营销渠道和营销策略外文文献资料

文献出处：Paswan A K, Blankson C, Guzman F. Relationalism in marketing channels and marketing strategy[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2015，45(3): 311-333.

Relationalism in marketing channels and marketing strategy

Paswan, Audhesh K; Blankson, Charles; Guzman, Francisco

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between marketing strategy types - aggressive marketing, price leadership and product specialization strategies - and the extent of renationalize in marketing channels.

Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected using a self-administered survey from managers responsible for marketing and channels management in US pharmaceutical firms. The responses to the questions capturing focal constructs were measured using a five-point Liker type scale. Data were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling procedures.

Findings - Aggressive marketing strategy and price leadership strategy are positively associated with the level of renationalize in marketing channels. In contrast, product specialization (focus) strategy is negatively associated with the level of renationalize in marketing channels.

Originality/value - The relationship between marketing strategy and the emergent renationalize among marketing channel intermediaries is critical for the firm's ability to meet objectives. This relationship has not been investigated so far and, from a managerial perspective, managing marketing channels is critical for successful implementation of marketing strategies.

Keywords: Relationship marketing, marketing strategy, Distribution channels and markets

Introduction

The concept of renationalize (i.e. extent to which relational norms guide the interactions between business partners) has been extensively studied within the overlapping rubrics of marketing channels (see [14] Black and Peoples, 2005; [21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [88] Aswan et al. , 1998; [112] Zhang et al. , 2003), logistics, and supply chain networks ([13] Penstock et al. , 1997; [33] Davis and Meltzer, 2006; [40] Germaine and Ayer, 2006; [44] Griffith and Myers, 2005; [78] Meltzer et al. , 1989; [83] Morris and Carter, 2005; [97] Srivastava et al. , 1999; [108] Williams et al. , 1997). The general consensus in the

literature is that the presence of strong relational norms among marketing channel intermediaries is associated with factors such as performance (see [14] Black and Peoples, 2005; [44] Griffith and Myers, 2005; [60] Kahn et al. , 2006; [83] Morris and Carter, 2005), channel management and governance, and conflict resolution ([21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [22] Brown et al. , 2000; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [45] Gonzalez-Hernando et al. , 2003; [57] Jap and Gamesman, 2000; [68] Liu et al. , 2008; [88] Aswan et al. , 1998; [104] Vazquez et al. , 2007), information exchange ([53] Holmes and Srivastava, 1999), and competitiveness ([112] Zhang et al. , 2003). Notwithstanding, to our best knowledge, the relationship between marketing strategy and the emergent relational norms in marketing channels has not received adequate research attention in the extant literature. Closing this gap in the literature is crucial given that both marketing strategy and marketing channels, including norm based governance of marketing channels, are inextricably linked to the success of the marketing function. To this end, the focus of this study is to examine the linkages between the level of renationalize among marketing channel intermediaries and the marketing strategy.

Before proceeding any further, we would like to acknowledge that while the focus of this study is on relational norm (or renationalize) within the business-to-business context, a review of the literature shows that renationalize and relationship marketing are mutually inclusive ([24] Christopher et al. , 1991; [48] Gambeson, 1987; [105] Flouts et al. , 2002). In fact, according to [105] Flouts et al. (2002), the scope of relationship marketing includes external and internal and upstream and downstream constituencies. While modern marketing practices reflect the maximization of customer value, the onus of relationship marketing is reflected in the dictum proposed by [48] Gambeson (1987) that everyone in the firm is a part-time marketer. The latter is taken further by [105] Flouts et al. (2002) who assert that relational and transactional forms of relationships are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The authors suggest that in order for firms to engage with their dynamic target markets (i.e. business-to-business, business-to-customer, or both), and to effectively manage the relationship with them over time, firms should develop relationship marketing chains (see also, [89] Peck et al., 1999).

Pursuant to the aim of the study, the first focus of this research reflects the fact that a key marketing objective is to meet the customer's needs, wants, and aspirations and that in order to fulfill these goals, firms must manage the channel intermediaries and logistics function to ensure the effective and efficient flow of goods, information, and revenue (see [28] CSCMP, 2005; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [40] Germaine and Ayer, 2006; [43] Gill and Allerheiligen, 1996; [66] Larson et al. , 2007; [98] Stank et al. , 2007). Studies in the field of channels and logistics acknowledge that marketing channel networks with strong emergent relational

norms (i.e. spirit of cooperation, long term orientation, and a feeling of solidarity are likely to yield better results. Some have even suggested that renationalize is the cure for all business problems (for example [43] Gill and Allerheiligen, 1996; [60] Kahn et al., 2006; [85] Nordmeyer et al., 1990; [110] Womack et al., 1991). However, others have taken a more cautious stance towards the linkage between the concept of renationalize and its outcomes (see [30] Curran et al., 2008; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [88] Aswan et al., 1998).

The second focal direction of this study is marketing strategy - the way in which firms create value and define their operational boundaries. The literature also stresses the importance of a good fit between marketing strategy and governance structure (see [14] Black and Peoples, 2005; [38] Galbraith and Karajan, 1986; [44] Griffith and Myers, 2005; [77] Meltzer et al., 2001; [91] Porter, 1980; [92] Powell, 1992; [94] Slater and Olson, 2000, [95] 2001). Together, the renationalize in marketing channels and marketing strategy literature streams imply that while long term relationships between marketing channel intermediaries may be pivotal for a firm's strategy, there is some ambiguity about the exact nature of this relationship; in other words, not all strategies harmonize well with renationalize in marketing channels. To that end, this investigation focuses on the following research question:

RQ1. Are relational norms among marketing channel intermediaries suitable for every marketing strategy, or are some marketing strategies more suitable for relational norms while others may in fact be negatively affected by the presence of strong relational norms? From a managerial perspective, managing marketing channels is critical for successful implementation of marketing strategies. Given the fact that governance using relational norms is considered by most as a more effective way of managing marketing channels, managers need to be cognizant of the exact relation between emergent renationalize in marketing channel and marketing strategy.

In the ensuing sections of this paper, the literature on renationalize in marketing channels is examined, followed by a discussion on marketing strategy and the rationale for the hypotheses. The method section is presented next. The last sections include a discussion of the findings, managerial implications, and limitations of this study. Marketing channel intermediaries and relational norms

Marketing channels typically consist of intermediaries that function in a cohesive manner to meet the customer's needs and wants while fulfilling the intermediaries' goals (see [5] Alderson, 1954; [19] Bowers ox et al., 1980). While contractual or corporate channels are not uncommon, recent studies have questioned the traditional linear perspective of the supply chain and have suggested a more complex network perspective ([1] Carol, 1997; [4] Carol

and Kilter, 1999; [96] Snow, 1997; [107] Walker, 1997). [4] Carol and Kilter (1999, p. 148) define a network organization as:

an interdependent coalition of task- or skill-specialized economic entities (independent firms or autonomous organizational units) that operates without hierarchical control and is embedded, by dense lateral connections, mutuality, and reciprocity, in a shared value system that defines \

For the purposes of this research, we focus on channel intermediaries that are independent businesses and loosely aligned through consensus. They could be part of a simpler supply chain or could be part of a more complex network. In any case, to fulfill customer needs and wants, marketing channel systems or networks perform various activities such as physical distribution, warehousing, storage, flow of information, flow of revenue and profits, and logistics, to name a few (see [19] Bowers ox et al. , 1980; [99] Stern et al. , 1996). These words also appear in some combination under labels such as supply chain management and logistics (see [20] Bowers ox et al., 1995; [23] Christopher, 1992; [27] Cooper et al., 1997; [28] CSCMP, 2005; [36] Forrester, 1958; [42] Gibson et al., 2005; [58] Jones and Riley, 1985; [77] Meltzer et al., 2001; [80] Min and Meltzer, 2000).

Despite the divergent perspectives, the importance of relational norms towards the efficient and effective functioning of a distribution channel has been acknowledged in the channels and supply chain areas (e.g., [21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [39] Gamesman, 1994; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [74] Attila, 2001; [77] Meltzer et al. , 2001; and [88] Aswan et al. , 1998). Most researchers and practitioners in marketing channels, supply chain, and logistics agree that coordination and collaboration between channel members, and the relational norm guiding such behavior are the essence of modern day marketing channels management. From a strategic perspective, [82] Morgan and Hunt (1994) confirm that changes are taking place in the practice and theory of business relationships; in other words, towards establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges. The importance of developing and maintaining enduring relationships with intermediaries is also widely accepted in logistics and supply chain literature (e.g., [37] Fugate et al., 2006; [60] Kahn et al., 2006; [77] Meltzer et al., 2001). At its core, renationalize is built on an expectation of continuity of exchange and a shift in focus towards long term payoffs based on relational norms. In support, [49] Heidi (1994) notes that exchange partners develop joint values and expectations about what behaviors are appropriate in order to complete formal arrangements. A strong feeling of trust, cooperation, open communication, and a reduction in the adversarial feelings towards the

trading partners are the core characteristics of renationalize. (While some of these sentiments have been used in the context of relationship marketing ([11] Berry, 1983; [12] Berry and Paraguayan, 1991; [46] Gringos, 1994), we use these to characterize the relationship between supply chain partners). In fact, it is suggested that network partners may even forgo short-term profits if renationalize in the network leads to long term gains. To that end, expectations of a non-economic, psychological, and social payoff may even become more important than strict transactional payoffs. Thus, renationalize is expected to mitigate the opportunistic behavior ([30] Curran et al., 2008). In other words, firms embracing relational norms are likely to behave in a more supportive and cooperative manner with their channel partners. The mind-set of renationalize, the anticipation of continuity, and the long-term payoffs replace the no promise of tomorrow in which immediate profit is maximized ([87] Aswan and Young, 1999). These joint values and expectations have been studied within marketing channels literature under labels such as relational norms or renationalize (see [32] Dent and School, 1992; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988). [70] McNeil (1980, [71] 1981, [72] 1983) suggested that exchanges between business entities lie on a continuum with one end heavily oriented towards discreet exchange and the other end leaning heavily towards relational norm based exchange.

Initial conceptualization of relational norm by [70] McNeil (1980) included nine norms. Later, McNeil added one more norm resulting in the ten most commonly used relational norms - Role integrity, Contractual solidarity, Reciprocity/mutuality, Implementation of planning, Effectuation of consent, The linking norms (restitution, reliance, and expectation interests), Creation and restitution of power, Flexibility, Harmonization with the social matrix, and Propriety of means ([15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [55] Ovens, 2006; [72] McNeil, 1983). While several scholars have used these relational norms in their investigation of business-to-business exchange relationships in various contexts, there is little agreement about the use of the term relational norms and its operationalization ([15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [56] Ovens and Blois, 2004; [55] Ovens, 2006). [55] Ovens (2006), and [15] Blois and Ovens (2006, [16] 2007) have tried to make sense of this very confusing scenario and offer an interesting interpretation. Through an empirical study they found that the norms used in literature could be grouped into two clusters -norms that help in value creation (solidarity, mutuality, flexibility, information exchange, role integrity, long term orientation, and planning behavior) and norms that facilitate value claiming (conflict behavior, monitoring behavior, and power reduction). These investigations indicate that most authors using relational norms have relied to various degrees on the operationalization put forward by [62] Kaufmann and Stern (1988) and [61] Kaufmann and Dent (1992), and that the three norms

featured in most studies are solidarity, role integrity, and mutuality.

Relying on the extant studies on renationalize (see [15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al., 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al., 1998), we adopt a multidimensional perspective of renationalize that uses Solidarity, Role Integrity, and Mutuality, as its three dimensions. Solidarity refers to the importance attached to the orderly exchange norms that are accepted by the majority and captures sentiments such as trust, future cooperation, and open communications versus discreet transaction orientation and arms length negotiation. Role integrity captures more complex expectations and roles associated with the relationships with trading partners versus an expectation of simplistic transactional role fulfillment by exchange partners. Finally, mutuality (originally labeled as reciprocity by McNeil) captures the importance associated with long-term payoffs where each party tries to balance the account book on a transaction by transaction basis; as is the case in discreet exchange relationships, by constantly monitoring, reconciling, and controlling every transaction with high degree of immediacy. In contrast, an exchange relationship based on relational norms will be characterized by high levels of trust and an expectation of continuous improvement over a pre-exchange position over an extended period of time ([15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al. , 1998). Marketing strategy

Two dominant typologies have emerged in the business strategy field - [79] Miles and Snow's (1978) typology (i.e. prospector, defender, analyzer, and reactor) and [91] Porter's (1980) typology (i.e. cost leadership, differentiation, and focus). Of these, it appears that [91] Porter's (1980) typology has been used extensively in marketing strategy literature ([94] Slater and Olson, 2000) probably because it captures the way in which firms create value (i.e. differentiation or low cost) and defines their scope of market coverage (i.e. focused or market-wide). However, in the marketing strategy literature, with the exception of [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) and [95] Slater and Olson (2001), there is a lack of comprehensive marketing strategy classification schemes. [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) use a framework for classifying products (i.e. convenience, preference, shopping, and specialty products) and integrate the remaining marketing mix elements (price, promotion, and distribution) into this framework. [95] Slater and Olson's (2001) typology of marketing strategy includes aggressive marketers, mass marketers, marketing minimizes, and value marketers. These authors also

featured in most studies are solidarity, role integrity, and mutuality.

Relying on the extant studies on renationalize (see [15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al., 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al., 1998), we adopt a multidimensional perspective of renationalize that uses Solidarity, Role Integrity, and Mutuality, as its three dimensions. Solidarity refers to the importance attached to the orderly exchange norms that are accepted by the majority and captures sentiments such as trust, future cooperation, and open communications versus discreet transaction orientation and arms length negotiation. Role integrity captures more complex expectations and roles associated with the relationships with trading partners versus an expectation of simplistic transactional role fulfillment by exchange partners. Finally, mutuality (originally labeled as reciprocity by McNeil) captures the importance associated with long-term payoffs where each party tries to balance the account book on a transaction by transaction basis; as is the case in discreet exchange relationships, by constantly monitoring, reconciling, and controlling every transaction with high degree of immediacy. In contrast, an exchange relationship based on relational norms will be characterized by high levels of trust and an expectation of continuous improvement over a pre-exchange position over an extended period of time ([15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al. , 1998). Marketing strategy

Two dominant typologies have emerged in the business strategy field - [79] Miles and Snow's (1978) typology (i.e. prospector, defender, analyzer, and reactor) and [91] Porter's (1980) typology (i.e. cost leadership, differentiation, and focus). Of these, it appears that [91] Porter's (1980) typology has been used extensively in marketing strategy literature ([94] Slater and Olson, 2000) probably because it captures the way in which firms create value (i.e. differentiation or low cost) and defines their scope of market coverage (i.e. focused or market-wide). However, in the marketing strategy literature, with the exception of [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) and [95] Slater and Olson (2001), there is a lack of comprehensive marketing strategy classification schemes. [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) use a framework for classifying products (i.e. convenience, preference, shopping, and specialty products) and integrate the remaining marketing mix elements (price, promotion, and distribution) into this framework. [95] Slater and Olson's (2001) typology of marketing strategy includes aggressive marketers, mass marketers, marketing minimizes, and value marketers. These authors also

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/y7zg.html