Enhancing Theory and Strengthening Knowledge Development in the Marketing Discipline Ruth N. Bolton Marketing Science Institute Conference on “Ideas that Matter: A Dialog on Enhancing Theory Development in Marketing” Friday August 13, 2010

Do MSI member company trustees care about theory? Yes! Because...

Good marketing theory answers questions about: 1. How do customers and consumers behave? 2. How do markets function and evolve? 3. How do firms relate to their markets? 4. What are the contributions of marketing to organizational performance and societal welfare?  Day and Montgomery (1999) Theory answers these questions by providing “a structured set of statements representing a focal phenomenon’s explanation, empirical verifiability and some law-like generalizations” (Yadav 2010 p. 5).

What kinds of questions do managers ask? From depth interviews during the research priorities process: “Frameworks” “Models” “Understanding” Example: An article on “Customer Engagement” Doorn et al (JSR 2010), developed at an MSI co- sponsored conference in Montabaur, Germany, was presented by Kay Lemon at a recent MSI Trustees meeting

How does MSI answer them?  We disseminate knowledge through conferences and publications.  A success story: – Empirical Generalizations about Marketing Impact, edited by Dominique M. (Mike) Hanssens, surveys the academic research to determine “what we know” about the impact of marketing activities on product and company performance.  Books: Consumer Behavior, edited by Joseph (Joe) Alba.  Articles and Monographs: Fast Forward article on “New Branding Imperatives” by Kevin L. Keller.

Questions for the panel to think about: 1. What factors currently impede theory development efforts in the marketing discipline? 2. How can theory development efforts be enhanced in the marketing discipline?

Initiating Theory Development Doctoral training neglects theory generation in favor of theory testing: – There is no common body of knowledge that all marketing students study. – Doctoral programs emphasize depth over breadth. – Doctoral programs are highly idiosyncratic; they tend to reflect the expertise areas of the faculty who teach. – Teaching doctoral student is labor intensive – could we pool our resources to teach doctoral courses in theory construction and relevant foundational courses?  Research Priorities, Academic Conference funding, MSI Young Scholars, Awards  Essential Readings in Marketing and its update, New Advances in , offer a comprehensive overview of the critical milestones in marketing thought.  Developed for academics, marketing researchers, and doctoral students, Essential Readings in Marketing collects over 250 abstracts of articles that have won marketing’s major research awards.  Abstracts are organized by topics— among them, metrics linking marketing to financial performance, research tools, customer insight, and new media—and brief essays provide context and insight. – But how do they fit together?

Reviewer Evaluation of Conceptual Papers  The Sheth Foundation / Journal of Marketing Award is made 6-10 years after a JM article was originally published; it is awarded to the best article that has made long term contributions.  Currently, 5 of the 9 articles that have received the Sheth/JM Award were supported by MSI: – Day (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations“ – Jaworski and Kohli (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences“ – Keller (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer- Based Brand Equity” – Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml (2004), “Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy” – Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey (1998), “Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis”  Evaluation criteria for faculty (and the articles they write) are biased towards short run impact measures.  Articles have a long run impact when they change the mindset of how marketers think about issues/problems.  Stewart has observed that it is hard for conceptual articles to survive the review process. – MSI selects articles to include in its working paper series by holding a group discussion with 6-8 experts. “Simple” and “elegant” theory becomes more readily apparent. – My experience with publishing Vargo and Lusch (JM 2004) is that the commentaries provided added value and created intellectual debate. It changed the nature of the review process for the article.

Theory & Relevance: A Common Challenge  See: Reibstein, Day and Wind (2009), McAlister (2005), MacInnis (2004; 2005).  “Fragmentation in the marketing community – probably aggravated by move to area editors at journals.  Marketing Renaissance” (2005): Current challenges, opportunities, and imperatives for improving marketing thought and practice. – In a collegial process, the authors read and commented on one another’s essays, after which each author had an opportunity to revise his or her essay. The result is a... set of essays that are related to one another in interesting ways.  Stephen W. Brown  Frederick E.Webster Jr.,  Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp  William L. Wilkie  Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia  Roger A. Kerin.  Debbie MacInnis  Leigh McAlister;  Jagmohan S. Raju;  Ronald J. Bauerly, Don T. Johnson, and Mandeep Singh;  Richard Staelin.  To [make sense out of great mysteries] requires a certain kind of genius, one that probes vertically and sees horizontally. Horizontal vision allows someone to assimilate and weave together seemingly unconnected bits of information. It allows an investigator to see what others do not see and to make leaps of connectivity and creativity. Probing vertically, going deeper and deeper into something, creates new information. - Barry (2004)  “A larger sense of scholarship” - William (Bill) L. Wilkie