Micro-level product-market dynamics: Shared knowledge and its relationship to market development

  • José Antonio Rosa
  • Jelena Spanjol


This work draws on consumer and psychology research to explain sociocognitive aspects of product-market dynamics at a higher level of specificity than prior research. The authors extend the field’s understanding of market-shaping shared knowledge through a theory-informed discussion of how shared product knowledge comes to exist and how it changes as product markets develop. They define shared knowledge as the aspects of product representations that are common across the minds of market actors, making it possible for them to understand one another. The authors also discuss ways to track shared knowledge content that is expressed in market narratives. As the characteristics of shared knowledge are explained and linked to stages of product-market development, the authors develop a set of researchable propositions to guide future research. The theoretical arguments and propositions in this article complement extant marketing strategy research by integrating individual-level consumer theory with market evolution models.


pro duct-market dynamics sensemaking market stories shared knowledge cognition 


  1. Abemathy, William J. and James M. Utterback. 1978. “Patterns of Industrial Innovation.”Technology Review 80 (7): 97–107.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, Philip and Michael L. Tushman. 1990. “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change.”Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (December): 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. “Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields.”In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Eds. Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 21–74.Google Scholar
  5. —. 1999. “Perceptual Symbol Systems.”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4): 577–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basuroy, Suman, Subimal Chatterjee, and S. Abraham Ravid. 2003. “How Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets.”Journal of Marketing 67 (October): 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, Phil. 1992. “Volkswagen EuroVan GL.”Car and Driver 37 (9): 91.Google Scholar
  8. Bijker, Wiebe E. 1995.Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Towarda Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bowman, Douglas and Hubert Gatignon. 1996. “Order of Entry as a Moderator of the Effect of the Marketing Mix on Market Share.”Marketing Science 15 (3): 222–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, Stephen, Robert V. Kozinets, and John F. Sherry Jr. 2003. “Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning.”Journal of Marketing 67 (July): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto. 1994. “Meaningful Brands From Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (August): 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. — and Kent Nakamoto. 1989. “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh. 1993. “An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption Through Skydiving.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ceppos, Rich. 1983. “Volkswagen Vanagon GL.”Car and Driver 28 (12): 169–171.Google Scholar
  15. Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and V. Srivastava. 1979. “Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product Markets.”Journal of Marketing 43 (July): 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickson, Peter R. 1992. “Toward a General Theory of Competitive Rationality.”Journal of Marketing 56 (January): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. —, Paul W. Farris, and Willem J. M. I. Verbeke. 2001. “Dynamic Strategic Thinking.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (3): 216–237.Google Scholar
  18. Feick, Lawrence F. and Linda L. Price. 1987. “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information.”Journal of Marketing 51 (January): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, Robert J. and Linda L. Price. 1992. “An Investigation Into the Social Context of Early Adoption Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 19 (December): 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabriel, Yiannis. 1998. “Stories and Sense-Making.”In Discourse and Organization. Eds. David Grant, Tom Keenoy, and Cliff Oswick. London: Sage, 84–103.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, Howard. 1995. Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Garud, Raghu and Michael A. Rappa. 1994. “A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants.”Organization Science 5 (August): 344–362.Google Scholar
  23. Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1985. “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 849–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —and —. 1991. “Innovative Decision Processes.” InHandbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 316–348.Google Scholar
  25. Gentner, Dedre. 1989. “The Mechanisms of Analogical Transfer.” InSimilarity and Analogical Reasoning. Eds. Stella Vosniadou and Andrew Ortony. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 199–124.Google Scholar
  26. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000.The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  27. Gogoi, Pallavi. 2003. “The Ad Game’s New Game.”Business Week, June 30 (3839), p. 12.Google Scholar
  28. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Deborah Roedder John. 1997. “Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer.”Journal of Consumer Research 24 (December): 266–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffin, Larry. 1992. “Life With Previa.”Car and Driver 37 (7): 119–121.Google Scholar
  30. Holyoak, Keith and Paul Thagard. 1995.Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jeanes, William. 1989. “Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Mini.”Car and Driver 34 (11): 62–81.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, Michael. 1983. “Toyota Van Wagon.”Car and Driver 29 (3): 25.Google Scholar
  33. Kowka, John E., Jr. 1996. “Altering the Product Life Cycle of Consumer Durables: The Case of Minivans.”Managerial and Decision Economics 17 (1): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kozinets, Robert V. 2002. “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities.”Journal of Marketing Research 39 (February): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linville, Patricia W. 1982. “Affective Consequences of Complexity Regarding the Self and Others.” InAffect and Cognition. Eds. Margaret Syndor Clark and Susan T. Fiske. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 79–109.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter A. Dacin. 1996. “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 23 (December): 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Molotch, Harvey. 2003.Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers, and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Moreau, Page C, Donald R. Lehmann, and Arthur B. Markman. 2001. “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products.”Journal of Marketing Research 38 (February): 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. —, Arthur B. Markman, and Donald R. Lehmann. 2001. “‘What Is It?’ Categorization Flexibility and Consumers’ Responses to Really New Products.”Journal of Consumer Research 27 (March): 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ober, Scot, Jensen J. Zhao, Rod Davis, and Melody W. Alexander. 1999. “Telling It Like It Is: The Use of Certainty in Public Business Discourse.”Journal of Business Communication 36 (3): 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petroski, Henry. 1993.From Pins to Paper Clips, the Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  42. Pinch, Trevor and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” InThe Social Construction of Technological Systems. Eds. Wiebe Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–50.Google Scholar
  43. Pondy, Louis. 1978. “Leadership Is a Language Game.” InLeadership: Where Else Can We Go. Eds. Morgan W. McCall Jr. and Michael M. Lombardo. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 87–99.Google Scholar
  44. Porac, Joseph F., Howard Thomas, Fiona Wilson, Douglas Paton, and Alaina Kanfer. 1995. “Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers.”Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (June): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ratneshwar, S., Lawrence W. Barsalou, Cornelia Pechmann, and Melissa Moore. 2001. “Goal-Derived Categories: The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 10 (3): 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. —, Cornelia echmann, and Allan D. Shocker. 1996. “Goal-Derived Categories and the Antecedents of Across-Category Consideration.”Journal of Consumer Research 23 (December): 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. — and Allan D. Shocker. 1991. “Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structure.”Journal of Marketing Research 28 (August): 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. — and Allan D. Shocker, June Cotte, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 1999. “Product, Person, and Purpose: Putting the Consumer Back Into Theories of Dynamic Market Behaviour.”Journal of Strategic Marketing 1 (3): 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosa, José Antonio, Kimberly M. Judson, and Joseph F. Porac. 2005. “On the Sociocognitive Dynamics Between Categories and Product Models in Mature Markets.”Journal of Business Research.Google Scholar
  50. — and Joseph F. Porac. 2002. “Categorization Bases and Their Influence on Product Category Knowledge Structures.”Psychology & Marketing 19 (6): 503–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ——, Jelena Spanjol, and Michael S. Saxon. 1999. “Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market.”Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. —, Jelena Spanjol, and Joseph F. Porac. 2004. “Text Analysis as a Tool for Assessing Marketing Strategy Performance.” InAssessing Marketing Strategy Performance. Eds. Christine Moorman and Donald R. Lehmann. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 185–211.Google Scholar
  53. Russell, Cristel Antonia. 2002. “Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Placements in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude.”Journal of Consumer Research 29 (December): 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander. 1995. “Subcultures of Consumption: Ethnography of the New Bikers.”Journal of Consumer Research 22 (June): 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934.The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Scott, William A., D. Wayne Osgood, and Christopher Peterson. 1979.Cognitive Structure: Theory and Measurement of Individual Differences. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston.Google Scholar
  57. Shaw, Gordon, Robert Brown, and Philip Bromiley. 1998. “Strategic Stories: How 3M Is Rewriting Business Planning.”Harvard Business Review 76 (3): 41–50.Google Scholar
  58. Sirsi, Ajay K., James C. Ward, and Peter H. Reingen. 1996. “Microcultural Analysis of Variation in Sharing of Causal Reasoning About Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 22 (March): 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swan, Tony. 1983. “How Tall Can a Station Wagon Be?”Motor Trend 35 (10): 7.Google Scholar
  60. Tegarden, Linda F., Donald E. Hatfield, and Ann E. Echols. 1999. “Doomed From the Start: What Is the Value of Selecting a Future Dominant Design?”Strategic Management Journal 20 (6): 495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tellis, Gerard J. and Merle C. Crawford. 1981. “An Evolutionary Approach to Product Growth Theory.”Journal of Marketing 45 (Fall): 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thagard, Paul. 1992. Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Theoharakis, Vasilis and Veronica Wong. 2002. “Marking High-Technology Market Evolution Through the Foci of Market Stories: The Case of Local Area Networks.”Journal of Product Innovation Management 19 (6): 400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Treece, Jim. 1992. “Van Hunting? Put These on Your Mini List.”Business Week, August 10 (3278), p. 74.Google Scholar
  65. Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Satish Jayachandran. 1999. “Marketing Strategy: An Assessment of the State of the Field and Outlook.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (2): 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Venette, Steven J., Timothy L. Sellnow, and Patricia A. Lang. 2003. “Metanarration’s Role in Restructuring Perceptions of Crisis: NHTSA’s Failure in the Ford-Firestone Crisis.”Journal of Business Communication 40 (3): 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Welch, David. 2003. “A New Oxymoron: Hip Minivan.”Business Week October 20 (3854): 156–157.Google Scholar
  69. White, Harrison C. 1981. “Where Do Markets Come From?“American Journal of Sociology 87 (November): 517–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yates, Brock. 1983. “A Van for All Seasons.”Car and Driver 28 (11): 38–43.Google Scholar
  71. Zaltman, Gerald. 2003.How Customers Think: Essential Insights Into the Mind of the Market. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  72. Zinkhan, George M. and Karin Braunsberger. 2004. “The Complexity of Consumers’ Cognitive Structures and Its Relevance to Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Business Research 57 (June): 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. —, Hyokjin Kwak, Michelle Morrison, and Cara Peters. 2003. “Web-Based Chatting: Consumer Communications in Cyberspace.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (1): 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. — and Richard T. Watson. 1996. “Advertising Trends: Innovation and the Process of Creative Destruction.”Journal of Business Research 37 (3): 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Antonio Rosa
    • 1
  • Jelena Spanjol
    • 2
  1. 1.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations