There are still other wonderful papers that begin with two contradicting theories whose resolution has important implications for the manager. There are wonderful papers that start with the firm’s problem and develop theory and results to resolve it. Jerry Zaltman, one of my advisors and mentors, always taught his students to think about the degree to which our ideas can change thoughts and behaviors. Still other research may produce a payoff for policymakers engaged with firm marketing or for customers who interact with the firm. Research may also develop critical theoretical insights that lead to new ways of thinking about the firm’s problems and their resolution. This rich theoretical domain brings with it many real-world problems that research can help resolve directly. What separates marketing strategy from strategy is that our focus is on the firm’s exchanges with the marketplace. Strategy scholars focus on the firm and study firm investments, strategies, characteristics, and outcomes. So, I would contend that marketing strategy research has won the war of influence, but perhaps lost the war of labels. However, this design approach has been a part of marketing strategy research for almost three decades. Take another example: Very few modelers used quasi- or natural experiments in their research until the last decade. However, now these ideas have infiltrated the learning models used by this group. Take an example: When marketing strategy scholars first started using Jim March’s ideas about exploration and exploitation in the 1990s (March 1991), empirical modelers were not aware of these concepts. Marketing strategy may look as if it is disappearing, but it is, in fact, more deeply embedded in more schools and across more papers. In that sense, marketing strategy faces the problem that marketing has faced for years, which is that now everyone is doing it. Related, I think these data would show that an increasing number of empirical and analytic modelers would self-identify as having a focus on marketing strategy problems. We would then have a much more accurate sense of how the field is changing. However, if this question is asked, candidates should be asked to check as many boxes as they think reflect who they are. This approach, which is replicated in the field and in our own departments, contributes to the problem. The question separates areas that naturally overlap. Second, and more importantly, two of the categories are about methods approaches (analytical modeling, empirical modeling) and two are about research areas (CB, strategy). The question is problematic because marketing strategy and consumer behavior scholars often use empirical models. First, how was the question posed by the DocSig? It appears that students were asked to align with consumer behavior, strategy, modeling-empirical, or modeling-analytical. However, I have questions about these data. There is a decrease in the number of scholars self-identifying with marketing strategy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |