Cargando…
A taxonomy of marketing organizations
A basic step in scientific inquiry entails ordering, classifying, or grouping the phenomena under investigation—that is, developing a taxonomy. Yet no method-transparent taxonomy of marketing organization types has been established, creating significant confusion among both managers and theoretician...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36540157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5 |
_version_ | 1784851496735604736 |
---|---|
author | McAlister, Leigh Germann, Frank Chisam, Natalie Hayes, Pete Lynch, Adriana Stewart, Bill |
author_facet | McAlister, Leigh Germann, Frank Chisam, Natalie Hayes, Pete Lynch, Adriana Stewart, Bill |
author_sort | McAlister, Leigh |
collection | PubMed |
description | A basic step in scientific inquiry entails ordering, classifying, or grouping the phenomena under investigation—that is, developing a taxonomy. Yet no method-transparent taxonomy of marketing organization types has been established, creating significant confusion among both managers and theoreticians. Many marketers, inspired by educators, assume that marketing organizations control all marketing-related decisions, yet skeptics counter with assertions that instead, marketing organizations simply put a positive spin on the meaningful value created by others in the company. The method-transparent taxonomic study presented in this article addresses this debate and reveals three marketing organization types: Growth Champions, which reflect a textbook view, representing about 17% of the sample firms; Service Providers, consistent with the skeptics’ view, equivalent to about 43% of the sample firms; and Marcom Leaders, a third marketing organization type in which marketers are primarily responsible for brands and communications, representing about 40% of the sample firms. Establishing these different marketing organization types can help address conflicting views about marketing organizations. The conceptual typology underlying the empirical taxonomy also clarifies why the different marketing organization types exist and suggests hypotheses, specific to each marketing organization type, that might address previously unresolved research questions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9755790 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97557902022-12-16 A taxonomy of marketing organizations McAlister, Leigh Germann, Frank Chisam, Natalie Hayes, Pete Lynch, Adriana Stewart, Bill J Acad Mark Sci Original Empirical Research A basic step in scientific inquiry entails ordering, classifying, or grouping the phenomena under investigation—that is, developing a taxonomy. Yet no method-transparent taxonomy of marketing organization types has been established, creating significant confusion among both managers and theoreticians. Many marketers, inspired by educators, assume that marketing organizations control all marketing-related decisions, yet skeptics counter with assertions that instead, marketing organizations simply put a positive spin on the meaningful value created by others in the company. The method-transparent taxonomic study presented in this article addresses this debate and reveals three marketing organization types: Growth Champions, which reflect a textbook view, representing about 17% of the sample firms; Service Providers, consistent with the skeptics’ view, equivalent to about 43% of the sample firms; and Marcom Leaders, a third marketing organization type in which marketers are primarily responsible for brands and communications, representing about 40% of the sample firms. Establishing these different marketing organization types can help address conflicting views about marketing organizations. The conceptual typology underlying the empirical taxonomy also clarifies why the different marketing organization types exist and suggests hypotheses, specific to each marketing organization type, that might address previously unresolved research questions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5. Springer US 2022-12-16 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9755790/ /pubmed/36540157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5 Text en © Academy of Marketing Science 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Original Empirical Research McAlister, Leigh Germann, Frank Chisam, Natalie Hayes, Pete Lynch, Adriana Stewart, Bill A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title | A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title_full | A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title_fullStr | A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title_full_unstemmed | A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title_short | A taxonomy of marketing organizations |
title_sort | taxonomy of marketing organizations |
topic | Original Empirical Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36540157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcalisterleigh ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT germannfrank ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT chisamnatalie ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT hayespete ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT lynchadriana ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT stewartbill ataxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT mcalisterleigh taxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT germannfrank taxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT chisamnatalie taxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT hayespete taxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT lynchadriana taxonomyofmarketingorganizations AT stewartbill taxonomyofmarketingorganizations |