8993876

202 MPR
Entrepreneurial Marketing: Assignment 2

Word Count: 3850 words

(excluding citations and headings)

Submission Date: 20/12/2019

Table of Content
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................4
2.0 Overview of Uber................................................................................................................4
3.0 Opportunity Criteria...........................................................................................................4
3.1 DIFA Model...............................................................................................................................5
4.0 Uber as an Entrepreneurial Response...............................................................................5
4.1 Uber’s PESTLE Model.............................................................................................................6
4.2 Uber’s Entrepreneurial Responses..........................................................................................7
5.0 Customer Value...................................................................................................................8
5.1 Brand Equity.............................................................................................................................9
6.0 Factors affecting Entrepreneurial Marketing activities..................................................11
6.1 The Resource Based View (RBV)...........................................................................................11
6.1.1 Dynamic Capability..............................................................................................................11
6.1.2 Core Competence.................................................................................................................11
6.1.3 The VRIO Framework.........................................................................................................12
6.2 Prior Experience......................................................................................................................14
6.3 Creativity.................................................................................................................................14
6.4 Networking..............................................................................................................................16
6.4.1 Social Networks....................................................................................................................16
6.4.2 The Network Effect..............................................................................................................16
7.0 Principles of Innovation...................................................................................................16
7.1 Drucker’s Principles of Innovation........................................................................................17
7.2 Innovation Spaces....................................................................................................................19
8.0 The Creative Destruction Theory.....................................................................................21
9.0 Internal Marketing...........................................................................................................22
10.0 Challenges of Implementing Innovations......................................................................26
10.1 Adoption of Innovation.........................................................................................................26
10.2 Satisfied Employees...............................................................................................................27
11.0 Conclusion......................................................................................................................27
12.0 References.......................................................................................................................28
List of Figures
Figure 1: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (Keller 1993) ......................................9
Figure 2: The Creativity Process: Adapted from Wallas (1926).......................................15
Figure 3: The Dos of Innovation: Adapted from Drucker (2015).....................................18
Figure 4: The Donts of Innovation: Adapted from Drucker (2015)..................................18
Figure 5: Innovation Space (Tidd and Bessant 2013).........................................................19
Figure 6: Model of Internal Marketing: (Berry 1991 and Gronroos 1985)......................23
Figure 7: A modern model of internal marketing for services (Rafiq and Ahmed 2013)
..................................................................................................................................................24

List of Tables
Table 1: The DIFA Model: Adapted from Rae (2007).........................................................5
Table 2: PESTLE Analysis of Uber........................................................................................6
Table 3: Uber’s Entrepreneurial Responses..........................................................................7
Table 4: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid Linked to Uber: Adapted from Keller
(1993).......................................................................................................................................10
Table 5: Uber’s Core Competencies: Adapted from Prahalad and Hamel (1990)..........12
Table 6: VRIO Framework: Adapted from Barney (1991)...............................................13
Table 7: Innovation Principles: Adapted from Tucker (2001)..........................................17
Table 8: The 4Ps: Adapted from Tidd and Bessant (2013)................................................20
Table 9: Internal Marketing Stages for Uber: Adapted from Rafiq and Ahmed (2013) 25
1.0 Introduction
Uber has attained expeditious and global expansion by evading governments, regulators and competitors.
The growth of Uber has, arguably, been focused upon a calculated approach of being a market disruptive
innovator by using technology and utilising the sharing economy effectively. Since being founded in 2009,
Uber has been challenging taxi services and the strategy has allowed Uber to spread into over 70 countries
by 2017 (Dudley, Banister and Schwanen 2017). The following report will highlight how Uber has
adopted entrepreneurial innovations to maintain competitive advantage in the transport service market.

2.0 Overview of Uber

Uber’s service involves a smartphone app with which drivers providing rides and customers searching
for them are connected. Passengers can use a credit card to pay a fee based on mileage and Uber takes
a proportion of every fare and the drivers receive the remaining. Uber have eradicated search costs
with this service so rather than calling and waiting for a taxi, users can watch a cars progress towards
their location (Rogers 2015). The innovation, modern internet-based mobile technology, is allowing
Uber to continuously challenge traditional taxi services (Cramer and Krueger 2016). The utilisation of
technology provides endless opportunities for Uber to thrive.

3.0 Opportunity Criteria

Observing trends is crucial for entrepreneurs to identify opportunities. For example, environmental
scanning can provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to pursue. Finding a gap in the marketplace is
crucial in gaining competitive advantage (Barringer and Ireland 2016). The blue ocean strategy
suggests that entrepreneurs should create demand from unexplored market spaces (the blue oceans)
rather than competitive marketplaces (red oceans). By creating value innovation in such blue oceans,
competition will be irrelevant (Kim and Mauborgne 2005). Technology is the basis of Uber’s business
model, which has proven to be a source of competitive advantage and therefore the core reason for
Uber’s rapid growth. It has popularised the service due to its convenience but has also created new
opportunities for millions of drivers.

3.1 DIFA Model

The DIFA Model, introduced by Rae (2007), outlines the opportunity criteria and without these stages
a business idea will fail. Table 1 represents how Uber has applied the DIFA model in order to utilise
opportunities effectively.
Table 1: The DIFA Model: Adapted from Rae (2007)

4.0 Uber as an Entrepreneurial Response

Forces in an entrepreneurial marketing environment may trigger entrepreneurs to develop
entrepreneurial responses in the form of product ideas to deliver marketing solutions. Ideas and
activities advanced by entrepreneurial marketers to deliver marketing solutions are referred to as
entrepreneurial responses. These responses could arise from opportunities and threats in the market.
4.1 Uber’s PESTLE Model

Table 2: PESTLE Analysis of Uber

It seems that Uber is popular in the shared economy however it has also brought controversy. Despite
this its popularity is continuing to grow.

Due to the fast changes in the marketplace, environmental scanning could be useful for Uber.
Business practices are constantly emerging so falling behind would be easy by not remaining up to
date in areas including technology, regulations and rising trends. Environmental scanning is the
internal communication of issues that could affect Uber’s decision-making process such as issues that
crop up, situations and pitfalls that could affect their future (Albright 2004).

4.2 Uber’s Entrepreneurial Responses

Developed entrepreneurial responses should be relevant, adoptable, reachable and competitive. Uber
clearly qualifies as an entrepreneurial response due to the use of an app and modern technology to fill
a gap in the market of being able to use modern technology for transport services. Uber state they are
not, in fact, a taxi service provider and it is a ‘tech’ company (Cannon and Summers 2014). This
‘tech’ company is a solution to the traditional taxi system by providing a more efficient process. Uber
has become a big aspect of modernising transportation globally and the transport system was
previously lacking technological innovation. Additionally, Uber has responded with a competitive
advantage which is convenience based which is allowing the service to tap into a market of met
demand for amenable urban transportation (Dube 2015). Uber is integrating technologies as an
entrepreneurial response and opportunity in the transport market.

Table 3: Uber’s Entrepreneurial Responses

5.0 Customer Value

Customer value is imperative for entrepreneurial marketing products and services to succeed. In
economic terms, customer value refers to what the customer believes they have gained from the
purchase compared with what is given up (Nijssen 2017). Creating value in entrepreneurial marketing
allows a developed customer loyalty, strong competitive advantage and differentiation. However,
there is always the risk that even if a new application has merit, customers do no always like it and
use it (Nijssen 2017).

Value-creating processes that include the customer as a co-creator of value are important (Lusch and
Vargo 2006:181). Traditionally, suppliers would produce goods and services and customers would
purchase these. However, customers are now enabled to engage in dialogue with suppliers throughout
the process. An opportunity is created for suppliers and customers to create value. This can be done
through customised and co-produced offerings. Co-creation of value is enviable for businesses
because it can highlight the customer’s or consumer’s viewpoint and determine customers’ needs and
wants more effectively (Payne, Storbacka and Frow 2008). Technological advancements are enabling
customer engagement to occur more in online situations (Venkatesan 2017). It seems that customers
co-create value with organisations, like Uber, with interactions and varied contextual experiences. It is
easy for value to be co-destructed between customers and organisations and unsatisfied customers
may post comments online about the brand resulting in value destruction (Zhang et al. 2018).

Uber enables value co-creation particularly through feedback mechanisms which customers can
provide on drivers and their overall experience of the transport. This allows Uber to better provide
their services to meet customer needs. The customer’s co-creation provides value back to Uber,
forming a relationship. This suggests that the customer partakes a compelling part in the co-creation
procedure (Gronroos 2012) and technology is particularly utilised to co-create enhanced experiences
(Sthapit and Bjork 2019).

The use of a ‘sharing economy’ can be used to show value co-creation with Uber which has led to
great growth. A sharing economy allows people to grant each other temporary access to under-
utilised physical assets, potentially for money (Frenken et al. 2015). Economically, this sharing
consumption business model assets both suppliers and consumers (Zhang, Jahromi and Kizildag
2018). Therefore, this could demonstrate a type of value co-creation between Uber and their
customers.

5.1 Brand Equity

A strong brand image and reputation will complement differentiation and have an effective impact on
the adoption of Uber’s service. All brands retain brand equity, the assets associated with the brand
impact on the value the service provides (Aaker 1997). Keller (1993) implies that the Customer-Based
Brand Equity (CBBE) model can be applied. Brand equity arises when a brand is known and has
unique associations in a consumer’s memory (Keller 1993). Attaining the top of the CBBE pyramid is
the goal- at which point the customer and the brand have a ‘perfect’ relationship.
Figure 1: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (Keller 1993)
Table 4: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid Linked to Uber: Adapted from Keller (1993)
It seems that Uber’s service does qualify as an entrepreneurial response for providing solutions to
distribute value to the market through their solution to the traditional taxi system worldwide and also
their commitment to providing value to consumers.

6.0 Factors affecting Entrepreneurial Marketing activities

6.1 The Resource Based View (RBV)

The RBV has recently emerged as a substitute approach to understanding industrial organisations and
their competitive tactics (Das and Teng 2000), after the major work published by Wernerfelt (1984).
The RBV provides explanations of competitive ‘heterogeneity’ based on the assumption that
competitors contrast in their resources and capabilities in crucial ways (Helfat and Peteraf 2003).

6.1.1 Dynamic Capability

Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997:516) extended the RBV and interpret dynamic capabilities as the ‘the
firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly
changing environments’. Dynamic capabilities are complex for competitors to duplicate due to being
assembled on the distinctive characteristics of entrepreneurial managers and the culture of the
organisation (Teece 2014). As they are unique and strong, dynamic capabilities can deliver as a strong
foundation for sustainable competitive advantage (Teece 2018). The innovative uses of the Internet
have allowed many unique business models, Uber being one of them. Uber demonstrates successful
business model innovations through taking advantage of advances in information technology and
social media, such as the use of software and data skills. Uber’s model uses an approach of
‘coherence’. For example, the use of GPS provides predictable response time for customers and the
driver’s identification of the customer location as well as shortening the exit time through pre-
organised prices. This improves the experience of customers and drivers and symbolises Uber’s
dynamic capability (Shoemaker, Heaton and Teece 2018).

6.1.2 Core Competence

The RBV proposed that market leaders commonly accomplish and preserve their business
achievements by persistently taking advantage of a ‘core competence’; this can be used to back the
development of new or improved products and entering new market sectors (Coyne, Hall and Clifford
1997).

Prahalad and Hamel (1990) discussed that core competencies are the dominant competencies that a
firm leverage to compete, even though the competencies may generally be challenging to classify or
overshadowed by the importance of the firm’s products (Mooney 2007). Uber has leveraged
successfully its expertise by integrating a variety of technologies together in a well-designed package
that customers need.

The concept of core competence is a complexed and challenged concept and it is difficulty to
theoretically specify (Ljungquist 2007).
Table 5: Uber’s Core Competencies: Adapted from Prahalad and Hamel (1990)

Despite its applicability, the RBV has been extensively critiqued (Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen
2010). For example, the RBV has been critiqued for lacking operational validity (Priem and Butler
2001) and that it enforces the ‘illusion of total control’ amplifies the degree to which managers can
dominate resources or predict their future value (McGuinness and Morgan 2000).

6.1.3 The VRIO Framework

The VRIO framework (Barney 2002) can be used to uncover sustained competitive advantage
(Richardson 2008). When all four resource attributes are present, a company can presume it has
distinctive competence that can therefore be used as an origin of sustainable competitive advantage.
Table 6: VRIO Framework: Adapted from Barney (1991)
6.2 Prior Experience
Research suggests that entrepreneurship is a continuous learning process and therefore it is not a set of
stable characteristics but a capability that is formed gradually (Politis 2005). Therefore, this highlights
the position of an entrepreneurs prior career experience affects their capacity to conduct the
entrepreneurial process such as recognising and exploiting opportunities. Research results imply that
those who have engaged in numerous start-ups, referred to as habitual entrepreneurs, have developed
an entrepreneurial attitude and problem-solving capability which will boost their ability to analyse and
take advantage of further opportunities (Shane 2000). A habitual entrepreneur refers to those who
have repeatedly been involved in venture creation activities (Politis 2008). Prior start up experience is
valuable to help an entrepreneur overcome traditional issues that a new venture may face and provide
valuable insights about attracting and retaining customers (Ucbasaran et al. 2003). Effectual reasoning
is desirable to be able to be amenable and minimise losses, a challenge that mirrors the process of new
venture creation (Sarasvathy 2001). Habitual entrepreneurs are more likely to immerse in effectual
reasoning than novice entrepreneurs, as explained by Johannisson et al. (1998) who suggests that prior
experience enables entrepreneurs to have a knowledge to support decision making about
entrepreneurial opportunities in uncertain situations. This suggests that habitual entrepreneurs, due to
the prior start up experience, can be assumed to have a larger ability to succeed (Politis 2008).

Uber was established by Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp in 2008. Research shows that Kalanick
co-founded two tech start-ups before Uber: online file-exchange service Scour and file-sharing
company Red Swoosh (Forbes 2019). Also, Garrett Camp founded a web discovery tool:
StumbleUpon, which he sold to eBay in 2007 (Forbes 2019). This suggests that prior start up
experience was valuable in the case of Uber for Kalanick and Camp as they already had the
knowledge to support the new venture. Both Kalanick and Camp are former entrepreneurs and
therefore can be referred to as habitual entrepreneurs. This implies that they had built up an
entrepreneurial ability over time and think effectually will, consequently, have supported Uber as a
new venture in 2009.

6.3 Creativity
Creativity can be classed as an important antecedent of entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship
and innovative behaviour has regularly been associated with creativity and research implies that those
who are creative are most likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Yar Hamidi, Wennberg and
Berglund 2008).

Due to changes in marketplaces and societal needs, organisations, like Uber, are burdened to deliver
unique value as a response to these changes. As organisations attempt to fulfil these needs, creativity
is becoming significant in helping organisations to survive and thrive in the current marketplace.
Traditional methods are no longer fully adequate, and creativity enables entrepreneurs to manipulate
opportunities to allow their firms to be more competitive and innovative (Gundry, Often and Kickul
2014).
The creativity process, as outlined by Wallas (1926), explains how creativity influences
entrepreneurial activity. Creativity is referred to as the development of innovative ideas, processes or
concepts (Hisrich and Kearney 2014). Creativity allows entrepreneurial marketers to differentiate
businesses from competitors and is crucial for recognising or devising opportunity in a changing
environment.

Figure 2: The Creativity Process: Adapted from Wallas (1926)

It seems that being ‘creative’ and following creative processes enables entrepreneurs to act on
opportunities to enable competitive advantage. Personal creativity within an organisation can
contribute to competitive advantage and organisational innovations (Hirst, Knippenberg and Zhou
2009). Therefore, Kalanick and Camp’s ability to think creatively and by following creative processes
has enabled entrepreneurial activity to thrive in the case of Uber.

6.4 Networking

6.4.1 Social Networks

Evidence suggests that entrepreneurship is socially embedded in network structure (Aldrich 1987). A
network can be defined as elements that are connected to each other, either directly or indirectly.
Networks are significant to entrepreneurial activity and social networks channel information to the
entrepreneur that can be used to identify opportunities for profit (Lee and Tsang 2001). Emotional
support can be provided by network relations for entrepreneurial risk-taking and this can increase
persistence to stay in business. Entrepreneurs commonly rely on networks for business information
and advice (Hoang and Antoncic 2003). To fit the needs of a business, entrepreneurs bring those that
are both close and distant to them into business decisions.
As previously mentioned, entrepreneurs often have characteristics to support them with decision
making however there may be contacts who can complement these characteristics with their
resources. When these contacts contribute to entrepreneurial goals, they become ‘social capital’ (Burt
2002).

6.4.2 The Network Effect

Network effects can be defined as when services and goods increase in valuableness as people
increasingly use them, in Uber’s case this means reaching a scale where it can be most effective for its
clients. Uber is well known for their large network and as Uber hires more drivers, more vehicles can
reach customers at a lower wait time (Burgess 2017) The strength of these network effects can alter
significantly and can guide value creation and capture. When the network effects are strong, the value
provided by Uber will continue to rise rapidly. For example, the more drivers Uber has the more
riders and therefore Uber grows in popularity.

7.0 Principles of Innovation

Drucker (2002) explained how he believes that successful entrepreneurs have a commitment to
innovation rather than a specific entrepreneurial personality. Innovation is a specific function of
entrepreneurship and how an entrepreneur provides new profitable resources or uses enhances
existing resources profitably (Drucker 2002). Due to the growing progress of technological and global
change, companies are forced to reinvent their approach to innovation. Companies that are aware of
strengthening innovation as a core competency have the ability to grow (Tucker 2001). Uber is
particularly successful in its innovation due adherence to innovation principles.
Table 7: Innovation Principles: Adapted from Tucker (2001).

7.1 Drucker’s Principles of Innovation

Drucker (2015) identifies the conditions compulsory for innovation to thrive within organisations,
termed as ‘dos’ and ‘donts’ of innovation.

Figure 2 outlines a detailed description of Drucker’s ‘dos’ of innovation in relation to Uber’s

entrepreneurial marketing.

Figure 3: The Dos of Innovation: Adapted from Drucker (2015)

Figure 3 outlines a detailed description of Drucker’s ‘donts’ of innovation in relation to Uber’s

entrepreneurial marketing and how Uber successfully avoids these ‘donts’.
Figure 4: The Donts of Innovation: Adapted from Drucker (2015)

It seems that Uber seems to be in line with Drucker’s ‘dos’ and ‘donts’ which implies that Uber are
successfully innovative.

7.2 Innovation Spaces

According to Tidd and Bessant (2013), creating innovation spaces should be mapped to the 4Ps of the
company. This tool would enable companies, like Uber, to determine what the innovation process can
enhance and bring to the business. This supports the idea generation process and how to incubate a
new idea. Without this, a company risks authorising their core competency around a search to become
a ‘core rigidity,' limiting the capability of searching out of this area. By bringing in new innovative
elements, companies can form new combinations that disturb the current marketing environment, as
explained by Schumpeter’s ‘Creative Destruction Theory’ (Nicholas, Ledwith and Bessant 2013: 28).
Figure 5: Innovation Space (Tidd and Bessant 2013)

The area indicated by the circle is the possible innovation space within which Uber can perform.
Whether the organisations explore and exploit all the space is a result of innovation strategy. The
ways in which incremental change will vary from those used to control a radical step change. It is the
perceived degree of novelty that is important, depending on the size of the organisation and the
challenges that they face individually (Tidd and Bessant 2013).
Table 8: The 4Ps: Adapted from Tidd and Bessant (2013)
8.0 The Creative Destruction Theory
Joseph Schumpeter (1934) described this theory as a process that revolutionises the economic
structure from within, destroying the old one and constantly creating a new one (Tuluce and Yurtkur
2015:721).

It has been argued that Uber is a ‘disruptive innovator’. A main component of the growth of Uber, is
how it has been focused on a strategy of being a disruptive innovator. By exploiting flaws in
competitors and regulatory systems, Uber has enabled itself to succeed through an invasive approach.
Particularly in Europe, Uber has faced government battles and also with regulators and established
taxi operations. Uber has maintained its approach of being a disruptive market innovator in London,
whilst this has produced a conflicting relation with the regulator, it has enabled Uber to grow and
reinforce its operational position (Dudley, Banister and Schwanen 2017).

However, research has also implied that Uber’s financial and strategic achievements do not, in fact,
certify the company as ‘disruptive’. Christensen et al. (2006) suggested that disruptive innovations
form in low-end or new-market footholds and Uber did not form in either. Uber was launched in San
Francisco and Uber’s customers were commonly those confidently hiring rides and it is challenging to
suggest that Uber found a low-end opportunity or primarily target non-consumers. Uber has actually
been increasing total demand which happens when a better, less expensive solution is developed. It
seems that disrupters begin with attracting low-end, unserved consumers and then focus on the
mainstream market whereas Uber has done differently by focusing on the mainstream market and then
appealing to the overlooked areas. It would seem that the aspects of Uber’s strategy could be
described as ‘sustaining innovations’ as opposed to ‘disruptive innovations’ (Cramer and Krueger
2016).
9.0 Internal Marketing
There is confusion in literature of the definition of internal marketing and the varying interpretations
has led to difficulty in implementing and adopting this concept (Rafiq and Ahmed 2000). Rafiq and
Ahmed (2013) define internal marketing as an organised effort, utilising marketing-like approach,
focused on stimulating employees, for enforcing and integrating organisational strategies towards
customer orientation. Attraction of high-quality staff is particularly critical when the only differing
factor between competitors is the condition of the service (Rafiq and Ahmed 2000). Gronroos (1985)
suggested that motivating towards customer consciousness and sales mindedness must involve the use
of marketing-like activities to achieve so and that integrating different functions is crucial to the
customer relations of service companies (Gronroos 1985).

Figure 3 displays a figure of internal marketing derived from a solution of Berry (1991) and Gronroos
(1985) models. This model emphasises that Gronroos and Berry’s models, whilst different, are not
models in competition but they discuss different features of internal marketing. This model builds a
more comprehensive conceptualisation. This model portrays the mechanisms involved in the
application of internal marketing; however, it is more complex than their authentic models.
Figure 6: Model of Internal Marketing: (Berry 1991 and Gronroos 1985)

Figure 4 demonstrates the interrelationships between the criteria for internal marketing and the
implementation of service quality. It is compulsory to know how internal marketing can be utilised to
employ successful strategies. Whilst the model displayed in figure 3 demonstrates how internal
marketing functions, it seems too complex. Rafiq and Ahmed (2013) display a model which reinstates
the relationships in the model in a simpler format. The model still utilises the relationships from the
internal marketing literature including the motivation of employees via marketing-like activities,
which is outlined in early internal marketing literature. Additionally, Gronroos (1985) originally
recommended the marketing-like approach in improving the inter-functional co-ordination and
customer orientation. The model focuses on the cruciality of employee attitudes in service quality via
their impact on customer orientation, employee motivation and job satisfaction. It must be noted that
providing high levels of services does have its costs. Service quality can be enhanced by allowing
employees to have extra training; yet, this is costly. As a result, an excellent level of service quality
can be aimed for, not specifically the highest. This level of service is dependent on its positioning on
service in the marketplace (Rafiq and Ahmed 2013).
Figure 7: A modern model of internal marketing for services (Rafiq and Ahmed 2013)

Table 9 considers, in detail, a selection of internal marketing phases crucial to successful marketing of
Uber’s service. However, Uber’s case is an interesting one due to the fact that Uber claim that they do
not employ their drivers directly and drivers are in control over their work amount. This has caused
controversy as investigations have been exploring if Uber’s ‘driver-partners’ are lawfully classified as
independent contractors or employees. It seems that Uber drivers are not subject to formal obligations
to perform work in Australia yet in the UK the courts have suggested that drivers are, in fact,
employees (Karp 2019). This could, consequently, affect the impact of internal marketing on Uber’s
service delivery.
Table 9: Internal Marketing Stages for Uber: Adapted from Rafiq and Ahmed (2013)
10.0 Challenges of Implementing Innovations

10.1 Adoption of Innovation

Both the ‘Technology Acceptance Model’ (TAM) and the ‘Diffusion of Innovation Theory’ (DIT) can
be used to explain consumer’s perceptions towards adopting Uber’s mobile application and the
characteristics that attract consumers to it. TAM explains a person’s acknowledgement of information
technology; however, it has been critiqued for not expressing the nature of consumer adoption fully.
DIT can be integrated with TAM to understand more effectively the changes in information
technology. DIT is a social and psychological theory that can support anticipating how people make
the decision to embrace a new innovation by finding their adoption patterns. DIT takes more
definitive characteristics of innovation which is useful in clarifying the reason that a user adopts the
innovation
(Min, So and Jeong 2019.) The way in which an innovation spreads through a population is
dependent of factors such as: characteristics of the innovation and personal characteristics of the
adopters/customers (Goffin and Mitchell 2017). Rogers (2003) identified six characteristics
influencing the adoption of innovation: relative advantage, observability, trialability, compatibility
and complexity risk. There is always the risk, with any innovation, that it may not be fully adopted or
that, initially, it may not be successful. The challenge is being able to ensure that the innovation is
adopted rapidly and regularly to remain successful and sustainable as a service. Luckily for Uber, the
service is becoming more and more popular, and its demand can be noted from the ranking of free
download applications in the Apple and Android market (Min, So and Jeong 2019). However, due to
the high clock-speed technological environment, there is increasing adoption of new technologies in
society, therefore Uber must maintain their competitive advantage through constant innovation to
avoid being overtaken in the transport market. This could lead to adoption of innovation suffering.
10.2 Satisfied Employees
Central to internal marketing is a focus on internal employees of the firm when implementing
innovations. Employees can become ambassadors of an organisation and therefore have a strong
influence on distributing high standards of customer satisfaction for new innovations. A failure to
have satisfied employees could pose a challenge to implementing innovations. Employee satisfaction
is becoming a crucial issue in total quality management and is treated as a crucial driver of quality,
customer satisfaction and productivity (Matzler, Fuchs and Schubert 2004). Research shows that
satisfied employees are highly motivated and work more effectively (Eskildsen and Dahlgaard 2000).
Internal marketing literature would suggest that employees must be treated as internal customers that
must be continually satisfied. From a managerial perspective, understanding the factors which
influence employee satisfaction is crucial (Matzler, Fuchs and Schubert 2004). The challenge for Uber
is to decide how is the best way to achieve high satisfaction levels. Retaining valuable employees is a
major challenge for most organisations (Roulin, Mauor and Bangerter 2013). As previously
mentioned, Uber is going to great lengths in attempt to retain employees and keep them satisfied
through reward schemes as a motivation tactic.

11.0 Conclusion
In summary, it appears evident that Uber is successful in adopting entrepreneurial innovation to
sustain their competitive advantage in the personal transport service market. This has been effectively
done through the organisation’s entrepreneurial focus, with a combination of entrepreneurial flair but
also the utilisation of creativity and technological focus. Uber’s unique business structure allows both
success and limitations. It seems that Uber can be depicted as a destructive innovator in some sense,
which although allows them to be competitive, without monitoring the environment, could lead to its
downfall. Therefore, I recommend that Uber invest in establishing strong relationships with local
governments due their long-running issues with laws and legislations worldwide in the transport
industry. As a technological based company, Uber must consistently innovate to maintain competitive
advantage in such an expeditious environment.
12.0 References
Aaker, J.L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of Brand Personality’. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 347–356

Albright, K.S. (2004) ‘Environmental scanning: radar for success’. Information Management Journal
38 (3), 38-45

Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., and Wright, M. (2014) ‘Entrepreneurial innovation: The
importance of context’. Research Policy 43 (7), 1097-1108

Baron, R.A., and Byrne, D. (1987) Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. 5th edn.

Barringer, B.R., and Ireland, D.R. (2019) Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures.
6th edn. Harlow: Pearson

Barney, J. (1991) ‘Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm: origins, implications,
and prospects’. Journal of management 17 (1), 97-98

Burgess, M (2017) The network effect means Uber is always likely to win in London. [online]
available from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uber-london-lyft-alternative-cheaper-cost [20
December 2019]

Calo, R., and Rosenblat, A. (2017) ’The Taking Economy: Uber, Information and Power’. Columbia
Law Review 117, 1623-1690

Cannon, S., and Summers, L.H. (2014) ’How Uber and the sharing economy can win over regulators’.
Harvard business review 13 (10), 24-28

Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., and Sadtler, T.M. (2006) ‘Disruptive innovation for
social change’. Harvard business review 84 (12), 94.

Coyne, K.R., Hall, S.D., and Clifford, P.G. (1997) ‘Is your competence a mirage?’. The Mckinsey
Quarterly 45 (1), 40-47

Cramer, J., and Krueger, A.B. (2016) ‘Disruptive change in the taxi business: The case of Uber’.
American Economic Review 106 (5), 177-82

Das, T.K., and Teng, B.S. (2000) ‘A resource-based theory of strategic alliances’. Journal of
management 26 (1), 31-61

Drucker, P.F. (2002) ‘The discipline of innovation’. Harvard Business Review 80, 95-104

Drucker, P.F. (2015) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2 edn. London: Routledge

nd

Dube, S.C. (2015) ‘Uber a Game-Changer in Passenger Transport in South Africa’. CCRED
Quarterly Review, 22

Dudley, G., Banister, D., and Schwanen, T. (2017) ‘The rise of Uber and regulating the disruptive
innovator’. The political quarterly 88 (3), 492-499

Eskildsen, J. K., and Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000) ‘A causal model for employee satisfaction’. Total Quality
Management 11(8),1081–1094

Forbes. (2019) ‘Travis Kalanick’ Forbes [online] 12 Nov. available from

https://www.forbes.com/profile/travis-kalanick/#209525b61994 [20 December 2019]
Forbes. (2019) ‘Garrett Camp’ Forbes [online] 12 Nov. available from
https://www.forbes.com/profile/garrett-camp/#38541a5b7b89 [20 December 2019]

Frenken, K., Meelen, T., Arets, M., and Van de Glind, P. (2015) ‘Smarter regulation for the sharing
economy’. The Guardian [online] 20 May. available from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/may/20/smarter-regulation-for-the-
sharing-economy [20 December 2019]

George, W.R. (1990) ‘Internal marketing and organisational behaviour: A partnership in developing
customer-conscious employees at every level’. Journal of Business research 20 (1), 63-70.

Gingiss, D. (2018) ‘How Uber’s User Experience Creates A Seamless Customer Experience’. Forbes
[online] 2 July. available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/dangingiss/2018/07/02/how-ubers-user-
experience-creates-a-seamless-customer-experience/#4c86d107ff7a [20 December 2019]

Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2017) Innovation Management: Effective Strategy & Implementation. 3 rd

edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan Education

Gronroos, C. (1985) ‘Internal marketing–theory and practice’. Services Marketing in a Changing

Environment American Marketing Association, 41-7.

Gronroos, C. (2012) ‘Conceptualising value co-creation: a journey to the 1970s and back to the
future’. Journal of Marketing Management 28 (13/14), 1520-1534

Gundry, L.K., Ofstein, L.F., and Kickul, J.R. (2014) ’Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in
entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business’. The International Journal of
Management Education 12 (3), 529-538

Harding, S., Kandlikar, M., and Gulati, S. (2016) ‘Taxi apps, regulation, and the market for taxi
journeys’. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 88, 15-25.

Hawkins, A. (2018) ‘Uber will start rewarding high-performing drivers with better earnings and free
college tuition’. The Verge [online] 1 Nov. available from
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18047746/uber-driver-high-performing-earnings-free-college-
tuition-pro

Helfat, C.E., and Peteraf, M.A. (2003) ‘The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles’.
Strategic management journal 24 (10), 997-1010

Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., and Zhou, J. (2009) ‘A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: goal orientation, team learning behaviour and individual creativity’. Academy of
Management Journal 52 (2), 280-293

Hisrich, R.D. and Kearney, D. (2014) Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Sage

Hoang, H., and Antoncic, B. (2003) ‘Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review’.
Journal of business venturing 18 (2), 165-187

Isaac, M. (2017) ‘How Uber Deceives the Authorities Worldwide’. NY Times [online] 3 March.
available from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-
authorities.html [20 December 2019]

Iqbal, M. (2019) ‘Uber Revenue and Usage Statistics 2019’. Business of Apps [online] 10 May.
available from https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/#1 [20 December 2019]
Johannisson, B., Landstrom, H., and Rosenberg, J. (1998) ‘University training for entrepreneurship –
an action frame of reference’. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23, 477-96.

Karp, P. (2019) ‘Uber drivers are not employees, Fair Work Ombudsman rules’. The Guardian
[online] 7 June. available from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/07/uber-drivers-
are-not-employees-fair-work-ombudsman-rules [20 December 2019].

Keller, K.L. (1993) ‘Conceptualising, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’.
Journal of marketing 57 (1),1-22

Kim, W.C., and Mauborgne, R. (2014) ‘The four pillars of blue ocean leadership’. Blue Ocean
Leadership Series, 1-4

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C., and Groen, A.J. (2010) ‘The resource-based view: a review and
assessment of its critiques’. Journal of Management 36 (1), 349-372.

Lee, D.Y., and Tsang, E.W. (2001) ‘The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and
network activities on venture growth’. Journal of Management Studies 38 (4), 583-602

Leeflang P.S.H., Verhoef, P.C., Dahlstrom, P., and Freundt, T. (2014) ‘Challenges and solutions for
marketing in a digital era’. European Management Journal 32 (1), 1-12

Lusch, R. P., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2006) ‘Competing through service: Insights from service-
dominant logic’. Journal of Retailing 83(1), 5–18.

Ljungquist, U. (2007) ‘Core competency beyond identification: presentation of a model’.

Management Decision 45 (3), 393-402

Mainwaring, S. (2019) ‘Purpose at Work: How Uber Scales A Culture of Entrepreneurship’. Forbes
[online] 5 Nov. available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmainwaring/2019/11/05/purpose-
at-work-how-uber-scales-a-culture-of-entrepreneurship/#5d2700262584 [20 December 2019]

Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., and Schubert, A. (2004) ‘Employee satisfaction: does Kano's model apply?’.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15 (9-10), 1179-1198

McGuinness, T., and Morgan, R. E. (2000) ‘Strategy, dynamic capabilities and complex science:
Management rhetoric vs. reality’. Strategic Change 9, 209-220.

Min, S., So, K.K.F., and Jeong, M. (2019) ‘Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application:
Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model’. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 36 (7), 770-783

Mooney, A. (2007) ‘Core Competence, Distinctive Competence and Competitive Advantage: What is
the difference?’ Journal of Education for Business 83 (2), 110-115

Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A., and Bessant, J. (2013) ‘Reframing the search space for radical innovation’.
Research-Technology Management 56 (2), 27-35.

Nijssen, E. (2017) Entrepreneurial Marketing: An Effectual Approach.2 edn. Abingdon: Routledge

nd

Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., and Frow, P. (2008) ‘Managing the co-creation of value’. Journal of the
academy of marketing science 36 (1), 83-96
Politis, D. (2005) ’The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework’.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 399-424.

Politis, D. (2008) ‘Does prior start-up experience matter for entrepreneurs' learning? A comparison
between novice and habitual entrepreneurs’. Journal of small business and Enterprise Development
15 (3), 472-489.

Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation.’ Harvard Business
Review 65, 43-60.

Priem, R. L., and Butler, J. E. (2001) ‘Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
management research?’ Academy of Management Review 26, 22-40

Rae, D. (2007) Opportunity Centred Entrepreneurship. 2 edn. London: Palgrave

nd

Rafiq, M., and Ahmed, P.K. (2000) ‘Advances in the internal marketing concept: definition, synthesis
and extension’. Journal of services marketing 14 (6), 449-462

Rafiq, M., and Ahmed, P.K. (2013) Internal Marketing. Routledge

Roulin, N., Mayor, E. and Bangerter, A. (2013) ‘How to satisfy and retain personnel despite job-
market shortage’. Swiss Journal of Psychology

Rogers, B. (2015) ‘The social costs of Uber’. U. Chi. L. Rev. Dialogue 82, 85

Rosenblat, A. (2015) ‘Uber’s Phantom Cabs’. Motherboard [online] 27 July. available from
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mgbz5a/ubers-phantom-cabs [20 December 2019]
Richardson, J. (2008) ‘The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution’.
Strategic change 17 (5‐6),133-144

Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001) ‘Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency’ Academy of Management Review 26, 243-63

Schoemaker, P.J., Heaton, S., and Teece, D. (2018) ‘Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and
leadership’. California Management Review 61 (1), 15-42

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). ‘The theory of economic development’. Harvard: Economic Studies, 46

Shead, S. (2019) ‘Uber Positions Itself as One Stop Shop for Transportation Ahead of IPO’. Forbes
[online] 30 April. available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2019/04/30/uber-positions-
itself-as-one-stop-shop-for-transportation-ahead-of-ipo/ [20 December 2019]

Sthapit, E., and Björk, P. (2019) ‘Sources of value co-destruction: Uber customer perspectives’.
Tourism Review

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’.
Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509-533

Teece, D.J. (2018) ‘Business models and dynamic capabilities’. Long Range Planning 51 (1), 40-49

Tidd, J., and Bessant, J. (2013) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organisational Change. 5 edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
th

Todor, R.D. (2016) ‘Blending traditional and digital marketing’. Bulletin of the Transilvania
University of Brasov: Economic Sciences 9 (1), 51
Topping, A. (2014) ‘Cabbies bring gridlock across Europe in fight against unregulated taxi app’. The
Guardian [online] 11 June. available from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/11/cab-
drivers-europe-protest-taxi-app-uber-london-madrid [20 December 2019]

Tucker, R.B. (2001) ‘Innovation: The new core competency’. Strategy & Leadership 29 (1), 11-14

Tülüce, N.S., and Yurtkur, A.K. (2015) ‘Term of strategic entrepreneurship and Schumpeter's creative
destruction theory’. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 207, 720-728

Uber. (2019) ‘Driving Innovation at Uber’. [online] available from https://www.uber.com/en-

PK/blog/innovation/ [20 December 2019]

Uber. (2019) ‘Promoting workplace empowerment’. [online] available from

https://www.uber.com/gb/en/community/diversity-and-inclusion/workplace-equality/ [20 December
2019]

Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., and Binks, M. (2003) ‘Does entrepreneurial experience
influence opportunity identification?’ The Journal of Private Equity 7, 7-14

Venkatesan, R. (2017) ‘Executing on a customer engagement strategy’. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science 45 (3), 289-293

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London, UK: Jonathan Cape

Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A resource‐based view of the firm’. Strategic management journal 5 (2), 171-
180

Yar Hamidi, D., Wennberg, K., and Berglund, H. (2008) ‘Creativity in entrepreneurship education’.
Journal of small business and enterprise development 15 (2), 304-320

Zhang, T.C., Jahromi, M.F., and Kizildag, M. (2018) ‘Value co-creation in a sharing economy: The
end of price wars?’ International Journal of Hospitality Management 71, 51-58

Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., and Chen, P.J. (2018) ‘Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-
destruction online’. Journal of Services Marketing 32 (1), 57-69