Search results

To claim that marketing is concerned with exchange is a currently accepted definition which allows wide interpretation and can be applied to almost all disciplines. A satisfactory definition should develop both inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. Marketing has an underlying purpose connected with the exchange of goods and services, and ideas can be studied only if they serve that purpose. It should be placed firmly in the economic sphere, employing strategies intentionally rendered and goal‐directed. This definition allows wide consideration of diverse subject areas, but keeps the process within specific parameters, bringing about its more satisfactory development as a scientific discipline.

This paper aims to present a definition of social marketing that considers the purpose and role of social marketing beyond behaviour change.

The paper reviews present social marketing definitions and then bolsters its underlying theoretical structure with insights distilled from three schools of thought: macromarketing, transformative consumer research and the capability approach.

Guided by the three theoretical streams, we introduce our definition, namely: social marketing is the application of marketing principles to enable individual and collective ideas and actions in the pursuit of effective, efficient, equitable, fair and sustained social transformation.

We present a list of practical implications derived from our definition of social marketing. We stress that our social marketing definition better reflects the need to balance the effects (efficiency and effectiveness) and the process (equity, fairness and sustainability) of social marketing practices. By our definition of social marketing, the marketer becomes a facilitator and participant rather than a behaviour change agent.

The paper introduces into social marketing three streams of thought that represent the most contemporary aspects of economic, market and consumer philosophy. We believe our definition can better guide social marketing in its quest to transform societies to be capable, free, equitable, fair and sustainable.

The purposes of this chapter are to propose definitions of innovation, product innovation, business model innovation, marketing innovation, innovation strategy, and strategic innovation, elaborate on their literature and conceptual underpinnings, and provide an overview of the conceptual domains of innovation, innovation strategy, and strategic innovation.

First, certain definitions of innovation, drawn from literature, are presented. Next, certain definitions that incorporate logically incremental refinements in them are presented. Building on these, definitions of innovation, product innovation, business model innovation, and marketing innovation are proposed.

Innovation is the creation of value by using relevant knowledge and resources for conversion of an idea into a new product, process, or practice, or improvements in an existing product, process, or practice. Innovation strategy is an organization’s relative emphasis on different types of innovations and the associated pattern of resource allocation, in alignment with its strategy at the corporate and business unit levels. Strategic innovation is the creation of value by using relevant knowledge and resources for conversion of an idea into a new product, process, or practice with the potential to have a major transformational effect on the evolution of markets and industries.

Over the past several decades, there has been a sustained and high level of interest in issues relating to innovation among academics in a number of disciplines, business and social entrepreneurs, business practitioners, and policy makers. Books, journal articles, and business magazine articles provide a number of definitions of innovation and specific types of innovation. Multiple definitions of a construct can be problematic in certain respects and beneficial in other respects. A potential upside of multiple definitions of innovation is the prospect of each being a source of ideas for one or more innovations that benefit society, and an impetus for research focusing on specific questions.

Implementation of an idea, value creation, and use of relevant knowledge and resources are used as constituent elements in the proposed definitions of innovation, product innovation, business model innovation, marketing innovation, and strategic innovation.

To develop a framework for systematically defining the relevant market for intermediate goods that incorporates downstream market conditions.

We combine the well-established “Hicks-Marshall” conditions of derived demand for inputs with “critical loss/critical elasticity of demand” to yield insights into the definition of antitrust markets for intermediate goods and the competitive effects from a merger.

We show that examining “Hicks-Marshall” conditions can provide a more rigorous framework for analyzing relevant markets for intermediate goods. We also show that solely examining demand substitution possibilities for direct customers of an input can lead to an incorrect market definition.

Our framework may be difficult to apply in circumstances when several different downstream products use the input being examined and each of those downstream products has a different elasticity of demand.

We illustrate how reasonable ranges for key parameters relating to the ability of firms to substitute to other inputs and to adjust to downstream market conditions will often be sufficient to define antitrust markets for intermediate goods in practice.

Previous antitrust analysis has not systematically analyzed the impact of downstream market conditions in assessing market definition for intermediate goods. The framework we develop will be useful to future researchers attempting to define relevant markets for intermediate goods and evaluating the competitive effects of a merger.

This paper seeks to consider a significant market misconception and related errors commonly made by valuers, financial decision makers, and other users of valuation services. Its purpose is to focus on the importance of relating the explicit requirements of market value and fair value definitions to the evidence required for a supportable opinion of either.

The paper provides conceptual foundations for the terms “market value” and “fair value” and reviews their meanings and applications in a historical context. Business cycles and the recent recession are used as foundations for illustrating how prices, such as for real estate, vary with cycles, but are not always directly indicative of either market value or fair value. The latter term has a long history, but has undergone recent definition and revision by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that are shown to closely align fair value with market value. A current controversy over the use of transactions as prima fascie, or perhaps the only indication of market value is discussed and the “market” of “market value” is examined.

The paper offers a new look at market evidence concepts that are time‐honored, yet have been largely lost or forgotten. The principal finding is that duress is not consistent with conventional definitions of market value or fair value, yet significant market evidence exists that duress is often ignored or improperly considered in valuations and financial decisions. The paper also concludes that the FASB's focus on “market participants” (sellers and buyers) as the prime source of Fair Value evidence is akin to the rules which have applied to market value for many decades. The paper concludes with a discussion of why transactions may be evidence of “a market,” but are not necessarily representative of the “market” or of fair value.

Market Value is a market protection against fraud, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding. Valuations must be performed in accordance with that definition – not as it is interpreted for personal gain or for any other interpretations of convenience, misunderstanding, or special purpose.

Increasingly, rigorous market research is being seen as a necessary prerequisite to the successful and profitable construction and disposal of property developments. Norton, for example, stresses that, with the demand for accommodation in most market sectors being already reasonably well met, only a thorough and detailed understanding of the market will ensure that new schemes compete with and complement existing developments rather than merely duplicating them. The penalties of inadequate market research are heavy: projects are difficult to finance because funders remain to be convinced that there is a demand for the floorspace proposed; completed developments stand vacant because the accommodation provided does not meet the design, site or location requirements of potential occupiers. Even in areas, such as Berkshire, with relatively healthy local economies and continuing demand for premises, record levels of vacant floorspace, much of it modern, exist alongside record rental levels. The property industry appears not to have absorbed this lesson. Cadman and Cleaveley suggest that too many development decisions have been taken on the basis of ‘hunches’ or ‘gut feeling’ or because a similar project has been successfully developed elsewhere, rather than being taken in the light of adequate market analysis. Consequently, it is suggested that the surveying profession needs to show much greater interest in property market research and analysis and this paper has been written in an attempt to widen discussion on the subject. The vehicle chosen is a consideration of the high technology market and, more specifically, the difficulties encountered in trying to define that market. It is hoped that a detailed rather than a generalised approach will better illustrate the practical advantages and limitations of market research. The particular market sector was chosen because science parks and high technology developments are cited by Cleaveley as specific examples of projects which have been built without the benefit of adequate market research.

This paper aims to dissect conceptual and semantic issues surrounding the word “brand.” Theoretical, operational and practical concerns resulting from the term’s use and misuse are exposed, some derived managerial problems are highlighted, and alternatives for resolving the confusing and dysfunctional brand nomenclature are offered.

Comprehensive literature review, i.e. review of an entire population of literature, incorporating content analysis.

A large fraction of empirical brand literature is ambiguous because the definition, meaning and therefore measurement of the focal construct, brand, is unclear. In other words, empirical results throughout the brand literature may apply to “brand” – by one definition or another – but there is no way of knowing which brand interpretation is in use.

A large part of the marketing field does not know what the word “brand” means anymore, a lapse that is widely unrecognized. This paper illuminates the lost knowledge condition and proposes resolution. The present state of theoretical and empirical ambiguity is untenable because so many empirical findings throughout the literature are vitiated.

Market value is an estimation of price in the market. It is value in exchange. The valuer's role is to determine the appropriate approach, the method and use the right model to achieve this aim as best as possible. However, underpinning all valuations and property analysis are valuation standards and definitions. This paper looks at the definition of market value and how some market participants may misunderstand or even misrepresent it. This is particularly true when there is a downturn in the market.

This practice briefing is an overview of the role of market value as a definition of price and how it is often misused by stakeholders in the property market.

This briefing is a review of the valuation definitions clarifying what they mean and what they do not mean.

The role of the valuer in practice is to use the appropriate definition for the task in hand. The understanding of those definitions is central to the valuation process.

This provides guidance on how valuation definitions can be presented to the client in accordance with the International Valuation Standards.

Latent constructs represent the building blocks of marketing theory. The purpose of this paper is to provide marketing researchers with a practical procedure for writing construct definitions.

The paper reviews important contributions to construct definition in the literature from marketing, management, psychology and the philosophy of science. The authors expound construct definition in both practical and theoretical spheres to motivate the proposed procedure.

A six‐step procedure for construct definition and redefinition in marketing is developed. The proposed procedure addresses important aspects of definitions including the level of abstraction, scope, nomological relationships, explanatory and predictive power, ambiguity, vagueness, and preventing construct proliferation.

While techniques for developing measures have received a great deal of attention, those for the earlier step of construct definition have not. Researchers will benefit from more precise definitions through improved model specification, better measures, and more reliable determination of the direction of causality. The role of the individual researcher's linguistic skill in construct definition must still be determined.

Marketing practitioners can also use the procedure to define latent constructs for which they must develop measures.

The literature on construct definition is fragmentary, scattered across disciplines and occasionally even arcane. It is further often descriptive of what a good definition looks like rather than prescriptive of how a good definition can be developed. The six steps are simple, broadly applicable, based on both theory and practical experience, consist of relatively few discrete steps, and feed directly into the modern measure development paradigm in marketing.