Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that conceptual frameworks developed from a general theory of competition, i.e. resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, can facilitate managerial action.

After a brief overview of resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, five conceptual frameworks are developed and offered for the purposes of managerial action.

This paper identifies several conceptual frameworks and after noting that conceptual frameworks that do not have positive theoretical foundations may not be as useful as those that do, develops five conceptual frameworks that are based on R‐A theory.

The conceptual frameworks developed in this paper have great potential for facilitating managerial action.

Conceptual frameworks that have positive theoretical foundations can be very useful for practitioners. In fact, the frameworks proposed in this paper can replace frameworks that are currently in use for managerial action.

Historically, “closing the gap” or “bridging the divide” between marketing academe and marketing practice has been one of the most hotly debated issues in marketing. This article, based on the professional discipline view of marketing, maintains that the “gap” debate would be more informed by the identification of the multiple stakeholders of marketing academe, the explication of the duties and responsibilities of marketing academe to each group of stakeholders, and the evaluation of the extent to which marketing academe is fulfilling its duties and responsibilities.

Despite the vast proliferation of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical studies in adaptation‐selection research, debate continues to surround a key question: how do firms strategically coevolve with their environments? This paper attempts to address part of this question by drawing on advances in strategic choice theory and resource‐advantage theory. A scenario‐based group methodology based around the “think tank” described in the first paper of this special issue is presented whereby marketing analyses of environmental contexts are described which lead to a series of recommended marketing strategies for response (selection), which fit the changing environments (adaptation). Various conclusions are derived from this marketing strategy determination process and finally, consideration is given to issues of complexity and chaos in environmental assessment terms.

This study aims to examine the role of market orientation as a relationship property. This property, labeled “alliance market orientation”, is at the inter‐firm level and is related to the new product development (NPD) activities of alliances. The main objectives of this article are: to define the alliance market orientation; to argue that it is a major factor in NPD alliance success; and to argue that the resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory of competition can provide a theoretical foundation for this concept and explain its contribution to alliances' NPD success.

The paper is conceptual in approach.

In their efforts to strengthen relationships, alliances may tend to focus so much time on the relationship factors that they miss market opportunities. As a spanning process, NPD should be informed by both external and internal activities. alliance market orientation assists alliances in guiding NPD activities from outside to inside and vice versa. As a dynamic and disequilibrium provoking process, the R‐A theory of competition can theoretically ground the concept of alliance market orientation and explain its role in NPD alliance success.

This study contributes to business marketing theory in three ways: it extends the concept of intra‐organizational market orientation to an inter‐organizational context; the alliance market orientation concept contributes to understanding the role of idiosyncratic resources in alliances; and the R‐A theory of competition can theoretically ground the concept of alliance market orientation and provide insights to develop it further.

This study is the first to extend the concept of market orientation into inter‐organizational NPD framework and to examine the role of alliance market orientation in NPD alliance success.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that have faced and do now face marketing scholars through the lens of one scholar who entered the field in early 1970s and who continues to observe the developments in the world and in the disciplines of marketing and consumer research.

Historical journey through the trials and tribulations of one scholar as well as the developments in marketing and consumer research as experienced from this scholar’s point of view. A story of how this one scholar’s ideas and impressions grew out of his experiences.

Challenges against introduction of new perspectives and ideas have existed in the disciplines of marketing and consumer research, and they continue to exist.

This is only a personal history of experiences one scholar has had in the field.

For marketing and consumer research disciplines to positively contribute to humanity’s growth and search for meaning, how scholars in the field think of their disciplines, their relationship to ideologies and the purposes for their existence as scholars may need a radical change.

Considering the challenges faced and possibility of alternative modes of scholarship and knowledge generation, as well as the recognition of the key positional advantage of marketing and consumer research scholars in contemporary culture for understanding the human condition, will help humanity’s quest for a world with greater peacefulness and harmony.

The paper presents a perspective of disciplinary history not often heard in the mainstream media of the two disciplines.