نمایندگی های بازار در بازاریابی صنعتی: آیا نمایندگی ها می توانند استراتژی را تحت تاثیر قرار دهند؟

Marketing is a representational practice (Levy, 1959 and Stern, 2004). Marketers operate by representing one thing with something else—for example, using a brand to represent the values of the company, or crafting ads to represent the benefits of a product. The importance of representation has been at the forefront of marketing thought since as early as the 1950s (Gardner & Levy, 1955), yet general consensus is that only marketers utilize representations to their advantage. As such, scholars observe how marketers craft brands to mean something, and how advertisers use ads to persuade. Marketing literature often overlooks the fact that marketers are, in a sense, themselves the subject of representations (Stern, 2004). Representations affect the form in which managers understand their business market – that is, how it is represented in their minds – constraining their repertoire of managerial actions ( Hagel, Brown and Davison, 2008). Market representations are coherent yet simplified views of what a market is and how it works. Managers need representations because markets are generally too complex, involving multiple people conducting multiple trades, at separate times, at multiple locations, and for various reasons (Deshpande & Zaltman, 1982). The concept of the market is complicated by the legacy of a physical place where buyers and sellers physically convened to trade (i.e., a marketplace), but this meaning is no longer accurate (Callon, 1998, Araujo, 2007 and Kjellberg et al., 2012). Rather, contemporary markets involve heterogeneous associations among humans, materials, and signs (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2007). Managers use representations to impose order on these complex environments by isolating points of competitive advantage (Day & Nedungadi, 1994) and thus, the manner in which market complexity is simplified results in a market representation. However, it remains unclear whether market representations have any effect on management. Literature in managerial representations argues that the manner in which managers simplify the complexity of their external environment affects how firms conduct business (Grazzini, 2013). In other words, representations of a firm's external environment impact firm strategy (Harrison and Kjellberg, 2010 and Storbacka and Nenonen, 2011). Drawing on their expertise as business consultants, Storbacka and Nenonen (2011) argued that how firms understand their markets is critical not only for achieving more efficient operations, but also for effectively shaping their business environments. Harrison and Kjellberg (2010) found that how industrial firms understand their markets influences crucial business decisions. For example, consider one firm that conceives its markets based on relationships within a network (long-term or short-term), and one that understands its markets based on profitability (high or low). These differing conceptions may contribute to very different business decisions between these firms; for example, the firm that views its market through the lens of relationships is more likely to give preference to a long-term relationship over short-term profitability. Scholars suggesting that representations influence marketing strategies rely on case studies (e.g., Harrison and Kjellberg, 2010 and Rinallo and Golfetto, 2006), because quantitative evidence is largely unavailable. However, quantitative evidence can be useful for isolating context (Chandler and Vargo, 2011) and cognition (Grazzini, 2013). An unanswered question in industrial marketing is whether market representations construct managerial actions—and thus, whether market representations influence business marketing strategy. In consequence, the purpose of this paper is to isolate market representations and test whether the manner in which the external environment of firms is represented influences marketing strategies. The contributions of this paper are both conceptual and methodological. The conceptual contribution demonstrates that market representations are constructive. The methodological contribution introduces quasi-experiments to support findings of case studies. A quasi-experiment involves the manipulation of quasi-independent treatments tests for effects in a controlled environment (Campbell, Stanley, & Gage, 1963). To detail, this study tests whether certain types of market representations lead more to service focus strategies, or to product differentiation strategies. We conducted a quasi-experiment on 143 graduate marketing students as proxies for marketing managers, using an industrial business case. The case was manipulated to include two types of market representations: ostensive, which separates the market from the firm, and performative, which integrates the capabilities of an organization. Results indicate that a service focus strategy is more likely when market representations are performative, and that a product differentiation strategy is more likely when market representations are ostensive. The paper is organized as follows. Following this introduction, Section 2 introduces the conceptual anchor of the study in the form of market representations. Section 3 frames the conceptual aspect of the study by identifying marketing strategies as the variable, and market representations as treatment. Section 4 introduces the method of study and crafts hypotheses derived from the conceptual anchor. Section 5 discusses conceptual, methodological, and managerial implications, and limitations and future research, leading into the conclusion in Section 6.

Industrial marketing scholars have theorized about a constructive dimension between market representations and the type of strategies that firms apply (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2010). This paper demonstrates that – at least in an ideal setting and under controlled conditions – the form in which market representations are formulated influences marketing strategy. Results indicate that multiple views of markets can exist, and that the study of these various views is relevant, because the form in which managers represent their markets constrains how firms invest their time and money. The case used in the exercise was drawn from service management literature. Findings suggest that a service focus strategy is more likely when market representations are performative, and a product differentiation strategy is more likely when market representations are ostensive. Hence, the strategy selected can be attributed to the form in which marketing knowledge has been codified and taught. With an ostensive market representation, the business case appears to be a ‘conventional market’ where normative, mainstream marketing thought applies. In addition, when the market is perceived as static and not malleable, there is less room for innovative strategies. The ostensive representation highlighted market structures that appeared to be more difficult to change, so respondents opted for a stronger market position by strengthening their product offering (cf. Porter's [2008] outside-in view). On the other hand, findings suggest that when the resources and capabilities of the organization are considered, using performative market representations, a service focus is more likely to be selected. Rather than focusing on positional advantage over competitors, emphasis is placed on long-term advantages and stronger customer relationships. Such an approach resonates with a resource-based view of the firm, in which the firm can translate unique resources and distinct capabilities into innovative services, thereby expanding to novel market spaces (Kindström and Kowalkowski, 2014 and Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011). Although it has been argued that service focus strategies are appropriate for manufacturing firms (e.g., Grönroos & Ravald, 2011), different firms choose very different service focus strategies, some of which resemble a product differentiation strategy, and some of which resemble a service focus strategy (Gebauer, 2008 and Raddats and Easingwood, 2010). Our results indicate that market representations are a potential factor influencing the firm's espoused service strategy.