A look back over the year And so to the final issue of Volume 24

Citation

Pickton, D. (2006), "A look back over the year And so to the final issue of Volume 24", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip.2006.02024gaa.001

A look back over the year And so to the final issue of Volume 24

Before introducing the contents of this issue, this seems the right time to reflect on the other papers that collectively comprise our 2006 volume, and on the readership they have attracted. The editorial team is particularly thrilled by the massive download of 21,651 articles per month on average between January 2005 and June 2006 (the latest available figures at the time of writing) and the truly worldwide readership profile. Marketing Intelligence & Planning is the fifth most popular title in the hundred-strong Emerald stable. There can be no greater indication of success and relevance of a journal than its usage. We hope that such an achievement will engender justifiable pride among our authors, and encourage others to submit manuscripts in the future, as we progress from strength to strength.

Volume 24 has seen the continuation of the well-received Viewpoint series, introduced in Volume 23. The five contributions for this year come from eminent academics and practitioners: Emeritus Professors Michael J. Baker, Michael Thomas and Malcolm McDonald, marketing practitioner Dr Nick Southgate, and previous authors Patrick Hartman and Vanessa Apaolaza IbánÏez. These latter contributors were, with co-author F. Javier Forcada Sainz, recipients of an Emerald Outstanding Paper Award for their article on green branding in issue number 1 of volume 23. As a further innovation, the second issue of the current volume saw the introduction of the Right-To-Reply, as a rejoinder to a Viewpoint, which we would encourage readers to take up by offering their own counterpoints to viewpoints expressed.

In the first Viewpoint of 2006, Michael J. Baker expressed the concern that we marketing academics have failed to learn from the gurus of yesteryear, whose writings still have merit for today's marketers. Perhaps we even learn too little from the academics and practitioners of the present, because the management education system in which we operate militates against timely publication of research findings, with lead times as long as four years in some journals. At Marketing Intelligence & Planning, we strive to accelerate the publication timescale, and thereby improve the recency of findings and discussions published.

Michael Thomas's Viewpoint followed by considering the wider obligations of marketers, extolling the need to take seriously our moral requirements and our role as “citizen professionals” to be alert to malpractice and mismanagement, and to act as “social trustees for a just society”. In the same issue, Malcolm McDonald's Right-to-Reply argued that “successful marketers and marketing institutions have already absorbed the message, embraced the notion, and taken steps” while accepting that marketing management is sometimes characterised by mismanagement in practice. Perhaps other MIP readers would still like to express their views on this subject? Or on any of the Viewpoints and articles: this is an open invitation.

After a Special Issue and themed issue, Viewpoint returned with a contribution in this from the same Malcolm McDonald, on getting marketing back into its rightful place in the boardroom. He opined that the loss of credibility in the boardroom suffered by our discipline after only 50 years of acceptance there was a consequence of the short-sightedness of marketing managers and the academics who advised them. Too much emphasis, he feels, is now placed on measuring effectiveness based on enabling conditions – measures of awareness, attitudes and trial, for instance – rather than on accountability for the creation (or destruction) of shareholder value. The latter, he argues, is the real job of marketing.

In relating this to the previous Viewpoint and Right-to-Reply contributions, it appears to me that there are fundamental issues at play relating to the level at which marketing is being either criticised or praised, whether this be mainly societal, senior managerial, or operational. The functions and requirements of marketing differ greatly between these levels and, at any point in the debate, we need to be clear what are the roles of marketing and the interactions between them.

As a point of interest, new standards for marketing in the UK were approved in March 2006 under the auspices of the Marketing and Sales Standards Setting Body, a government initiative, and of other similar occupational initiatives, to develop a new set of “world class standards” that will form the basis of vocational qualifications in marketing, and to collectively define the scope of marketing management roles and competencies.

Planning Director Nick Southgate's Viewpoint asked “Why is it that marketing practitioners so rarely turn to their academic colleagues' wisdom?” He suggested two key reasons: first, they feel under too much time pressure to do so; second, they fear that they will have to justify any departure from the profession's normal sources of intelligence. But before fellow academics are prematurely tempted to castigate practitioners for such apparent shortcomings, the lesson arising from this discussion is that the impetus for bringing both camps into closer proximity should originate as often on the academic side of the “divide” as on the practitioner side. Yet each appears as reluctant (or unable?) as the other to make the first move.

The final Viewpoint in this volume is the one in this issue, of which I shall say more shortly.

Volume 24 contains a total of 48 papers, including 5 Viewpoints and one Right-to-Reply, in seven issues. They have been contributed by 77 authors in 15 countries. In alphabetical order, those countries are: Australia, Brazil, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, the UK and the USA, with the majority of papers coming from those last two. By contrast, only 56 authors contributed to Volume 23, but they represented more countries of origin, including in addition to the usual suspects: Belgium, Canada, Finland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia and South Africa.

The average length of a paper was 5,700 words, against our general guideline of between 3,000 and 6,000. Word counts are definitely increasing, and a few submissions were significantly over the top limit, but that is not a trend that we encourage. Almost two-thirds were research papers (to use the publisher's standard classifications). Case study was the second most popular category, followed by general review, conceptual, and literature review.

The average period from submission to acceptance was 13 months, and from submission to publication 18 months, except for Viewpoint and Right-to-Reply. These timings may surprise some budding and new authors, but older hands will be well aware of the time it takes for a manuscript to travel through the entire review and amendment process. We do our best to keep the time lag as low as possible, and know we have been able to achieve turnaround times significantly shorter than those for some other peer-reviewed journals. Throughout Volume 24, we have adhered rigidly to our established double-blind review process and have introduced anonymous pre-screening, to furnish a preliminary decision in good time and provide early feedback to authors. There is undoubtedly more streamlining to be done, but you may be sure that work is in progress.

As all papers in each previous issue are commented on in the corresponding editorials, I shall offer no further review here. Suffice it to say they represented an eclectic collection of topics with an equally eclectic provenance.

In this Issue

The declared aim of the Viewpoint contributed by Patrick Hartman and Vanessa Apaolaza IbánÏez of the University of the Basque Country in Spain is to provoke thought and perhaps a response to their “radical view” of the place in society of “green marketing” – not just marketing that is socially responsible but also marketing that encourages social responsibility. They express concern that, while necessary and important, it is having insufficient effect, and duly offer a remedy. Their paper is based on a review of the literature, their own empirical studies and practical experience of green marketing. The radical view of which they write is a move away from simply intellectual argument to appeals aimed at inherent human motivation for an emotional connection with nature. This they see as a promising way forward for green marketers.

They take as a given the “social desirability of effective persuasion techniques fostering widespread environmentally responsible behaviour”. In other words, they accept and do not challenge the fundamental desirability of green marketing and the need for marketers to encourage environmentally responsible consumer behaviour, but they do question the effectiveness of green marketing activities on consumers individually and collectively. While recognising the possibility of a range of green appeals, they criticise the more cognitive persuasive strategies which assume a high level of involvement of consumers with green, environmental issues. Such approaches tend to emphasise individual consumer benefits for “green consumers” which the authors see as being insufficiently powerful motivators to encourage green purchasing. Instead, they favour emotional appeals that directly associate brands with nature and any other natural connection. They point to studies, theirs and others, which offer evidence of “only a limited influence (on green purchasing) for such factors as environmental knowledge” whereas affective appeals are at least equally significant. They suggest that the scale of the influence could be much greater, presumably depending on how well the appeal is made. The way forward for green marketers is, in their opinion, to make greater use of emotional appeals related to the universal need to feel closer to nature. This is furthermore likely to have even greater impact over time, as we move more and more into virtual environments.

The paper by Jenny Poolton and her colleagues from the University of Liverpool Management School is based on experiences with companies that have been clients of the University's “agility centre”. It proposes greater focus on “agile marketing” activities, most notably marketing planning and strategy, in small and medium-sized enterprises. More usually associated with manufacturing, the “agility” concept is applied to the marketing element of an agility strategic framework, to enable SMEs to customise a route to agility based on current capabilities and the competitive nature of the operating environment. The authors argue that this provides a logical and structured approach to becoming more proactive in their marketplaces. Although their framework has been used in over 35 different SMEs (all in manufacturing sectors), the focus here is on its application to one particular case study illustrating how marketing agility can be used to benefit SMEs. While the authors do not use the term “action research” in essence their work similarly embraces analysis, implementation and feedback that informs the next stage of action. You may wish to reflect on the contribution of this paper to marketing planning and implementation. What is significant is the authors' extensive experience with SMEs and the practical implications of marketing concepts within this context.

Erin Parrish (University of Alabama), with Nancy Cassill and William Oxenham (North Carolina State University), addresses the benefits of niche marketing strategies for companies operating in mature market conditions. Their research is centred on the US textile market and an examination of how firms in that environment can increase their competitiveness through niche marketing. The authors start from the literature that suggests the appropriateness of adopting niche marketing in mature markets, characterised by increased competition, price deflation and overcapacity of supply, eventually leading to a reduction in the number of firms operating in the marketplace. Improved competitiveness is thus not a luxury but a necessity, under these conditions. In the case of textiles, of course, the competition comes from global sources and highly competitive imports, as well as from domestic competitors.

The authors' research findings derive from a questionnaire survey followed by in-depth interviews with executives from eight organisations. The purpose of the research was to derive a better understanding of the implementation of niche marketing, including an analysis of the factors that are important for success, the market research undertaken by firms to identify niche markets and products, and the development of marketing plans. The authors found that all the companies in their sample base did indeed utilise niche approaches to achieve their success. What they defined as a niche varied among them, but all recognised in one way or another the need to better understand such groups of customers and meet their particular and peculiar needs through modified or improved product offerings – thereby employing approaches that lie at the heart of basic marketing. What readers of the paper may wish to consider further is the authors' contentions concerning the three components of implementation of niche marketing, which they describe as a business strategy, a pull marketing strategy and a push product strategy.

You may be surprised by the inclusion of the next paper in this issue for the simple reason that it is on the subject of outsourcing. The backgrounds of the authors, Andreas Kakouris of the University of the Aegean with George Polychronopoulos and Spyros Binioris of TEI Athens, collectively cover studies and work in the UK, Greece, the USA, Canada and Switzerland. From this standpoint, they point out to us that “in-sourcing and outsourcing decisions have a crucial influence on an organisation's success”. They would probably agree that the important role of purchasing is perhaps too frequently put to one side by marketers, who focus on the “output” of companies rather than the “inputs”. Although this paper throughout refers explicitly and by implication to manufacturing concerns, a moment to reflect on the marketing activities of retailers and wholesalers serves to remind us of the intimate proximity of the marketing and purchasing functions – what is bought-in by these enterprises is the basis of what is subsequently sold-out. Although to differing degrees, the same is true of other types of business. If this is not argument enough that marketers should be interested in purchasing decisions, we may want to reflect on how we are also purchasing officers every time we look to outsource those marketing tasks that require the services of, for example, market research agencies or promotional and sales agencies. This paper is a conceptual one, which discusses the purchase process, sourcing decisions, and the process of supplier identification and evaluation. Its first and second tables present useful overviews of research studies and decision-making approaches. The authors conclude by proposing a conceptual framework to assist managers faced with evaluating and selecting outsource providers, which culminates in a “simple, straightforward numerically graded measurement method that is qualitative and system-oriented in nature”. They describe its elements, its use of ratings, and its strengths and weaknesses.

We move on to a general review paper by Yang-Im Lee and Peter Trim of the University of London (Royal Holloway and Birkbeck, respectively), on the topic of relationship marketing in the context of international retail marketing strategy. A key feature is over a hundred references, and we have therefore taken the unusual step of supplying page numbers in citations throughout the text, in accordance with the authors' intention to provide precise directions for readers who may wish to investigate the topics further.

Recognising the relevance and importance of customer relationship management to the achievement of customer satisfaction and, consequently, marketing goals, Lee and Trim turn their attention to the implications of CRM on the relationship between “partners” in the context of international retailing. Commenting that the concept of relationship marketing needs to be placed within an institutional framework, they point to the significance of internal marketing activities both in nurturing staff/employee trust-based relationships and in building long-term positive partnerships between the retailer and supplier organisations involved. In other words, there is a recognition that successful end-customer relationships are contingent on effective internal relationships between the organisations and the staff involved throughout the chain. These partnerships are influenced by mutual trust, which the authors describe as “pivotal” in building long-term international relationships, and the various factors such as cultural diversity, confidence and credibility that impact upon them.

Having argued the importance of trust and the need for all parties to work towards establishing a trust-orientated partnership culture, Lee and Trim propose an “organisational resilience value system model” to act as a conceptual framework for action, in which both relationship marketing and trust act as integrating mechanisms. They conclude that it can be used by marketing managers to link together the concepts of organisational learning and relationship marketing and that, through mutual trust, the organisational vulnerability of the partners involved can be reduced, to the benefit of all parties and with the outcome of end-customer satisfaction and general marketing success.

The final paper in this issue continues the theme of trust and is also a general review. Sally Harridge-March of Oxford Brookes University Business School addresses the role of trust in overcoming customers' perceived risk when buying online. Her paper reviews the literature review of trust and risk, and its implications in an online environment. Having established that a clear relationship exists between the two, in which an increased level of trust militates against high levels of perceived risk, she identifies the parameters of risk in an online environment, which include financial, social, time, performance, psychological, physical, technological and security dimensions. Marketing strategies to encourage perceptions of trustworthiness and thereby lower perceived risk will, correspondingly, need to address one or more of those variables. It would be the case that successful individual transactions would lead to increased trust and longer-term relationships. The second half of the paper is devoted to a discussion of six components of online transactions that organisations can use to demonstrate that they are trustworthy: seals of approval, branding, fulfilment, navigation, presentation and technology. The author takes each of these in turn to outline how trust can be built in order to minimise perceived risk and so overcome customer reluctance to buy online. The ultimate aim is, of course, to convert online browsing into online purchasing.

We get by with a little help from our friends

... as the Beatles lyric reminds us. In our case, thanks are most sincerely offered to all those involved in the pre-screening, double-blind reviewing and production processes, from first submission to final appearance in print and online upload. Their contribution most definitely exceeds “a little help” to scale the heights of “we really couldn't have achieved this volume without your enormous and generous assistance”. They are friends indeed.

In particular, the whole editorial team wishes to record its indebtedness to the 21 members of the Review Panel who are listed separately elsewhere in this issue. We also gratefully recognise the contribution of the Guest Editor of issue number three, Val Cox, Head of the Department of Marketing at the University of Lincoln, UK, and the reviewers she identified in her Editorial. And, not least, we thank our Editorial Advisory Board for “being there”. Wait for significant additions in 2007.

One outcome of the conscientious efforts of all these many people on our behalf has been that our Editor was this year – I hope he will not blush at my reporting this here – awarded Leading Editor status by the Emerald Publishing Group.

List of members of Review Panel follows

The Review Panel, 2006

Grateful thanks are due to:

Lic. Marcelo BarriosEDDE (Escuela de Dirección de Empresas), Buenos Aires, Argentina

Dr Ross BrennanMiddlesex University, UK

Dr Marylyn CarriganUniversity of Birmingham, UK

Andrew CorcoranUniversity of Lincoln, UK

Prof David CorkindaleUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Dr Sofia DaskouThe American College of Greece, Athens

Dr Kenneth R. DeansUniversity of Otago, New Zealand

Dr Mark DurkinUniversity of Ulster, Belfast, UK

Prof B. Zafer ErdoganDumlupinar Üniversitesi, Kütahya,Turkey

Dr Christian FelzenszteinUniversidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile

Dr Simon HaslamHaslam Consulting, Glasgow, UK

Prof Philip J. KitchenHull University Business School, UK

Dr Adam LindgreenTechnical University Eindhoven, Netherlands

Prof T C MelewarBrunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Prof Leyland PittSimon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Dr Gerard PrendergastHong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

Dr Noel SiuHong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

Dr Stephen TaggStrathclyde University, Glasgow, UK

Jonathan TaylorVisionpoint and London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Prof Bill WagnerVillanova University, Philadelphia, USA

Dr Steven WardMurdoch University, Perth, Western Australia

David PicktonAssistant Editor