Edited by Americus Reed and Mark Forehand
Americus Reed II and Mark Forehand
The above quotation illustrates the importance of identity. It is hard to imagine any behavior a person could engage in that would somehow not have implications for how they see themselves and how the world sees them. Indeed, the question of “Who am I?” is one that we as human organisms ponder. We surmise, re-evaluate and update our self-conceptions throughout our lifespan. The cognitive sophistication and complex ability to articulate self-reflective thoughts separates humans from other species; the ability to define who we are and what we want to become. Therefore, “identity is important” is probably not a controversial statement. That is the easy part. What is more difficult is to pinpoint the best way to define and study it. After all, if something defies definition and measurement, then it is nothing more than lofty philosophical rhetoric, a useful metaphor, perhaps (Cohen 1989). If the idea of “identity” is a serious area of empirical inquiry, then one must face the difficult challenge of developing a precise theoretical, methodological and substantive set of ideas to capture this construct. In that regard, there has been great progress, yet there is much more work to do. From the early days of personality research (Allport 1937; Murray 1938; Barenbaum and Winter 2008), the idea of a monolithic self was appealing. A person has a “self-concept”: the sum total of thoughts, ideas and beliefs about who they are, and what they want to be. If you could identify what the key elements were, then you might be able to predict what that person is going to say, think and do. It made sense to focus on static and enduring traits that may be an important set of building blocks to base this conception on (Cristal and Tupes 1992; Costa and McCrae 1997; Costa et al. 1998). The fact that measuring these traits often produced weak relationships to other outcomes pointed to the need for additional nuance within the conception of what a self-concept actually means (see Griffith and Jenkins 2004). It was the information processing revolution, the self as an organizing structure in memory (Kihlstrom and Klein 1986), and the idea that the self-concept is better thought of as categories or a collection of “social identities” (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Abrams and Hogg 1990) that opened a door forward to deeper understanding. This need for complexity comes at a price, though. Now the questions are: What are the key social categories that matter? When do they matter? Why do they matter? How do they change over time?
Edited by Americus Reed and Mark Forehand
In this chapter, I argue that identity researchers should use natural, practical interventions to make identities salient. Identity scholars understand how identity salience should affect behavior, yet struggle to effectively predict when a particular identity will drive a consumer’s real-world behavior. The cost of research leads scholars to use heavy-handed, unsubtle identity interventions that definitively make an identity salient, such as asking a person multiple questions about the focal identity. But, is this what identity salience looks like in the field? This main idea in my chapter is evidenced by the complete absence of similar activities in the field: when was the last time you entered a store or browsed a website and had to spend five minutes describing an identity-relevant activity before you shopped? I review recent research that – thankfully – provides hope that identity salience may be obtained with subtle cues. This chapter is important because adopting more natural identity salience interventions, such as having a person sign their name, will enable researchers to study a wider range of identities, better understand the process by which particular identities become more (or less) salient, and provide practical interventions for marketing practitioners to use.
Edited by Linda D. Hollebeek and David E. Sprott
Linda D. Hollebeek and David E. Sprott
We are delighted to present the Handbook of Research on Customer Engagement to you, which offers a selection of contemporary readings in this rapidly developing research area. Since its initial inclusion on the Marketing Science Institute’s 2010 Research Priorities, the topic area has grown intensely with important advances being made with respect to customer engagement (CE) conceptualization, measurement, as well as studies conducted in particular areas of CE application (see e.g. Kumar et al. 2019; Kumar and Pansari 2016; Hollebeek, Srivastava, and Chen 2019). For the period 2018_2020, the MSI has maintained the CE on centrality by inviting future research on the question What are the most effective strategies to drive deeper and lasting customer engagement with the firm? (MSI 2018, p. 3). In parallel, researchers’ growing interest in CE is evident in a significant number of journal Special Issues (e.g. 2017 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2010 Journal of Service Research, 2018 Journal of Services Marketing), conference Special Sessions, roundtables and other events being organized to foster enhanced understanding of the concept (Brodie et al. 2011).
Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik
Daniel M. Ladik and David W. Stewart
The (most) common mistake is not to “tell a story,” but only assemble different related parts. “Telling a good story” means to critically analyze what has been done before and demonstrate convincingly why something is changing. A significant contribution to knowledge does not happen in isolation and needs to be contextualized to the current situation.
John H. Roberts, Ujwal Kayande and Stefan Stremersch
We aim to investigate the impact of marketing science articles and tools on the practice of marketing. This impact may be direct (e.g., an academic article may be adapted to solve a practical problem) or indirect (e.g., its contents may be incorporated into practitioners' tools, which then influence marketing decision making). We use the term “marketing science value chain” to describe these diffusion steps, and survey marketing managers, marketing science intermediaries (practicing marketing analysts), and marketing academics to calibrate the value chain. In our sample, we find that (1) the impact of marketing science is perceived to be largest on decisions such as the management of brands, pricing, new products, product portfolios, and customer/market selection, and (2) tools such as segmentation, survey-based choice models, marketing mix models, and pre-test market models have the largest impact on marketing decisions. Exemplary papers from 1982 to 2003 that achieved dual - academic and practice - impact are Guadagni and Little (1983) and Green and Srinivasan (1990). Overall, our results are encouraging. First, we find that the impact of marketing science has been largest on marketing decision areas that are important to practice. Second, we find moderate alignment between academic impact and practice impact. Third, we identify antecedents of practice impact among dual impact marketing science papers. Fourth, we discover more recent trends and initiatives in the period 2004-2012, such as the increased importance of big data and the rise of digital and mobile communication, using the marketing science value chain as an organizing framework.
John O. Summers
A primary mission of institutions of higher learning is the generation and dissemination of knowledge. The low acceptance rates at the leading research journals in marketing, typically in the single digits to low teens, suggests the need to increase the quality of the research manuscripts produced. This article presents a set of guidelines for researchers aspiring to do scholarly research in marketing. Discussed are issues such as developing the necessary research skills, conceptualizing the study, constructing the research design, writing the manuscript, and responding to reviewers. Also presented are the author’s personal observations concerning the current state of research in marketing.
Ruth N. Bolton
I have been asked to contribute my recollections about the editorial review process for the article, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” by Stephen L. (Steve) Vargo and Robert F. (Bob) Lusch, which was published in the Journal of Marketing (JM ) in 2004. This chapter offers my recollections - with the advantage of hindsight.