The loss of the marketing department’s influence: is it really happening? And why worry?

Abstract

Although research and managerial practice have demonstrated great interest in the role of marketing departments within firms and have raised repeated concerns that their influence is in sharp decline, prior research has not analyzed whether marketing departments are truly losing ground. To do so, we build on the work of Homburg et al. (1999), which assessed the influence of the marketing department two decades ago. Drawing on structurally equivalent data, the results demonstrate that the marketing department has indeed lost significant influence. Additionally, we analyze which department has benefited from this loss of influence. Interestingly, it is the sales department that has gained influence, rather than the finance department, as one might assume. We also study the performance consequences of the intraorganizational distribution of influence among the marketing, sales, R&D, operations, and finance departments. Our results are alarming because an influential marketing department makes the greatest contribution to company performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauerly, R. J., Johnson, D. T., & Singh, M. (2005). Readability and the impact of marketing. In: marketing renaissance: opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing thought, practice, and infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, S. W. (2005). When executives speak, we should listen and act differently. In: marketing renaissance: opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing thought, practice, and infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cespedes, F. (1994). Industrial marketing: managing new requirements. Sloan Management Review, 35, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Day, G. S. (2004). Invited commentaries on ‘evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’: achieving advantage with a new dominant logic. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Engelen, A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A cross-cultural perspective of marketing departments’ influence tactics. Journal of International Marketing, 19, 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, marketing, and research-and-development cooperation across new product development stages: implications for success. Journal of Marketing, 74, 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71, 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 69, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Stuart, J. A. (2004). Valuing customers. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: which differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71, 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 63, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hyde, P., Landry, E., & Tipping, A. (2004). Making the perfect marketer: a study from the association of national advertisers and Booz Allen Hamilton suggests five ways to make marketing more relevant than ever. Strategy & Business, 37, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2009). Expanding the role of marketing: from customer equity to market capitalization. Journal of Marketing, 73, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehmann, D. R. (1996). Some thoughts on the futures of marketing. In D. R. Lehmann & K. E. Jocz (Eds.), Reflections on the futures of marketing: practice and education (pp. 121–135). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Metrics for marketing matter. Journal of Marketing, 68, 73–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Kim, Y. C. (2011). Salespeople’s knowledge-sharing behaviors with coworkers outside the sales unit. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 31, 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mizik, N. (2014). Assessing the total financial performance impact of brand equity with limited time-series data. Journal of Marketing Research, in press [http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0431].

  30. Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2008). The financial value impact of perceptual brand attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2009). Valuing branded businesses. Journal of Marketing, 73, 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moorman, C., & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63, 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  34. O’Sullivan, D., & Abela, A. V. (2007). Marketing performance measurement ability and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 71, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69, 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004a). Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Marketing, 68, 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004b). Return on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schultz, D. E. (2005). MR deserves blame for marketing’s decline. Marketing News, 39, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sethi, R., & Iqbal, Z. (2008). Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing, 72, 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2005). Does marketing need reform? in: marketing renaissance: opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing thought, practice, and infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stock, R. M., & Reifenscheid, I. (2014). Who should be in power to encourage product program innovativeness, R&D or marketing? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 264–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tavassoli, N. T., Sorescu, A., & Chandy, R. (2014). Employee-based brand equity: Why firms with strong brands pay their executives less. Journal of Marketing Research, in press [http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0435].

  46. U.S. News and World Report. (2014). Retrieved September 17, 2014 from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

  47. Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing department’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 73, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Verhoef, P. C., Leeflang, P. S. H., Reiner, J., Natter, M., Baker, W., Grinstein, A., Gustafsson, A., Morrison, P., & Saunders, J. (2011). A cross-national investigation into the marketing department’s influence within the firm: Toward initial empirical generalizations. Journal of International Marketing, 19, 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Webster, F. E. (2005). Back to the future: integrating marketing as tactic, strategy, and organizational culture. In: marketing renaissance: opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing thought, practice, and infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Webster, F. E., Malter, A. J., & Ganesan, S. (2005). The decline and dispersion of marketing competence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Homburg.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Measures, items, measurement, item reliabilities (IR), composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and Cronbach’s alpha (CA)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Homburg, C., Vomberg, A., Enke, M. et al. The loss of the marketing department’s influence: is it really happening? And why worry?. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 1–13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0416-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marketing department’s influence
  • Sales department’s influence
  • Marketing function
  • Firm performance