic management” is a field of study in which “corporate strategy” is a central construct.3

marketing knowledge. First, we show that marketing strategy research published in the majorjournals over the past nineteen years (1999-2017) has primarily focused on either marketingtactics or marketing-related inputs (resources and capabilities) to marketing strategy and theirperformance outcomes (both directly and under different external and internal environmentalconditions), with relatively little research in the core domain of marketing strategy. If ourunderstanding of marketing strategy before 1999 was complete—and no significant changes hadoccurred since that time—this may not be a significant problem. However, clearly neither ofthese conditions is true. The relative lack of attention to marketing strategy during this periodshould be viewed as a particularly significant gap in marketing knowledge since marketingstrategy is the central construct in the field of strategic marketing and in practice marketers spendmost of their time engaged in marketing strategy-related activities.Second, we develop a new conceptualization of marketing strategy, identifying four keysub-domains (i.e., content-formulation, content-implementation, process-formulation, processimplementation). This provides a new framework that can be used to assess the state of the field,identify critical knowledge gaps, and direct future research. In this study, we use it as a lens withwhich to assess and calibrate which marketing strategy sub-domains—and issues within eachdomain—have received more or less attention. For example, we show that while marketingstrategy implementation appears to be an area of relatively strong research coverage, moststudies in this sub-domain are marketing-mix models examining linkages between one or moremarketing program elements and performance outcomes while controlling for the remainingelements of a brand or firm’s marketing program. Conversely, we find that very few marketingstrategy studies have focused on the processes by which marketing strategy is developed.Third, building on such insights we identify a new research agenda for future marketing4

strategy research. Synthesizing existing knowledge within a domain of inquiry and identifyingresearch gaps is an important stage of cumulative knowledge development in any field (e.g.,Palmatier, Houston & Hulland 2018). Such cumulative knowledge building in marketing strategyis essential since its centrality to marketing practice makes research in marketing strategy ofparticular importance in establishing the relevance of academic research and its utility andlegitimacy to practicing managers. We therefore use relevance to practice as one of the lensesused to identify and prioritize a new research agenda for marketing strategy.The paper is structured as follows. First, we develop a new integrated conceptual modelof marketing strategy to guide our review. Next, we describe the journal sample and reviewprocedure adopted. We then present and discuss the descriptive statistics arising from ourreview. Within the sub-domains of marketing strategy identified, we next present exemplarstudies and briefly synthesize existing knowledge. We then discuss the implications of thereview findings for marketing theory and practice. Finally, we develop a research agenda forfuture research in marketing strategy.– Insert Table 1 Here –CONCEPTUALIZING MARKETING STRATEGYA necessary first step in reviewing research in any domain is to clearly establish its externalboundaries and identify important internal boundaries among sub-domains. In accomplishingthis, we draw initially on Varadarajan’s (2010) exploration of the conceptual domain anddefinition of marketing strategy:“Marketing strategy is an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions that specify itscrucial choices concerning products, markets, marketing activities and marketingresources in the creation, communication and/or delivery of products that offer value tocustomers in exchanges with the organization and thereby enables the organization toachieve specific objectives.” (Varadarajan 2010, p. 119)5

In line with this, the marketing literature broadly indicates that a firm’s marketing effortsimpact its marketplace and economic performance through the formulation and implementationof specific patterns of resource deployments designed to achieve marketing objectives in a targetmarket (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016; Morgan 2012). This formulation-implementation dichotomyperspective suggests that goal-setting and marketing strategy development systems are used asfuture-oriented decision-making frameworks to define desired goals and identify and selectmarketing strategy options that may enable these goals to be accomplished, followed by a periodof enactment in which firms seek to operationalize the intended marketing strategy decisions toachieve the desired goals (e.g., Morgan et al. 2012; Noble & Mokwa 1999; Piercy 1998).From this perspective, marketing strategy formulation involves managers making explicit“what” decisions regarding goals and the broad means by which they are to be accomplished interms of target market selection, required value offerings and desired positioning, timing, etc.(e.g., Kerin et al. 1990; Slater & Olson 2001). Conversely, marketing strategy implementationconcerns “doing it” in terms of translating these broad “what” marketing strategy decisions into aset of detailed and integrated marketing tactics and accompanying these with appropriate actionsand resource deployments to enact them (e.g., Slater et al. 2010; Varadarajan & Jayachandran1999). While the literature has consistently distinguished between strategy formulation andimplementation, both the marketing and strategic management literature also suggests that theyare interdependent, with implementation (what a firm is able to do) shaping and constrainingmarketing strategy content decisions over time (e.g., Cespedes 1991; Moorman & Miner 1998).A second “dichotomy” evidenced widely in the strategic management literature (e.g.Farajoun 2002; Mintzberg & Lampel 1999; Van de Ven 1992), and to a lesser extent in themarketing literature (e.g., Frankwick et al. 1994; Menon et al. 1999; Walker & Ruekert 1987), is6

between strategy content and strategy process. From this perspective, marketing strategy contentconcerns the specific strategic decisions (e.g., what and how many segments to target, what thefirm’s value proposition needs to be to achieve required sales) and integrated tactical marketingprogram decisions (e.g., the required sales-force incentive plan, channel selection andmerchandizing platform design, marketing communication media selection, etc.) made.Conversely, strategy process concerns the organizational mechanisms leading to these marketingstrategy decisions (e.g., situation assessment, goal-setting, top-down vs. bottom up strategicplanning process, planning comprehensiveness, etc.) and those used to make and realizedecisions regarding how they are enacted (e.g., marketing mix planning, budgeting, internalcommunication, organization re-design, performance monitoring and control systems, etc.).We use these two common “dichotomies” as a framework (see Figure 1) for establishingthe external boundaries of the domain of marketing strategy and to identify important subdomains within the marketing strategy construct. 1 Identifying these sub-domains within thebroad domain outlined in Varadarajan (2010) allows us to refine his original definition ofmarketing strategy. We therefore define marketing strategy as encompassing the strategydecisions and actions (what) and strategy-making and realization processes (how) concerning afirm’s desired goals 2 over a future time-period, and the means through which it intends toachieve them including selecting target markets and customers; identifying required valuepropositions; and designing and enacting integrated marketing programs to develop, deliver, andcommunicate the value offerings. We use this definition of marketing strategy and the subdomains it encompasses in the conceptual framework developed as a lens through which to1Following the strategic management literature (e.g., Mintzberg 1994; Pascale 1984), marketing strategy has alsobeen viewed from an “emergent” strategy perspective (e.g. Hutt, Reingen & Ronchetto 1988; Menon et al. 1999).Conceptually this is captured as realized (but not pre-planned) tactics and actions in Figure 1.2These may be at the product/brand, SBU, or firm-level.7

identify and examine recent research in marketing strategy (see Figure 1).– Insert Figure 1 Here –Our new definition of marketing strategy also allows us to identify and capture studiesexamining strategic marketing phenomena related to—but not directly encompassing—marketing strategy. As shown in Figure 1, the most important categories of these relatedphenomena deal with: (i) inputs to marketing strategy including resources such as marketknowledge, brand portfolios, financial resources, etc. and capabilities such as NPD, CRM, etc.;(ii) outputs of marketing strategy including customer “mind-set” and behavior outcomes andmarketplace and economic performance; and (iii) environmental factors distinct from marketingstrategy but that may impact marketing strategy phenomena and their relationships with otherphenomena including internal factors such as organizational culture, size, etc. and externalfactors such as market characteristics, technology turbulence, competitive intensity, etc.REVIEW OF MARKETING STRATEGY RESEARCHJournal selection. To ensure the representativeness and high quality of studies included in ourreview, we examined the ten most influential marketing journals in Baumgartner & Pieters’s(2003) study of journal influence, and identified the six of these that publish research in the fieldof strategic marketing (Journal of Marketing (JM), Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),Marketing Science (MKS), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS), Journal ofRetailing (JR) and Industrial Marketing Management (IMM)). The remaining four “top ten”journals are either not typical outlets for strategic marketing research (Journal of ConsumerResearch, Management Science, and Advances in Consumer Research) or are managerial andprovide little detail regarding theory or research method (Harvard Business Review). Wereplaced the lowest ranked (10th) journal on this list, Industrial Marketing Management (IMM)8

with International Journal of Research in Marketing (IJRM) as this journal has grownsignificantly in stature over the past fifteen years and is now considered the top non-U.S. basedmarketing journal (Kumar et al. 2017; Roberts et al. 2014).Thus, we include six journals in this review: JM, JMR, MKS, JAMS, JR, and IJRM. Wefirst obtained digital copies of every article published in these six journals from their officialwebsites during the 1999 thru 2017 period. Each article was examined (title, abstract, keywords,hypotheses/conceptual framework, etc.) and initially coded where appropriate into one or moreof the four broad categories shown in Figure 1 (i.e., marketing strategy, inputs, outputs, andenvironment). Articles with “marketing strategy”, “strategy”, or any other keywords or similarconcepts listed in Figure 1’s marketing strategy conceptualization such as “goals”,“strategic/marketing planning”, “marketing mix”, “integrated marketing program”, and“segmentation/targeting/positioning”, etc. were retained for further additional analysis.Article selection criteria. Four primary criteria were then used to screen studies forinclusion in our analysis: (i) the focus of the study must be on strategy (vs. individual tactics) asspecified in Figure 1, either as a primary objective or as part of a wider research design; (ii) thestudy should be of marketing (vs. purely management) phenomena; (iii) the unit of analysis is atfirm-, SBU, brand- or product-level (or product or brand portfolios), rather than at individuallevel (e.g., salesperson or consumer/customer); (iv) the study was published during the 19992017 period, because the last widely-cited review of marketing strategy was undertaken byVaradarajan & Jayachandran (1999). To avoid “double counting” we exclude empirical metaanalytic papers in our review sample.We excluded tactical marketing papers that focus only on one or two of aspects of the“4Ps” marketing program (e.g., advertising or pricing) without at least controlling for the other9

aspects of the marketing program. This is because as per our marketing strategyconceptualization, only studies dealing with (or at least controlling for) all aspects of themarketing program can provide useful strategic (vs. purely tactical) insights. We also excludedpurely methodological papers such as studies of new segment identification methods and studiesfocusing on individual employee or consumer perceptions and purchase intentions. Finally,studies examining industry-level development and strategy were not included in our review.Three experienced researchers independently examined all of the published articles todetermine if it should be coded as a marketing strategy paper, with an accompanying rationalefor each paper’s inclusion or exclusion following the above four criteria. Average interrateragreement was 96% and all remaining discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. A totalof 257 marketing strategy articles remained in the review sample after this filtering process. Eachof these papers were then further examined and coded according to the specific aspects ofmarketing strategy covered and the theory and methodological characteristics of each study.Coding procedure. Following procedures recommended for literature review papers (e.g.,Katsikeas et al. 2016; Lipsey & Wilson 2001), we developed a protocol for coding each of thekey aspects of marketing strategy (i.e., first coding single aspects such as “formulation” vs.“implementation”, and “content” vs. “process”; then composite aspects such as “formulationcontent”, “formulation process”, “implementation-content”, “implementation process”, and“hybrid”). We first, created a document specifying the definitions, keywords, and examples foreach aspect of marketing strategy. Second, two experienced marketing strategy researchersindependently coded a randomly selected set of 60 articles (10 from each journal) using this draftprotocol to assess the accuracy and thoroughness of the evaluative criteria and made revisionsand improvement. Third, we pretested the revised protocol using two additional expert judges,10

who independently evaluated another 10 randomly selected articles from each journal. Fullagreement was attained, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of our coding scheme.Three experienced researchers then coded each of the 257 eligible articles, under thesupervision of the lead investigator, who had extensive knowledge of marketing strategy andcoding procedures. Interrater agreement ranged from 86%-100% and all discrepancies werediscussed to reach consensus. Finally, the lead investigator also coded another 10 randomlyselected articles from each journal, and the results were fully consistent with those of the threecoders, enhancing confidence in the reliability of the evaluation procedure in this study.Following this, two experienced researchers also coded the key theory andmethodological characteristics of each study in terms of: (i) the primary research approach ofpaper (i.e., conceptual/qualitative/empirical/analytical); (ii) data type (i.e., primary, secondary orboth) for empirical papers; (iii) data analysis approach (analytical, regression, time series,structural equation modelling-SEM etc.); and, (iv) argumentation approach (e.g., single theory,multiple theories, conceptual development/grounded theory, and logic or data-drivenapproaches) following a coding scheme. Interrater agreement on this coding was high (97%).Descriptive Analysis of Marketing Strategy PapersAs defined in Varadarajan (2010), strategic marketing refers to the general field of study whilemarketing strategy refers to the organizational strategy construct that is the principal focus of thefield. Thus, while all marketing strategy-focused papers are within the field of strategicmarketing, not all strategic marketing research concerns marketing strategy. We follow thisdistinction. For example, in their study examining the influence of research in the field ofstrategic marketing Kumar et al. (2017) focus on papers that examine all strategic marketingissues, decisions, and problems, which include but is not limited to marketing strategy.11

Conversely, our study focuses on research examining issues that fall within the more specificdomain of marketing strategy (Figure 1), which is the construct at the heart of the conceptualdomain of the field of strategic marketing (Varadarajan 2010), and is where most CMOs andmarketers spend most of their time and effort in practice.To provide insight into the relative frequency of different types of marketing strategyrelated research we also identified and coded papers that do not focus directly on marketingstrategy but do focus on the related areas of (i) inputs to marketing strategy, (ii) outputs ofmarketing strategy, and (iii) environmental factors (internal and external to the firm) that mayaffect marketing strategy and its relationship with other phenomena. These include studiesfocusing, for example, on the impact of possession of marketing-related resources/capabilities onperformance, the value of internal environmental factors such as organizational culture, or therole of external factors such as market dynamism on the marketing capability-performancerelationship. We also coded studies focusing on relationships involving individual tacticalactions covering specific marketing mix elements (without directly controlling for the remainingmarketing mix areas). For example, Bruce et al. (2012) examined the impact of word of mouthand advertising on demand. Following Figure 1, this was therefore coded as a study of a specificmarketing tactic rather than within the domain of marketing strategy.As summarized in Table 2, almost 95% of the papers published in the six most influentialjournals publishing strategic marketing research during the 1999-2017 period are “non-strategy”papers i.e. they do not examine phenomena within the marketing strategy domain delineated inour review framework—even though some of these examine phenomena that are within thegeneral field of strategic marketing. In fact, the largest category of papers published in thesejournals (36%) contains studies of marketing tactics that examine one or two individual12

marketing program elements such as advertising (e.g., Fang et al. 2016), product and price (e.g.,Slotegraaf & Atuahene-Gima 2011; Steiner et al. 2016), channel (e.g., Gooner et al. 2011;Samaha et al. 2011), and selling (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2014; Harmeling et al. 2015) withoutexamining or explicitly controlling for the remaining marketing mix elements.The second largest category of papers published in these journals during this period(15%) deal with marketing strategy-related inputs (6%) (e.g., marketing resources andcapabilities) (e.g., Grewal et al. 2013; Luo & Homburg 2008), outputs (9%) (positionaladvantages and performance outcomes) (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016; Morgan & Rego 2006; Regoet al. 2013), or both (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2014; Homburg et al. 2011; Rego et al. 2009). Afurther 6% of all papers published in these journals focus on internal (i.e. organizational) (e.g.,Samaha et al. 2014) or external (e.g., market, technology, etc.) environmental phenomena (e.g.,Song et al. 2008: Varadarajan et al. 2008)—with the majority focusing on external vs. internalenvironmental factors (262 vs. 40 papers). 3While not by a large margin, research on marketing strategy (as delineated in Figure 1)comprises the smallest number (less than 6% of all published papers) of the different types ofstrategic marketing papers coded in our review across the six journals we examine (vs. Tactics,Internal/External Environment, Inputs, and Outputs). However, we also observe large varianceacross the journals covered. Notably, JM (9.8%) and JAMS (8.6%) are the outlets for a muchhigher percentage of marketing strategy papers as a percentage of all the papers they publish thanthe remaining four journals—and jointly published the majority (57%) of the combined totalmarketing strategy papers published across the six journals. More specifically, as shown in3These strategic marketing but “non-strategy” coding areas are not mutually exclusive. For example, many papersin this non-strategy category cover both inputs/outputs and environment (e.g., Kumar et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2015;Palmatier et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2005), or specific tactics, input/output, and environment (e.g., Bharadwaj et al.2011; Palmatier et al. 2007; Rubera & Kirca 2012).13

Figure 2, during this period JM has published the greatest number of marketing strategy studies(n 81 or 32% of the combined total across the six journals), followed by JAMS (n 63 or 25%).However, the trend lines showing the ratio of marketing strategy vs. all other types of paperspublished in each of the six journals over the 1999-2017 period are clearly downwards. Thistrend line is particularly steep for JM, with JAMS averaging a higher ratio of marketing strategyvs. other types of papers published than JM over the past eight years (2010-2017). 4– Insert Tables 2 & 3 & Figure 2 Here –Table 2 suggests some balance across the individual aspects (i.e. formulation vs.implementation and process vs. content) covered in the marketing strategy research studies weidentify. However, the more granular breakdown in Table 3 categorizing the marketing strategypapers published by the four sub-domains of marketing strategy (i.e. formulation-content;formulation-process; implementation-content; implementation-process) in our framework (andcaptures papers covering more than one sub-domain as “hybrid”), reveals a clear dearth ofresearch in the formulation-process sub-domain. This may be due to the lack of secondary dataon such difficult-to-observe phenomena. Published papers in this domain therefore tend to beconceptual or use qualitative, survey, or other primary data collection methods.While “process” papers in the implementation sub-domain also deal with difficult-toobserve phenomena, there are a greater number of studies in this sub-domain as researchers areable to use secondary marketing mix data along with policy and field experiments to buildnormative models of how managers can make and execute marketing program decisions. Forexample, Sun & Li (2011) used call history from a DSL service to show how firms can learn4The relative drop in marketing strategy studies published in JM may be a function of the recent growth of interest inthe shareholder perspective (Katsikeas et al. 2016) and studies linking marketing-related resources and capabilitiesdirectly with stock market performance indicators. Such studies typically treat marketing strategy as an unobservedintervening construct.14

from customer-call center interactions to improve resource allocation decisions, and Petersen &Kumar (2015) conducted a large-scale field experiment to in

Marketing strategy is a construct that lies at the conceptual heart of the field of strategic . Walker & Ruekert 1987), is . 7 between strategy content and strategy process. From this perspective, marketing strategy content concerns the specific strategic decisions (e.g.,