Morrish, S. (2011), "Guest editorial", Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrme.2011.48413baa.001Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Volume 13, Issue 2
In this issue, I hand much of the Editorial duties over to Sussie Morrish, University of Canterbury, New Zealand and am indebted to her for her outstanding endeavours in securing submissions from the best of papers, presentations and panels that have taken place at a number of meetings throughout the past year and in particular the meetings at ANZMAC, AMS and the EM Summit held in Montpelier, France. Thus, it is these meetings that have framed the opening question – however, as I think you will agree upon reading the papers in this special issue – the question is, as Dr Morrish points out, highly relevant in an economic era where “normative” marketing approaches (the 4P’s) appear to have lost ground and where the “value” gap between academe and practice is widening. The wider academic marketing and entrepreneurship research community are in danger of losing sight of how we as researchers “create value” for business, with business and, therefore, I think that this special issue will act as a much needed stimulus for both debate and most importantly – value creating research.
Jonathan H. Deacon
Entrepreneurial marketing: is entrepreneurship the way forward for marketing?
Being “entrepreneurial” it seems has moved beyond what entrepreneurs do. Confronted with shrinking resources, technologically savvy consumers and a global financial crisis, everyone is asked to be entrepreneurial (i.e. creative, innovative, etc.) in the way they conduct business. If marketing is about value-creation; businesses, organizations and even governments need to reflect on how else value can be derived/created for their stakeholders beyond traditional marketing perspectives. Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) practices and research has gathered much momentum in recent years led by the Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship. This group has met annually for over two decades to advance EM. Scholarly interest is evidenced by: marketing textbooks featuring EM vignettes; special sessions on EM in many international conferences; special journal issues and a journal dedicated to the EM interface.
The most recent of these events are special sessions at two of the largest academic marketing conferences: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Association Conference (ANZMAC) held in December 2010 in Christchurch, NZ and the 40th Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Conference in Coral Gables, Florida held in May 2011. In the ANZMAC EM special session, a participant raised the question “Should entrepreneurial marketing replace the 4Ps?” Whereas many scholars argue that the 4Ps framework is less relevant in the twenty-first century, a viable alternative model is yet to emerge. This thought provoking question, however, is a timely topic and the debate was pursued at AMS 2011.
At the heart of the EM debate is the notion that much can be learned in marketing from entrepreneurship and vice-versa. Indeed, traditional notions of marketing that are predictive and prescriptive are now questioned by scholars, students and most importantly entrepreneurs themselves. Entrepreneurs start/found ventures, create products and markets and bear the risk of failure. Scholars profess that at the heart of marketing is value creation – but when and how is value derived? At what stage in the entrepreneurial/marketing process does it take place and how is it manifest?
In this special issue of JRME, we asked the special panel members from the ANZMAC and AMS special sessions to write thought pieces and their views on EM. We have also included work from the EM Summit in Montpelier – where EM concepts were presented and discussed. In doing so, we take an international perspective by bringing together leading EM scholars from around the world and present their views and work on how entrepreneurship contributes to advancing marketing knowledge and vice-versa.
Morrish commences with a question on EM as a strategy for the twenty-first century highlighting the role of the customer and the entrepreneur as co-creators of value. This paper positions EM as a strategy where a strategic balance between EO and MO is necessary for competitive advantage and illustrated with case examples.
Hultman and Hills look at EM from a historical perspective and plots how entrepreneurship has influenced marketing theory. They put special emphasis on how entrepreneurial behaviour fits well with marketing needs during turbulent times and in highly competitive markets.
Building on this theme, Miles, Crispin and Kasouf discuss the relevance of entrepreneurship to marketing through a positive and normative view both at the micro and macro level while drawing attention to economics, and the how SDL, market orientation, dynamic capabilities and disruptive technologies all influence EM and vice-versa.
Gilmore focused on the process of entrepreneurial and SME marketing and provides some empirical evidence on how entrepreneurs and owner/managers conduct marketing. The EM framework captures a combination of standard textbook concepts with networking, marketing competence and the use of innovative marketing.
Gilmore presented her thoughts at Montpellier as did Deacon and Harris who argue that contextual marketing is a subset of EM and has within it a number of highly complex socialised components – in this paper, Deacon and Harris focus is upon the importance of developing an understanding of the “language” of marketing at the interface.
Innovation and risk-taking is a common theme across the papers, but McAuley takes this further with the metaphor of the Disney Space Mountain Ride as to how EM should be viewed from time-to-time. Befitting of an entrepreneurial view, the ride it seems was risk-taking personified.
Readers, scholars and those with interest in EM will hopefully find their own answers to the question McAuley asks: “Lost or at the crossroads?” and draw their own conclusion based on the arguments of the above scholars. They will also find interesting arguments as to whether or not the 4Ps are still relevant or whether the customer should always be the central focus of marketers. Indeed, as many of the papers have underscored, uncertain conditions require entrepreneurial approaches and the twenty-first century has thrown many curved balls and will continue to do so. The question that Morrish poses “EM: a strategy for the twenty-first century?” should hopefully stimulate more debate. The dance indeed continues!
Sussie MorrishGuest Editor