Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting the use of information in the evaluation of marketing communications productivity

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most prior research on the use of marketing information has studied antecedents of the use of information in new product strategy decisions. This study investigates factors that are related to the use of marketing information in the evaluation of marketing communications productivity. The information used in this context originates from a wide range of internal and external sources. On the basis of organizational theories of information processing, the authors develop and test a conceptual framework explaining the use of information to evaluate marketing communications productivity. Collected survey data indicate that information quality, organization formalization, task complexity, market turbulence, rationality of decision style, and group involvement are all positively related to the use of information in assessing marketing communications productivity. Moderating relationships involving formalization, complexity, decision style, and the degree of group involvement are also found. Implications for managing market knowledge and future research in information use are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, Urton L., Lisa Koonce, and Garry Marchant. 1994. “The Effects of Source-Competence Information and Its Timing on Auditors’ Performance of Analytical Problems.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13 (1): 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith. 1996. “In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature Products.”Journal of Marketing Research 33 (May): 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, Linda, Mark A. Seabright, and Linda Dyer. 1986. “Individual Versus Group Use of Base-Rate and Individuating Information.”Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 38 (August): 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August): 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avlonitis, George J. 1985. “Product Elimination Decision Making: Does Formality Matter?”Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter): 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips. 1982. “Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal.”Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (September): 459–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, Donald W. 1991. “Interdepartmental Conflict in Organizational Buying: The Impact of the Organizational Context.”Journal of Marketing Research 28 (May): 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma, Thomas V. and Bruce H. Clark. 1988.Marketing Performance Assessment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, Joel. 1992. “The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress.”Academy of Management Review 17 (January): 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, Randolph E. and Sunil Gupta. 1998. “Commercial Adoption of Advances in the Analysis of Scanner Data.” Report No. 98-103. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald J. 1988. “Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis.”Academy of Management Review 13 (January): 40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrashekaran, Murali, Beth A. Walker, James C. Ward, and Peter H. Reingen. 1996. “Modeling Individual Preference Evolution and Choice in a Dynamic Group Setting.”Journal of Marketing Research 38 (May): 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, Gregory C. 1960. “Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions.”Econometrica 28:591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, Richard A. and Charles R. Schwenk. 1990. “Agreement and Thinking Alike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions.”Academy of Management Executive 4 (February): 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, Lee J. 1987. “Statistical Tests for Moderator Variables: Flaws in Analyses Recently Proposed.”Psychological Bulletin 102 (3): 414–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, Philip L., Don Y. Lee, and Grahame R. Dowling. 1998. “Information Control and Influence in Emergent Buying Centers.”Journal of Marketing 62 (July): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, Gerardine. 1982. “An Examination of an Expectancy Theory Model of Decision Support System Use.” InProceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Systems. Eds. Michael Ginzberg and Catherine A. Ross. Baltimore: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, Rohit. 1982. “The Organizational Context of Market Research Use.”Journal of Marketing 46 (Fall): 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Gerald Zaltman. 1982. “Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A Path Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (February): 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1984. “A Comparison of Factors Affecting Researcher and Manager Perceptions of Market Research Use.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (February): 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1987. “A Comparison of Factors Affecting Use of Market Information in Consumer and Industrial Firms.”Journal of Marketing Research 24 (February): 114–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, Don A. 1978.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumwright, Minette E. 1996. “Company Advertising With a Social Dimension.”Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. Marlene and Marjorie A. Lyles. 1985. “Organizational Learning.”Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 803–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, Cameron M. (1996). “A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains.”Academy of Management Review 21 (4): 1112–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. Brent, Alan R. Dennis, William H. Cooper, Joseph S. Valacich, Lana M. Bastianutti, and Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. 1992. “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size.”Academy of Management Journal 35 (June): 350–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, Rashi and Allen M. Weiss. 1993. “Marketing in Turbulent Environments: Decision Processes and the Time-Sensitivity of Information.”Journal of Marketing Research 30 (November): 509–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Stuart L. 1992. “An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes.”Academy of Management Review 17 (2): 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helliker, Kevin. 1997. “A New Mix: Old-Fashioned PR Gives General Mills Advertising Bargains.”Wall Street Journal, March 20, pp. A1, A6.

  • Hill, Gayle W. 1982. “Group Versus Individual Performance: Are N+1 Heads Better Than One?”Psychological Bulletin 91 (3): 517–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, George P. and Richard L. Daft. 1987. “The Information Environments of Organizations.” InHandbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Fredric M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W. Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 130–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.”Organization Science 2 (February): 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, Robert F. and G. Tomas M. Hult. 1998. “Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination.”Journal of Marketing 62 (July): 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, Daniel J. 1986. “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:1141–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.”Journal of Marketing 57 (July): 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, George and John Martin. 1984. “Effects of Organizational Structure of Marketing Planning on Credibility and Utilization of Plan Output.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May): 170–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Barbara E. and Leigh McAlister. 1997.Grocery Revolution: The New Focus on the Consumer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, Ajay K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Goutam N. Challagalla. 1998. “Learning and Performance Orientation of Salespeople: The Role of Supervisors.”Journal of Marketing Research 35 (May): 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, Donald R., Sunil Gupta, and Joel H. Steckel. 1998.Marketing Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Tiger and Roger Calantone. 1998. “The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination.”Journal of Marketing 62 (October): 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, Elliot and Ajay K. Kohli. 1996. “Market Intelligence Dissemination Across Functional Boundaries.”Journal of Marketing Research 33 (February): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, James G. and Martha S. Feldman. 1981. “Information in Organizations as Symbol and Signal.”Administrative Science Quarterly 26:171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, Gary H. and Charles M. Judd. 1993. “Statistical Difficulties of Detecting Interactions and Moderator Effects.”Psychological Bulletin 114 (2): 376–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, Anil and P. Rajan Varadarajan. 1992. “A Model of Marketing Knowledge Use Within Firms.”Journal of Marketing 56 (October): 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Danny. 1987. “Strategy Making and Structure.”Academy of Management Journal 30 (March): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, Christine. 1995. “Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes.”Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August): 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Rohit Despandé, and Gerald Zaltman. 1993. “Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 57 (January): 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullich, Joe. 1996. “Marketers Pressured to Demonstrate Results: Sales Impact Remains Management’s Bottom-Line Gauge.”Advertising Age 67 (June 10): S14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, Ikujiro and Johny K. Johansson. 1985. “Japanese Management: What About the ‘Hard’ Skills?”Academy of Management Review 10 (2): 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, Paul C. 1990. “Strategic Decisions Made by Top Executives and Middle Managers With Data and Process Dominant Styles.”Journal of Management Studies 27 (March): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, Charles A. 1982. “Variations in Decision Makers’ Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information.”Academy of Management Journal 25 (4): 756–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1983. “The Use of Information in Organizational Decision Making: A Model and Some Propositions.”Research in Organizational Behavior 5:103–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Jennifer A. Chatman, and John C. Anderson. 1987. “Message Flow and Decision Making.” InHandbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Fredric M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W. Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 600–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, W. E. III, Christopher P. Puto, and Ronald H. King. 1986. “Which Buying Decisions Are Made by Individuals and Not by Groups?”Industrial Marketing Management 15 (May): 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1992. “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective.”Annual Review of Psychology 43:87–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, Steven W. and Ram C. Rao. 1990. “The Role of Experience in Information Use and Decision Making by Marketing Managers.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (February): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimers, Jane L. and M. G. Fennema. 1999. “The Audit Review Process and Sensitivity to Information Source Objectivity.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18 (1): 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Carol and Jack William Jones. 1990. “Temporal Sequences in Information Acquisition for Decision Making: A Focus on Source and Medium.”Academy of Management Review 15 (1): 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, Don E. 1993. “Integrated Marketing Communications: Maybe Definition Is in the Point of View.”Marketing News 27 (January 18): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn. 1993.Integrated Marketing Communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, Don E. and Jeffrey S. Walters. 1997. “Why the Heat Is on Today’s Marketing Exec: A New Book Examines Measuring a Budget’s Value.”Advertising Age, October 20, p. 36.

  • Sharma, Shubhash, Richard M. Durand, and Oded Gur-Arie. 1981. “Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables.”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August): 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, Jagdish N. and Rajendra S. Sisodia. 1995. “Feeling the Heat—More Than Ever Before, Marketing Is Under Fire to Account for What It Spends.”Marketing Management 4 (Fall): 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, Terence A. 1997.Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications. 4th ed. Fort Worth TX: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. 1987. “Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intution and Emotion.”Academy of Management Executive 1 (February): 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, James M. 1994. “Market Information Processing and Organizational Learning.”Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver. 1997. “Information Search Style and Business Performance in Dynamic and Stable Environments: An Exploratory Study.” Report No. 97-104. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, William and Enzo Valenzi. 1990. “Assessing Rational and Intuitive Styles: A Human Information Processing Metaphor.”Journal of Management Studies 27 (March): 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia. 1993. “Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages Among Scanning, Interpretation, Action, and Outcomes.”Academy of Management Journal 36 (April): 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, Michael and David Nadler. 1978. “Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design.”Academy of Management Review 3 (July): 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollrath, David A., Blair H. Sheppard, Verlin B. Hinsz, and James H. Davis. 1989. “Memory Performance by Decision-Making Groups and Individuals.”Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 43 (June): 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, James P. 1988. “Selectivity and Selective Perception: An Investigation of Managers’ Belief Structures and Information Processing.”Academy of Management Journal 31 (December): 873–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, John P. and Margaret A. Youtz. 1986. “Solution Diversity and the Quality of Group Decisions.”Academy of Management Journal 29 (March): 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright, Steven C. and Kim B. Clark. 1992.Revolutionizing Product Development. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierenga, Berend and Gerrit H. van Bruggen. 1997. “The Integration of Marketing Problem-Solving Modes and Marketing Management Support Systems.”Journal of Marketing 61 (July): 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, Gerald. 1986. “Knowledge Utilization as Planned Social Change.” InKnowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization. Eds. G. Beal, W. Dissanayake, and S. Konoshima. Boulder, CO: Westview, 433–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and C. Moorman. 1989. “The Management and Use of Advertising Research.”Journal of Advertising Research 28 (December/January): 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmud, Robert W. 1978. “An Empirical Investigation of the Dimensionality of the Concept of Information.”Decision Sciences 9 (April): 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1979. “Individual Differences and MIS Success: A Review of the Empirical Literature.”Management Science 25 (October): 966–979.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas Christian University, Texas, USA

    George S. Low

  2. University of Montana, Montana, USA

    Jakki J. Mohr

Authors
  1. George S. Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jakki J. Mohr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

George S. Low is an associate professor in the Marketing Department of the M. J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. His Ph.D. in marketing is from the University of Colorado-Boulder. He also received an M.B.A. from the Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, and a B.A. in advertising from Brigham Young University. He spent 4 years as a media planner with MacLaren McCann Advertising (Canada). His research focuses on integrated marketing communications and brand management, and has been published in theJournal of Marketing Research, theJournal of Retailing, theJournal of Advertising Research, theEuropean Journal of Marketing, and theJournal of Product and Brand Management, among others. He is the recipient of four research grants from the Marketing Science Institute.

Jakki J. Mohr is an associate professor of marketing and the Ron and Judy Paige faculty fellow at the University of Montana. She received her B.B.A. from Boise State University, her M.S. in marketing from Colorado State University, and her Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Before beginning her academic career, she worked in Silicon Valley in the advertising area for both Hewlett Packard’s Personal Computer Group and Tele Video Systems. Her research has been published in theJournal of Marketing, theStrategic Management Journal, theJournal of Public Policy and Marketing, theJournal of Retailing, theJournal of High Technology Management Research, Marketing Management, andComputer Reseller News. She has recently authored a book,Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations. Her research interests lie primarily in the area of marketing of high-technology products and services.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Low, G.S., Mohr, J.J. Factors affecting the use of information in the evaluation of marketing communications productivity. JAMS 29, 70–88 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070301291005

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070301291005

Keywords

Search

Navigation