市场营销相关外文文献.pdf

Strategic marketing and business performance:A study in three Europeanengineering countriesMatti Jaakkolaa,Kristian Mllera,1,Petri Parvinena,2,Heiner Evanschitzkyb,3,Hans Mhlbacherc,4aAalto University School of Economics,Department of Marketing and Management,P.O.Box 21230,FI-00076 Aalto,Helsinki,FinlandbUniversity of Strathclyde,Department of Marketing,Stenhouse Building,173 Cathedral Street,Glasgow G4 0RQ,UKcUniversity of Innsbruck School of Management,Department of Strategic Management,Marketing and Tourism,Universitaetsstr.15,6020 Innsbruck,Austriaa b s t r a c ta r t i c l ei n f oArticle history:Received 6 January 2008Received in revised form 21 July 2009Accepted 10 March 2010Available online 12 August 2010Keywords:Strategic marketingBusiness performanceResource-based viewBusiness orientationsStructural equation modelingIn spite of its relevance,the effects of strategic marketing on business performance are sparingly studied,especially in particular business contexts.We address this gap in two ways.First,we examine the influenceof four key strategic marketing conceptsmarket orientation,innovation orientation,and two marketingcapability categories(outside-in and inside-out capabilities)on company performance.Second,theserelationships are studied in three European“engineering countries:”Austria,Finland and Germany.Theirrelative homogeneity enables testing the generality versus context-specificity of strategic marketingsperformance impact.Using SEM analysis,surprisingly weak relationships between market orientation andoutside-in capabilities,and business performance are identified,as opposed to the strong role of inside-outcapabilities and innovation orientation.These results can be understood through the“engineering country”characteristics.Moreover,clear differences in results are identified among these relatively homogenouscountries.This is a major finding as it challenges the widely assumed generality of the strategic marketingperformance relationship.Country-specific results have also considerable managerial relevance.2010 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.1.IntroductionMarketing efforts and know-how are instrumental in commer-cializing ideas and inventions and in running successful business.Nevertheless,the effect of strategic marketing on business perfor-mance remains elusive,even despite an established research tradition(Hooley,Greenley,Cadogan,&Fahy,2005;Matsuno,Mentzer,&zsomer,2002;Srivastava,Shervani,&Fahey,1998).This may be dueto the fact that the outcomes of strategic marketing are subject tomany internal and external influences,making the identification ofcause-and-effect linkages veryhard(Bonoma&Clark,1988).Arelatedissue is that the majority of studies examine only the effects of two orthree marketing factors at a time.This is a clear limitation comparedto corporate reality.The current situation is alarming and severalstudies emphasize the urgency to demonstrate relationships betweenmarketing inputs,processes and business outcomes(e.g.Morgan,Clark,&Gooner,2002;OSullivan&Abela,2007).Another critical aspect in the strategic marketing research is thedominance of cross-sectional research design.By studying themarketing effects over several industries and even over countries,we receive highly averaged results that may also contain a lot ofnoise.This methodological approach regards the influence ofstrategic marketing as generic.That is,the impact of marketingfactors is presumed to be constant across different types of businesscontexts.This is a strong assumption and we lack sufficientknowledge of the effects of strategic marketing factors in particularbusiness contexts(Homburg,Workman,&Krohmer,1999;Morganet al.,2002;Makino,Isobe,&Chan,2004).This is an evidentshortcoming,as research in market orientation suggests the relevanceof contextual analysis,where even a cross-national meta-analysis ofits performance impact is available(Ellis,2006).Additional evidenceof contextuality is available through studies that employ the strategytypology of Miles and Snow(1978)as contextual determinants(e.g.Desarbo,Di Benedetto,Song,&Sinha,2005;Slater,Olson,&Hult,2006).The present study addresses recognized research gaps in twoways.First,as recommended by Hooley,Greenley,Fahy,and Cadogan(2001),we examine the influence of four key strategic marketingconceptsmarket orientation(e.g.Kohli&Jaworski,1990;Narver&Slater,1990),innovation orientation(e.g.Siguaw,Simpson,&Enz,2006),and the two marketing capability categories(outside-in andinside-out capabilities;Day,1994)on company performance.Ascompany performance is a complex phenomenon,we model it usingIndustrial Marketing Management 39(2010)13001310 Corresponding author.Tel.:+358 40 353 8300;fax:+358 9 4313 8660.E-mail addresses:matti.jaakkolahse.fi(M.Jaakkola),kristian.mollerhse.fi(K.Mller),petri.parvinenhse.fi(P.Parvinen),evanschitzkystrath.ac.uk(H.Evanschitzky),hans.muehlbacheruibk.ac.at(H.Mhlbacher).1Tel.:+358 50 383 6190;fax:+358 9 4313 8660.2Tel.:+358 50 526 4661;fax:+358 9 4313 8660.3Tel.:+44 141 548 5802.4Tel.:+43 512 507 7201;fax:+43 512 507 2842.0019-8501/$see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.005Contents lists available at ScienceDirectIndustrial Marketing Managementcompetitive advantage,market performance,and financial perfor-mance(e.g.Morgan et al.,2002).These solutions aim to match thecomplexity of strategic marketing and performance relationships.Second,in order to examine the marketingperformance connec-tion in a specific environment,we select countries as the researchcontext and carry out analysis in Austria,Finland and Germany.Thesecountries,coined“engineering countries,”are chosen for a number ofreasons.First,it will be shown that they are significantly similar intheir business cultural heritages and business policies,all emphasiz-ing technological and engineering innovations and having strongexports in these fields.These characteristics are interesting whenexamining the relative role of market orientation and marketingcapabilities versus innovation orientation.Moreover,these threerelatively homogenous countries provide a critical setting for testingthe generality versus context specificity of the performance impact ofstrategic marketing.Finally,country-specific results also haveconsiderable managerial relevance.To provide readers with a betterunderstanding of this research strategy,the selected countries arebriefly described next.The general similarities among Austria,Finland and Germany,as“engineering countries,”can be identified from extant researchliterature,as well as from our data.For example,for years,thesecountries expenditures on research and development as a percentageof GDP are well above OECD and European Union averages(OECD,2008).To generalize,companies that operate in“engineeringcountries”tend to strive for product superiority,potentially at theexpense of focusing on customer satisfaction and needs fulfillment.Moreover,companies in these countries have,relatively speaking,based significant amounts of their competitive strategies on hightechnology and process technology applications.Thus,we expect thatengineering-oriented companies may gain success almost purely onthe basis of engineering skills and process efficiencies,whereas theirmarketingabilities may be underdeveloped.Using the concepts of thisstudy,“engineering countries”are inherently assumed to be moreinnovation-oriented than market-oriented,and possess more inside-out capabilities than outside-in capabilities.Accordingly,as argued byAvlonitis and Gounaris(1997),we would expect improvements inbusiness performance if these companies are able to combine theirengineering skills with enhanced marketing skills and marketknowledge.Thesesomewhatspeculativeexpectationsoffer additionalrelevance when focusing on“engineering countries.”Austria currently boasts one of the fastest-growing engineeringindustries in Europe,while,in absolutenumbers,Germany remainsbyfar the largest producer of engineering equipment in the EU(Ayala,Spiechowicz,&Vidaller,2006).Despite Germanys strength inengineering-related industries(Randlesome,1994),German compa-nies characteristically have lower levels of marketing professionalismthan many of their international competitors(Shaw,Shaw,&Enke,2003).Likewise in Finland,engineeringand not marketingisconsiderably important,as evidenced by its second position ina 2006 R&D expenditures per GDP comparison among OECD countries(OECD,2008).In Finland and Austria,innovative activitiesand scienceindustry relations are approximately equal(Dachs,Ebersberger,&Pyka,2004),while Czarnitzki,Ebersberger and Fier(2007)argue that Finland and Germany have several comparableswith regard to national innovation and R&D policies as well as publicfunding.Further,networking and close cooperation between univer-sities and industry are seen as key strengths in both countries(Czarnitzki et al.,2007).Thesethree countries have additional traits incommon:high,closely similar standards of living(GDP per capitasomewhat above the average of OECD countries)and easy access toEuropean markets as members of the European Union.To summarize,the primary objective of the present study is toempirically examine how market orientation,innovation orientation,and marketing capabilities affect the financial performance ofcompanies through competitive advantages and market performance.Importantly,we consider country-specific moderation on perfor-mance,which almost all prior studies neglect(Ellis,2006 provides anotable exception).Accordingly,the questions we attempt to answerare:1.How does strategic marketing,in terms of orientations andcapabilities,influence company financial performance in“engi-neering countries?”2.Aretheresultsconsistentwithinthe“engineeringcountries,”or arethere any significant country-specific differences?These questions are highly relevant for both theory developmentand managerial practice.Answer to the first provides a comprehen-sive model of the strategic marketingperformance relationship andthe second question is critical to the assumption of the generic natureof this relationship.In more managerial terms,we examine whether itis innovation-driving company culture and principles,highly devel-oped market orientation,or perhaps certain marketing capabilitiesthat most strongly drive superior performance in the context of“engineering countries.”Moreover,what are potential areas ofimprovement,and are these the same in all countries?Answers tothese questions are of interest to any company that seeks profitablegrowth.If results suggest thatthe samerules clearly do not applyfromone country to another,this can be a strong argument for therelevance of the“act local”principle also to strategic marketing.The rest of the paper is structured as follows.The next sectiondiscusses the studys theoretical grounds and develops its generalconceptual framework.This framework is then broken down intoconstructs and a set of hypotheses are constructed based on extantliterature.Thereafter,the methodology,analysis and key findings arepresented.Discussion of both theoretical and managerial implica-tions,limitations and avenues for further studies concludes the paper.2.Theoretical backgroundIn 1992,Webster suggests that the distinction between marketingand strategic planning is blurred,and the performers of thesefunctions are increasingly the same.As such movement is evidenced,strategic marketing becomes a recognized phenomenon(see e.g.Fahy&Smithee,1999).However,the concept of strategic marketing is usedin various ways while an established definition is not yet available.Inthis paper,strategic marketing is defined as a deeply stakeholder-oriented concept that focuses on a companys long-term vision forcompetitive advantage and value-addition through innovation.Thisdefinition has its grounds on AMAs current(2007)definition ofmarketing(see below),but extends it by including innovation as acentral marketing-related,strategic business element.“Marketing is the activity,set of institutions,and processes forcreating,communicating,delivering,and exchanging offerings thathave value for customers,clients,partners,and society at large.”(American Marketing Association,2007)The present study finds theoretical grounds in the resource-basedview(RBV)of the firm,according to which competitive advantageand subsequently performancedepends on historically developedresource endowments(Wernerfelt,1984).Therefore,firmsandmarketing in particular(Hooley et al.,2001)should build onresources that contribute to their ability to produce valuable,rare,imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable market offerings in amanner that is either efficient or effective(Barney,1991;Hunt&Morgan,1995).As Fahy and Smithee(1999)argue,intangibleresources and capabilities,such as organizational learning(e.g.Santos-Vijande et al.,2005)and customer knowledge(e.g.Webster,1992)are especially difficult to duplicate and thus,provide ameaningful basis for marketing strategy and market positiondevelopment.As such,intangible resources and capabilities have thepotential to become distinctive competencies for the firm(Blois&Ramirez,2006).In this sense,the present study also elaborates on the1301M.Jaakkola et al./Industrial Marketing Management 39(2010)13001310discourse surrounding competence-based marketing,which extendsthe focus from resources and competencies as inputs to resources andcompetencies also as marketable outputs(Zerbini et al.,2007).Growing evidence in practice and academic research supports theidea that firm competencies and resources are key factors of assessing afirms future value potential(e.g.Mller&Trrnen,2003)and,thus,supplier selection in business markets(e.g.Golfetto&Gibbert,2006).Using the terminology of Ritter(2006),we are referring to process andmarket competencies in particular(i.e.,routines related to theproperties and characteristics of the firms value-creation process andthe value transfer between the firm and its environment)in this study.Thereisanemergingdiscussionwithinmarket-orientationresearch,as originated by Kohli and Jaworski(1990)and Narver and Slater(1990),on the moderating effects of environmental variables on therelationship between market orientation and business performance(Han,Kim,&Srivastava,1998;Kaynak&Kara,2004).However,muchremains unsettled,while the same applies to contextual moderation ofperformance with regard to other marketing phenomena(cf.Auh&Menguc,2007;Avlonitis&Gounaris,1997).This research type benefitsparticularly from studies in different business contexts(industry,national and/or cultural),since they enable testing procedures for thegeneralizability of results.To enhance the understanding of contextualmoderation,we examine performance mechanism in a cross-countrysetting,among“culturally engineering-oriented”countries.The role of innovation and innovation orientation in the marketorientation versus performance puzzle is also somewhat unclear.Weare accustomed to thinking that innovatio