Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a retrospection on the importance, origins and development of the research programs in the author’s career.

The study uses an autobiographical approach.

Most of the articles, research monographs and books that constitute this research and publishing efforts can be categorized into seven distinct, but related, research programs: channels of distribution; marketing theory; marketing’s philosophy debates; macromarketing and ethics; relationship marketing; resource-advantage theory; and marketing management and strategy. The value system that has guided these research programs has been shaped by specific events that took place in the author’s formative years. This essay chronicles these events and the origins and development of the seven research programs.

Chronicling the importance, origins and development of the seven research programs will hopefully motivate and assist other scholars in developing their own research programs.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal retrospective on six of the key events/experiences that influenced the development of the structure, foundational premises, and models of the resource‐advantage theory of competition.

The paper uses a personal retrospective approach.

The paper finds that six key events influenced the development of resource‐advantage theory: B.J. “Bud” LaLonde emphasizes the works of Alderson; Rob Morgan suggests an article on the resource‐based theory of the firm; Roy Howell suggests a presentation on R‐A theory; Randy Sparks shows a “socialist calculation” article; Kim Boal suggests the Journal of Management Inquiry as a publication outlet; and Bob Phillips discusses his work on “firm effects vs industry effects”. The paper then relates each of the six events to the paths, routes, or procedures that are often proposed as (or reported to be) likely to lead to the development of theories.

By providing the evolutionary history of resource‐advantage theory, the paper provides implications for developing marketing theories.

This paper addresses the growing fragmentation between traditional and digital service innovation (DSI) research and offers a unifying metatheoretical framework.

Grounded in service-dominant (S-D) logic's service ecosystems perspective, this study builds on an institutional and systemic, rather than product-centric and linear, conceptualization of value creation to offer a unifying framework for (digital) service innovation that applies to both physical and digital service provisions.

This paper questions the commonly perpetuated idea that DSI fundamentally changes the nature of innovation. Instead, it highlights resource liquification—the decoupling of information from the technologies that store, transmit, or process this information—as a distinguishing characteristic of DSI. Liquification, however, does not affect the relational and institutional nature of service innovation, which is always characterized by (1) the emergence of novel outcomes, (2) distributed governance and (3) symbiotic design. Instead, liquification makes these three characteristics more salient.

In presenting a cohesive service innovation framework, this study underscores that all innovation processes are rooted in combinatorial evolution. Here, service-providing actors (re)combine technologies (or more generally, institutions) to adapt their value cocreation practices. This research demonstrates that such (re)combinations exhibit emergence, distributed governance and symbiotic design. While these characteristics may initially seem novel and unique to DSI, it reveals that their fundamental mechanisms are not limited to digital service ecosystems. They are, in fact, integral to service innovation across virtual, physical and blended contexts. The study highlights the importance of exercising caution in assuming that the emergence of novel technologies, including digital technologies, necessitates a concurrent rethinking of the fundamental processes of service innovation.

Drawing on resource‐advantage theory and a diverse literature base, this article seeks to further the development of the explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory by proposing, and then providing, tentative answers to three “why?” questions in relationship marketing: why is relationship marketing so prominent now? Why do firms and consumers enter into relationships with other firms and consumers? Why are some efforts at relationship marketing more successful than others?

Before addressing the three questions, the paper begins by discussing the different forms of relationship marketing.

Although relationship marketing is a relatively young field of inquiry, relationship marketing theory is an extremely rich area of research. Relationship marketing can take many forms and, as a result, relationship marketing theory has the potential to increase one's understanding of many aspects of business strategy.

The answers to the three questions in this paper provide a strong foundation for the further development relationship marketing theory and are useful for both relationship marketing theorists and practitioners.

As relationship marketing theory and practice are developed further, the authors hope that the article will provide useful guidance to those involved. From a marketing theory standpoint, the eight kinds of factors provide guidance to researchers exploring the many forms of relational marketing. For practitioners, they provide a useful framework for evaluating extant relationship marketing strategies and for developing future strategies.

The purpose of this commentary is to summarise developments in the science of serendipity and urge marketers to pay more attention to the incorrigible incalculability of commercial life.

Explains how luck is a crucial component of business success and argues, citing examples of Shelby D. Hunt and Ted Levitt, among others, that it is perhaps time to abandon our fixation with customer focus and start taking serendipity seriously

Fortune, clearly, favours the brand. Indeed, the history of management in general and marketing in particular reveals that serendipity plays a significant part in the commercial equation.

Highlights the latter day advances in the science of serendipity.

The purpose of this paper is to argue for including historical perspectives in doctoral seminars in marketing theory.

The paper describes how marketing history is currently incorporated into the author's doctoral seminar in marketing theory.

The author's doctoral seminar in marketing theory incorporates history in three ways: the assignment of specific historical articles, the use of historically oriented, supplementary readings, and the use of history to examine specific controversies.

Rather than marketing history and marketing theory being competitors, they complement each other well in doctoral seminars.

Determining the strategic thrust of the firm, it may be argued, is the principal task of top management. This task is aided by recent theories of business and marketing strategy, including the normative imperatives based on industry factors, resource factors, competences, market orientation, and relationship marketing. Choosing wisely from among the various theories of strategy requires an accurate understanding of the contexts of competition. This article argues that resource‐advantage theory, an evolutionary, disequilibrium‐provoking process theory of competition, provides that understanding. That is, resource‐advantage theory grounds theories of business and marketing strategy.

Resource‐advantage theory is an interdisciplinary, evolutionary, process theory of competition that is proving to be extraordinarily provocative. A General Theory of Competition: Resources, Competences, Productivity, Economic Growth pulls together many of the articles that develop the theory. This article provides a brief overview of resource‐advantage theory, reports on two queries that have been raised by the theory’s critics, responds to the two queries, and extends an invitation to readers.

The purpose of this article is to chronicle the publication events in the 1980s and 1990s that framed the development of the series of controversies in marketing that are known as the “philosophy debates”.

The article uses a participant’s retrospective approach.

The article finds that seven publication events are key to understanding marketing’s philosophy debates. The seven are the publication of the “little green book” by Grid, Inc. in 1976; the philosophy of science panel discussion held at the Winter American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference in 1982; the special issue of the Journal of Marketing on marketing theory in 1983; three articles on the “critical relativist perspective” by the Journal of Consumer Research in 1986 and 1988; the “blue book” by South-Western in 1991; a trilogy of articles on truth, positivism and objectivity in the Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Consumer Research in 1990-1993; and an article on “rethinking marketing” in the European Journal of Marketing in 1994.

Chronicling the key publication events enables readers to understand what the debates were about and provides readers a starting point for further investigating the issues in the debates.