Search

Assesses the export performance measurement. Insights from the organization performance literature; Means to achieve sustained growth in the gross national product; Advantages gained by companies from exporting.

Focuses on the correlation between marketing communications and customer perceived quality. Role of marketers in quality management; Relationship between product quality and advertising; Variation of individual organizational responses to quality management.

Focuses on the potential role of marketing in total quality management. Relationship between marketing and quality as management functions; Importance of quality in the operation and strategies of commercial organizations; Impact of marketing communication activities on price elasticity.

Focuses on the analysis and planning for managing strategic change in marketing using a model. Analysis of organizational structure and inter-functional relationships; Key parameters of the task environment for marketing and planning of marketing information systems; Influence of organizational structure over the decision making process in marketing.

Research Question Despite the importance of value creation and value capture for customers and the firm, the extant research in this area remains primarily conceptual. There is an implicit assumption among marketing scholars that firms' marketing capabilities contributes to both value creation and value capture, yet generalizable empirical evidence of marketing's role in customer value creation and firm value capture remains sparse. This research addresses the following questions: First, does marketing contribute to create value and to capture value? Second, which contingency factors influence the strength of the association between marketing capabilities, value creation and value capture? And, third how should firms balance their efforts between these two strategic goals? Specifically, whether value creation must precede value capture, and also if maintaining a balance between value creation and value capture efforts results in superior long term performance for the firm. Method and Data We empirically test the research questions using the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) database as the sampling framework and assemble a multiple source panel database containing 1,263 firm-year observations, representing 103 firms over 13 years (1994 through 2006). We utilize ACSI's perceived value construct to calibrate a customerbased value creation metric, and employ annual COMPUSTAT financial-accounting data to estimate a firm-level profitability- based measure of value capture. Additionally, we calculate marketing capabilities using an input-output approach via stochastic frontier estimation. Furthermore, we compute multiple measures of firm performance, including Tobin's Q, Stock Returns and Net Operating Cash Flows. Finally, we also include several customer-, firm- and industry- level controls on estimated models. The panel data structure of the sampling framework introduces several econometric estimation concerns, including heteroscedasticity, serial correlation, unobserved heterogeneity, and simultaneity and dynamic endogeneity. To deal with these multiple estimation concerns, the proposed empirical models are jointly estimated using recursive mixed-process models, which allow us to control for all the econometric concerns identified and yield unbiased and robust estimates. Summary of Findings Preliminary findings indicate that increased marketing capabilities result in superior customer value creation, as well as superior firm value capture. Additionally, our estimates are consistent with marketing capabilities having a more pronounced effect on customer value creation, than on firm value capture. Likewise, we also identify the role of environmental factors in value creation and value capture. For instance, environmental munificence--which measures access to external resources--positively impacts value creation, while it has no impact on value capture. However, the dynamism of the competitive environment has no significant influence on either customer value creation or value capture. Furthermore, the strength of the association between marketing capabilities, value creation and value capture is moderated by these environmental factors. Namely, munificence decreases the association between marketing capabilities and value creation. However, dynamism doesn't have significant moderating effect. Finally, from a financial performance perspective, our estimates offer supporting evidence for a positive association between value creation and value capture, and firm financial performance. Importantly, results also indicate that the impact of customer value creation on firm value is weaker than the impact of value capture on firm value. Key Contributions This study makes several contributions to the discipline. First, we empirically demonstrate the key relationship between marketing capabilities, customer value creation, firm value capture, and firm financial performance. Second, we establish that value creation happens in the customer mind, while value capture remains a firm domain--this is an important conceptual distinction that reaffirms marketing as a multifaceted function. Third, this study also contributes to the literature by proposing and developing a novel measure of customer value creation, based on customer-level data. This metric can be easily adopted by marketing managers and used to assess firm performance as an implication of their actions. Finally, this study offers renewed evidence that sole reliance on financial-accounting measures to set marketing goals and to assess marketing's performance, ultimately results in the adoption of a narrow perspective of marketing capabilities. In summary, by leveraging their marketing capabilities, firms create more value for their customers and are also able to capture more value for their shareholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Question Taking a shareholder value perspective and drawing from the signaling theory, this study seeks to answer four important questions. First, how do investors react (i.e., stock market abnormal returns) to firms' customer divestment announcements? Second, how the characteristics of customer divestment announcements shape the financial market reaction (e.g., divestment strategies, voluntariness, strategic intent)? Third, how do the signaler firm characteristics (e.g., marketing capability, prior performance, frequency of customer divestment) affect investors' reactions to customer divestment announcements? Fourth, how do characteristics of the signaling environment (e.g., publicity valence, media coverage and industry) influence investors' responses? Method and Data We use the event-study method to empirically test our hypotheses, based on a representative sample of 110 customer divestment announcements by 68 publicly traded U.S firms from 22 industries. Summary of Findings Our analyses demonstrate that investors and the stock market respond negatively to customer divestment announcements - the average abnormal stock return associated with these announcements is estimated at -.73%. Additionally, we find that direct customer divestment strategies are associated with particularly strong negative abnormal returns. However, firms characterized by superior marketing capabilities and prior financial performance, positive publicity and certain strategic intent (i.e., free up resources to strengthen core) at the time of the customer divestment announcement, and firms that signal the intent to use indirect customer divestment strategies (i.e., tiered service and attrition strategies) are able to mitigate the negative effect of customer divestment and enjoy better (or at least less negative) abnormal stock returns as a result. Key Contributions Our study offers three main contributions to the literature. First, we offer the first evidence of the performance outcomes of customer divestment (i.e., significant negative) from investors' perspective, which is of growing importance for top managers. Second, our study presents the first empirical insights into the effects of different customer divestment strategies on firm value. These findings provide important guidance for firms regarding how to initiate and communicate customer divestment activities. Third, we also demonstrate that the level of the firm's marketing capability and prior cash flow performance mitigate the overall negative investor responses to customer divestment announcements. Specifically, investors appear to equate (or not) customer divestment announcements as an indicator of "bad" CRM and thereby lower their expectations of the firm's future cash flows, when the announcing firm is also characterized (versus not) by limited marketing capabilities and poor past financial performance. Importantly, this suggests that marketing capability is not only indirectly valuable in creating shareholder wealth by enhancing firms' accounting performance, but that they also directly affect investor perceptions, expectations, and behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Customer Satisfaction in Monopolies: Does It Matter?" by Abhi Bhattacharya, Lopo Rego, and Neil Morgan is presented.

An abstract of the article "Complement or Substitute? The Contingency Value of Firm Capabilities Under Different Market Conditions" by Hui Feng, Neil A. Morgan and Lopo L. Rego is presented.

Research Question In this study, first, we develop a theoretically anchored framework to understand and identify the mechanism through which market share may influence profit in firms. Second, we empirically test this evaluative framework and provide recommendations for managers. Method and Data We obtained firm financials from COMPUSTAT to calculate market share we first collected the GDP by industry data that comprise gross domestic output for 62 broad industry sectors (4 digit NAICS code) and are maintained by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). We then divided the total sales of each firm in COMPUSTAT by the GDP value for that sector for that year. To assess the validity of this measure we compared our metric to the market share values provided by the Global Market Information Database (GMID). For evaluating the reputation of large-scale organizations we use Fortune magazine's listing of America's Most Admired Companies (AMAC). We test the hypothesized model by employing dynamic panel GMM estimation which accounts for potential sources of endogeneity, firm specific effects, dynamic dependent variables, and heteroskedasticity and serial correlation within firms. Key Contributions Overall, this research contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, we show that despite past controversies, market share does lead to increased profit for firms and thus may be considered to be a valuable asset, which goes some way in answering the fundamental question of what makes a firm profitable. We are also the first to directly estimate each of the possible causal mechanisms proposed for the shareprofit relationship. While past studies have theoretically reasoned for why market share might have an effect on profit, none have empirically examined the mechanism through which it operates. We show that there are three mechanisms for this effect-increases in perceived firm quality, gains in efficiency and gains in market power which completely mediate the market share-profit relationship. Second, this research re-conceptualizes market share as an asset and identifies absorptive capacity as a complementary asset which allows a firm to extract greater returns from market share. This provides both internal benefits-greater efficiencies in operation, as well as external benefits-greater reputation. Summary of Findings Using the resource based view of the firm as a theoretical lens, we find that market share is a valuable market based asset and that its effect on firms' future profits is strengthened by complementary assets the firm possesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leveraging suppliers resources and capabilities via category management has become the focus of widespread attention in the supermarket industry, as retailers seek competitive advantage in the face of industry consolidation, globalization, and the rapid expansion of mass merchandisers into the grocery market (ACNielsen 1998; Gruen and Shah 2000; Hopkins 2003). Category management concerns treating sets of complementary and/or competing brands in retail settings as strategic business units and allocating resources within these categories to maximize planned outcomes (e.g., Blattberg and Fox 1995; Dhar, Hoch, and Kumar 2001; Zenor 1994). Category management therefore involves the analysis of category-level data, setting goals for category performance, and the formulation and execution of category plans, all of which might be undertaken with varying degrees of involvement from suppliers (Basuroy, Mantrala, and Walters 2001; Dussart 1998). However, analysts suggest that retailers can enjoy significant performance benefits if retailers allow a focal supplier to assume the role of "category captain" where the supplier undertakes or has significant input into the retailer's category management (e.g., Blattberg and Fox 1995; Cannondale 1999; Freedman, Reyner, and Tochtermann 1997). Despite this, fear and/or experience of supplier opportunism means that many retailers are either unconvinced or report having failed to make such category management relationships with focal suppliers work (e.g., Brandweek 1999; Supermarket Business 1999). The literature offers surprisingly little guidance to retailer and supplier managers regarding this important issue. There has been little empirical study of category management generally, and no research focused on the key issue of focal supplier opportunism at the category level (Dhar et al. 2001; Gruen and Shah 2000). The literature reveals a number of different theories relevant to understanding buyer-supplier relationships (e.g., transaction cost analysis, relational exchange, resource dependence, etc.) and their impact on firm performance (resource- based view, industrial organization, etc.). However, many of these theories offer different viewpoints on various aspects of supplier-retailer relationships in category management, and none provide a comprehensive framework that permits the broad understanding of this complex issue required by retailers. For example, most theory and empirical evidence regarding buyer-seller relationships adopts a dyadic perspective, either focusing on a single buyer-supplier relationship (e.g., Dyer and Singh 1998; Jap 1999), or treating each supplier relationship with a common buyer separately (e.g., Subramani and Venkatraman 2003). Yet, since retailers have more than one supplier to almost all categories, and prescriptions advocate giving a key supplier significant influence over retailer category management, the retailer-focal supplier relationship may affect relationships with other suppliers to the category in ways that impact the retailer performance. Since these conditions have not been addressed in previous theory development and empirical research, the literature has little guidance to offer managers facing such situations. This research contributes to theories of interfirm relations and competitive advantage and offers guidance for retailer and supplier managers by developing and testing a model of opportunism among focal suppliers at the category-level, its antecedents, and associated performance outcomes. Our research contributes to knowledge in three areas.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Market orientation has been an important and popular research area for the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) for more than ten years (Noble, Sinha, and Kumar 2002). The research has followed three distinct streams. The first stream focuses on definitions of the MO construct, and its measurement (e.g., Bigne, Kuster, and Toran 2003; Deshpande, Fancy, and Webster 1993; Harris 2002, etc.). The second research stream investigates the relationship between MO and business performance (e.g., Grewal and Tansuhaj 2001; Noble, Sinha, and Kumar 2002, etc.). While some researchers have demonstrated that MO significantly impacts new product success and firm performance (e.g., Atuahene-Gima 1995; Peiham and Wilson 1996; Cooper 1994; Slater and Narver 1994), other studies do not support this relations ship (e.g., Appiah-Adu and Ranchhod 1998; Greenley 1995). Our study adds to a third stream, concerning research on how to implement or configure a MO in complex management practices (e.g., Han et al. 1998; Jaworski and Kohli 1993). Slater and Narver (1995) suggest that a MO with entrepreneurial values and complemented by an appropriate leadership greatly enhances competitive advantage. However, no empirical effort has investigated the complex interactions between MO, the presence or absence of innovative culture, leadership quality, and firm performance. We argue that the effectiveness of MO in China is dependent upon leadership quality and the presence or absence of an innovative culture. MO, leadership quality and entrepreneurial culture each mutually affect the other, so specific configurations of culture, leadership, and MO exist. Further, in some contexts these constructs complement each other, while in others, one may substitute for the other. Thus, the influence of MO may not be consistent across all environments. Rather, its influence is contingent on organizational factors such as the form of culture and leadership. The main purpose of this study is to understand the three-way interaction among market orientation, leadership quality, innovative culture and firm performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fundamental proposition underlying strategic marketing theory explanations of business performance is that fit between a firm's organizational culture and its product-market strategy impacts its performance outcomes. However, due to the difficulties involves in assessing fit among complex multidimensional phenomena, such as organizational culture and product-market strategy, we have little or no empirical knowledge regarding this important proposition. Our purpose in this research is to draw on available approaches from the marketing, strategy, and management literatures to empirically assess the performance outcomes of this theoretically important fit relationship. Our study provides the first empirical assessment of the customer satisfaction and cash flow outcomes of fit between product-market strategy and organizational culture. In addition, we provide methodological insights into how such holistically framed fit-performance relationships in strategic marketing theory may best be assessed. In common with most theories of organization, marketing theory views firm performance as a function of the firm's ability to adapt to its environment (e.g., Day and Wensley 1988). The marketing literature suggests that important components of firm's ability to adapt to their environment are the firm's product-market strategy (e.g., Day and Wensley 1988) and its organizational culture (e.g., Deshpande and Webster 1989). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, marketing scholars and practitioners have increasingly focused attention on understanding how product innovation contributes to competitive advantage. Many of these developments have focused on the ways in which knowledge resources (e.g., Slater and Narver 1995) are leveraged via capabilities development to achieve product innovations (e.g., Moorman and Miner 1997; Moorman and Slotegraaf 1999). While serving as important inputs across a range of functional areas, the marketing literature suggests one of the most vital areas in which knowledge and learning play key roles is in the development of innovative new products (e.g., Li and Calantone 1998; Madhavan and Grover 1998; Moorman and Miner 1997). In spite of this interest however, our understanding of the process linking knowledge and innovative product outcomes remains limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "The Chief Marketing Officer: A Role Theory Perspective" by Kimberly A. Whitler and Neil Morgan is presented.

Focuses on the respective roles of marketing and quality management in the pursuit of competitive advantage to achieve enhanced business performance. Literature sources and exploratory executive interviews on the subject; Refocussing of management attention on issues of product and service quality; Emergence of Total Quality Management as a dominant paradigm in the management literature.

Focuses on the implementation of consumer satisfaction measurement systems. Emphasis on management workshops; Factors hindering the acceptability of the measurement system; Reasons of the companies for not measuring customer satisfaction.

Focuses on the increase understanding of quality strategy for products and services. Association of quality to business performance; Evaluation on internal management perceptions of customers; Conceptualization of strategy construct by fundamental dichotomies.

Presents a processual analysis model on the uses of customer satisfaction measurement (CSM) in Great Britain. Application of CSM in management decision making; Components of marketing strategies; Set of internal process barriers.

The relational exchange paradigm and network theory of interfirm relations suggest that close collaborative relationships can produce mutually beneficial outcomes for customers and suppliers. However, in some situations following such prescriptions results in one supplier being in a position where they exert power over other suppliers. One such situation is the relationship between grocery retailers and their suppliers in the context of supermarket product category management, where a focal or most influential supplier can be delegated authority over a broad range of activities from the purely executional up to and including responsibility for marketing decisions made for competitive suppliers' brands. The existing literature does not consider this important situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]