Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test whether a systematic relationship exists between firms’ level of entrepreneurial marketing (EM) behaviours and firms’ characteristics, including firm age, firm size and firm’s founder.

This paper quantitatively investigates EM behaviours from data collected from 752 business owners through structured interviews. The data analysis applied was multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (multi-group CFA).

Results from the analysis show that not all of the firms’ characteristics determine firms’ level of EM practice. The level of EM behaviours has a systematic relationship with firms’ age but not with the founding status of the firms’ manager. The impact of firm size on the level of EM behaviours is evident only when the firms’ age is taken into account.

This paper concludes that relationships between EM behaviours and firm characteristics are more complicated than anticipated. Firms’ characteristics alone may not be a good measure for identifying the level of a firm’s EM. EM cannot be conceptualized solely in relation to the activities of small firms, young firms or founder-operated firms.

This paper examines EM behaviours in a large survey and uses multi-group CFA to examine firms’ EM practice through latent variables, instead of observed variables. The findings should complement knowledge regarding the EM concept generated from existing literature.

This study examines the importance of social network size and structural holes within the network to the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon 13 years of the Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship and developments in the field over that period.

The authors reflect upon the past and future of the marketing and entrepreneurship discipline.

There is an abundance of important research questions to fuel faculty and PhD student research for years to come.

This paper has value as a reflective piece which goes on to pose research questions of the future.

This paper seeks to detail an exploratory examination of a multidimensional, creativity‐based theoretical model of opportunity recognition originally proposed by Hills et al. and later refined by Lumpkin et al., but never empirically tested. The paper also aims to examine the relationship between individual dimensions of the model and creativity.

Analyses were conducted using AMOS software on a sample of 145 entrepreneurs. One structural equation model (SEM) and three confirmatory factor analysis models were tested.

The five‐dimensional model – consisting of preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation, and elaboration – was determined to be the best fitting model. The SEM model also indicated that incubation and elaboration were significantly related to creativity. Overall, a multidimensional, creativity‐based approach to modeling opportunity recognition is supported by this study.

Cross‐sectional data do not allow for testing of the process aspect of the model; however, they do provide evidence that the model can stand up to empirical tests of the five elements of the model. Future research should examine opportunity using multiple dimensions and a creativity perspective. Additional research is needed to examine the process aspects of opportunity recognition.

Fostering opportunity recognition processes that are iterative and involve multiple stages is likely to promote more creative entrepreneurial outcomes.

This study provides one of the few examples of a multidimensional perspective on opportunity recognition as well as an empirical examination of a creativity‐based theoretical model of opportunity recognition.

This exploratory study examines differences in opportunity recognition by industry. A sample of 142 entrepreneurs completed a detailed questionnaire. Certain differences by industry were in the product, firm and respondents’ characteristics as well as in opportunity recognition processes, especially in regards to innovation and level of creativity. In addition, there was a very clear, significant relationship between level of creativity and the number of opportunities identified and pursued across industries. The implications of this is that future research that involves creativity, such as using the creativity‐based model provided by Lumpkin et al. (2003), should include industry in the analysis.

Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) is at the brink of becoming an established discipline. To advance the field further and to better guide research efforts in different sub categories, the purpose of this paper is to examine the field's intellectual structure with the help of citation and co‐citation analysis.

This paper is based on a two‐stage research design. First a citation analysis is carried out through which thematic clusters are identified. In a second step a co‐citation analysis is conducted to determine the intellectual structure of EM research.

This study exposes the most influential authors and publications and emphasizes conjunctions among scholars and their findings. Results show three streams that are the foundation of EM research: theoretical foundations of management, entrepreneurship, and marketing; the research interface of marketing and entrepreneurship; SME and new venture marketing.

The results of a bibliometric analysis are limited by the publications that have been selected as a starting point. However, through the selection criteria chosen to identify the database for analysis, the authors are confident that the results illustrate the intellectual structure of EM research in its entirety. The authors recommend that future research should be conducted in one of the three sub‐fields identified in this study.

By laying out different research streams within EM it is hoped that future research will be guided in different directions. “Fine‐tuning” of research efforts will benefit small, new, and entrepreneurial firms.

The analyses conducted in this paper draw a picture of the field that is based on a quantitative approach and therefore sets itself apart from other literature reviews that have a qualitative core.

The purpose of this paper is to point at some examples where entrepreneurship theory can influence the developments within marketing theory.

The authors present conceptual arguments for an increased attention to findings within entrepreneurship theory in the future research and education of marketing.

Present mainstream marketing theory can be criticized for emphasizing managerial marketing behavior. Entrepreneurial activities are an important part of today's business world and this should be reflected in how we teach and research marketing. The research interface between entrepreneurship and marketing can, therefore, create fruitful developments for marketing. Some examples are: opportunity recognition processes; how marketing decisions are made and implemented; and strategic marketing.

The paper reflects the authors' opinion and provides some arguments for an increased focus on entrepreneurial aspects in future marketing education and research.

This paper reviews several facets of the state of play of current research into the internationalisation process. In particular, the author considers origin, geographical coverage, methodology and the theoretical impact of this research domain. The paper concludes by suggesting future directions for colleagues researching in this area and argues that interdisciplinary initiatives by colleagues are likely to be the most productive.

This article argues that existing research poorly specifies the link between planning and performance because of omitted variable bias. Researchers agree planning is a critical part of creating any new venture. Many researchers assess planning by whether a small firm has a written business plan. Unfortunately, efforts empirically to validate this relationship have been inconclusive. This article proposes that researchers should assess business plans both on the quality of the plan (and the planning process that produced it), and on the quality of the underlying business opportunity. Failure to account for both aspects of a business plan amounts to omitted variable bias, frustrating attempts to accurately estimate the true relationship.