Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Business model innovation: a marketing ecosystem view

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Innovation in marketing has focused on products and services and paid scant attention to business models. Yet there is an argument that business model innovation can sometimes have greater long run success than product innovation and that it is harder for competitors to emulate. In this review we examine the extant literature on business model innovation—primarily in adjacent academic fields—and suggest that marketing variables and methods play an essential role in conceptualizing the field. In order to stimulate further thinking in marketing, we propose an ecosystem of business model innovation and offer a set of research questions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., & Mangematin, V. (2013). Business models: a challenging agenda. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43, 156–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J., & Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K. (2014). Trust as a facilitator of co-creation in customer-salesperson interaction—an imperative for the realization of episodic and relational value? Academy of Marketing Science, 4, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W., & Taylor, S. A. (2016). The effectiveness of customer participation in new product development: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 80, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.

  • Chung, W. W. C., Yam, A. Y. K., & Chan, M. F. S. (2004). Networked enterprise: a new business model for global sourcing. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. (1999). The market driven organization. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. (2013). Innovation prowess. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G., & Moorman, C. (2010). Strategy from the outside In: Profiting from customer value. New York: McGraw Hill.

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

  • Fang, E. (. E. R.)., Lee, J., & Yang, Z. (2015). The timing of codevelopment alliances in new product development processes: returns for upstream and downstream partners. Journal of Marketing, 79, 64–82.

  • Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I-framework of business model innovation: a structured view of process phases and challenges. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3–4), 249–273.

  • Gartner. (2015). Gartner’s hype cycle for emerging technologies: 2015. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3412017. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.

  • Gatignon, H., Gotteland, D., & Haon, C. (2016). Making innovation last: volumes 1 and 2. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Girotra, K., & Netessine S. (2014). Four paths to business model innovation. Harvard Business Review. July-August.

  • Golder, P. N., Shacham, R., & Mitra, D. (2009). Findings—innovations’ origins: when, by whom, and how are radical innovations developed? Marketing Science, 28(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, J., Lanzolla, G., & Maicas, J. P. (2015). The role of industry dynamics in the persistence of first mover advantages. Long Range Planning, December. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.006.

  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, S56–S73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haumann, T., Güntürkün, P., Schons, L. M., & Wieseke, J. (2015). Engaging customers in coproduction processes: how value-enhancing and intensity-reducing communication strategies mitigate the negative effects of coproduction intensity. Journal of Marketing, 79, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: an organization and management perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(2), 211–223.

  • Horyn, C. (2004). A store made for right now: you shop until it’s dropped. The New York Times, February 17.

  • Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: how connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard Business Review, 92, 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R. (2013). Collaborating with complementors: what do firms do? Strategic Management, 30, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2012). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing-based business models: how to create and capture value. California Management Review, 57(4), 63–84.

  • Kuester, S., & Robertson, T. (2005). Winning the take-off battle. European Business Forum, Winter, 20, 46–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Business model innovation: when the game gets tough, change the game. The Boston Consulting Group, December, 1–8.

  • Mallapragada, G., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. (2011). User-generated open source products: founder’s social capital and time-to-market. Marketing Science, 31(Special Issue), 474–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: what can the ambidexterity literature teach us? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mims, C. (2016). Apple is missing a golden opportunity. New York: The Wall Street Journal.

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paharia, N., Avery, J., & Keinan, A. (2014). Positioning brands against large competitors to increase sales. Journal of Marketing Research, LI, 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S. (1993). How to reduce market penetration cycle times. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2005). Technological evolution and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 152–168.

  • Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2011). Demystifying disruption: a new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies. Marketing Science, 30(2), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning. Long Range Planning, 43, 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohmeyer, R. (2008). The 7 worst tech predictions of all time. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/155984/worst_tech_predictions.html. Accessed 31 Dec 2016.

  • SyncDev. (2016). MVP—minimum viable product: a proven methodology to maximize return on risk. Retrieved from http://www.syncdev.com/minimum-viable-product/. Accessed 8 Dec 2016.

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaz, F., & Swaminathan, V. (2015). What goes around comes around: the impact of marketing alliances on firm risk and the moderating role of network density. Journal of Marketing, 79, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganziational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G., Weinberg, B. D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket forecasting of really-new products. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 57–62.

  • Van Heerde, H. J., Mela, C. F., & Manchanda, P. (2004). The dynamic effect of innovation on market structure. Journal of Marketing Research, XLI, 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1989). New product ideas from ‘lead users’. Research-Technology Management, 32(3), 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Parida, V., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Cavusoglu, H., & Deng, Z. (2013). Early mover advantage in industry with low entry barrier: evidence from etailers on third party ecommerce platforms. In: Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan.

  • Weaver, C., & Carreyrou, J. (2016). Deal with theranos haunts walgreens. New York: Wall Street Journal.

  • Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, 769 Jon M. Huntsman Hall, Philadelphia, PA, 19014, USA

    Thomas S. Robertson

Authors
  1. Thomas S. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas S. Robertson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robertson, T.S. Business model innovation: a marketing ecosystem view. AMS Rev 7, 90–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0101-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0101-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation