Millions for Marcom, but Not One Cent for Research: A Structured Abstract

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

Marketing faculty as well as experts writing for practitioner audience often exhort their charges in marketing to use research and make data-driven rather than intuitive or instinctive decisions. Despite this, informal observation indicates that there appears to be significant reluctance among students to purchase research reports in classroom marketing simulations (and those writing for practitioners continue to decry inadequate use of research in marketing decision making). Little or published research appears to address the marketing research purchase question directly, though other marketing variables have been studied extensively. For example, one prominent meta-analysis (Capon et al. 1990) makes no mention of marketing research, though it does analyze marketing spending overall. Another study (Rust et al. 2004) discusses marketing spending and marketing productivity, but makes no mention of market research spending. Similarly, a more recent study (Healy et al. 2015) mentions classic marketing variables: product line breadth, offer quality, price, advertising, sales force expenditure, R&D investment, etc., but not market research. The paucity of prior research is a significant opportunity to advance scholarship and pedagogy by investigating the extent of perceived reluctance to buy research and the underlying reasons for student reluctance (to the extent present) to use research in marketing decision making. The present study involves undergraduate student teams at a public university in the eastern USA, participating in a commercial marketing simulation as part of an upper division marketing management class in the 2015–2016 academic year.

Keywords

Market Research Customer Relationship Management Marketing Research Marketing Management Marketing Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Capon, N. (2012). Managing marketing in the 21st century: Developing and implementing the marketing strategy. Brownsville, NY: Wessex, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Capon, N., Farley, J. U., & Hoenig, S. (1990). Determinants of financial performance: A meta-analysis. Management Science, 36(10), 1143–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clancy, K., & Krieg, P. (2000). Counterintuitive marketing: Achieve great results using uncommon sense. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clancy, K., & Krieg, P. (2006). Your gut is still not smarter than your head: How disciplined, fact-based marketing can drive extraordinary growth and profits. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Healy, W., Klaus, E., Matthews, W., Mir, R., & Betts, S. (2015). Strategy in an era of economic uncertainty: Integrating external and internal antecedents of firm performance. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 92–108.Google Scholar
  6. James, S., Kinnear, T., & Deighan, M. (2012). PharmaSim marketing management simulation. Interpretive Simulations. Retrieved from www.interpretive.com
  7. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision-making under risk. Econometrika, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karns, G. L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klassen, K., & Willoughby, K. (2003). In-class simulation games: Assessing student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  10. Passman, R. (2001). Experiences with student-centered teaching and learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Education, 122(1), 189–199.Google Scholar
  11. Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004). Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Strategic Planning Institute. (2016). About PIMS database. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://pimsonline.com/about_pims_db.htm#Strategy.
  13. Vander Schee, B. A. (2012). The influence of new product characteristics on rate of adoption: Increasing student comprehension with the bidding for buyers game. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(3), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bloomsburg University of PennsylvaniaBloomsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations