Strategic Marketing in Times o

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm
APJML
27,4
Strategic marketing in times
of recession versus growth:
New Zealand manufacturers
600 Roger Brooksbank
Received 30 October 2014
Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Revised 25 February 2015 Zahed Subhan
Accepted 26 March 2015
Marketing Department, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA
Ronald Garland
Marketing Department, Waikato Management School,
Hamilton, New Zealand, and
Scott Rader
Marketing Department, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose – On the basis of lessons gleaned from previous research into successful strategic marketing
practices in times of both recession and growth, and in the face of an ongoing post-global financial
crisis “hangover” characterised by unpredictable trading conditions both worldwide and in the
Asia-Pacific region, the purpose of this paper is to provide insights and advice for marketing
strategists within New Zealand’s manufacturing sector.
Design/methodology/approach – The inquiry is based on two point-in-time mail surveys, one during
recessionary conditions and the other during favourable economic conditions, with similar samples of 427
and 272 New Zealand manufacturers, respectively. Data analyses were conducted using SPSS and sought
to compare and contrast successful strategic marketing decision making between the two time-points.
Findings – The results confirm that, irrespective of prevailing economic circumstances, basic strategic
marketing plays a pivotal role in facilitating the competitive success of New Zealand manufacturers.
However, with the notable exception of three “evergreen” practices – targeting selected market segments,
competing on the basis of value-to-the-customer, and finding new ways to do business – the results also
suggest that different economic conditions otherwise necessitate quite different priorities for success at
each stage of the strategic marketing decision-making process.
Research limitations/implications – Due to relatively low-response rates, the extent to which the
study samples are representative of the population under scrutiny remains unknown. Also, since an
identical questionnaire was administered at two time-points ten years apart, differences in the
respondents’ interpretation of certain questions and some of the marketing vocabulary and terminology
used cannot be ruled out.
Practical implications – The research highlights the important contribution that strategic marketing
makes to the achievement of competitive success in New Zealand’s manufacturing sector. It also identifies
some of the underlying “key drivers” that best predict successful strategic marketing decision making in times
of recession compared with growth, thereby indicating a number of key lessons for marketing strategists.
Originality/value – This study addresses a number of gaps in the empirical marketing literature.
Although many previous studies have shown various strategic marketing activities to be critical to
competitive success, few have examined it as a multi-step decision-making process and none have done
so in the context of New Zealand manufacturing. Nor have previous studies sought to compare and
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics contrast effective strategic marketing decision-making set against the background of contrasting
Vol. 27 No. 4, 2015
pp. 600-627
economic circumstances.
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited Keywords Manufacturing firms, Strategic marketing, Recession, Competitive success
1355-5855
DOI 10.1108/APJML-10-2014-0155 Paper type Research paper
Introduction Times of
A recession occurs when slowdowns in economic activity significantly weaken an recession
economy for a period of more than just a few months; with reductions normally
noticeable in real gross domestic product, industrial production, employment, real
versus growth
income, and wholesale-retail sales (NZIER, 2008). As such, recessions can severely
affect the performance and survival of many companies. Indeed, the recent economic
crisis of 2008-2010 adversely shaped global business landscapes more 601
comprehensively than any downturn since the Great Depression (Rollins et al., 2014),
leaving in its wake a post-financial crisis “hangover” (Lyons, 2015) characterised by
unpredictable trading conditions that are ongoing, both worldwide and within the Asia-
Pacific region. It is understandable, therefore, that a plethora of prescriptive and
empirical articles have sought to shed light on how firms might best manage their
businesses during recessionary conditions, not only to “weather the storm” but also to
prepare for the upturn that normally follows (Bumgardener et al., 2011; Ghemawat, 2010;
Gulati et al., 2010; Hamel, 2009; McGrath and MacMillan, 2009; Rosier, 2011; Simkin and
Dibb, 2012; Sull, 2009). Within this body of work, a number of articles have
endeavoured to understand in what ways a company’s activities specific to marketing
are impacted by such economic downturns (Bridges and Freytag, 2009; Kotler and
Caslione, 2009; O’Malley et al., 2011; Quelch and Jocz, 2009; Srinivasan et al., 2005).
Here, as noted by Srinivasan et al. (2005), generally it seems most companies tend to
respond in one of two ways: they either invest in marketing, or cut marketing expenses
heavily (see O’Malley et al., 2011 for a comprehensive analysis of previous research that
addresses firms’ approaches to marketing during a downturn).
Interestingly, rather than focusing on strategic issues, the vast majority of
marketing-specific “recession” studies have instead put their research emphasis on
expenditure patterns relating to activities that may be construed as purely “tactical”
(such as expenditures on advertising and promotion, customer service, and selling),
with most concluding that when this kind of marketing expenditure is curtailed it
usually jeopardises future sales and profits (O’Malley et al., 2011). Yet, as highlighted
by Kotler and Caslione (2009), great marketers do not just aim to survive economic
crises, they also aim to facilitate a longer-term “rebound” by continuously reinventing
business models and marketing strategies that enable their firms to adapt quickly as
circumstances in the marketplace evolve. Accordingly, a smaller number of studies
have concluded that those companies with senior managers who view a recession as an
opportunity for change typically achieve superior business results both during and
after a recession (e.g. Gulati et al., 2010; Srinivasan et al., 2005).
Perhaps even more surprising than the fact that relatively few marketing-specific
“recession” papers appear to have put an emphasis on researching the merits of making
investments in marketing, is that none were found to have directly addressed the
topic of strategic marketing as an ongoing business decision-making process.
More specifically, none have sought to compare successful strategic marketing
practices set against the background of contrasting economic circumstances. At least
in part, such oversights could be attributed to the general lack of consensus
surrounding a working definition of the term and the processes involved (Day, 1984;
Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Schendel, 1985) and the somewhat diverse and sometimes
even contradictory viewpoints regarding the conceptual distinction between marketing
strategy and tactics, leading some scholars to lament marketing’s “identity crisis”
(Day, 1992; McDonald, 2006; Varadarajan, 2010). Thus, for the purposes of the present
study, the domain of strategic marketing is defined as being primarily concerned with a
APJML series of interrelated decisions about how best to deploy the firm’s resources and
27,4 capabilities to build superior customer value, and about how the firm’s offerings can be
positioned for competitive advantage over the longer term (Hooley et al., 2012).
Furthermore, it is contended that a normative model of the process of strategic
marketing encompasses a variety of sequential stages, such as undertaking a strategic
situation analysis, setting marketing objectives, formulating marketing strategy,
602 designing the marketing organisation, and conducting strategic marketing control
(Walker and Mullins, 2014; Wood, 2005). Accordingly, in relation to each of these
stages, and with a focus on New Zealand manufacturing firms employing more than 20
staff members, the specific objectives of this study are twofold: first, to test the
applicability of conventional wisdom regarding the key determinants of successful
strategic marketing to the case of New Zealand manufacturing companies in 1997
(i.e. a time of recession) compared with 2007 (i.e. a time of growth); and second, to
identify which strategic marketing practices are the strongest predictors of competitive
success at each of these time-points.
A research spotlight on strategic marketing in New Zealand manufacturing firms
can be considered important for a number of reasons. First, the manufacturing sector
plays a significant role in the national economy, employing approximately one-third of
the total New Zealand workforce. Second, the sector has received relatively little
scholarly attention over the years. Most research in New Zealand since the turn of the
millennium has concentrated almost exclusively on the services sector (Gray et al., 2007a;
Matear et al., 2002, 2004). Specifically, although many previous quantitative studies
have shown various strategic marketing activities to be critical to competitive success
(see the literature review below), few to date have considered a range of practices
consistent with all five stages of the normative model, and none have done so in the
context of New Zealand manufacturing. Third, among New Zealand marketing
practitioners, strategic marketing is perceived as being among the most essential areas
of marketing knowledge to possess (Gray et al., 2007b).
Literature review and hypotheses development

Research hypotheses relating to the expected differences between the strategic
marketing practices of higher and lower performing companies were formulated on the
basis of a review of both the normative and empirical literature as from the late 1980s to
the present time. The emphasis of this review, presented below, was to identify those
“evergreen” practices that have been most commonly prescribed or reported, and to
operationalise them into a number of testable hypotheses (see the list below) forming
the basis of this study. The review is presented in five subsets relating to each of the
key stages in the strategic marketing process under scrutiny, as follows:
(1) Undertaking a strategic situation analysis:
H1. Higher Performing Manufacturers (HPM) are more formal marketing
planning oriented
H2. HPM pay more attention to undertaking a comprehensive situation
analysis
H3. HPM adopt a more proactive approach to the future
H4. HPM make greater use of marketing research for strategy formulation
purposes
(2) Setting strategic marketing objectives: Times of
H5. HPM set longer-term marketing objectives recession
H6. HPM set more aggressive marketing objectives
versus growth
(3) Formulating marketing strategy:
H7. HPM have a strategic focus based on raising volume 603
H8. HPM focus on selected target market segment(s)
H9. HPM avoid head-on competition as far as possible in their competitive
approach
H10. HPM compete on the basis of providing superior value-to-the-customer
H11. HPM innovate more frequently
(4) Designing the marketing organisation:
H12. HPM cultivate greater organisational flexibility within their marketing
operations
H13. HPM have senior marketing executives who maintain closer links with
customers
H14. HPM pay more attention to employee training
(5) Conducting strategic marketing control:
H15. HPM analyse their performance more closely
H16. HPM make greater use of marketing research for control purposes
H17. HPM make more use of ongoing marketing intelligence-gathering systems
Undertaking a strategic situation analysis

The adoption of a formalised approach to planning and analysis can be regarded as an
important prerequisite to conducting a situation analysis because it necessitates an
informed and insightful, future-focused approach to strategic decision making. Indeed,
the emphasis of many prescriptive works (e.g. Hooley and Jobber, 1986; Loyle and
Breidenach, 2011; McDonald, 2006), together with the empirical findings of Huan et al.
(2008), Lysonski and Pecotich (1992), Pitta (2008), Putendran et al. (2003), and Saunders
and Wong (1985), all suggest that successful companies are more formal in their
marketing planning approach than are their lesser performing counterparts.
The initial phase of the strategic marketing planning process also necessitates the
undertaking of a comprehensive situation analysis that involves an (internal) analysis of
the firm’s capabilities in the light of a wide-ranging set of (external) analyses covering:
markets, customers, competitors, and the wider business environment. In fact, without
exception, the prescriptive literature stresses the importance of conducting these analyses
as the basis for developing effective marketing strategies and plans (e.g. Aaker, 2009;
Piercy, 2000). Likewise, researchers comparing the marketing practices of higher and
lower performing firms such as Brooksbank et al. (1992), Brooksbank and Taylor (2002),
Cocks (2009), Modiano and Ni-Chionna (1986), and Siu and Liu (2005) provide
overwhelming support for the notion that better performing companies pay greater
attention to undertaking a thorough situation analysis.
APJML An effective strategic situation analysis necessitates the adoption of a proactive
27,4 approach to the future whereby the firm seeks to project a range of future scenarios with
the aim of planning to make one of them happen. Such an approach is implicit within
many prescriptive works (see, e.g. Yu et al., 2010), and it is a practice commonly found to be
associated with the planning activities of successful firms (Brooksbank and Taylor, 2002;
Doyle et al., 1985; Hooley and Jobber, 1986; Huan et al., 2008; Lai et al., 1992).
604 Marketing research is the systematic design, collection, interpretation, and reporting
of findings relevant to a specific marketing situation facing the company (Kotler, 2011).
During the analysing phase, the use of marketing research, whether conducted by the
firm or commissioned through a market research agency, is usually inescapable and
most textbooks and prescriptive writings assert that long-term competitive success
necessitates marketing research-based decision making (Chaston and Mangle, 2002).
Accordingly, research by Baker et al. (1986), Joseph et al. (2001), Kontinen (2011),
Panayides (2004), and Schlegelmilch et al. (1985), indicates that higher performing
companies make a greater use of marketing research in their planning activities.
Setting strategic marketing objectives

With regard to the objective-setting phase of the strategic marketing process, research
by Baker and Leidecker (2001), Cocks (2009), Doyle et al. (1985), Hooley and Lynch
(1985), Shaw (1995), Siu (2000), and Siu and Liu (2005), shows that successful companies
set longer-term strategic objectives (i.e. short-run profits are not sought at the expense
of longer-run strategic objectives). Notably, virtually all of the prescriptive strategic
marketing literature (such as Hooley et al., 2012) emphasises that a winning strategy
requires a longer-term time horizon.
Throughout the prescriptive literature (such as Doyle, 2002) it is widely advised that
the setting of more challenging and ambitious objectives will often be a distinguishing
characteristic of the higher performing firm. Research by Brooksbank et al. (2010),
Hooley and Lynch (1985), Lai et al. (1992), McBurnie and Clutterbuck (1987), Siu (2000),
Siu and Liu (2005), similarly indicates that higher performing companies are likely to
set for themselves more offensive and aggressive objectives rather than adopting a
more defensive competitive stance in their markets.
Formulating marketing strategy

In relation to strategy, Doyle (2002) espouses the conventional wisdom that marketing
strategists should set a clear “strategic focus” for each of a firm’s offerings: seeking to
cultivate profitability either by focusing on increasing sales volume or by focusing on
securing productivity improvements. However, most empirical studies, and particularly
those that relate to manufacturing companies (see, e.g. Brooksbank et al., 1999;
Doyle et al., 1985; Huan et al., 2008) show that, apparently irrespective of surrounding
trading conditions, the more successful firms accord a higher priority to raising volume
than do their lesser successful counterparts.
The identification and selection of target markets is a key decision directly impacting
many ensuing decisions that a customer-focused firm needs to address. As a two-stage
process of first dividing a market into meaningful segments and then selecting which one
(s) the firm will serve with a particular offering (Crompton, 1983), target marketing
decisions are viewed as critical for achieving differential advantage in a competitive
marketplace (Simkin and Dibb, 2012). This wisdom is widespread in the strategic
marketing literature, with both prescriptive works (Dibb and Simkin, 2009; Sausen et al.,
2005; Slater et al., 2007; Wind, 1978) and empirical studies (Foedermayr et al., 2009;
Keltner and Finegold, 1999; Quinn, 2009) asserting that firms, in order to be successful, Times of
should identify and then target selected market segments rather than adopting an recession
undifferentiated, whole market approach.
A firm can either elect to compete “head-on” with other players, or circumvent them by
versus growth
offering something different. The latter approach has been espoused in several
prescriptive publications, drawing the interesting analogy between marketing “warfare”
and techniques employed as aspects of military strategy in the field of battle (Cook, 1983; 605
Kolar and Toporišic, 2007; Kotler and Singh, 1980; Ries and Trout, 1986). Whether or
not these comparisons are valid, numerous empirical studies provide evidence that
avoiding head-on competitors and/or circumnavigating them in some way is a potent
dimension of a successful marketing strategy (Bresnahan, 1985; Brooksbank et al., 2012;
Coughlan, 1985; Joseph et al., 2001).
Along with most modern marketing textbooks and prescriptive writing
(Hooley et al., 2012; Macdonald, 2006), studies by Hooley and Beracs (1997), Hooley
and Jobber (1986), Lai et al. (1992), Pitta (2008), Reijonen and Komppula (2010),
Siu (2000), Siu and Liu (2005), and Slater et al. (2011) indicate that the higher performing
companies tend to compete more on the basis of providing superior value-to-the-
customer, than on price alone.
Similarly, numerous prescriptive works (e.g. Assink, 2006; Cravens et al., 2009;
Hamel and Prahalad, 1991; Ray and Ray, 2011) suggest that firms, in order to be
successful, should innovate. Additionally, research by Berry (1996), Eggert et al. (2011),
Hooley and Lynch (1985), Huan et al. (2008), and Siu et al. (2004), identifies successful
companies as being more innovative than their lower performing counterparts.
Notably, these findings generally refer to the importance of both product innovation as
well as an ability to lead the market in developing new ways of doing business.
Designing the marketing organisation

The organising phase of the normative model of strategic marketing planning is
concerned with orchestrating the firm’s human resources in order to effectively
implement strategy as time goes by, and in this domain, retaining some measure of
organisational flexibility is commonly cited as an important goal within most
prescriptive writing (Davis and Manrodt, 1996; Hooley et al., 2008; Peters and
Waterman, 1982; Webster, 1992). To this end, marketing “success” research conducted
by Hooley and Jobber (1986), O’Dwyer et al. (2011), Siu et al. (2004), Slater et al. (2007),
and Wood et al. (2011) points to the importance of employing various types of
temporary forms of organisation, including outsourcing, whilst other studies highlight
an emphasis on cultivating job-overlap (Brooksbank et al., 1992).
It is important that senior marketing executives maintain first-hand, close
connections with key players in their marketplace as a means of ensuring that strategic
marketing does not lose touch with operating reality, stays market-focused, and is
properly coordinated. This type of “hands-on” management style has long been
advocated within much of the mainstream marketing literature (Gephardt et al., 2006;
Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Kotler, 2011; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Webster, 1992).
It has also been established as an important ingredient in the mix of factors that influence
a firm’s success, and in many different settings (Brooksbank, 2007; Chaganti et al., 2002;
Chait et al., 2005; Ordanini and Maglio, 2009; Peng and Shekshnia, 2001).
High performing firms are often identified as being extensively focused on
employee training, both upon initial hire and over time (Knoke and Kalleberg, 1994;
Muhammad Awais and Sharan, 2010; Stephen and Christine, 2007; Storey, 2002;
APJML Thomas and Willie, 2003). In particular, in an effort to address market orientation,
27,4 successful firms attempt to improve employee skills in areas related to customer
research, client interaction, lead generation and sales, marketing productivity, execution
of marketing communication, and general prowess in promotions and advertising
(Florence, 2003; Inks and Avila, 2008; Kidwell et al., 2011; Little, 2012; Mallin et al., 2010;
Miller, 2002; Morhart et al., 2009; Sarin et al., 2010; Subhan et al., 2014; Whiteling, 2007).
606
Conducting strategic marketing control
Rising to the challenge of establishing and executing consistent and actionable reporting
on a firm’s situation in the marketplace, along with corresponding downstream key
performance indicators and outcome measures, is seen as paramount to success in the
modern marketing environment (Brown and Bond, 1995; Cai et al., 2009; Clark and
Ambler, 2011; Hanssens et al., 2009; Homburg et al., 2012; Lautman and Pauwels, 2009;
Luo et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2011; Pinheiro et al., 2012; White et al., 2003). Moreover, such
vigilance has been shown to bring benefits in practice as well, ultimately contributing to
firm success (Brenčič et al., 2012; Grewal et al., 2010; Hogg et al., 2004; Homburg et al., 2012;
Kee-hung et al., 2012; Keelson, 2012; Konsta and Plomaritou, 2012).
Marketing research plays an important role not only during initial marketing
opportunity analyses but also as a strategic function of ongoing business operations,
providing valuable feedback on levels of customer satisfaction, reasons for lost business,
market share movements and so on (Brooksbank, 1996; McDonald and Wilson, 2011;
Wood et al., 2011). Firms that leverage marketing research in such a way are found to
proceed more successfully in their endeavours (Alvarez et al., 2011; Bee and Madrigal,
2012; Brouwer, 1999; Chrzan and Kemery, 2012; Goffin et al., 2012; Hazlett and Hazlett,
1999; Michaelidou, 2012; Micu and Plummer, 2010; Pancras and Sudhir, 2007; Peacock
et al., 2011; Siefert et al., 2009; Stout and Leckenby, 1986; Sudman and Blair, 1999).
A subset of firm performance analysis includes gathering and leveraging marketing
intelligence on a sustained basis (Damirchi and Shafai, 2011; Le Meunier-FitzHugh and
Piercy, 2006; Maltz and Kohli, 1996; Rogers and Soopramanien, 2009; Wiid et al., 2012).
Marketing intelligence-gathering systems typically draw upon a variety of information
sources which, collectively, enable the firm to monitor ongoing developments in its
immediate marketplace as well as the wider business environment. Research has found
the deliberate and sustained deployment of such systems contributes to firm performance
(Al-allak, 2010; Dishman and Calof, 2008; Hamadu et al., 2012; Kuga, 1990; Lewis, 2006;
Nakata and Zhen, 2006; O’Leary, 2011; Patterson, 2008; Qiu, 2012; Souchon and
Diamantopoulos, 1996; Thongsodsang and Ussahawanitchakit, 2011; Wu et al., 2010).
Research methodology
The findings reported in this paper are based on two point-in-time mail questionnaire
surveys that span the ten-year period from 1997 to 2007. When the first survey was
conducted in mid-1997, New Zealand firms had just endured the so-called “Asian flu”
and a decade of low or no growth. However, by the time the repeat survey was
administered in mid-2007 they had experienced a decade of the most sustained
economic growth since the 1960s (NZIER, 2004, 2008) thereby offering a sharp contrast
in the prevailing economic circumstances within which strategic marketing decision
making was taking place for firms within each of the two samples.
The questionnaire was originally developed for a similar study designed to assess the
strategic marketing practices of UK companies in 1987 (for details see Brooksbank et al.,
1992). In 1997 a slightly modified version of this questionnaire was then developed for use
in New Zealand. Care was taken to ensure that the range of multi-choice questions it Times of
included were comprehensive with regard to the research hypotheses listed in the list recession
above and consistent with the literature that underpins them. Specifically, in recognition of
the need for consistency with prior literature, it should be noted that virtually all questions
versus growth
and the means by which they were to be operationalised, had already formed the basis of a
number of previously published studies at that time. As such, a high degree of face
validity is indicated. The questionnaire was then checked for its suitability within a 607
New Zealand context via face-to-face interviews with two practitioners prior to being
dispatched to a mailing list of 6,200 companies with 20 or more employees sourced
through a commercial database in late 1997 (covering all types of companies:
manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and service providers operating across all types of
markets: fast-moving consumer goods, consumer durables, repeat industrial goods, capital
industrial goods, and services) with findings reported in several publications. That survey,
with an effective response rate of 22 per cent, yielded a subsample of n ¼ 427 self-reported
manufacturing companies operating in either repeat or capital industrial markets, and
with 20 or more employees. At the 95 per cent confidence level this subsample had a
maximum margin for error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points. (For full sampling
details, see Brooksbank and Taylor, 2002). Then in 2007, exactly a decade after the initial
survey, a virtually identical questionnaire was mailed to a list of 5,808 New Zealand
businesses – covering all company/market types as before – and generated once again in
the same way through the same commercial database (N.B. copies of both questionnaires:
“New Zealand Marketing Survey 2007” and its predecessor, “New Zealand Marketing
Survey 1997”, are available upon request from the corresponding author). As previously,
the target recipient was the Managing Director and this person was addressed by name.
Of the questionnaires dispatched in late 2007, a total of 337 were returned by NZ Post as
undeliverable, and 800 fully completed questionnaires were received. Hence, the effective
mail out was to 5,471 companies, yielding a 14.6 per cent response rate. In view of this
level of response it was considered necessary to make some estimation of the overall study
sample in terms of its representativeness of the larger population, as had been the case ten
years earlier. However, when χ2 analyses of fully completed questionnaires received
“early” were compared with those received “late” (an indicative approach only but one
with a tradition of application in similar research – see, e.g. Armstrong and Overton, 1977;
Brooksbank et al., 1992), once again no statistically significant differences were found.
Thus a subsample of n ¼ 272 self-reported manufacturing firms (again self-reporting that
they operated within repeat or capital industrial markets and with 20 or more employees),
was subsequently identified in 2007 and became the second study’s total subsample
which at the 95 per cent confidence level has a maximum margin for error of plus or minus
5.9 percentage points.
In order to test the research hypotheses and facilitate an examination of the first
research objective in relation to each subsample, a comparison of means, based on
simple ANOVA and t-tests, was undertaken. For this purpose, the dependent variable
of performance was an index of four self-reported measures of performance relative to
competitors (profit, sales volume, market share, and return on investment); an approach
previously employed by Brooksbank et al. (1992), Hooley et al. (1985), Law et al. (1998)
among others. Although self-reported measures of relative performance have the
potential to contain bias and other inaccuracies, these and other authors contend that in
the absence of objective criteria they can be both appropriate and reliable (Bamberger
et al., 1989; Dess and Robinson, 1984; Matear et al., 2004; Powell, 1992). Hence, in the
questionnaire, respondents were asked to report how their company had performed in
APJML their last financial year (i.e. April 1996-March 1997 and April 2006-March 2007 for each
27,4 survey, respectively) relative to its major competitors on each measure of performance,
allowing the following classification:
• higher performance firms performed “better” than their competitors on at least
three of the four indicators and no worse than “the same” on the fourth (30 per cent
608 of the subsample of manufacturers in 1997 and 31 per cent of the subsample of
manufacturers in 2007);
• medium performance firms performed variously across the four indicators
(47 per cent of the subsample of manufacturers in 1997 and 46 per cent of the
subsample of manufacturers in 2007); and
• lower performance firms either performed “worse” than their competitors on all four
indicators or did not know how they had performed (23 per cent of the subsample of
manufacturers in 1997 and 23 per cent of the subsample of manufacturers in 2007).
For the purpose of examining the second research objective to identify the “key
drivers” that are the strongest predictors of competitive performance, multivariate
analysis, in this case multiple regression, was undertaken. Separate regression
analyses were conducted for the 1997 subsample and the 2007 subsample. Each of the
ordinal independent variables (strategic marketing practices) was re-coded into dummy
variables. Then in recognition of the dependent variable, competitive performance,
being ordinal too (see above), initial regressions using the ordinal regression option of
SPSS were conducted for each subsample (1997-2007). When the results of these ordinal
regressions were checked against those of ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple
regressions, the core results were so similar that the only ones reported here are those
of the conventional OLS multiple regressions. Subsequent explanations of these results,
and any interpretations of patterns detected, are made purely on the basis of conjecture
and as such are subject to being validated by means of further research.
Sample characteristics
An analysis of the internal composition of both the 1997 and the 2007 study subsamples
shows that New Zealand manufacturing firms were bigger in 2007 than in 1997: median
turnover was $11 million in 2007 compared with $7 million in 1997 (although after
inflation is taken into account this increase is relatively small) and firms employing 50 or
more staff increased by 10 per cent, although only an average of some 4 per cent in both
the subsamples were reported to work in a dedicated marketing role. Ownership
characteristics remained constant at about four-fifths New Zealand owned (79 and
81 per cent, respectively). Similarly, the vast majority of firms at both time-points
described themselves as either fully independent or, if part of a larger group of
companies, at least autonomous (91 and 92 per cent, respectively). Levels of product
diversification also remained virtually the same, with almost three-quarters of
respondents in both subsamples (70 and 71 per cent, respectively) reporting that their
firms were effectively “single business” dominated. While all respondents in both
subsamples reported that their firm’s main activity was “manufacturing” (the key
criterion for inclusion in our subsample of manufacturers), almost half of each subsample
(45 and 44 per cent, respectively) indicated their main market to be “industrial” goods
with the balance indicating that it was “consumer” goods (37 and 38 per cent,
respectively) or “other” (18 per cent in both cases). However, descriptions of the firms’
main market had changed somewhat by 2007, with a larger proportion (11 per cent) Times of
claiming they operated in a market that was “established and growing” and a slightly recession
smaller proportion (7 per cent) claiming that their main market was “mature and stable”.
versus growth
Findings and discussion
Findings relating to undertaking a strategic situation analysis (H1-H4; Tables I-II)
In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to report the extent to which their firm 609
embraced formal marketing planning (H1) on a scale that ranged from little/none to
extensive long-term plans. Table I shows that, in support of the hypothesis, a positive
relationship exists in both 1997 and 2007 (at the 5 and 10 per cent level, respectively)
between the extent of planning and competitive performance. Regarding the
hypothesis that higher performing firms engage more fully in conducting a
comprehensive situation analysis (H2), respondents were requested to indicate the
level of importance they placed upon conducting each of five dimensions of such an
analysis internal (company), competitor, market, customer, and wider business
environment. As Table I depicts, in support of H2, at both time-points higher
performance is related to a greater importance attached to all five dimensions of a
situation analysis (in all but one of the ten cases at the 5 per cent level or better).
To examine the hypothesis that higher performing firms adopt a more proactive
approach to the future (H3), respondents answered on a scale from reactive (monitoring
events and adapting plans accordingly) to proactive (projecting future scenarios and
planning to make one happen). Interestingly, Table I shows the data runs contrary to the
1997 performance 2007 performance

Hypotheses tested by mean scores: Low Med High Low Med High
strategic analysis (127) (200) (100) p o (84) (125) (63) p o
H1: extent of formal planning 2.61 2.76 2.92 0.02 2.55 2.79 2.95 0.08
H2: extent of internal analysis 1.65 1.65 1.52 0.05 1.44 1.42 1.23 0.01
H2: extent of competitor analysis 1.96 1.85 1.73 0.01 1.79 1.50 1.37 0.001
H2: extent of market analysis 1.74 1.65 1.48 0.001 1.50 1.39 1.30 0.02
H2: extent of customer analysis 1.51 1.48 1.33 0.02 1.37 1.32 1.22 0.06 Table I.
H2: extent of wider business analysis 2.22 2.22 2.02 0.01 2.03 1.87 1.83 0.02 Strategic analysis:
H3: extent of proactive planning 1.81 2.19 1.94 0.05 1.82 1.93 2.06 0.01 performance
H4: amount of internal marketing research 1.83 1.79 1.61 0.03 1.76 1.69 1.42 0.001 related to
H4: amount of external marketing research 2.96 2.80 2.59 0.001 2.96 2.64 2.54 0.001 marketing practices

Independent variables β Signif. β Signif.
H4: amount of external marketing research 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.21

H2: extent of market analysis 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.83
H2: extent of internal analysis 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.09
H2: extent of competitor analysis 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.04
H2: extent of customer analysis 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.96
H2: extent of wider business analysis 0.04 0.26 0.01 0.95 Table II.
H4: amount of internal marketing research 0.01 0.83 0.03 0.48 Strategic analysis:
H3: extent of proactive planning 0.04 0.22 0.10 0.03 key drivers of
Notes: 1997 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.02, df ¼ 8, F ¼ 2.57; 2007 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.04, df ¼ 8, F ¼ 3.45 performance
APJML hypothesis in 1997, although ten years later, in support of H3, a more proactive planning
27,4 approach is positively associated with competitive performance (at the 1 per cent level).
Perhaps the unfavourable economic conditions in 1997 necessitated a less sanguine, more
prudent planning perspective. For the purpose of testing the extent to which firms used
marketing research as an aid to strategic decision-making (H4), survey respondents were
asked to distinguish between the frequency with which it is carried out by themselves
610 (internal marketing research) and the frequency with which it is commissioned-in
from outside agencies (external research). As Table I reveals, in support of H4, at each
time-point a greater use of marketing research is positively related to competitive
performance: for internal research (at the 5 per cent level or better) and external research
(at the 1 per cent level).
Table II identifies the “key drivers” of competitive performance derived in relation to
practices involved with undertaking a strategic situation analysis. Here, the combination
of findings suggests that the priorities for conducting a successful situation analysis
changed considerably between 1997 and 2007. Whereas in 1997, against the backdrop of
economic recession the higher performers appear to have been more conscious of the
need to be informed about what was happening within their existing markets, by 2007
the emphasis had shifted to a focus on understanding competitive dynamics as well as
the adoption of a more future-oriented planning approach. Whilst superficially at least,
an emphasis on understanding competitive dynamics in 2007 can probably be explained
by the fact that over the ten-year period 1997-2007 competition had continued to intensify
across all markets, there is perhaps another, less obvious explanation. Arguably, the
higher performers in 2007, having ridden the wave of favourable economic conditions for
some years, had not only become more confident in their ability to influence their markets
but had also become more sophisticated in their ability to project future scenarios in the
pursuit of a more insightful understanding of their longer-run competitive position and
any emerging opportunities. In this way, the twin priorities of a competitor analysis and a
planning approach that seeks to “make the future happen” can be seen as entirely
consistent with one another because they mark a shift to an “insight-led” situation
analysis, distinct from the more “information-led” situation analysis characterising the
higher performers in 1997.
Findings relating to setting marketing objectives (H5-H6; Tables III-IV)

To assess the relationship between competitive performance and the setting of longer-term
marketing objectives (H5), respondents were asked about the length of time horizon to
which each of five types of objectives in their main market were geared: profitability, sales,
market share, cash flow, and ROI. Table III reveals that in both 1997 and 2007 longer-term

Hypotheses tested by mean scores: marketing Low Med High Low Med High
objectives’ time horizons for: (127) (200) (100) p o (84) (125) (63) p o
H5: profitability objectives 2.17 2.03 2.02 0.05 2.21 1.99 2.07 0.02
Table III. H5: sales objectives 2.30 2.20 2.11 0.03 2.28 2.18 2.08 0.05
Marketing objectives: H5: market share gains 2.26 2.02 1.79 0.001 2.40 2.11 1.93 0.001
performance H5: cash flow 2.63 2.52 2.43 0.09 2.62 2.46 2.41 0.03
related to H5: ROI 2.23 2.08 1.88 0.001 2.18 1.99 2.00 0.08
marketing practices H6: objective to be more aggressive in main mkt 4.69 4.96 5.17 0.01 4.68 4.87 5.16 0.01
objectives of all types are positively associated with competitive performance (significant Times of
at the 10 per cent level or better) thereby confirming H5. Interestingly, at both time-points recession
this relationship is at its strongest in regard to market share objectives (at the 1 per cent
level in both cases). With regard to the hypothesis that higher performing firms set more
versus growth
aggressive marketing objectives (H6 ), respondents were asked to report the best
description of their objectives on a scale that ranged from “prevention of decline” to
“market domination”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Table III shows that this hypothesis 611
similarly held true at each of the two time-points (significant at the 1 per cent level in
both cases) since this would be entirely consistent with the higher performers’ longer-term
time horizons when setting their objectives.
With regard to the pattern of “key drivers” shown in Table IV, since, in 1997, New
Zealand manufacturers were operating during a period of sustained economic
recession, it is perhaps unsurprising that the higher performers might have prioritised
the attainment of market share and cash flow goals over the longer-term; a combination
of objectives that reflect an essentially “protectionist” mentality. After all, in times of
uncertainty when business confidence is at a low ebb, protecting hard-won market
share whilst keeping a keen eye on margins and business viability over time was likely
to have been the order of the day. In contrast, however, this situation was effectively
reversed ten years later. As indicated in Table IV, by 2007 the higher performing firms,
no doubt buoyed by a sustained period of profitability and with more confidence in the
future, adopted a more single-minded agenda of business growth, setting themselves
more offensive, aggressive marketing objectives across the board.
Findings relating to formulating marketing strategy (H7-H11; Tables V-VI)

In the questionnaire, respondents were requested to respond to questions about their
marketing strategy in relation to their main market. To test the hypothesis that the

H5: long-term objective for market share gains 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.09
H5: long-term cash flow objectives 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.23
H6: more aggressive marketing objectives 0.04 0.52 0.10 0.02
H5: long-term profitability objectives 0.03 0.52 −0.01 0.82 Table IV.
H5: long-term ROI objectives −0.02 0.65 −0.03 0.51 Marketing objectives:
H5: long-term sales objectives −0.02 0.55 0.04 0.43 key drivers of

Low Med High Low Med High
Hypotheses tested by mean scores: marketing strategy (127) (200) (100) p o (84) (125) (63) p o
H7: expanding demand vs reducing costs 2.91 2.97 2.83 0.55 2.80 2.79 2.53 0.04
H8: whole market vs segmented approach 2.28 2.37 2.58 0.05 2.27 2.47 2.83 0.03 Table V.
H9: avoidance of competition 2.09 2.15 2.27 0.06 2.26 2.38 2.21 0.30 Marketing strategy:
H10: offering superior value 1.16 1.08 1.09 0.60 1.21 1.13 1.12 0.46 performance
H11: approach to developing new products 2.65 2.75 2.83 0.32 2.48 2.66 2.75 0.01 related to
H11: approach to developing new ways of doing business 2.26 2.51 2.49 0.06 2.16 2.21 2.57 0.001 marketing practices
APJML higher performers adopt a strategic focus based on raising volume rather than
27,4 productivity improvement (H7 ) respondents were requested to indicate their firm’s
focus on a scale ranging from “expanding the total market” to “cost reduction and
improved productivity”. Although the results in Table V affirm H7 in 2007 (at the
5 per cent level), this was not the case in 1997, suggesting that perhaps in times of
recession successful manufacturers seek improved profitability at least as much via
612 cost reduction in the factory as by the pursuit of increased sales; and arguably in equal
proportion in the form of a twin-edged focus.
Table V shows a positive relationship between competitive performance and the
extent to which firms target selected market segment(s) rather than adopting a whole
market approach (H8) in both 1997 and 2007 (at the 10 per cent level at both
time-points) thereby supporting this hypothesis. However, whereas the table depicts a
positive relationship between avoiding competition and higher competitive
performance (H9) in 1997 (at the 10 per cent level) no such relationship shows up
ten years later, perhaps as a result of increasing levels of competition across all markets
during the more favourable economic conditions of the period 1998-2007. Regarding the
hypothesis that the higher performers compete on the basis of providing superior
value-to-the-customer, rather than just price (H10), although Table V shows no support
for the hypothesis in either 1997 or 2007, it should be noted that the mean scores
(being close to one across the board) indicate that among New Zealand manufacturers
this practice is almost universal. Lastly, to test the hypothesis that the higher
performers innovate more frequently (H11) respondents were asked about the
frequency with which they carried out two types of innovation; the introduction of new
products and the introduction of new ways of doing business. While Table V shows
that the hypothesis H11 was supported only in 2007 (at the 1 per cent level) in relation
to the introduction of new products, it is supported at both time-points in relation to the
introduction of new ways of doing business (at the 10 and 1 per cent level, respectively).
Arguably new product development is viewed to be too risky in times of recession.
Table VI identifies the “key drivers” of competitive performance derived in relation to
practices related to the “strategy” component of the marketing planning process. Here,
three practices have been found to be common to the higher performing firms in both
1997 and 2007 and hence have proved to be truly durable over time: targeting selected
markets; competing on the basis of value-to-the-customer; and the development of new
ways of doing business. However, regarding the other dimensions of strategy decision
making shown in Table VI, the prevailing economic circumstances apparently
necessitated contrasting priorities. For example, whereas for the higher performers in
1997, seeking to avoid head-on competition through a process of gradually re-positioning

H8: whole market vs segmented approach −0.10 0.01 −0.08 0.07

H11: approach to developing new ways of doing business 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.02
H10: offering superior value 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.05
Table VI. H9: avoidance of competition −0.07 0.04 −0.03 0.46
Marketing strategy: H11: approach to developing new products 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.03
key drivers of H7: expanding demand vs reducing costs −0.02 0.66 0.09 0.04
performance Notes: 1997 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.03; df ¼ 6, F ¼ 5.41; 2007 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.05, df ¼ 6, F ¼ 5.66
their offerings within existing markets would appear to be a logical, low-risk approach Times of
during a recession, a more offensive approach was prioritised in 2007. Perhaps recession
understandably, following a period of sustained growth and with a renewed confidence
to “make the future happen”, it seems the focus was on increasing sales volume through
versus growth
radical re-positioning in their existing markets (major shifts to new and more viable
positions), and through innovative re-positioning (creating completely new positions) by
developing new products. Certainly, this interpretation is consistent with the two 613
samples’ descriptive characteristics whereby 11 per cent more firms in 2007 than in 1997
listed their main market as “established or growing”.
Findings relating to designing the marketing organisation (H12-H14; Tables VII-VIII)
The hypothesis that higher performing companies cultivate greater organisational
flexibility (H12) was tested by exploring a number of dimensions: first, the extent of use
of temporary forms of organisation (project teams or similar); second, the extent of job-
overlap within marketing; third, the extent of job-overlap between marketing and other
business functions; and fourth, the extent of use of outside agencies (advertising, public
relations, and direct marketing). As shown in Table VII, however, support for H12 across
these dimensions at each time-point is mixed. Whereas a positive association with
competitive performance exists only in 2007 with respect to the use of temporary teams
(at the 10 per cent level), and the accommodation of considerable job-overlap within the
marketing department (at the 5 per cent level); such a relationship only exists in 1997 in

Low Med High Low Med High
Hypotheses tested by mean scores: marketing organisation (127) (200) (100) p o (84) (125) (63) p o
H12: use of temporary teams 2.52 2.52 2.34 0.50 2.34 2.21 2.07 0.06
H12: extent of job-overlap within marketing 1.93 1.89 2.00 0.26 1.96 1.96 1.78 0.04
H12: extent of job-overlap between functions 1.88 1.87 2.00 0.05 1.94 1.92 1.80 0.12
H12: extent use outside ad agencies 2.62 2.47 2.27 0.01 2.58 2.37 2.28 0.05 Table VII.
H12: extent use outside PR agencies 3.38 3.13 2.89 0.001 3.19 2.97 2.77 0.01 Marketing
H12: extent use outside direct marketing agencies 3.41 3.24 3.04 0.001 3.49 3.32 3.01 0.001 organisation:
H13: extent senior marketers first-hand contact with customers 1.31 1.47 1.23 0.31 1.38 1.29 1.26 0.16 performance
H14: Importance: marketing training 2.20 2.25 1.90 0.10 2.39 2.10 1.99 0.001 related to
H14: importance: “outside” training 2.69 2.04 1.98 0.04 2.24 2.10 1.91 0.001 marketing practices

H14: importance of “outside” training 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.07

H12: extent use of outside PR agencies 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.11
H14: importance of marketing training 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06
H12: extent use of outside ad agencies 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.18
H12: extent use of outside direct marketing agencies −0.05 0.19 0.12 0.01
H13: extent senior mkters 1st-hand customer contact 0.03 0.50 0.07 0.11 Table VIII.
H12: extent of use of temporary project teams 0.01 0.84 0.03 0.50 Marketing
H12: extent of overlap between functions −0.05 0.20 0.05 0.38 organisation:
H12: extent of overlap within marketing 0.01 0.98 0.02 0.64 key drivers
Notes: 1997 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.02, df ¼ 9, F ¼ 3.01; 2007 adjusted R2 ¼ 0.06, df ¼ 9, F ¼ 5.01 of performance
APJML respect of the amount of job-overlap between marketing and other functional areas (at the
27,4 5 per cent level). Nevertheless, in support of the hypothesis, Table VII also shows that in
both 1997 and 2007 the commissioning of all three of the outside agencies specified in the
questionnaire are positively associated with competitive performance (at significance
levels of 5 per cent or better).
With regard to the extent to which senior marketers adopt a more “hands-on”
614 management style and get alongside customers (H13), Table VII reveals that
contrary to the hypothesis this dynamic varies little by competitive performance.
Notably, however, the mean scores indicate that it is it widely practised across all
performance groups. To examine the hypothesis that higher performing firms pay more
attention to employee training (H14), respondents were asked about the importance their
firm attached to two types of training activities: the training of marketing staff in
marketing skills; and the training of managers in business skills outside of their main
area of functional responsibility. As Table VII shows, at both time-points, training in
marketing skills is positively associated with competitive performance (at the 10 and 1
per cent level, respectively) as is training in skills “outside” of employees’ functional
responsibilities (at the 5 and 1 per cent level, respectively), thereby affirming H14.
With reference to Table VIII, the pattern of findings in respect of the “organisation”
component of the strategic marketing planning model suggests a desire among the
higher performers to develop some measure of organisational flexibility in both 1997
and 2007 via outsourcing. However, it is arguable that the motives for outsourcing
might have differed at each of the two time-points. As indicated in Table VIII, in 1997
there was clearly a desire to maximise operational efficiencies through an additional
focus on training managers in business skills outside their own main functional
responsibilities. Also, perhaps the increased level of outsourcing with regard to public
relations agencies in 1997 reflects the prudent, lower risk, gradual re-positioning
strategies adopted at the time – in the sense that enhancing company/brand image
within existing markets is likely to have been a more important marketing mix
variable. By contrast, in 2007 the higher performers were prioritising their outsourcing
in the area of direct marketing. No doubt this reflects the fact that direct “database”
marketing, driven by advances in information technology, was an increasingly popular
marketing tool throughout the ten-year period of this study. However, unlike public
relations (1997’s major outsourced agency), database marketing had become so generic
to most firms’ customer relationship management (CRM) activities, that it seems
reasonable to postulate that by 2007, the commissioning of outside help in the field of
direct marketing was more for the purpose of learning to develop an in-house CRM
capability than it was for the purpose of developing organisational flexibility, per se.
Findings relating to conducting marketing control (H15-H17; Tables IX-X)

To determine whether higher performing firms analyse their performance relative to a
variety of control measures to a greater extent than their lower performing
counterparts (H15), respondents were asked about the frequency with which the
following analyses are carried out relative to: planned objectives; the contribution of
each product in the range; and marketing costs. In support of the hypothesis, Table IX
shows all three types of analysis are positively associated with the higher performing
firms at both time-points (all within the 5 per cent level).
With regard to the usage of marketing research for control purposes (H16),
respondents were asked to report the extent to which their firms carried out three types of
research: first, formal customer satisfaction surveys; second, investigations into customer
Times of
Low Med High Low Med High recession
Hypothesis tested by mean scores: marketing control (127) (200) (100) p o (84) (125) (63) p o versus growth
H15: frequency of analysis against […] planned objectives 1.45 1.38 1.29 0.02 1.81 1.74 1.58 0.02
H15: […] against contribution of individual products 1.71 1.60 1.47 0.001 1.78 1.80 1.57 0.02
H15: […] against marketing costs 1.73 1.64 1.57 0.05 2.01 1.87 1.68 0.001
H16: extent of use of […] formal customer satisfaction surveys 2.08 1.99 1.88 0.01 2.37 2.22 2.01 0.001
615
H16: […] of investigations into customer complaints 1.31 1.31 1.21 0.09 1.32 1.27 1.28 0.70
H16: […] of follow-up analysis of lost orders/lost business 1.83 1.74 1.64 0.01 2.04 1.93 1.76 0.01 Table IX.
H17: monitoring of changes […] in competitor behaviour 2.09 1.92 1.80 0.001 2.33 2.08 2.00 0.001 Marketing control:
H17: […] in customer behaviour 1.93 1.79 1.59 0.001 2.23 2.05 1.91 0.001 performance
H17: […] in technology 1.97 1.79 1.68 0.001 2.15 2.06 1.95 0.06 related to
H17: […] in business/econ trends 2.04 1.91 1.80 0.001 2.23 2.09 2.07 0.07 marketing practices

H15: frequency of analysis against contribution of individual products 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.67
H17: monitoring changes in customer behaviour 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.17
H17: monitoring of changes in technology 0.07 0.08 −0.02 0.71
H15: frequency of analysis against planned objectives −0.01 0.98 0.01 0.91
H15: frequency of analysis against marketing costs −0.01 0.93 0.09 0.08
H16: extent use formal customer satisfaction surveys 0.04 0.32 0.11 0.02
H17: extent of follow-up analysis of lost orders/business 0.03 0.47 0.07 0.13
H17: monitoring changes in competitor behaviour 0.05 0.23 0.02 0.74 Table X.
H17: monitoring of changes in business/economic trends 0.02 0.66 −0.01 0.82 Marketing control:
H16: extent of investigations into customer complaints −0.02 0.55 −0.02 0.61 key drivers of
complaints and warranty claims; and third, follow-up analyses into reasons for lost orders/
business. As shown in Table IX, in support of the hypothesis, a positive relationship
(at the 1 per cent level or better) exists between higher competitive performance and the
use of both customer satisfaction surveys and follow-up analyses into lost orders/business
at both time-points. However, with regard to investigations into customer complaints/
warranty claims, although in 1997 this activity is positively associated with the
higher performing firms (at the 10 per cent level), there is no such relationship in 2007:
perhaps an indication of the sort of “management complacency” that can sometimes occur
during times of growth. To examine the use of an ongoing marketing intelligence-
gathering system (H17 ), respondents were asked about the extent of monitoring
of: competitor behaviour; customer behaviour; changes in technology; and changes
in business/economic trends. Here, the results shown in Table IX indicate that at both
time-points a positive relationship with competitive performance exists (at the 1 per cent
level in 1997 and at the 10 per cent level or better in 2007), thereby affirming H17.
The regression analysis results in Table X suggest that, once again, the higher
performing firms’ priorities for conducting marketing control changed considerably
between the two time-points. It seems the unfavourable economic conditions in 1997
necessitated a priority centred on exercising tight financial control through
systematically analysing, on a regular basis, the contribution of each product offered
APJML within the firm’s portfolio. Table X also suggests that in 1997 a similarly important
27,4 emphasis was placed on intelligence-gathering with respect to monitoring changes in
customer behaviour; a finding that contrasts quite sharply with the 2007 study’s
principal differentiator of marketing control, that of the regularity with which customer
satisfaction surveys were carried out. Thus it can be surmised that in terms of the
control-related external data-gathering efforts of the higher performers at each of the two
616 time-points, there was a shift from securing data from secondary sources (that which is
typical of ad hoc marketing intelligence-gathering) to primary data-gathering (that which
is typical of data collected directly from customers on a regular basis).
Conclusion
Whilst this study is based on a tried and tested questionnaire using analytical techniques
and measures of firm performance previously employed (see, e.g. Brooksbank et al., 1992)
findings should nonetheless be viewed in light of a number of potential methodological
limitations. First, although it would have been preferable to administer the repeat survey in
2007 to the exact same companies that had responded to the earlier survey, privacy
protocols prevented the capture of respondent details in 1997 leaving little alternative but to
employ the next best approach; that of generating a mailing list sourced through the same
mailing house and in exactly the same way as ten years’ previously. Moreover, and
notwithstanding this limitation, due to relatively small response rates at both time-points
(22 and 15 per cent, respectively) the extent to which the study samples are representative of
the population of firms under scrutiny remains unknown. Second, since an identical
questionnaire was administered at time-points ten years apart, differences in the
respondents’ interpretation of certain questions and some of the marketing vocabulary and
terminology used cannot be ruled out. Similarly, it should be noted that implicit to this study
is an assumption that all reported strategic marketing decision making was consciously
undertaken with the intention of maximising firm performance relative to the prevailing
business environment. Third, notwithstanding the frequent and consistent use of the
research questions and their operationalisation over a number of previous studies, factoral
analyses were not undertaken as a means of further establishing measurement validity.
Fourth, along with other survey-based studies in the field of strategic marketing, the
contribution that various practices are found to make to competitive success are
somewhat handicapped by the relatively low levels of explanation typically afforded by
both bivariate and multivariate analytical techniques. This study is no exception and its
findings and conclusions should be viewed in light of the fact that, while important,
strategic marketing alone can never fully predict competitive success. The integrated and
inter-disciplinary antecedents of business success are well documented, meaning that
strategic marketing decision making, no matter how well conceived, can only ever be
regarded as playing its part amidst a rich tapestry of influences. Fifth, in formulating the
hypotheses in relation to the first of this study’s objectives, it is worth noting that, at least
in theory, the underlying assumption about the direction of causality could be
questionable. In other words rather than the various strategic marketing practices being
antecedents of success, it is conceivable that they might be the consequences of such
success. However, in view of the weight of evidence set out earlier within the “success”
literature, it is contended that this is unlikely.
With regard to the first objective of this study, the evidence presented confirms that,
for the most part, the basic strategic marketing practices and processes typically
advocated in the mainstream academic and prescriptive literature are clearly associated
with the higher performing New Zealand manufacturers. Indeed, ten of the 17 research
hypotheses – relating variously across all five of the key stages of the normative model of Times of
strategic marketing planning – are fully supported in both the 1997 and the 2007 surveys. recession
In addition, five more were confirmed for at least one of the time-points, and as for the
remaining two hypotheses (i.e. H10: “HPM compete on the basis of providing superior
versus growth
value-to-the-customer” and H13: “HPM have senior marketing executives who maintain
closer links with customers”), although the profiles of results failed to show a positive
relationship with competitive performance at either time-point, the mean scores indicated 617
that these practices have been almost universally adopted. Thus, these findings should be
a source of some comfort to marketing academics since it can only be concluded that
irrespective of prevailing economic circumstances, “textbook” strategic marketing plays a
pivotal role in facilitating competitive success. Equally, marketing practitioners can also
take heart from these results: in the face of unpredictable trading conditions that are
ongoing both worldwide and in the Asia-Pacific region, embracing strategic marketing
planning is a worthwhile and potentially beneficial pursuit.
With regard to the second objective of this study, it can be concluded that the
findings derived from the regression analyses of practices relating to each stage of
the normative model of strategic marketing suggest that the priorities for success
(the underlying “key drivers”) are quite different in times of recession compared with
growth. Figure 1 presents a summarised version of these findings.
1997-Recession 2007-Growth
1. Situation Analysis 1. Situation Analysis
Information-led Insight-led
2. Objective Setting 2. Objective Setting

Protectionist Offensive
Enduring Priorities
3. Strategy Target marketing 3. Strategy

*
Gradual Value-to-customer Radical/innovative
re-positioning * re-positioning
New ways to do
business
4. Organisation 4. Organisation
Efficiency-bias Learning-bias
Figure 1.
Overall priorities for
successful strategic
5. Control 5. Control marketing planning:
Financial focus Customer focus 1997 vs 2007
APJML Although various (unknown) forces might well have played their part in shaping
27,4 the differing priorities shown in Figure 1, it is postulated that the general state of the
economy at each time-point offers by far the most compelling, albeit the most obvious,
explanation. As such, Figure 1 could be viewed as something of an overall “contingency
plan” for successful strategic marketing decision making in times of recession vs growth.
In relation to each phase of the strategic marketing planning process, the main
618 implications for practitioners, compiled on the basis of lessons learned from the past, are
as follows: whereas in times of growth a firm’s situation analysis should be strongly
future-focused – seeking to gain insights into unfolding competitive positioning scenarios
and any emerging market opportunities; in times of recession it is more important to put
the main focus on understanding what is currently happening in existing markets.
Correspondingly, with regard to objective setting, during favourable economic conditions
the priority should be to set more aggressive and offensive marketing objectives that
seek to grow the business; whereas during a recession it is more important to prioritise
marketing objectives that reflect an essentially protectionist stance that will maintain the
firm’s hard-won share of market over time. In turn, differing priorities for strategy
selection are recommended. Whereas in times of growth the emphasis should be on
formulating radical and innovative re-positioning strategies that align with new product-
market opportunities identified; in times of recession the emphasis should be more risk-
averse, “sticking to the knitting” and doing little more than gradually re-positioning
the firm’s existing offerings within its existing markets as those markets evolve.
With regard to organisational issues, whereas favourable economic conditions provide
the opportunity to enhance the firm’s human assets and capabilities through making
investments in staff development and learning; recessionary conditions necessitate a bias
towards ensuring the organisation is leaner, fitter and more efficient in the way it
operates. Finally, in relation to the “control” phase, whereas during the boom times it is
important to attach a higher priority to measuring progress through gaining feedback
direct from customers; in a recession a higher priority should be attached to going “back
to basics” and being relentless in measuring and controlling costs.
Finally, Figure 1 shows that the priorities differ in all stages of the model but with
one important exception. With respect to the marketing strategy component alone, this
study has revealed that there are three “key drivers” of competitive success that have
been found to be common to both surveys. These are: targeting selected market
segment(s) as opposed to treating the market as a whole; competing on the basis of
value-to-the-customer rather than just price; and being innovative with regard to
finding new ways to do business. Interestingly, to the extent that all three are already
well-established as “evergreen” practices (as evidenced in both the empirical and
prescriptive marketing literature) perhaps this finding might have been expected and is
somewhat unremarkable. Yet, what is noteworthy in the context of this study is that
their durability has been further validated by demonstrating that they are important
“key drivers” that apply equally across the full spectrum of trading conditions.
In overall conclusion, through adopting a comparative and retrospective
methodology this study has paid homage to the time-honoured premise that there is
often much that can be learnt from past experience. Not only has it served to validate
the vital role that strategic marketing plays in contributing to business performance
but it has also served to underline that the very essence of successful strategic decision
making lies in the extent to which it accommodates, and even seeks to take advantage
of, the dynamics of an unfolding business environment. As such, in today’s challenging
business world the topic of strategic marketing as an ongoing business process is
clearly deserving of more attention by marketing academics. Indeed, the next phase of Times of
the current study is to re-visit the entire data set and undertake comparisons between recession
the other types of firms/markets represented. In particular, it is recommended that any
future quantitative work in this arena would do well to employ a similarly comparative
versus growth
and retrospective methodology to that which was employed in this study (in those
cases where previous research studies allow it), applying multivariate analyses in order
to identify the “key drivers” of success in relation to contrasting prevailing trading 619
conditions – and with a view to developing a more detailed and comprehensive
“contingency theory” of effective strategic marketing decision making. To this end, it is
further suggested that future research could usefully go beyond a consideration of
what marketing decisions are made (the focus of this study) in order to find out more
about how they are actually being implemented and the underlying thought processes
involved. By employing more “involving” qualitative research methods such as
phenomenology and ethnography, insights could undoubtedly be enriched to the
benefit of educators and practitioners alike.
References
Aaker, D.A. (2009), Strategic Marketing Management, Wiley, New York, NY.
Al-allak, B. (2010), “Evaluating the adoption and use of internet-based marketing information
systems to improve marketing intelligence (the case of tourism SMEs in Jordan)”,
International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 87-101.
Alvarez, L.S., Casielles, R.V. and Martin, A.M.D. (2011), “Analysis of the role of complaint
management in the context of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 143-164.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Assink, M. (2006), “Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model”, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 215-233.
Baker, G.A. and Leidecker, J.K. (2001), “Does it pay to plan? Strategic planning and financial
performance”, Agribusiness, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 355-364.
Baker, M., Hart, S., Black, C. and Abdel-Mohsen, T. (1986), “The contribution of marketing to
competitive success: a literature review”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 39-61.
Bamberger, P., Bacharach, S., Dyer, L. and Human, I. (1989), “Human resource management and
organizational effectiveness: high technological entrepreneurial startup firms in
management”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 349-436.
Bee, C.C. and Madrigal, R. (2012), “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how the game is played”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Berry, M. (1996), “Technical entrepreneurship, strategic awareness and corporate transformation
in small high-tech firms”, Technovation, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 187-198.
Brenčič, M.M., Pfajfar, G. and Rašković, M. (2012), “Managing in a time of crisis: marketing, HRM
and innovation”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 436-446.
Bresnahan, T.F. (1985), “Post-entry competition in the plain paper copier market”, The American
Economic Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 15-19.
Bridges, E. and Freytag, P.V. (2009), “When do firms invest in offensive and/or defensive
marketing?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 745-749.
Brooksbank, R. (1996), “The BASIC marketing planning process: a practical framework for the
smaller business”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 16-23.
APJML Brooksbank, R. (2007), “Ways that high performing UK manufacturers build a marketing-led
company culture”, Innovative Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 93-101.
27,4
Brooksbank, R. and Taylor, D. (2002), “The adoption of strategic marketing and its contribution
to the competitive success of New Zealand companies”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Brooksbank, R., Garland, R. and Taylor, D. (2010), “Strategic marketing in New Zealand
620 companies”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Brooksbank, R., Garland, R. and Werder, W. (2012), “Strategic marketing practices as drivers of
successful business performance in British, Australian and New Zealand golf clubs”,
European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 457-475.
Brooksbank, R., Kirby, D. and Jones-Evans, D. (1999), “Marketing in medium sized manufacturing
firms: the state-of-the-art in Britain 1987-1992”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 103-120.
Brooksbank, R., Kirby, D.A. and Wright, G. (1992), “Marketing and company performance:
an examination of medium sized manufacturing firms in Britain”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-236.
Brouwer, M. (1999), “Q is accounting for tastes”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 35-39.
Brown, S.W. and Bond, E.U. III (1995), “The internal market/external market framework and
service quality: toward theory in services marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 11 Nos 1/3, pp. 25-39.
Bumgardener, M., Buehlmann, U., Schuler, A. and Crissey, J. (2011), “Competitive actions of small
firms in a declining market”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 578-598.
Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z. and Liu, J. (2009), “Improving supply chain performance management:
a systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 512-521.
Chaganti, R., Cook, R.G. and Smeltz, W.J. (2002), “Effect of styles, strategies and systems on the growth
of small businesses”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 175-194.
Chait, R.P., Ryan, W.P. and Taylor, B.E. (2005), Governance as Leadrershio: Reframing the Work
of non Profit Boards, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Chaston, I. and Mangles, T. (2002), Small Business Marketing, Palgrave Publishing, Basingstoke.
Chrzan, K. and Kemery, M. (2012), “Make or break: a simple non-compensatory customer
satisfaction model”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Clark, B. and Ambler, T. (2011), “Managing the marketing metrics portfolio”, Marketing Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 16-21.
Cocks, G. (2009), “High performers down under: lessons from Australia’s winning companies”,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 17-22.
Cook, V.J. (1983), “Marketing strategy and differential advantage”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47
No. 2, pp. 68-75.
Coughlan, A.T. (1985), “Competition and cooperation in marketing channel choice: theory and
application”, Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 110-129.
Cravens, D.W., Piercy, N.F. and Baldauf, A. (2009), “Management framework guiding strategic
thinking in rapidly changing markets”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2,
pp. 31-49.
Crompton, J.A. (1983), “Selecting target markets: a key to effective marketing”, Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Damirchi, G.V. and Shafai, J. (2011), “A framework to innovation in marketing management by Times of
utilizing business intelligence”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1643-1653.
recession
Davis, F. and Manrodt, K. (1996), Customer Responsive Management: The Flexible Advantage,
versus growth
Wiley, New York, NY.
Day, G.S. (1984), Strategic Market Planning, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN.
Day, G.S. (1992), “Marketing’s contribution to the strategy dialogue”, Journal of the Academy of 621
Marketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 323-329.
Dess, G. and Robinson, J.R.B. (1984), “Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of privately held firms and conglomerate business units”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (2009), “Editorial: bridging the segmentation theory/practice divide”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 3/4, pp. 219-225.
Dishman, P.L. and Calof, J.L. (2008), “Competitive intelligence: a multiphasic precedent to
marketing strategy”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 7/8, pp. 766-785.
Doyle, P. (2002), Marketing Management and Strategy, Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, London.
Doyle, P., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1985), “A comparative investigation of Japanese marketing
strategies in the British market”, Report to the Economic and Scientific Research Council,
The Bradford University Management Centre, Bradford.
Eggert, A., Hogreve, A.J., Ulaga, W. and Meunkhoff, E. (2011), “Industrial services, product
innovations, and firm profitability: a multiple-group latent growth curve analysis”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 661-670.
Florence, S. (2003), “Rewriting the book on training”, American Salesman, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 18-20.
Foedermayr, E., Diamantopoulos, A. and Sichtmann, C. (2009), “Export segmentation effectiveness:
index construction and link to export performance”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 55-73.
Gephardt, G., Carpenter, G. and Sherry, J. (2006), “Creating a marketing orientation:
a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 37-55.
Ghemawat, P. (2010), “Finding your strategy in the new landscape”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 54-60.
Goffin, K., Varnes, C.J., van der Hoven, C. and Koners, U. (2012), “Beyond the voice of the
customer”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 45-53.
Gray, B.J., Matear, S., Deans, K.R. and Garrett, T. (2007a), “Assessing sources of competitive advantage
in a service-dominant world”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 69-75.
Gray, B.J., Ottesen, G.G., Bell, J., Chapman, C. and Whiten, J. (2007b), “What are the essential
capabilities of marketers? A comparative study of managers’, academics’ and students’
perceptions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 271-295.
Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M. and Citrin, A.V. (2010), “Customer satisfaction heterogeneity
and shareholder value”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 612-626.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Wohlgezogen, F. (2010), “Roaring out of recession”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 62-69.
Hamadu, D., Obaji, R. and Oghojafor, B. (2012), “Intelligence information generation,
dissemination, and responsiveness in the performance of insurance business in Nigeria”,
Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 53-62.
Hamel, G. (2009), “Moon shots for management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
APJML Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991), “Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 87-92.
27,4
Hanssens, D.M., Rust, R.T. and Srivastava, R.K. (2009), “Marketing strategy and wall street:
nailing down marketing’s impact”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 115-118.
Hazlett, R.L. and Hazlett, S.Y. (1999), “Emotional response to television commercials: facial EMG
vs self-report”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 7-23.
622 Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D. (1978), Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Publishing
Company, St.Paul, MN.
Hogg, S., Medway, D. and Warnaby, G. (2004), “Town centre management schemes in the UK:
marketing and performance indicators”, International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary
Sector Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309-319.
Homburg, C., Artz, M. and Wieseke, J. (2012), “Marketing performance measurement systems: does
comprehensiveness really improve performance?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 56-77.
Hooley, G.J. and Beracs, J. (1997), “Marketing strategies for the 21st century:lessons from top
Hungarian companies”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 143-165.
Hooley, G.J. and Jobber, D. (1986), “Five common factors in top performing industrial firms”,
Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1985), “Marketing lesson from the UK’s high-flying companies”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Hooley, G.J., Piercy, N.F. and Nicoulaud, B. (2012), Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning,
5th ed.., Prentice-Hall, London.
Hooley, G.J., West, C.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1985), Marketing in the UK: A Survey of Current Practice
and Performance, Chartered Institute of Marketing, Bradford.
Huan, G., Brooksbank, R., Taylor, D. and Babis, P. (2008), “Strategic marketing in Chinese
manufacturing companies”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 276-288.
Inks, S.A. and Avila, R.A. (2008), “Preparing the next generation of sales professionals through
social, experiential, and immersive learning experiences”, Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 47-55.
Joseph, M., Joseph, B., Poon, S. and Brooksbank, R. (2001), “Strategic marketing processes of
Australian companies: a preliminary investigation”, European Business Review, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 234-240.
Kee-hung, L., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2012), “Configuring quality management and
marketing implementation and the performance implications for industrial marketers”,
Keelson, S.A. (2012), “A quantitative study of market orientation and organizational performance
of listed companies: evidence from Ghana”, International Journal of Management &
Marketing Research (IJMMR), Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 101-114.
Keltner, B. and Finegold, D. (1999), “Market segmentation strategies and service sector
productivity”, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 88-102.
Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D.M., Murtha, B.R. and Sheng, S. (2011), “Emotional intelligence in
marketing exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 78-95.
Knoke, D. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1994), “Job training in US organizations”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 537-546.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions
and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Kolar, A. and Toporišic, A. (2007), “Marketing as warfare, revisited”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 203-216.
Konsta, K. and Plomaritou, E. (2012), “Key performance indicators (KPIs) and shipping Times of
companies performance evaluation: the case of Greek tanker shipping companies”,
International Journal of Business & Management, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 142-155.
recession
Kontinen, T. (2011), “Succeeding in the French market: recommendations for small businesses”,
versus growth
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Kotler, P. (2011), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Caslione, J. (2009), “How marketers can respond to recession and turbulence”, 623
Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 187-191.
Kotler, P. and Singh, R. (1980), “Marketing warfare in the 1980s”, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 30-41.
Kuga, M. (1990), “Kao’s marketing strategy and marketing intelligence system”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 20-25.
Lai, W.B., Huang, J.Y., Hooley, G., Lynch, J. and Yau, O. (1992), “Effective marketing in Taiwan:
profiles of the top performers”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 5-17.
Lautman, M.R. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Metrics that matter”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 339-359.
Law, K.S., Wong, C. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), “Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional
constructs”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-755.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K. and Piercy, N.F. (2006), “Integrating marketing intelligence sources”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 699-716.
Lewis, D. (2006), “Marketing masterclass: harnessing intelligence for competitive advantage”,
Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 276-281.
Little, B. (2012), “Identifying key trends in sales – from a training perspective”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 103-108.
Loyle, H.D. and Breidenach, A.J. (2011), “Strategic planning for financial results”, Franchsing
World, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 24-26.
Luo, X., Homburg, C. and Wieseke, J. (2010), “Customer satisfaction, analyst stock recommendations,
and firm value”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1041-1058.
Lyons, P. (2015), “The global financial hangover and us”, The New Zealand, Monday 2 February, p. 13.
Lysonski, S. and Pecotich, A. (1992), “Strategic marketing planning, environmental uncertainty
and peformance”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 247-255.
McBurnie, T. and Clutterbuck, D. (1987), The Marketing Edge, Penguin Books, London.
McDonald, M. (2006), “Strategic marketing planning: theory and practice”, The Marketing Review,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 375-418.
McDonald, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), Marketing Plans: How to Prepare Them, How to Use Them,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I.C. (2009), “How to rethink your business during uncertainty”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 24-30.
Mallin, M.L., Jones, D.E. and Cordell, J.L. (2010), “The impact of learning context on intent to use
marketing and sales technology: a comparison of scenario-based and task-based
approaches”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 214-223.
Maltz, E. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), “Market intelligence dissemination across functional
boundaries”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 47-61.
Matear, S.M., Garrett, T. and Gray, B.J. (2004), “Market orientation, brand investment, new service
development, market position, and performance for service organisation”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 284-301.
APJML Matear, S.M., Osborne, P., Garrett, T. and Gray, B.J. (2002), “How does market orientation
contribute to service firm performance?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 9/10,
27,4 pp. 1058-1075.
Michaelidou, N. (2012), “A typology of consumers’ variety-seeking disposition based on inherent
needs”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 676-694.
Micu, A.C. and Plummer, J.T. (2010), “Measurable emotions: how television ads really work”,
624 Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 137-153.
Miller, K.M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H. and Zhang, Z.J. (2011), “How should consumers’
willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 172-184.
Miller, R. (2002), “Tailoring training for the time-poor”, PR Week, June 20, p. 25.
Modiano, A. and Ni-Chionna, O. (1986), “Breaking into the big time”, Management Today,
No. November, pp. 82-84.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W. and Tomczak, T. (2009), “Brand-specific leadership: turning employees
into brand champions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 122-142.
Muhammad Awais, B. and Sharan, K. (2010), “The role of individual and training design factors
on training transfer”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 656-672.
Nakata, C. and Zhen, Z. (2006), “Information technology and customer orientation: a study of
direct, mediated, and interactive linkages”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22
Nos 3/4, pp. 319-354.
NZIER (2004), NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, New Zealand Institute of Economic
Research, Wellington.
NZIER (2008), NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, New Zealand Institute of Economic
Research, Wellington.
O’Dwyer, M., Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (2011), “Strategic alliances as an element of innovative
marketing in SMEs”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
O’Leary, D.E. (2011), “Building and evolving data warehousing and business intelligence
artefacts: the case of Sysco”, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 195-213.
O’Malley, L., Story, V. and O’Sullivan, V. (2011), “Marketing in a recession: retrench or invest?”,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 285-310.
Ordanini, A. and Maglio, P.P. (2009), “Market orientation, internal processes, and external
network: a qualitative comparative analysis of key decisional alternatives in the new
service development”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 601-625.
Panayides, P. (2004), “Marketing in Asia-Pacific logistics companies: a discriminant analysis
between marketing orientation and performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 42-68.
Pancras, J. and Sudhir, K. (2007), “Optimal marketing strategies for a customer data
intermediary”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 560-578.
Patterson, L. (2008), “Business intelligence and predictive indicators for the performance-driven
organization: interview with Laura Patterson of visionedge marketing”, Journal of Digital
Asset Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 213-224.
Peacock, J., Purvis, S. and Hazlett, R.L. (2011), “Which broadcast medium better drives
engagement?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 578-585.
Peng, M.W. and Shekshnia, S.V. (2001), “How entrepreneurs create wealth in transition
economies-executive commentary”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-110.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Piercy, N.F. (2000), Marketing Led Strategic Change, Butterworth Heinemann, London. Times of
Pinheiro, P., Raposo, M. and Hernández, R. (2012), “Measuring organizational wisdom applying recession
an innovative model of analysis”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1465-1487. versus growth
Pitta, D.A. (2008), “Product innovation and management in a small enterprise”, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 416-419.
Powell, T.C. (1992), “Organizational alignment as competitive advantage”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 119-134. 625
Putendran, S., Speed, R. and Widing, R.E. II (2003), “Marketing planning, marketing orientation
and business performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 476-497.
Qiu, T. (2012), “Managing boundary-spanning marketing activities for supply-chain efficiency”,
Quelch, J. and Jocz, K. (2009), “How to market in a downturn”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87
No. 4, pp. 52-62.
Quinn, L. (2009), “Market segmentation in managerial practice: a qualitative examination”,
Ray, S. and Ray, P. (2011), “Production innovation for the peoples car in an emerging economy”,
Technovation, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 206-217.
Reijonen, H. and Komppula, R. (2010), “The adoption of marketing orientation in SMEs: required
capapbilities and relation to success”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), “Marketing warfare”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 77-82.
Rogers, G. and Soopramanien, D. (2009), “The truth is out there!”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 163-180.
Rollins, M., Nickell, D. and Ennis, J. (2014), “The impact of economic downturns on marketing”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2727-2731.
Rosier, E.R. (2011), “Marketing strategy in a turbulent environment”, Journal of Strategic
Sarin, S., Sego, T., Kohli, A.K. and Challagalla, G. (2010), “Characteristics that enhance training
effectiveness in implementing technological change in sales strategy: a field-based exploratory
study”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 143-156.
Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1985), “In search of excellence in the UK”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119-137.
Sausen, K.P., Tomczak, T. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “Development of a taxonomy of strategic
market segmentation: a framework for bridging the implementation gap between normative
segmentation and business practice”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 151-173.
Schendel, D.E. (1985), “Strategic management and strategic marketing: what’s strategic about
either one”, in Thomas, H. and Gardner, D. (Eds), Strategic Marketing and Management,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 67-94.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Boyle, K.M. and Therivel, S. (1985), Marketing Research in Medium Sized
Engineering Companies in Britain and the United States: Some Preliminary Findings,
Edinburgh University, Edinburgh.
Shaw, V. (1995), “Successful marketing strategies: a study of British and German companies in
the machine tool industry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 329-339.
Siefert, C.J., Kothuri, R., Jacobs, D.B., Levine, B., Plummer, J. and Marci, C.D. (2009), “Winning the
super ‘buzz’ bowl”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Simkin, L. and Dibb, S. (2012), “Leadership teams rediscover market analysis in seeking
competitive advantage and growth during economic uncertainty”, Journal of Strategic
APJML Siu, W.S. (2000), “Marketing and company performance of chinese small firms in Hong Kong”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 292-230.
27,4
Siu, W.S. and Liu, Z. (2005), “Marketing in Chinese small and medium enterprises (SMEs): the state of
the art in a Chinese socialist economy”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 333-346.
Siu, W.S., Fang, W. and Lin, T. (2004), “Strategic marketing practices and the performance of
Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Taiwan”, Entrepreneurship
626 Regional Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Slater, S., Olson, E. and Finnegan, C. (2011), “Business strategy, marketing organization culture,
and performance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 227-242.
Slater, S.F., Hult, G., Tomas, M. and Olson, E.M. (2007), “On the importance of matching strategic
behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing
information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71.
Srinivasan, R., Rangaswamy, A. and Lilien, G. (2005), “Turning adversity into advantage: does
proactive marketing during a recession pay off”? International Journal of Research in
Stephen, C. and Christine, B. (2007), “Using training and development to affect job satisfaction within
franchising”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 339-352.
Storey, D.J. (2002), “Education, training and development policies and practices in medium-sized
companies in the UK: do they really influence firm performance?”, Omega, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 249-264.
Stout, P.A. and Leckenby, J.D. (1986), “Measuring emotional response to advertising”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 35-42.
Subhan, Z., Brooksbank, R., Rader, S., Steel, D. and Mackey, K. (2014), “Running an effective
induction programme for new sales recruits: lessons from the financial services industry”,
Journal of Selling, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-33.
Sudman, S. and Blair, E. (1999), “Sampling in the twenty-first century”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 269-277.
Sull, D. (2009), “How to thrive in turbulent markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 78-88.
Thomas, A. and Willie, G. (2003), “Training the knowledge worker: a descriptive study of training
practices in Irish software companies”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 137-146.
Thongsodsang, C. and Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2011), “Dynamic marketing capability, marketing
outcomes and marketing growth: evidence from foods and beverages businesses in
Thailand”, International Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 49-66.
Varadarajan, R. (2010), “Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain, definition,
fundamental issues and foundational premises”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 119-140.
Walker, O.C. Jr and Mullins, J.W. (2014), Marketing Strategy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin,
New York, NY.
Webster, F.E. (1992), “The changing role of marketing in the corporation”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
White, J.C., Varadarajan, P.R. and Dacin, P.A. (2003), “Market situation interpretation and
response: the role of cognitive style, organizational culture, and information use”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 63-79.
Whiteling, I. (2007), “How to maximise staff potential”, Marketing Week, Vol. 30 No. 34, pp. 27-28. Times of
Wiid, R., Preez, R.D. and Wallström, Å. (2012), “Coming of age: A 21 year analysis of marketing recession
intelligence & planning from 1990 to 2010”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 4-17.
versus growth
Wind, Y. (1978), “Issues and advances in segmentation research”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 317-337.
Wood, M.B. (2005), The Marketing Plan Handbook, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 627
Wood, V., Franzak, F., Pitta, D.A. and Gilpatrick, T. (2011), “Integrating creative people, creative
communities and macro-environmental characteristics into the marketing organization”,
Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 32-46.
Wu, C.-S., Lin, C.-T. and Lee, C. (2010), “Competitive marketing strategies decision-making based
on marketing resources and capabilities: evidence from the hospitality industry in
Taiwan”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 219-238.
Yu, W., Yang, J., Tseng, J., Liu, S. and Wu, J. (2010), “Proactive problem-solver for construction”,
International Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 808-816.
Further reading
Brooksbank, R., Kirby, D., Tompson, G. and Taylor, D. (2003), “Marketing as a determinant of
long-run competitive success in medium-sized UK manufacturing firms”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 259-272.
Ellen Caroline, M. and Hester, W.J.M. (2012), “Organizational and behavioral factors that influence
knowledge retention”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 77-96.
Gray, B.J., Matear, S., Boshoff, C. and Matheson, P. (1998), “Developing a better measure of market
orientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 884-903.
McDonald, M. (2009), “The future of marketing: brightest star in the firmament or a fading
meteor?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 431-539.
Mohanta, S.K., Mishra, A. and Dash, S. (2012), “Understanding the rural consumer’s behaviour in the
context of his ecosystem”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 603-612.
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (2008), “Business cycle expansion and
contraction”, available at: www.nber.org/cycles.html (accessed 24 May 2014).
Piercy, N.F. and Lane, N. (2003), “Transformation of the traditional salesforce: imperatives for
intelligence, interface and integration”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6,
pp. 563-582.
Schendel, D. (1991), “Editor’s comments on the winter special issue”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 12 No. S2, pp. 1-3.
Slater, S. (1997), “Developing a customer valued-based theory of the firm”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-167.
Slater, S. and Yani-de-Soriano, M. (2010), “Researching consumers in multicultural societies:
emerging methodological issues”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1143-1160.
Corresponding author
Dr Roger Brooksbank can be contacted at: rogerb@waikato.ac.nz
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

Strategic Marketing in Times o

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Strategic Marketing in Times o

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Marketing in Times o

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Literature review and hypotheses development

Undertaking a strategic situation analysis

Setting strategic marketing objectives

Formulating marketing strategy

Designing the marketing organisation

1997 performance 2007 performance

1997 performance 2007 performance

H4: amount of external marketing research 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.21

Findings relating to setting marketing objectives (H5-H6; Tables III-IV)

1997 performance 2007 performance

Findings relating to formulating marketing strategy (H7-H11; Tables V-VI)

1997 performance 2007 performance

1997 performance 2007 performance

1997 performance 2007 performance

H8: whole market vs segmented approach −0.10 0.01 −0.08 0.07

1997 performance 2007 performance

1997 performance 2007 performance

H14: importance of “outside” training 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.07

Findings relating to conducting marketing control (H15-H17; Tables IX-X)

1997 performance 2007 performance

2. Objective Setting 2. Objective Setting

3. Strategy Target marketing 3. Strategy

You might also like