1

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS Department of Marketing & Logistics, College of Business

MKTG 6030 - 001: DOCTORAL SEMINAR IN MARKETING STRATEGY Spring 2018 (January 16-May11, 2018)

Room BLB 301, Thursdays 2:00pm – 4:50pm Dr. Charles Blankson

COB BLB, Room 365A Tel: (940) 565-3136, Email: Charles.Blankson@unt.edu

Office Hours: By appointment – but for reasons explained below, students will typically meet outside class with the Professor once every two weeks.

Books (Highly recommended): Hooley, Graham, Nigel F. Piercy, and Brigitte Nicoulaud (2012), Marketing Strategy & Competitive Positioning (5th edition), FT Prentice-Hall, New York, NY [ISBN: 978-0-273-74093-3].

Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca, Jaywant Singh, and Charles Blankson (2016), The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management (eds), Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, NY [ISBN:978-0-415-74790-5]. For a 20% discount rate ($192.00), enter the code FLR40 at checkout.

These books will not be directly discussed in class. However, pertinent Chapters from Dall’Olmo Riley, Singh, and Blankson (eds) will be required reading in class. As for Hooley, Piercy, and Nicoulaud, given that we all should be on the same page regarding general strategic issues, concepts, principles and nomenclature, the book is a recommended reading as well. “The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something that we do not understand.” – Frank Herbert

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically….intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education” – Martin Luther King Jr.

SEMINAR INTRODUCTION The basic purpose of the Ph.D. seminar in marketing strategy is to help doctoral students understand the role of marketing within the organization, its marketing and/or business strategy, and its success or failure. The seminar will expose students to the main issues in marketing strategy and marketing strategy research. The seminar is designed to help doctoral students critically evaluate both fundamental (i.e., seminal) ideas and more recent developments on the subject matter.

2

SEMINAR OVERVIEW AND PEDAGOGY MKTG 6030 is designed to present current and historical insights into several (i.e., selected) streams of marketing research that each relate to various broad aspects of marketing strategy. Moreover, like all Ph.D. seminars, this provides the types of insights, knowledge sets and skills that will enable students to grow into their presumed roles as successful marketing scholars. The seminar will feature a strong emphasis on discussion and critical deliberation of assigned reading materials in class. Students’ preparation for each class should entail close reading and serious thought about the various topics and readings assigned for each week’s discussion. All students should have read each of the assigned materials prior to each seminar session. Moreover, all students should have thought about what they have read. So, be prepared to discuss each article in-depth and to present ideas about gaps in the literature, contributions to the marketing literature, limitations of the article, and extensions of each paper. Extensions can include straight-forward/line extensions and replications or more innovative linkages with other papers or literatures. Professor Christine Moorman of Fuqua School of Business cautions students against three tendencies.

1. Please be very careful about overly negative approach to dealing with other scholars’ research/studies. It is worthwhile to try to understand what the research is trying to accomplish and whether it is interesting and important as opposed to “tearing it apart;” whether it is perfect in every regard. No research is perfect; nobody is perfect.

2. Do not adhere only to extending others’ points made in class and not initiating your own ideas/perspectives. While the former is a safe strategy, it is not particularly interesting in the long-run. At times, you should take risk(s) – go ahead and put your ideas out there.

3. Make sure you read and think. Reading is the easy part – it takes time, but it is not very hard. Thinking is the critical part of the quest you are on – doctoral education. Think hard about the validity of the ideas and results in the paper as well as how you could improve the paper. Finally, think about what a paper might mean for your current research and/or dissertation topic.

The three tendencies are culled from Christine Moorman’s (2013) seminar in marketing strategy.

In the midst of in-class discussions, collegial disagreement amongst students or amongst students and the presiding Professor are welcomed and encouraged. Because many of the topics discussed in this course are subjective in nature, group consensus regarding these topics is neither expected nor desired. What does strategy mean? The word strategy is derived from the Greek word meaning “strategos” – “art of the general.” That many of the early teachings on strategy were couched in military contexts should not surprise us. From von Clausewitz to Sun-Tzu to General Paton, military leaders have espoused differing perspectives of strategy. For example, WW II Andre Beufre described strategy simply “as a method of thought.” The best accepted English definition is “the art of generalship”. It is therefore not surprising that the term is used to describe decisions that companies make when

3

they are engaged in competition. One of the most widely read business primers is Bing Fa or Art of War. Chinese military strategist Sun-Tzu admonished, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” The lack of accord between the tactical and the strategic is a compelling issue that may be frequently addressed throughout the semester. Publius Virigilius Maro Vergil questioned: “Who asks whether the enemy was defeated by strategy or valor?” So is strategy truly a “means to political ends,” as Prussian General von Moltke [the Elder] suggested? The adaptation of military strategy to business introduces a different set of challenges. Is the marketplace the same as a battlefield? About three decades ago the noted management professor George Steiner authored a seminal text that addressed the conceptualization of organizational strategy.3 While he does not define strategy per se, he does reinforce the lack of a reconcilable definition of strategy. Mintzberg introduced the “four Ps” of strategy: plan, pattern, position and perspective. This typology has been widely adapted to several disciplines across the social sciences. Tom Peters has cited this book as one of the most important books written in the last quarter-century. Today, a prevailing definition of strategy is encapsulated in Michael Porter’s (1996) Harvard Business Review article, “What is Strategy?” [Strategy] “means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of

value.” “What’s the use of running if you are not on the right road?”

– German proverb James Thurber once counseled “It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.” Thurber’s advice functions as an appropriate introduction to any doctoral seminar. Successful completion of this doctoral seminar – like most others – will not provide you with an accumulation of answers. Instead, it will introduce you to many questions. The doctoral seminar is designed to motivate critical thinking. Each student will be required to engage in critical thinking. Beyond question however, the majority of our thinking is impacted by distortions or partialities that persist - and likely have persisted for a long time - within our living or working environments. LEARNING GOAL The overarching goal of this seminar is to deliver a platform that will permit doctoral students to identify and to discuss seminal questions that underlie knowledge development in marketing strategy.

3Steiner, George (1979), Strategic Planning, Boston, MA: Free Press.

4

LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of the semester, students should acquire the skills in appreciating the thinking engaged in and methodologies employed by marketing researchers engaged in the development or execution of marketing strategies. Students should have an in-depth, multidimensional understanding of the role that various critical strategic marketing issues play in the development and execution of marketing theory or practice. Research Ideas The intention of this seminar is that you leave this course with several ideas that may form the foundation of your own research. As Professor Moorman notes, you should read as if on a scouting expedition. Pay attention to what you find interesting in case you find something is missing or inaccurate. Note/jot down alternative explanations for what the research suggests is happening. Question the researcher’s point of view and try and establish what the underlying assumptions are in the research and question them. Use these activities for your own research idea assignments. To that end, you are required to write a two-page note (double spaced) focusing on one research idea that emanates from the entire week’s readings. As well, each student will be requested to present their ideas (via power-point slides) to the class from week 2 through 14. You will be informed accordingly. The purpose of these assignments as noted by Professors George S. Day and Christophe Van den Bulte of Wharton Business School is to encourage you to think generatively while reading. The two-page write-ups will be due at the end of each class. “Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”1 Research Paper Each student will be expected to develop a research paper on a market(ing)-strategy related topic. If you decide to work on a paper that is more modeling in nature, you should present the model and solve it. On the other hand if you decide to work on a paper that is more behavioral, you could do one of two things.

1http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/

5

First, you could write an integrative conceptual paper that offers a new framework for marketing strategy. This paper would be in the tradition of conceptual papers published in journals like Journal of Marketing (see e.g., Rindfleisch and Heide 1997). Second, your paper could offer predictions (i.e., propositions) and geared toward the design of a marketing strategy study. This could involve an experiment, quasi-experiment, a survey, a content analysis, a meta-analysis, a field study, or an empirical analysis of secondary brand and/or firm data. In rare cases, a student who is already well ahead in working on a research project in any area of marketing that is geared for an “A” journal can be allowed to pursue/carry-on with that agenda. In other words, a study may not necessarily be within the domain of marketing strategy but with the agreement from the instructor, the paper may be targeted at any of the top marketing journals – JM, JMR, JCR, MKSC, JAMS etc. The purpose in writing this paper is to target an “A” marketing journal publication. You will be guided by myself and where need-be, by other faculty colleagues. A list of “A” marketing journals will be discussed during the first week of the semester. Thereafter, you should follow the targeted journal’s specific submission guidelines in preparing the paper. The paper will be due during the last seminar session on May 10, 2018. And you will be expected to make a 10 - 15 minute presentation (followed by Q&A) of your manuscript – bound for a named journal. Please develop the paper with a designated journal target in mind. I will provide on-going guidance and feed-back.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The UNT COB complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable accommodations are made for qualified students with disability. If you have an established disability as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act and would like to request accommodation, please see me as soon as possible.

The Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) is a requirement for all organized classes at UNT. This short survey will be made available to you at the end of the semester, providing you a chance to comment on how this class is taught. I am very interested in the feedback I get from students, as I work to continually improve my teaching. I consider the SETE to be an important part of your participation in this class. Acceptable Student Behavior The university's expectations for student conduct apply to all instructional forums, including university and electronic classroom, labs, discussion groups, field trips, etc. The Code of Student Conduct can be found at www.unt.edu/csrr

6

Academic Integrity: Each student should be fully aware of the policies and guidelines for academic honesty in the University of North Texas Student Guidebook and on UNT’s web page (www.unt.edu). The Student Code of Conduct and an abbreviated list of other rules, regulations and policies are available from the Dean of Students. Plagiarism is a serious compromise of academic integrity. Please be certain to cite any reference. Materials copied verbatim must be in quotation marks with a correct citation documented within the text. This applies to any and all materials taken from Internet sites. Timeliness Policy: Class sessions will begin precisely at 2:00 p.m. on each scheduled Thursday. That means students are required to be seated and ready to begin work before 2:00 p.m. If you are not present and ready to start by 2:00 p.m., you are late. In-Class Communication Comportment: Every student is expected to contribute substantial value to each session’s discussion. Yet no student is expected, nor is any student permitted, to dominate seminar discussions. In fact, no one will be permitted to dominate in-class communications - not even the Professor. This seminar is structured to facilitate a shared and collaborative learning experience. Should your questions, responses or observational commentary be anything other than crisp (succinct), clear and hopefully compelling, the Professor will advise you – in the moment – to do better. SEMINAR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Performance assessment in this seminar will be based on the following:

Quality of articles reviewed and critiqued in class

Quality of your seminar paper for journal

Quality of your weekly two-page idea quests

Total Possible Points

33% 33% 33% 100%

Participation: Every student should be well-prepared for each seminar. You should read each assigned reading. But you should go beyond a cursory reading of assigned materials. Before each seminar session, you are expected to critically evaluate the “body of knowledge” clustered together for each seminar session.

Articles review and critique: The sessions will involve a discussion of the readings assigned for the day. Occasionally, I will offer “background readings” on key areas involving a topic treated or method to help the appreciation of the subject matter. As well, I will have three or more concepts and/or theory points that I will make at some point during the semester – either at the beginning, during, and

7

getting to the end of the semester. I reserve the right to change topics and readings at will during the semester. This may never occur but I would like to have the option if I find a better paper in course of the semester. ASSIGNED READINGS Week 1: Introduction and overview (January 18, 2018): Students should download and then read materials before class and arrive ready to discuss them during the class session.

Levitt, Theodore (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review, 38 (4), 45-56. Summers, John O. (2001), “Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing:

From Conceptualization Through the Review Process,” “Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 29, (4), 405-415.

Seggie, Steven H. and David A. Griffith (2009), “What does it take to get Promoted in Marketing Academia? Understanding Exceptional Publication Productivity in the Leading Marketing Journals,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (January), 122-132.

Further Reading Baumgartner, Hans and Rik Pieters (2003), “The Structural Influence of Marketing Journals: A

Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Subareas Over Time,” Journal of Marketing, 67, (April), 123-139.

Wilkie, W.L. and E. Moore (2003), “Scholarly Research in Marketing: Exploring the ‘4 Eras’ of Thought Development,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22 (Fall), 116-146.

Varadarajan, Rajan, Raji Srinivasan, Gautham Gopal Vadakkepatt, Manjit S. Yadav, Paul, A. Pavlou, Sandeep Krishnamurthy, and Tom Krause (2010), “Interactive Technologies and Retailing Strategy: A Review, Conceptual Framework and Future Research Directions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24, 96-110.

Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca (2016), “Brand definitions and conceptualizations: The debate, In The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, Routledge Taylor Francis, London and New York, Chapter 1.

Week 2: Marketing Planning and Market Domain (January 25, 2018) Piercy, Nigel F. and Neil A. Morgan (1994), “The Marketing Planning Process: Behavioral

Problems Compared to Analytical Techniques in Explaining Marketing Plan Credibility,” Journal of Business Research, 29 (3) (March), 167-178.

Varadarajan, Rajan (2010), “Strategic Marketing and Marketing Strategy: Domain, Definition, Fundamental Issues and Foundational Premises,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 119-140.

8

Piercy, Nigel F. (1998), “Marketing Implementation: The Implications of Marketing Paradigm Weakness for the Strategy Execution Process,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (3), 222-236.

Porter, Michael E. (1996), “What is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review, (November). Further Reading Varadarajan, 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), (spring), 120-143.

Porter, Michael E. (2001), “Strategy and the Internet,” Harvard Business Review, March, 63-78. Brown, S. (2002), “Reading Wroe: On the Biopoetics of Alderson’s Functionalism,”

Marketing Theory, 2(3, September), 243-271.

Week 3: The Role of Marketing within the Organization and Market Orientation (February 1, 2018)

Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2) (April), 1-18.

Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater (1990), “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4) (October), 20-35.

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

Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. (1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 23-37.

Further Reading Anderson, Paul F. (1982), “Marketing, Strategic Planning and the Theory of the Firm,” Journal

of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 15-26. Wilkie, William L. and Elizabeth S. Moore (1999), “Marketing’s Contributions to Society,”

Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 198-218. Hunt, Shelby D. (2011), “Sustainable Marketing, Equity, and Economic Growth: A Resource-

Advantage, Economic Freedom Approach,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 7-20.

Homburg, Christian and Christian Pflesser (2000), “A Multiple-Layer Model of Market-Oriented Organizational Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (4) (November), 449-462.

9

Sheth, Jagdish N. (2011), “Impact of Emerging Markets on Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and Practices,” Journal of marketing, 75 (July), 166-182.

Week 4: Market Definition, Segmentation, Positioning and Product Differentiation (February 8,

2018) Goller, Susanne, Annik Hogg and Stavros P. Kalafatis (2002), “A New Research Agenda for

Business Segmentation,” European Journal of Marketing, 36, (1-2), 252-271. Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski and Deborah J. Maclnnis (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-

Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (4) (October), 135-145. Rangan, V. Kasturi, Rowland T. Moriaty and Gordon S. Swartz (1992), “Segmenting Customers

in Mature Industrial Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (4), 72-82. Blankson, Charles, Stavros P. Kalafatis, Julian Ming-Sung Cheng and Costas Hadjicharalambous

(2008), “Impact of Positioning Strategies on Corporate Performance,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (1) (March), 106-122.

Further Reading Bagozzi, R. (1975), “Marketing as Exchange,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October), 32-39. Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1979), “Customer-Oriented

Approaches to Identifying Product Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (4), 8-19. Smalley, R. and J. Fraedrich (1995), “Aldersonian Functionalism: An Enduring Theory in

Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 3(Fall), 1-16. Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp and Rajeev Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning

Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: the Role of Global Consumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (1) (January), 75-87.

Blankson, Charles and John C. Crawford (2012), “Impact of Positioning Strategies on Service Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (3) (March), 311-316.

Wind, Yoram (1980), “Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (3), 317-337.

Week 5: Competition (February 15, 2018) Dickson, Peter R. (1992), “Toward a General Theory of Competitive Rationality,” Journal of

Marketing, 56 (January), 69-83. Hunt, Shelby D. and Robert M. Morgan (1995), “The Comparative Advantage Theory of

Competition,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 1-15.

10

Armstrong, Scott, and Fred Collopy (1996), “Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(May), 188-99.

Aboulnasr, Khaled, Om Narasimhan, Edward Blair and Rajesh Chandy (2008), “Competitive Response to Radical Product Innovations,” Journal of Marketing, 72(May), 94-110.

Further Reading Day, George S. and R o b i n W e n s l e y ( 1988), “Assessing Advantage: A Framework

for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 1-20. Clark, Bruce H. and David B. Montgomery (1999), “Managerial Identification of

Competitors,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 67-83. Mahmoud, Abdulai Mahmoud (2016), “Sustainable Market Orientation: A Competitive Strategic

Tool in an Emerging Economy Context,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/0965254x.2016.1149210

Week 6: Making Decisions (February 22, 2018) Park, C. Whan, Sung Youl Jun and Allan D. Shocker (1996), “Composite Branding Alliances:

An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (4) (November), 453-466.

Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku and Janet Y. Murray (2004), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Marketing Strategy Comprehensiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (4) (October), 33-46.

Anderson, Eugene (2007), “Linking Service and Finance,” Marketing Science, 25 (November- December), 587-89.

Morgan, Neil (2012), “Marketing and Business Performance,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 102-119.

Further Reading Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2007), “Myopic Marketing Management: Evidence of

the Phenomenon and its Long-Term Performance Consequences in the SEO Context,” Marketing Science, 26 (May-June), 361-79.

Kotler, Philip (2011), “Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4) (July), 132-135.

Kotler, Phillip, Ned Roberto, and Tony Leisner (2006), “Alleviating Poverty: A Macro/Micro Marketing Perspectives,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 233-239.

Hambrick, Donald C., Sydney Finkelstein, and Ann C. Mooney (2005), “Executive Job

11

Demands: New Insights For Explaining Strategic Decisions and Leader Behaviors,” Academy of Management Review, 30 (3), 472-491.

Week 7: Product/Service and Industry Life Cycle Dynamics (March 1, 2018) Day, George S. (1981), “The Product Life Cycle: Analysis and Applications Issues,” Journal of

Marketing, (October), 60-67. Parasuraman, A., Valery A. Zeithaml, and Leon L. Berry (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-

Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

Moon Youngme (2005), “Break Free from the Product Life Cycle,” Harvard Business Review,” May, 87-94.

Blankson, Charles and Stavros P. Kalafatis (2007), “Congruence between Positioning and Brand Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (1), 79-94.

Further Reading Lutz, James M. and Robert T. Green (1983), “The Product Life Cycle and the Export Position of

the United States,” Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (3) (Winter), 77-93. Sood, Ashish and Gerald J. Tellis (2005), “Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation,”

Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 152-168. Levitt, Theodore (1965), “Exploit the Product Life Cycle,” Harvard Business Review, 43 (6), 81-

94. DeBruicker, F. Stewart and Gregory L. Summe (1985), “Make Sure Your Customers Keep

Coming Back,” Harvard Business Review, 63 (1), 92-98. Week 8: Marketing Mix and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (March 8, 2018) Waterschoot, Walter van and Christophe van den Bulte (1992), “The 4P Classification of the

Marketing Mix Revisited,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (4) (October), 83-93. Kasum L. Ailawadi, Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A. Neslin (2001), “Market Response to a

Major Policy Change in the Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble’s Value Pricing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (1), (January), 44-61.

Sankar Sen and C. B. Bhattacharya (2001), “Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2) (May), 225-243.

12

Homburg Christian, Marcel Stierl, and Torsten Bornemann (2013), “Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business Markets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (November), 54-72.

Further Reading Borden, Neil H. (1984), “The Concept of the Marketing Mix,” Journal of Advertising Research,

Classics, Volume II (September), 7-12. Levy, Daniel, Mark Bergen, S. Dutta and Robert Venable (1997), “The Magnitude of

Menu Costs: Direct Evidence from Large U.S. Supermarket Chains,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (3), 791-825.

Morgan, Neil and Lopo Rego (2009), “Brand Portfolio Strategy and Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (January), 59-74.

Week 9: Channel Design, Coordination and Transaction Cost Theory (March 22, 2018) Palmatier, Robert W., Srinath Gopalakrishna, and Mark B. Houston (2006), “Returns on

Business-to-Business Relationship Marketing Investments: Strategies for Leveraging Profits,” Marketing Science, 25 (5), 477-493.

Erramilli, Krishna M. and C. P. Rao (1993), “Service Firms’ International Entry-Mode Choice: A Modified Transaction-Cost Analysis Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3) (July), 19-38.

Ghoshal, Sumantra and Peter Moran (1996), “Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory,” Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 13-47.

Rindfleisch, Aric and Jan B. Heide (1997), “Transaction Cost Analysis: Past, Present, and Future Applications,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30-54.

Further Reading Geroski Paul and Tassos Vlassopoulos (1991), “The Rise and Fall of a Market Leader: Frozen

Foods in the UK,” Strategic Management Journal, 12 (6), 467-478. Wuyts, Stefan, Stefan Stremersch, Christophe Van den Bulte and Philip Hans Frances (2004),

“Vertical Marketing Systems for Complex Products: A Triadic Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (4), 479-487.

13

Week 10: Alliances and Acquisitions (March 29, 2018) Rindfleisch, Aric and Christine Moorman (2001), “The Acquisition & Utilization of Information

in New Product Alliances: A Strength-of-Ties Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 1-18.

Bahadir, Cem, Sundar Bhaardwaj and Raj Srivastava (2008), “Financial Value of Brands in Mergers and Acquisitions: Is Value in the Eye of the Beholder?” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 49-64.

Luo, Xueming, Aric Rindfleisch and David Tse (2007), “Working with Rivals: the Impact of Competitor Alliances on Financial Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research, XLIV (February), 73-83

Swaminathan, Vanitha, Feisal Murshed and John Hulland (2008), “Value Creation following Merger and Acquisition Announcements: The Role of Strategic Emphasis Alignment,” Journal of Marketing Research, XLV (February), 33-47.

Further Reading Rao, Akshay, Lu Qu, and Robert Ruekert (1999), “Signaling Unobservable Product Quality

through a Brand Ally,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 258-68. Lazzarini, Sérgio G. (2007), “The Impact of Membership in Competing Alliance Constellations:

Evidence on the Operational Performance of Global Airlines,” Strategic Management Journal, 28, 345–367.

Week 11: Market Entry and Evolution, Institutionalization and Network Effects (April 5, 2018) Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson (1992), “First-Mover Advantage:

A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (October), 33-52.

Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993), “Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 158-70.

Shankar, Venkatesh; Gregory S. Carpenter and Lakshman Krishnamurthy (1998), “Late Mover Advantage: How Innovative Late Entrants Outsell Pioneers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February), 54-70.

Srinivasan, Raji, Gary L. Lilien, and Arvind Rangaswamy (2004), “First in, First out? The Effects of Network Externalities on Pioneer Survival,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 41-58.

Further Reading Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), “Consumer Preference Formation and

Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285-298.

14

Arthur, W. Brian (1996), “Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (4), 100-109.

Week 12: New Product Development and Innovation (April 12, 2018) Yadav, Manjit, Jaideep Prabhu and Rajesh Chandy (2007), “Managing the Future: CEO

Attention and Innovation Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 84-101. De Luca, Luigi M. and Kwaku Atuahene-Gima (2007), “Market Knowledge Dimensions and

Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (January), 95-112.

Szymanski, David M., Michael W. Kroff and Lisa C. Troy (2007), “Innovativeness and New Product Success: Insights from the Cumulative Evidence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 35-52.

Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku and Janet Y. Murray (2007), “Exploratory and Exploitative Learning in New Product Development: A Social Capital Perspective on New Technology Ventures in China,” Journal of International Marketing, 15 (2), 1-29.

Further Reading Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective

on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. Wind, Jerry and Vijay Mahajan (1997), “Issues and Opportunities in New Product

Development,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 1-12. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Gerard J. Tellis (2000), “The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size,

and Radical Product Innovation”, Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 1-17. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku (2005), “Resolving the Capability Rigidity Paradox in New Product

Innovation,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (4) (October), 61-83.

Week 13: Strategic Transformations, SD Logic and Resource-based View of the Firm (April 19,

2018) Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for

Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17. Merz, Michael A., Yi He and Stephen L. Vargo (2009), “The Evolving Brand Logic: A Service-

Dominant Logic Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 328-344.

O’Shaughnessy, John and Nicolas Jackson O’Shaughnessy (2009), “The Service – Dominant

15

Perspective: A Backward Step?” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (5-6), 784-793. Barney, Jay B. (2001), “Resource-based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten-year

Retrospective on the Resource-based View,” Journal of Management, 27, 643-650. Further Reading Burgelman, Robert (1994), “Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in

Dynamic Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24-56. Pauwels, Koen and Allen Weiss (2008), “Moving from Free to Fee: How Online Firms Market

to Change Their Business Model Successfully,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 14-31. Lusch, Robert F., Stephen L. Vargo and Mohan Tanniru (2010), “Service, Value Networks and

Learning,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 19-31.

Week 14: Branding and Relationship Marketing (April 26, 2018) Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22. Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3) (July), 20-38. Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,

34 (August), 347-356. Balabanis, George and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2011), “Gains and Losses from the

Misperception of Brand Origin: The Role of Brand Strength and Country-of-Origin Image,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (2), 95-116.

Further Reading Berry, Leonard L. (2002), “Relationship Marketing of Services Perspectives from 1983 and

2000,” Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1 (1), 59-77. Srinivasan, V., Chan Su Park and Dae Ryun Chang (2005), “An Approach to the Measurement,

Analysis, and Prediction of Brand Equity and its Sources,” Management Science, 51 (9), 1433-1448.

Korschun, Daniel, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Scott D. Swain (2013), Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Orientation, and the Job Performance of Frontline Employees,” Journal of Marketing, PrePrint.

Baalbaki, Sally and Francisco Guzman (2016), “Consumer-based Brand Equity,” The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, Routledge Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY, Chapter 3.

Papadopoulos, Nicolas, Leila Hamzaoui-Essoussi, and Jose I. Rojas-Mendez (2016), “From

16

Nation to Neighborhood: Branding and Marketing Places,” The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, Routledge Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY, Chapter 31.

Week 15: Come to class prepared to present your paper in Power-point slides. 10 minutes are

allocated for each student (May 3 or May 10, 2018). May 10, 2018. Final course paper due.

Responding to editors and reviewers in a diligent and humble fashion

An assessment of national healthcare service delivery: A Ghanaian illustration

Manuscript Number:IJQRM-12-2014-0200

Responses to the Reviewer 1

Please accept our sincere gratitude for the time spent in reviewing our paper and for the directions and the suggestions provided. We have revised the article thoroughly and have acted upon your concerns and the suggestions given. As a result, we believe that the manuscript has improved substantially.

Please find below our responses to the specific concerns raised. We deal with them point by point.

Reviewer #1 Comments Authors’ Response

Please go through your article once again to address and incorporate proposed changes. If feel convenient then kindly make sub sections of research methodology like questionnaire measures, study population and sample collection, questionnaire reliability and validity and data analysis method (software and technique used).

Please provide latest info about Ghana Population and quote some recent report from Ministry of Health about coverage of NHIS in the country.

We thank you very much for this suggestion. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.

17

We have provided the latest info about Ghana population and have quoted some recent reports about NHIS coverage in Ghana as suggested. Thank you.

Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

Thank you.

Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Literature is explained very well. However from developing countries please quote some recent research like: Naseem, K., Malik, S.A., Iqbal, M.Z., and Malik, S.A. (2014), Assessing the quality of patient care: a normative decision view, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management (Inderscience), 13(2): 125-141

Thank you for these remarks. We have duly addressed this concern as suggested.

Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? Methodology section is weak. Scales adopted are not clearly defined (i.e., total items in each construct) page 11.

Why a single institute was selected and why MBA-part time students were approached is not properly justified.

Moreover, one page 12, line no. 25; if among respondents, 113 received medical treatment having health insurance and that only those having health insurance were selected, then why in demographic results, respondents are 100 instead of 113.

The researcher has not explained in detail all the demographic results and why respondents were inquired about cultural/tribal group is not justified either.

We have improved the methodology section as suggested. We provide the total number of items used for each construct in our research model. Please see revised manuscript.

The single institute was chosen purposely based on convenience. All students in this institution are part-time students since they work full time in various supervisory and managerial capacities in Corporate Ghana.

Thank you. We report in table 1 percentages and not actual frequency figures. As such, the total percentage for each demographic should be 100% and not 113.

Thank you. We have revised our manuscript to include the justification for inquiring about cultural groups.

18

On what basis 500 questionnaires were floated is not explained. Furthermore, a final sample of 100 respondents somehow seems short/inadequate for analysis.

Which sampling technique was used is not mentioned either. Though it’s too late, but why author didn't used some recent scales instead of old ones used in this study. All year 2001 and earlier. Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Results are presented and interpreted well.

Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? All sections are fine.

Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: There are multiple mistakes of references and their citations within text. E.g., page 2, line 1, Taylor, 1994 whereas in references section the

Please see revised manuscript.

Thank you. We have floated 500 questionnaires because of convenience. We have stated this in the revised manuscript. Further, though a final sample of 113 may seem short/small, the statistical technique used (PLS-SEM) is able to handle small sample size data.

We use a nonprobability method of convenience sampling. We have included this sampling method in our revised manuscript. Thank you.

We used these scales because those were the ones available to us. We will take your suggestion into consideration in our follow up studies. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

19

year is 1993. In the same manner page 3, line 19; Gilber et al., 1992, whereas in references section year is 2004 etc.

Page 14, line 36. Please check and rectify the results of variance.

Author needs to refer some recent research. Most recent articles referred are of 2014 (only 2) and majority of earlier year 2000. Please refer some recent articles i.e., 2013-2015.

We have rectified the errors pointed out to us. Thank you.

Thank you for the pointing this to us. The change has been made in the revised manuscript.

Thank you. We have included a few recent articles in the revised manuscript.

We thank you very, very much for your insight, constructive criticisms and all the suggestions and directions offered.

An assessment of national healthcare service delivery: A Ghanaian illustration

Manuscript Number:IJQRM-12-2014-0200

Responses to the Reviewer 2

Please accept our sincere gratitude for the time spent in reviewing our paper and for all the constructive criticisms, directions and the suggestions provided. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly, paying attention to your concerns, and have acted upon the suggestions given.

Please find below our responses to the specific points raised. We deal with them point by point.

Reviewer #2 Comments

Authors’ Response

The authors should be commended for their efforts in reviewing the literature, identifying gaps, focusing on patients and value concepts. The limitation section seems well written and transparent. The flow of the paper is sometimes hard to follow. I recommend adding

We thank the reviewer for commending us on the relevance and structure of the manuscript. We have taken into consideration comments about the flow of the paper and addition of references to the statistical section in our revised manuscript.

20

further references to the statistical section.

Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication? The paper addresses a population that is understudied and created a model or framework that was tested and validated. The importance of the findings is relatively acceptable. The authors should be commended for their efforts.

Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? The review of the literature seems sound and outlined properly.

Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? Relatively acceptable with several limitations addressed in limitation section.

Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Relatively basic information but important due to location and limited data.

Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? The impact of the paper is significant mostly because of the relative paucity of the data in the studied field in the specific geographic

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

21

location. The paper has several limitations addressed in the limitation section relatively well.

Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The paper is reasonably well written, but the flow may be improved as the paper is not always easy to follow.

We have taken into consideration your comments and have revised our manuscript to flow better. Thank you.

Please do accept our sincere gratitude for spending the time to review our paper and for all the suggestions you provided. The paper is now much stronger, thanks to your well thought-out input. We appreciate it.

An assessment of national healthcare service delivery: A Ghanaian illustration

Manuscript Number:IJQRM-12-2014-0200

Responses to the Reviewer 3

Please accept our sincere gratitude for the time spent in reviewing our paper and for all the constructive criticisms, directions and the suggestions provided. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly, paying attention to your concerns, and have acted upon the suggestions given.

Please find below our responses to the specific points raised. We deal with them point by point.

Reviewer #3 Comments Authors’ Response

This paper describes an empirical study conducted in Ghana, with the purpose of understanding the connections between healthcare service quality and perceived value, with patient’s satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The literature review is extensive and adequate. The methodology is well designed and the data analysis is adequate. The conclusions and contributions of this research are also well described in the paper.

I suggest some minor revisions (see details in the score sheet) that, in my opinion, will improve the paper.

We thank the reviewer for commending us on the relevance and structure of the manuscript. We have taken into consideration comments about the flow of the paper and addition of references to the statistical section in our revised manuscript.

Thank you.

22

Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: In spite of not being an innovative issue, the fact that the study was conducted in a “fast growing and economically liberalized emerging country in sub-Saharan Africa” brings a relevant perspective on this subject.

Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Yes, the literature review is relevant , appropriate and updated. I would advise a careful revision of the connections between the citations and the list of references since I found some discrepancies – for example Thakur, Hsu and Fontenot (2012) is cited on page 1, but is not listed on the references.

Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? Yes. However, in the description of the research methodology (pages 11 and 12) there is no reference to the date when the application of these questionnaires took place (2013? 2014?). This is an important information to understand the validity of the results obtained.

Are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Yes. However:

- I don’t think that the purpose to “operationalize a customer-derived conceptual framework of service quality, perceived value and satisfaction in the context of a unique healthcare delivery system”, described in page 4, is really attained in this study. In my

We appreciate your comments. We have carefully rectified any disconnect between the citations and list of references.

Thank you. Data were collected in the month of January 2013. We have included the period during which the data was collected.

We have taken into consideration your comments and have revised our manuscript accordingly. Thank you.

23

understanding, this research proposes a framework and tests its validity using questionnaires to patients. This is not an operationalization of the framework. I suggest the authors to re-phrase this purpose, as well as the first sentence of the conclusions.

Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? Yes, in section 5 the contributions of the research are clearly explained.

Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The paper is reasonably well written. However, some phrases should be reviewed (for example, page 16, line 13, line 34, and line 53).

Thank you for your positive comments.

We appreciate your comments. Our revised manuscript now reads better. Thank you.

Please do accept our sincere gratitude for spending the time to review our paper and for all the suggestions you provided. The paper is now much stronger, thanks to your well thought-out input. We appreciate it.