39 Others

(S. Li, Sivadas, and Johnson 2015) Article citability and its dynamic effects


  • Investigate the factors influencing the impact and influence of published research papers, considering it as a marketing challenge for academic works.

New Proposition:

  • Beyond acknowledged overt factors that influence research paper influence (like the journal’s reputation, the content of the article, the author’s prominence, and the so-called “Matthew effects” where those with initial advantages gain more), there’s a latent factor: “Citability.”

What is Citability?

  • A latent, or hidden, variable representing how relatable or relevant an article is to its academic field over time. It fluctuates, changing the degree to which a paper is likely to be cited by others.


  • Model Used: A discretized Tobit model combined with hidden Markov processes.

  • This approach indicates that citability has two distinct states, which in turn affect a paper’s influence.

  • Data Source: Articles published in seven premier marketing journals from 1996 to 2003.

Key Findings:

  1. Dynamic Nature of Citability: The impact of a research paper isn’t static; it evolves over time due to the changing states of its citability.

  2. Importance of Citability: A paper’s influence is not only determined by overt factors like where it’s published or who wrote it. The underlying relevance or citability of a paper plays a crucial role.

  3. Effect of “Uncitedness”: The model captures the effect of a paper remaining uncited, which many other models do not consider. Not being cited can have implications for a paper’s influence and citability.

Differences from Prior Research:

  • Traditional models assume static effects, like the influence of a journal’s reputation or an author’s prominence. In contrast, this study’s model acknowledges the shifting nature of a paper’s impact.

  • Existing models overlook the evolving dynamics of a paper’s influence and how various influence drivers may have different effects based on the latent state of the paper.


  • Recognizing the role of citability can help academics and institutions strategize research dissemination, ensuring that relevant papers don’t lose their deserved spotlight.

  • The model offers a more holistic view of what determines a paper’s influence, which can influence publishing decisions and how researchers approach their work.

(Jedidi et al. 2021) created an index of relevance (called R2M - Relevance to marketing), which measures the relevance of marketing publications to marketing practice (dimensions: topics, time).

(T. Lin and Misra 2022) illustrates that consumer identity fragmentation (i.e., a person using multiple devices with different tracking systems) can induce bias the estimate of quantities of interest (e.g., advertising effects). The bias comes from 3 sources:

  1. Outcome fragmentation: measurement errors that create attenuation bias. Due to an artificial increased in the number of observations (i.e., one person with two devices are counted as 2 identities), but the total outcome variation remains constant, while the measured outcome is attenuated. This bias only goes away if the true effect (e.g., advertising effect) is 0.
  2. Exposure fragmentation: similar to omitted variable bias because the cross-device exposure is not taken into account. Hence, only when exposure to one device will not induce a consumer to purchase a product on another device, then this bias will go away (very hard to convince).
  3. Spurious Covariance: from device-level activity bias (i.e., patterns to use one device for browsing but another for purchasing - differential device usage preferences and differential exposure levels), and cross-device sustitution.
    1. Using a separate model for each device type can eliminate the device-level activity bias.

Solutions to identity fragmentation include

  1. Identity linking: but partially linked data can create more problems than solution
  2. Experiment-based estimator adjustment by (Coey and Bailey 2016) to recover the true effect using experiments with an additional assumption of symmetric and independent exposures (SIE). But it can still be wrong due to its inability to capture cross-device variations (e.g., activity bias).
  3. Stratified Aggregation: first group by geographic location, then put each group into a bin of consumer characteristics’ combinations (e.g., sex, gender, education).

(Feng, Morgan, and Rego 2015) Marketing department power and firm performance

  • Objective: Examine the evolution of marketing department power within U.S. firms from 1993 to 2008 and determine its implications for firm performance.

  • Methodology:

    • Deployed a novel objective metric to assess marketing department power.

    • Analyzed a cross-industry cohort consisting of 612 public U.S. firms.

  • Key Findings:

    • There was a discernible augmentation in the power of marketing departments over the specified timeframe.

    • Elevated marketing department power yielded:

      • Enhanced long-term total shareholder returns, surpassing its influence on short-term return on assets (ROA).

      • Mediating effects on long-run market-based-asset-building and short-run market-based-asset-leveraging capabilities were observed. These capabilities partially mediated the influence on long-term shareholder value and fully mediated the effect on short-term ROA performance.

(Feng, Morgan, and Rego 2017) Firm capabilities and growth: the moderating role of market conditions

  • Objective: Utilizing the contingency theory framework, the study delves into the role of diverse firm-level capabilities and their interplay on firm growth, contextualized within varying market scenarios.

  • Data & Methodology:

    • Analyzed panel data from 612 public U.S. firms spanning 16 years across 60 industries.

    • Focuses on the empirical exploration of the interaction between three pivotal firm capabilities: marketing, R&D, and operations, and their cumulative effect on revenue and profit growth trajectories.

    • Additionally, the research probes into external boundary conditions, namely market munificence and competitive dynamism, and their modulating effect on the growth implications of the aforestated capabilities.

  • Key Findings:

    • R&D capabilities amplify the growth effects of marketing capabilities, whereas operational capabilities attenuate them.

    • The strength and direction of these interactions are not static but fluctuate depending on prevailing market conditions.

(Bhattacharya, Morgan, and Rego 2022) why and when market share drives firm profit

  • Objective: Delve into the underpinnings of the market share-profit relationship, addressing gaps in empirical understanding and seeking to discern the key mechanisms influencing this relationship.

  • Background: Firms conventionally employ market share as a metric for setting marketing objectives and gauging performance. Despite recent meta-analytic revelations on market share’s economic implications and influential factors, a holistic understanding remains elusive.

  • Methodology:

    • Conducted a simultaneous analysis of the trio of primary theoretical mechanisms believed to interlink firm market share and profit.
  • Key Findings:

    • Predominantly, market power and quality signaling emerged as robust explicators of the variance in market share’s positive impact on profit. Conversely, operating efficiency presented minimal explanatory potency.

    • This predominant role of the three mechanisms sustained even in scenarios where market share bore a negative correlation with profit, as observed with niche firms and those tactically “purchasing” market share.

(Feng, Morgan, and Rego 2020) Unprofitable customer management strategies on shareholder value

  • Objective: Examine the ramifications of unprofitable customer management (UCM) strategies on shareholder value and identify influencing factors.

  • Background: While a significant segment of a firm’s clientele may be unprofitable, and the management of such customers has been researched from customer and managerial perspectives, the impact on shareholder value remains uncharted.

  • Methodology:

    • Employed an event study approach to investigate stock market reactions following announcements related to firms’ UCM strategic decisions.
  • Key Findings:

    • UCM strategy disclosures yielded an average short-term abnormal stock return of −0.53%.

    • Employing signaling theory, multiple facets of the signal (UCM strategy), signaler (the firm in question), and the signaling milieu were scrutinized to elucidate shareholder value effects:

      • Indirect UCM strategies were more favorably received by investors compared to direct customer divestment strategies.

      • Specific iterations of indirect UCM strategies and the underlying strategic intent during adoption, bolstered by firm’s robust marketing capabilities and positive media exposure, can offset the generally observed negative abnormal stock returns.

(Luo, Slotegraaf, and Pan 2006) Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms

  • Objective: Explore the phenomenon of “coopetition” across functional areas within firms, breaking away from the conventional dichotomy in marketing literature that views cross-functional relationships as either purely cooperative or competitive.

  • Conceptual Focus: The term “coopetition” encapsulates a simultaneous blend of cooperation and competition in inter-departmental dynamics.

  • Methodology:

    • Collected input from mid-level managerial personnel and top-tier executives.
  • Key Findings:

    • Cross-functional coopetition, contrary to prevailing conceptions, bolsters both customer and financial outcomes for a firm.

    • This performance enhancement is not direct but rather facilitated by market learning. Thus, the beneficial repercussions of cross-functional coopetition are channeled through an intrinsic learning process.

(Olsen, Slotegraaf, and Chandukala 2014) Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New Products Change Brand Attitude

  • Objective: Analyze the brand-level ramifications of introducing environmentally sustainable (“green”) new products, with the aim of discerning how these introductions influence consumer attitudes towards the brand.

  • Background: With environmental sustainability ranking prominently in global consumer trends, firms are gravitating towards the introduction of green products, committing substantial resources to this endeavor.

  • Theoretical Base: The study integrates insights from both social identity and framing theories. This helps in deconstructing the motives behind green product introductions and understanding the conditional effects of message framing, source credibility, and product typology.

  • Methodology:

    • Deployed a three-stage least squares modeling technique.

    • Evaluated green product introductions from 75 brands over a four-year span (2009–2012).

  • Key Findings:

    • Introducing green products can indeed enhance consumer attitude towards the brand.

    • The strategic positioning of the brand and product category substantially dictates the launch of green products.

    • Multiple factors, such as the volume of green-centric messaging, the nature of the product, and the credibility of the information source, jointly determine the magnitude of change in brand attitude resulting from green product introductions.

(Rebecca J. Slotegraaf and Dickson 2004) Paradox in Marketing Planning

  • Context:

    • Ongoing debate among strategy scholars about the benefits of formal planning.

    • Research provides inconsistent evidence about planning’s impact on firm performance.

  • Framework:

    • Utilizes the resource-based view of the firm to analyze the paradox.
  • Findings:

    • Strong marketing planning capability can:

      1. Decrease postplan improvisation.

      2. Introduce inherent process rigidity.

    • Both outcomes have potential to enhance firm performance.

(Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, Moorman, and Inman 2003)

  • Current Research Landscape:

    • Two predominant approaches in marketing research:

      1. Focus on a firm’s resources.

      2. Focus on a firm’s strategic/tactical actions.

  • Authors’ Perspective:

    • Neither approach alone encapsulates the complete drivers of competitive advantage.
  • Concept Introduced:

    • “Market Deployment”: Refers to specific marketing actions taken by a firm.
  • Research Objective:

    • Understand the relationship between a firm’s resources and the efficacy of its marketing actions (market deployment).
  • Methodology:

    • Secondary data approach.

    • Employed a series of sequentially estimated hierarchical regression models.

  • Key Findings:

    1. The possession of resources directly influences the returns on market deployment.

    2. High levels of intangible marketing resources and technological resources enhance the success of market deployment activities, especially distribution and coupon activities.

    3. Contrarily, higher levels of financial resources decrease the efficiency of distribution and coupon-based market deployment activities.

  • Implication:

    • The nature and magnitude of resources a firm possesses can either amplify or diminish the returns on specific marketing actions. Managers should strategically consider the resource base when planning and executing marketing strategies.