Search results

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that scholarship is all about challenging the prevailing wisdom by offering an alternative perspective or explanation. Hopefully, the author’s journey of more than 50 years will inspire others to be eclectic and become deep generalists.

It is an autobiographical evaluation of an accidental scholar. It emphasizes that an educator is more than a scientist or a priest or a public servant. It is all of them. Educators are in the business of making ordinary people extraordinary. They are diamond cutters who are entrusted by society with its rough diamonds to get their brilliance out and make them useful to themselves, the society and the community.

Over 50 years, marketing has evolved and adapted to the external environment, including technology revolution, changing demographics, global competition and geopolitics. This provides enormous opportunity for the next generation of scholars to establish their own identity in managerial marketing, consumer behavior or marketing analytics.

While publishing in the top journals is both necessary and desirable in the early stages of an academic career, it is also important to make an impact on practitioners by publishing professional books.

According to Peter Drucker, there are only two functions of business: innovation and marketing. While innovation is admired by everyone, marketing can also become a positive force for a better world.

Lessons learnt over time from different encounters and circumstances in research, teaching and service are important to document. In the end, according to the author, they are all academic entrepreneurs.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the development and application of marketing theory and practice over time and its current status. The terms “brickbats” and “bouquets” are used as metaphors to extend praise or criticism for marketing. In doing so, the authors draw upon the views of leading theorists over time and apply these in the current environmental context.

The approach adopted is discursive, critical and conceptual.

Following literature review, and drawing upon current examples, marketing as a discipline is subject to both kudos and criticisms. Nonetheless, it is concluded optimistically in that marketing can be an even greater source for societal good. That “goodness” is partly based upon the added impetus of social media adoption and use by consumers, the need for growth and accelerative innovation in the digital age coupled with the democratisation of consumption. Nonetheless, the authors offer the caveat that free competitive markets lead to market failures, and the need for market regulation by governments is becoming more evident.

The implications of the paper are profound. Academics should be concerned in and involved with marketing theory. Questions need to be raised concerning non-robust definitions of marketing and its application. The authors wait for a consumer-led approach to marketing to add depth to the marketing theory.

Marketers need to be made more accountable for their actions. Consumers need to become part of the marketing process. Marketing claims need to be verified by delivered benefits. Companies need to take steps to ensure that the marketing process does not end at purchase. Satisfaction needs to be made manifest. Likewise, dissatisfactions need to be managed well as part of the marketing process.

Too much marketing currently is relatively unregulated in the sense that there are so few opportunities to evade its myriad reach and – despite social media – little chance of changing marketing practice for the good of societies. Many criticisms of marketing practice are not being addressed in the literature.

Marketing is a vibrant force in all nations and markets. It is deeply rooted in business practice. It is contemporaneous and relevant. It is global and national. But, it is not entirely all good news. There are caveats and criticisms as well as kudos and praise. While both are addressed here, the topic needs to be considered for marketing and its accompanying theory and practice to change.

This paper aims to analyze the present status of customer support services (CSS) and advocate the re-positioning of support services from an administrative cost center to a strategic profit center. Authors demonstrate how customer support or after sales services can be a source of competitive advantage and revenue generation for firms.

The study adopts a conceptual approach grounded in theoretical foundations of service dominant logic, customer loyalty and customer centricity along with practical illustrations from the industry.

Following the tenets of theory, review of existing research and analysis of the industry practices, the authors propose a new framework to enable the repositioning of customer service function. The key propositions include establishing customer support as separate business unit and insights center, introducing a new role of a C-level chief customer support officer to lead the customer support unit, adopting a customer-centric culture and process, enabling frontline IT support and investing in frontline employee skills development.

Academics should examine the potential of customer support, where the strategic importance is low at present, leading to customer dissatisfaction. The new approach and positioning of customer support calls for a new direction for research in this area focusing on enablers, challenges and further implications. To succeed in this competitive era, firms should be conscious of the value of customer service and undertake concrete actions to generate value for all stakeholders.

Industry can use the new framework and re-position CSS of the organizations. The CSS unit can be different from other business units in the organizations. The CSS would evolve and emerge from the live customer insights. CSS unit can be managed by the C level chief CSS officer. Customer-centric culture would be developed and front line processes can be made customer-oriented by the officer. Thus, this paper and framework would provide new customer-centric directions to the organizations for effective functioning.

This is the original piece that has emerged from the experience and expertise of the authors.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether line extensions (modified brands) create their own loyalties or induce variety-seeking within the brand. Prior research has explored how the branded house strategy (i.e. multiple products bearing the same brand name) retains customers from competing brands. However, this research investigates loyalty within the brand by comparing loyalty and variety-seeking rates of modified brands.

Markov chains examine behavioral loyalty and switching rates of panel households in the USA over several quarters for two family brands of carbonated beverages. Emphasis is placed on the consumers who purchase the upper median of volume (heavy half) and constitute a disproportionate amount of brand’s sales (86 per cent of the volume).

Three propositions find that loyalty rates are high among modified brands with little switching to other lines within the brand. Further, loyalty and switch to rates are highest for the flagship branded product (the master modified brand).

Managers segment the market using the branded house strategy, yet loyalty rates vary for each product line. The switching rates can guide managers as to which products have established a loyal consumer base.

While brand switching is a considerable research stream, this research is believed to be the first to explore loyalty versus variety-seeking in the branded house strategy.

This paper aims to respond to the responses made by Aaker, Keller and Tellis to “Do brands compete or coexist? How persistence of brand loyalty segments the market”.

This paper is a response to the comments of Aaker, Keller and Tellis.

The paper finds the comments by Aaker, Keller and Tellis recognize the role of innovation for mature brands to maintain relevance and, by extension, loyalty.

Scholars are encouraged to question conventional wisdom (such as brands compete head-to-head) and build their case for important ideas with strong arguments.

This paper suggests that only through innovation can mature brands hold on to loyal customers. Becoming the relevant brand in a given product space is challenging, but possible through evolutionary and revolutionary innovation of the brand architecture.

The aim of this paper is to review the forces that led to the rise of relationship marketing (RM) and to provide suggestions for how it can overcome its midlife crisis and be revitalized.

Personal reflections.

A shift in two dimensions is needed to revitalize RM: from “share of wallet” to “share of heart” as the RM objective and from “managing customer relationships” to “managing contractual or virtual joint ventures with customers” as the process of RM.

The shift to “share of heart” will generate three new RM areas for researchers and practitioners: emotive feedback, purpose-driven RM and the use of social media for developing and nurturing brand communities. For the process shift to take place, companies and customers need to co-create value, collaborate cross functionally and share value.

Going from “share of wallet” to “share of heart” as the objective of RM and from managing customer relationship to joint venturing with customers as a process will revitalize the RM discipline.

Considers why customers resist innovations even though they are considered necessary and desirable. Identifies functional barriers such as usage, value, and risk, and psychological barriers such as tradition and image. Concludes that successful innovation lies not in bowing down to consumer resistance, but in understanding the causes and developing a marketing strategy to attack them.

This study aims to question the conventional wisdom that brands compete for customers, especially in mature industries such as soft drinks. Rather than engaging in price wars or promotion wars, brands coexist in the markets by focusing on their own brand loyal customers.

Consumer panel data of carbonated beverages are examined using Markov chains to measure switching between two brands: Coke and Pepsi. Switching rates are conducted for all Coke households (n = 10,474) and Pepsi households (n = 7,227). This is further examined with respect to heavy half (upper median) consumers of each brand who make up approximately 86 per cent of volume purchases.

Households that made a majority of their purchase volume in either Coke or Pepsi products stayed with their preferred brands in subsequent quarters: 85 to 97 per cent of households. These findings are validated at all levels of the brand architecture (family brands, product brands and modified brands), even though both brands engage in similar marketing mix tactics (advertising, price cuts, distribution, product offerings). Loyalty was even higher among the heavy user households.

The research was conducted using two well-known brands in a mature industry. Services or non-mature markets may exhibit different loyalty patterns.

The study extends prior research on competition, loyalty and branded offerings to show that brand loyalty remains high despite marketing efforts to switch the brand buying behavior.