Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses

(1)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254108072

Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual exploration

Article in International Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship · February 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0266242610369743

CITATIONS

341

READS

15,944 2 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability (2011‐2015)View project

Digital and Entrepreneurial Marketing in Tourism SMEsView project Rosalind Jones

Liverpool John Moores University 32PUBLICATIONS 1,410CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Jennifer Rowley

Manchester Metropolitan University 403PUBLICATIONS 26,446CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

(2)

http://isb.sagepub.com/

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/29/1/25 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0266242610369743 2011 29: 25 International Small Business JournalRosalind Jones and Jennifer Rowley

Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual exploration

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:

International Small Business Journal Additional services and information for

http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://isb.sagepub.com/content/29/1/25.refs.html Citations:

(3)

Article

Small Firms

i s b j Entrepreneurial marketing in small

businesses: A conceptual exploration

Rosalind Jones

Bangor Business School, Bangor University, UK

Jennifer Rowley

Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Abstract

This article proposes further development of the concept of entrepreneurial marketing towards the concept of entrepreneurial marketing orientation. Drawing on the earlier research and scales in the entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, innovation orientation and customer orientation literatures, the article proposes a conceptual model for entrepreneurial marketing that identifies the components of such a model, together with specific indications of the overlap between scales in the different areas. This model implicitly suggests that marketing in SMEs is intertwined with other activities and behaviours in the small business enterprise, and argues that in order to understand marketing in SMEs it is essential to understand its context, specifically in relation to customer engagement, innovation and entrepreneurial approaches to marketing.

Keywords

customer orientation, entrepreneurial marketing, entrepreneurial orientation, innovation orientation, market orientation, SME marketing

Introduction

Marketing, and more specifically, market orientation has been identified as an important contribu- tor to business performance (Deshpande et al., 1993; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990). Conversely, several researchers have identified the absence of market orientation and skills in SMEs which often leads to lower performance levels and higher risks of business failure (Alpkan et al., 2007; Blankson and Stokes, 2002; Brooksbank et al., 2004; Hill and Blois, 1987;

Huang and Brown, 1999; McCartan-Quinn and Carson, 2003). Davis et al. (1985: 31) suggested that: ‘marketing academicians have almost entirely neglected investigations at the small enterprise/

marketing interface’.

Corresponding author:

Rosalind Jones, Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK E-mail: [email protected]

International Small Business Journal 29(1) 25–36

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0266242610369743

isb.sagepub.com

(4)

Fortunately, given the importance of small business to the economy, there has been a much greater level of activity in relation to marketing in SMEs over the last 20 years (Blankson and Omar, 2002; Blankson and Stokes, 2002; Brooksbank, 1991; Brooksbank et al., 1999, 2004;

Carson, 1990, Carson and Cromie, 1989; Carson et al., 1995; Gilmore et al., 2001; Hill, 2001;

Stokes, 1998), and this has led to a developing body of knowledge around SMEs and their marketing strategies, planning and activities, as discussed later in this article. However, much of this research has taken as its foundation the disciplinary perspectives of marketing and/or strategy, and has been published in journals in these fields. It is therefore, timely to seek to energize the debate about marketing and market orientation within the mainstream small business literature.

A recognition of the significance of the interaction between entrepreneurship and marketing has led to the proposal of the concept of ‘entrepreneurial marketing’ (EM). While some authors argue that EM is important for all organizations (large and small), there is a general recognition that the concept is particularly apposite to the small business context. In this context, EM, as a concept makes an explicit statement about the approach to marketing adopted by SMEs, and also acknowl- edges the need to understand marketing in SMEs within the wider conceptual base and frameworks of small business and enterprise.

This article responds to calls for the further development and exploration of the concept of EM (Collinson and Shaw, 2001; Kraus et al., 2006; Morris et al., 2002). The article proposes that the EM paradigm should be advanced to include an approach to marketing that is grounded in the knowledge bases of not only marketing, but also innovation, entrepreneurship and, customer engagement and relationships. This philosophical standpoint is operationalized through a focus on

‘orientations’. Thus, the article seeks to integrate key facets of the market orientation (MO) scales, with facets from customer orientation (CO), entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and innovation orientation (IO). In particular, the case is argued for the inclusion of the notion of customer orientation as a distinct component of EM, rather than being subsumed under MO. This article arrives at this position as a result of an extrapolation of the key themes in the EM literature from the SME perspective, together with a review of the EO, MO, IO and CO literatures. On this basis, a new entrepreneurial marketing orientation (EMO) model is proposed.

This article first summarizes the EM literature, with a focus on its application in relation to marketing in SMEs. Then, the case for the inclusion of each of the orientation measurement scales emanating from the EO, MO, IO and CO literature is argued. This culminates in a proposal for a conceptual model of EMO as a basis for research exploration of EM in SMEs. The article con- cludes by proposing a number of areas for research and development with a view to advancing the concept of EM.

Entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs

SME marketing has been actively researched over the last two decades and this research has dem- onstrated that small firms exhibit different marketing behaviours with large firms, and that form the foundation for traditional marketing theory (Freel, 2000). Attempts to adapt and apply traditional marketing models to SMEs, based on the assumption that the basic principles of marketing developed in large businesses are universally applicable, have been unsuccessful. Research on small firm owner-managers found that it was not unusual for them to have negative attitudes towards traditional marketing ideas (Cohen and Lindbore, 1972; Hogarth-Scott et al., 1996). The market orientation of SMEs is highly dependent on the marketing knowledge of the entrepreneur

(5)

Jones and Rowley 27

or small business owner, who tends to be a generalist rather than have management or marketing skills (Hogarth-Scott et al., 1996).

However, there is now an acknowledgement that although the SME’s approach to marketing may not fit established theories, successful SMEs are able to capitalize on their unique benefits of

‘smallness’. Carson et al. (1995) proposed that SME marketing was in fact entrepreneurial marketing, a distinctive style characterized by a range of factors that included an inherently informal, simple and haphazard approach. This approach is a result of various factors including: small size;

business and marketing limitations; the influence of the entrepreneur; and, the lack of formal organizational structures or formal systems of communication with sometimes no systems at all when it comes to marketing. This form of marketing tends to be responsive and reactive to com- petition and opportunistic in nature (Carson et al., 1995). It also tends to be highly dependent on networking (Gilmore and Carson, 1999; Gilmore et al., 2001; Miller et al., 2007) and the opportunities it provides for the generation of social capital (Bowey and Easton, 2007; Cope et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2007; Shaw, 2006). Networks facilitate the formation and generation of customer contacts where word-of-mouth recommendation is facilitated through use of inter- organizational network relationships and personal contact networks (Gilmore et al., 2001; Hill and Wright, 2001).

More recently, Morris et al. (2002: 5) have defined EM as ‘the proactive identification and exploitation of opportunities for acquiring and retaining profitable customers through innovative approaches to risk management, resource leveraging and value creation’. Researchers also view EM behaviour as being derived from entrepreneurial thinking, entrepreneurs being innovative, calculated risk takers, proactive and opportunity orientated (Kirzner, 1973) while Hills and Hultman (2006: 222) identified EM behavioural characteristics which included ‘marketing tactics often two way with customers’ and ‘marketing decisions based on daily contacts and networks’.

It has been proposed that marketing has much to offer the study of entrepreneurship (Hills, 1987; Murray, 1981) and, conversely, entrepreneurship can look to marketing as the key function of the firm, which can encompass innovation and creativity (Collinson and Shaw, 2001). Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that there exists a significant correlation between an enterprise’s marketing and entrepreneurial orientations, both widely being responsible for corporate success (Miles and Arnold, 1991). The relatively recent development of EM theory has generated a substantial body of literature surrounding the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship. Yet research findings on the marketing and entrepreneurship interface are fragmented, and there is as yet no integrated analysis or comprehensive theory (Kraus, 2006). Indeed, Carson (2005) cited in Hills and Hultman (2006: 232) put the case for a more holistic approach to the domain: ‘I think we need a holistic interpretation of the domain, rather than focusing on an either/or scenario.’

Reviewing the orientation literature

As discussed in the previous section there is increasing interest in EM theory, and a well established recognition of its grounding in both marketing and entrepreneurship theory and practice.

This section will argue that, on the basis of an analysis of the EM literature any consideration of EM must embrace innovation and customer engagement and, relationships. Accordingly, in this section, previous work MO, EO, CO and IO scales is summarized and conceptualized, where pos- sible, with respect to SMEs. In addition, the scales that were used to inform the components in the proposed EMO model are identified and discussed.

(6)

Market orientation

MO is widely recognized as having a positive effect on business performance (Deshpande, 1999;

Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kotler, 1984; Kotler and Anderson, 1987; Narver and Slater, 1990, 1999; Webster, 1988). Although literature has provided a variety of definitions of MO, most authors appear to adopt one of two perspectives (Tajeddini et al., 2006; Verhees and Meulenberg, 2004), that of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) or Narver and Slater’s (1990) definition. Kohli and Jaworski adopt a behavioural perspective, using marketing intelligence rather than a customer focus as the central element. In contrast, the Narver and Slater scale is based on a cultural perspective, identifying three behavioural components: customer orientation; competitor orientation; and inter- functional coordination. Both models are rigorously tested for reliability in large firms research but opinion remains divided as to which is the more suitable (Pitt et al., 1996; Tajeddini et al., 2006).

Deshpande et al. (1993) developed a MO scale, which embodied a CO focus and later, Deshpande and Farley (1998) developed the ‘MORTN’ scale, based on elements of Narver and Slater’s (1990) scale, Kohli et al.’s (1993) ‘MARKOR’ scale and Deshpande et al.’s (1993) scale.

Owing to their robustness, reliability and validity, Narver and Slater’s (1990) MO scale and Kohli et al.’s (1993) ‘MARKOR’ Scale are used in the MO element of the proposed EM orientation model. The MO dimensions that inform the EMO model are: market intelligence generation (Kohli et al., 1993); responsiveness towards competitors (Kohli et al., 1993); and integration of business processes (Narver and Slater, 1990).

Customer orientation

CO has its roots in early services marketing literature in which the importance of customer-focused employees was a tangible sign of quality for the firm and its services (Gronroos, 1982). Since then, the concept of CO within firms has been investigated by a number of authors and researchers;

indeed, some authors view CO as the ‘pillar of marketing’ (Deshpande et al., 1993; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1995). Narver and Slater (1990) observed that CO requires a suf- ficient understanding to create products or services of superior value, defining CO as a culture that accentuates the creation of customer value as the overriding organizational goal, while Cardwell (1994) argues that a company’s very survival will depend on moving closer to the customer, fully understanding the customer’s needs and wants, building a relationship and, therefore, developing an attitude of consistent customer dedication.

Zontanos and Anderson (2004) assert that a small firm’s marketing advantage is precisely linked to the close relationships between the entrepreneur and the customers, in contrast to larger firms where it is much more difficult to embed entrepreneurship and a customer orientation into its organizational culture. Small firms’ generally narrow and localized customer base creates a much shorter line of communication between the firm and its customers (Weinrauch et al., 1991), with entrepreneurs often knowing their customers personally. As a result of such a close interactive relationship, benefits arise such as higher customer loyalty and higher levels of customer satisfaction (Carson, 1985; Lindman, 2004). Long-term relationships between the customer and entrepreneurs are often cemented by the small firm’s ability to react to customer needs quickly as they are more likely to be flexible in their ability to respond to customer inquiries (Carson et al., 1995).

CO has been identified and investigated by a number of researchers in a range of disciplines.

Some authors regard CO as central to the marketing concept and view CO and MO as interchange- able concepts (Deshpande et al., 1993; Shapiro, 1988; Webster, 1988). Narver and Slater (1990) regard CO as a culture that accentuates the creation of customer value as the overriding organizational goal, while others such as Jones et al. (2003) maintain MO and CO orientation as separate

(7)

concepts and, according to Day and Wensley (1988), a balance must be found between the two orientations. From a slightly different perspective Drucker (1954) defined CO as a philosophy and a set of behaviours directed toward determining and understanding the needs of the target customer and adapting the selling organization’s response in order to satisfy those needs better than the com- petition. CO also features in the services management and marketing literature in which companies that adopt a customer satisfaction perspective are considered more able to attain organizational goals with greater effectiveness than their competitors (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Conversely, Saura et al. (2005) identify CO as resting in both the sales literature and the MO literature. The sales literature promotes customer centrality for service excellence and uses such measures as Saxe and Weitz’s (1982) service orientation and customer orientation SOCO scale, which examines the relationship between service and customer orientations. This scale is still frequently used and adapted in the sales literature. Deshpande et al.’s (1993) MO scale is known as a customer-oriented scale based on corporate culture and organizational innovativeness while Saura et al. (2005) developed scales that are more representative of Drucker’s definition. The scales of Despande et al., Saura et al., and Saxe and Weitz, are used in the proposed new model as they represent central elements of the CO concept from a range of perspectives and this work is proven for its reliability and validity. CO dimensions from the scales that inform the CO aspect of the model are: responsiveness towards customers (Kohli et al., 1993); communication with customers (Narver and Slater, 1990); understanding and delivering customer value (Deshpande et al., 1993; Saura et al., 2005;

Saxe and Weitz, 1982).

Entrepreneurial orientation

Entrepreneurial personality traits that are identified in the body of entrepreneurship literature largely inform the EO measurement scales and constructs. Therefore, the dimensions of risk taking, pro- activeness and innovation are often incorporated (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Ginsberg, 1985;

Khandwalla, 1977; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miles and Arnold, 1991; Morris and Paul, 1987;

Naman and Slevin, 1993). Investigation of EO relating to research in SMEs includes Salavou and Lioukas’ (2003) investigation of market focus, technological posture and EO. Furthermore, Kreizer et al. (2002) propose that EO research should include culture, innovation, risk taking and pro-activeness. Khandwalla (1973) developed the ‘ENTRESCALE’ that has sub-constructs of innovation and pro-activeness, entrepreneurial proclivity and a propensity for risk taking. This scale has been sub- sequently refined (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Miller and Friesen, 1978) and much citied in the EO literature, being noted for its reliability and validity in numerous studies (Covin and Slevin, 1989;

Khandwalla, 1977; Miles and Snow, 1978). More recently Knight (1997) adapted the ‘ENTRESCALE’

scale while Matsuno et al. (2002) also developed an EO scale adapted from earlier EO research studies (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983; Morris and Paul, 1987). Matsuno et al.’s scale considers receptiveness to innovation, risk-taking attitude and pro-activeness towards opportunities. Knight’s and Matsuno et al.’s scales reflect the consensus view of the EO literature preferring orientation scales that are known for their reliability and validity. They inform the EMO model with the following dimensions: research and development (Knight, 1997); speed to market (Knight, 1997); risk taking (Matsuno et al., 2002); pro-activeness (Matsuno et al., 2002).

Innovation orientation

While the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship has generated debate, the MO literature has also identified a relationship between innovation, MO and company performance (Connor, 1999; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Jaworski et al., 2000; Slater and Narver, 1998; Verhees and

(8)

Meulenberg, 2004). Narver and Slater (1990) propose that the practice of continuous innovation remains an ever-present element of all three identified components of a market orientation (Tajeddini et al., 2006), while many entrepreneurial activities, such as the identification of new opportunities, the application of innovative techniques, the conveyance of goods to the marketplace and the successful meeting of customer needs in the chosen market, are also elementary aspects of marketing theory (Collinson and Shaw, 2001). They propose a more in-depth approach to EM that takes into account the characteristics of the entrepreneur, whereby marketing and entrepreneurship are seen to have three areas of interface: change focused; opportunistic in nature; and innovative in their approach to management. Kuratko (1995) describes an entrepreneur as ‘an innovator or developer who recognizes and seizes opportunities, converts those opportunities into workable/marketable ideas, adds value through time, effort, money or skills, assumes the risks of the competitive marketplace to implement these ideas and realizes the rewards from these efforts’.

Miles and Darroch (2004) consider EM activities to be closely coupled with creating superior advantage by using innovation to create products, processes and strategies that better satisfy customer needs (Covin and Miles; 1999), while Hills and Hultman (2006: 222) describe EM characteristics which reflect such activities as ‘a flexible, customization approach to market’ and

‘innovation in products, services and strategies’. Hills and Hultman (2006) view innovation as a fundamental element of EM, proposing a theoretical model of the research field of EM that incor- porates entrepreneurship, marketing and innovation as the core elements.

There are limited IO measures to draw upon because of the strong focus on innovation as an output (patents and so on) rather than as a firm behaviour. Hurley and Hult (1998) and Aldas- Manzano et al. (2005) examined innovation in relation to MO, but they failed to consider innovation as a culture or behavioural orientation of the organization. Siguaw et al.’s IO (2006) scale was judged to be the most appropriate for the EMO model as they conceptualize IO using a set of inter- firm innovative behaviours that are drawn together from pertinent strands of the innovation literature. Dimensions drawn from this scale that are incorporated into the EMO model are: overarching knowledge infrastructure (Siguaw et al., 2006); and encouraging, stimulating and sustaining innovation (Siguaw et al., 2006).

Towards the EMO model

In the previous section a number of MO, CO, IO and EO scales were identified as being central to the understanding of these orientations. On the basis of these scales, coupled with the characteristics of EM identified in the literature, we propose the EMO model in Figure 1. The model shows four key orientations, and argues that any concept of EM that is an accurate reflection of the way in which successful small businesses market must embrace aspects of behaviours that have tradi- tionally been researched in the entrepreneurship, innovation, and customer engagement and relationship fields. In other words, in small businesses it is impossible and not fruitful to seek to differentiate between marketing, innovation, entrepreneurship and customer engagement. The evidence for this assertion is most powerfully evident in the overlaps between orientation scales in these different fields. In Figure 1 such overlaps have been resolved as discussed below, in order to offer a clear set of dimensions for EMO.

The EMO model has been created by collapsing existing scales to generate a set of dimensions, and by identifying the key dimensions within each orientation. In engaging in this process we have been guided by the acknowledgement that replication and adaptation of marketing scales is com- mon, and if conducted systematically and rigorously can generate a useful basis for further empirical research and the development of new theory (Hart and Diamantopoulos, 1993). In particular, we have noted that the deletion and merger of items is considered acceptable where they are

(9)

conceptually related (Hair et al., 1995; Parasuraman et al., 1985). The creation of the model involved the following stages:

(1) The identification of key scales for MO, CO, EO and IO, as discussed above.

(2) Where necessary, the identification of dimensions from the items in these scales, typically with the aid of comparisons between two or more scales from the same field.

(3) A comparison the dimensions identified in each of the orientations, MO, CO, IO and EO, for any overlap in dimensions.

(4) The allocation of any dimensions that occurred in more than one scale to their ‘dominant’

orientation.

(5) A review of the SME and EM literature in order to identify any potential omissions. Two pertinent dimensions have been included in the MO aspect of the model. These are ‘proactively exploiting markets’ (Hills and Hultman, 2006) and ‘networks and relationships’

(Carson and Gilmore 1999; Morris et al., 2002).

ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION

• Research and development

• Speed to Market

• Risk taking

• Pro-activeness CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

• Responsiveness towards customers

• Communication with customers

• Understanding and delivering customer value

MARKET ORIENTATION

• Proactively exploiting markets

• Market intelligence generation

• Responsiveness towards competitors

• Integration of business processes

• Networks and relationships

INNOVATION ORIENTATION

• Overarching knowledge infrastructure

• Encouraging, stimulating and sustaining innovation

Figure 1. The SME Entrepreneurial Marketing Orientation (EMO) Conceptualized Model.

(10)

Conclusion

By taking a more contextualized view of marketing and by defining CO through consideration of the appropriate literature of MO, EO, IO and related literatures, this article has sought to integrate discussion of EM activities in SMEs into the wider conceptual base and frameworks of the field of small business and enterprise and, to propose a new model for EMO. This model needs further testing in a range of different contexts, but has the potential to inform the development of both practice and theory in marketing in SMEs.

The developing notion of EM has a number of themes emanating from it; central to this is the relationship between MO and EO, and how entrepreneurs undertake marketing. In order to draw these strands together this article has revisited the discussion of EM particularly in relation to the SME context and the basic definitions of MO, EO, IO and CO. This revisiting, together with the evidence of the importance of networks and word-of-mouth recommendation, and creation of value for customers by way of innovation, suggests that CO is one of the pivotal dimensions of EM. This stance seeks to embrace the essential nature of EM based on what entrepreneurs and SMEs do in the marketing arena. We propose that the themes of MO, EO, IO and CO should be embraced and integrated within the developing paradigm of EM, while acknowledging that these orientations operate and interact dynamically depending on the firm’s size, market sector and stage of development.

The exploration of the concept of EM has surfaced a wide-ranging agenda for further research on both EM and associated topics:

(1) Customer co-creation requires further investigation, including the exploration of the link between CO and IO and the extent to which customers are involved in the development and design of new products and services.

(2) Further research could be undertaken within SMEs to enable a deeper understanding of the relationship between MO and CO.

(3) Further research could be undertaken in SMEs to investigate the relationship between IO and EO, and to ascertain the extent of alignment of the concepts.

(4) Exploration is required to consider how marketing in SMEs evolves as the business grows, and whether specific marketing competencies are increased (developing Carson’s [1990]

Levels of Activity model).

(5) Not all enterprises may benefit from a generalized EM approach. Exploration is needed to consider whether different approaches to EM are appropriate under different market condi- tions or in different sectors.

(6) Although the literature suggests that business performance is improved when MO (and activities) are aligned, in order for measurable and conclusive evidence to be assured, there is a requirement for a more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes business performance in SMEs. For example, the female entrepreneurship literature is rich with a range of social factors that affect the way entrepreneurs plan the development of their company, while family owned or non-entrepreneurial owner-managers may seek to limit firm size to minimize stress levels and risk levels, and retain their advantage of keeping direct and close contact with their customers. Hence, growth measured by financial turnover is not the only indicator of success.

(7) Further research is proposed that examines the ways in which larger firms implement EM, by examining the existing overlaps of the EO, MO, IO and CO orientation concepts, through links between formal customer relationship management systems and processes, and product and service innovation.

(11)

(8) It would be useful to understand decision making and strategies within SMEs in relation to non-promotional aspects of the marketing mix, that include pricing and placement (distribution), as these have received limited attention to date.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insights and constructive comments which contributed greatly to this paper’s development.

References

Aldas-Manzano J, Küster I and Vila N (2005) Market orientation and innovation: An inter-relationship analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management 8(4): 437–452.

Alpkan L, Yilmaz C and Kaya N (2007) Marketing orientation and planning flexibility in SMEs. International Small Business Journal 25(2): 152–172.

Blankson C and Omar OE (2002) Marketing practices of African and Caribbean small business in London.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 5(2): 132–134.

Blankson C and Stokes D (2002) Marketing practices in the UK small business sector. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 20(1): 49–61.

Bowey JL and Easton G (2007) Entrepreneurial social capital unplugged. International Small Business Journal 25(3): 272–306.

Brooksbank R (1991) Defining the small business: A new classification of company size. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 3(1): 17–31.

Brooksbank R, Kirby D and Taylor D (2004) Marketing in survivor medium-sized British manufacturing firms: 1987–1997. European Business Review 16(3): 292–306.

Brooksbank R, Kirby DA, Taylor D and Jones-Evans D (1999) Marketing in medium sized manufacturing firms: The state of the art in Britain, 1987–1992. European Journal of Marketing 33(1/2): 103–120.

Cardwell M (1994) Customer Care Strategy for the ’90s. Cheltenham: Nelson Thorne.

Carson D (1985) The evolution of marketing in small firms. European Journal of Marketing 19(5): 7–16.

Carson D (2005) Towards a research agenda – 2005. Conference discussion paper, the UK Academy of Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface SIG, Southampton, 5–7 January.

Carson D, Cromie S, McGowan P and Hill J (1995) Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs: An Innovative Approach. London: Prentice Hall.

Cohen WM and Lindbore RA (1972) How management is different in small companies. AMA Briefing Paper.

Collinson E and Shaw E (2001) Entrepreneurial marketing – A historical perspective on development and practice. Management Decision 39(9): 761–766.

Connor T (1999) Customer-led and market orientated: a matter of balance. Strategic Management Journal 20(12): 1157–1163.

Cope J, Jack S and Rose MB (2007) Social capital and entrepreneurship: An introduction. International Small Business Journal 25(3): 213–219.

Covin JG and Slevin DP (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.

Strategic Management Journal 10(1): 75–87.

Covin JG and Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice 16(1): 7–24.

Covin JG and Miles MP (1999) Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 47–63.

(12)

Davis CD, Hills GE and LaForge RW (1985) The marketing small enterprise paradox: A research agenda International Small Business Journal 3(3): 31–42.

Day GS and Wensley R (1988) Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority.

Journal of Marketing 52(2): 1–20.

Deshpande R (1999) Developing a Market Orientation. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE.

Deshpande R and Farley JU (1998) Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market Focused Management 2: 213–232.

Deshpande R, Farley JU and Webster F (1993) Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 23–37.

Drucker PF (1954) The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row.

Freel MS (2000) Barriers to product innovation in small manufacturing firms. International Small Business Journal 18(2): 60–80.

Gilmore A and Carson D (1999) Entrepreneurial marketing by networking. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 12(2): 31–38.

Gilmore A, Carson D and Grant K (2001) SME marketing in practice. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19(1): 6–11.

Ginsberg A (1985) Measuring changes in entrepreneurial orientation following industry deregulation: The development of a diagnostic instrument. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference of the U.S. Affiliate of the International Council for Small Business.

Gronroos C (1982) Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL and Black WC (1995) Multivariate Analysis with Readings, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hart S and Diamantopoulos A (1993) Marketing research activity and company performance: Evidence from the manufacturing industry. European Journal of Marketing 27(5): 54–72.

Hill J (2001) A multi-dimensional study of the key determinants of effective SME activity: Part 1. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 7(5): 171–204.

Hill J and Wright LT (2001) A qualitative research agenda for small to medium sized enterprises. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19(6): 432–443.

Hill SM and Blois K (1987) New small technically-based firm and industrial distributors. International Small Business Journal 5(3): 61–65.

Hills GE (1987) Marketing and entrepreneurship research issues: Scholarly justification. In: Hills GE (ed.) Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface. Chicago IL: University of Illinois, 3–15.

Hills GE and Hultman CM (2006) Entrepreneurial marketing. In: Lagrosen S and Svensson G (eds) Marketing – Broadening the Horizons. Denmark: Studentlitteratur.

Hogarth-Scott S, Watson K and Wilson N (1996) Do small business have to practice marketing to survive and grow? Marketing Intelligence and Planning 14(1): 6–18.

Huang X and Brown A (1999) An analysis and classification of problems in small business. International Small Business Journal 18(1): 73–85.

Hurley RF and TM Hult (1998) Innovation market orientation, and organisational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing 62(3): 42–54.

Jaworski BJ and Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 57(3): 53–70.

Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK and Sahay A (2000) Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1): 45–54.

Jones E, Busch P and Dacin P (2003) Firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation: Interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service and retention in business-to-business buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Business Research 56(4): 323–340.

(13)

Khandwalla PN (1977) The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kirzner IM (1979) Perception, Opportunity,and Profit: Studies in Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kohli AK and Jaworski BJ (1990) Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54(4): 1–18.

Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ and Kumar A (1993) MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30(4): 467–477.

Kotler P (1984) Marketing Essentials. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler P and Anderson A (1987) Strategic Marketing for Non-profit Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Knight GA (1997) Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation.

Journal of Business Venturing 12(3): 213–225.

Kraus S, Fink M, Roessl D and Reschke C H (2006) Entrepreneurial marketing revisited – towards a new approach for the 21st century? BAM conference paper, Belfast.

Kreiser P, Marino LD and Weaver KM (2002) Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 26(4): 71–94.

Kuratko D (1995) Entrepreneurship. In: International Encyclopedia of Business and Management.

International Thomson Press.

Lindman MT (2004) Formation of customer bases in SMEs. The Marketing Review 4(2): 134–156.

Lumpkin GT and Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21(1): 135–172.

Matsuno K, Mentzer JT and Özsomer A (2002) The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity on business performance. Journal of Marketing 66(3): 18–32.

McCartan-Quinn D and Carson D (2003) Issues which impact upon business markets in the small firm. Small Business Economics 21: 201–213.

Miles MP and Arnold DR (1991) The relationship between market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(4): 49–65.

Miles MP and Darroch J (2004) Large firms, entrepreneurial marketing processes, and the cycle of competitive advantage. European Journal of Marketing 40(5–6): 485–501.

Miles RE and Snow CC (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller D (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29:

770–791.

Miller D and Friesen PH (1978) Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science 24(9): 921–933.

Miller NJ, Besser T and Malshe A (2007) Strategic networking among small businesses in small US commu- nities. International Small Business Journal 25(6): 631–665.

Morris MH and Paul GW (1987) The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing 2(3): 247–259.

Morris MH, Schindehutte M and Laforge RW (2002) Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrat- ing emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10(4):1–19.

Murray J (1981) Marketing is home for the entrepreneurial process. Industrial Marketing Management 10:

93–99.

Naman JL and Slevin DP (1993) Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal 14(2):137–153.

Narver JC and Slater SF (1999) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. In: Deshpande R (ed.) Developing a Market Orientation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 45–77.

Narver JC and Slater SF (1990) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing 54: 20–35.

(14)

Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA and Berry L (1985) Conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49(4): 41–50.

Pitt L, Carauna A and Berthon PR (1996) Market orientation and business performance: Some European evidence. International Marketing Review 13(1): 5–18.

Reichheld FF and Sasser WE, Jr (1990) Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review 68(5): 105–11.

Salavou H and Lioukas S (2003) Radical product innovations in SMEs: The dominance of entrepreneurial innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 12(2): 94–108.

Saura IG, Contri GB, Taulet AC and Velazquez BM (2005) Relationships amongst customer orientation, service orientation and job satisfaction in financial services. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16(5): 497–525.

Saxe R and Weitz BA (1982) The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research 19(3): 343–351.

Shapiro B (1988) What the hell is market orientated? Harvard Business Review November/December: 119–125.

Shaw E (2006) Small firm networking: An insight into contents and motivating factors. International Small Business Journal 24(1): 5–29.

Siguaw JA, Simpson PM and Enz CA (2006) Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A scale for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(6): 556–574.

Slater SF and Narver JC (1995) Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing 59(3):

63–74.

Slater SF and Narver JC (1998) Customer-led and market orientated: Let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal 19(10):1001–1006.

Stokes D (1998) Small Business Management, 3rd edn. London: Letts.

Tajeddini K, Trueman M and Larsen G (2006) Examining the effects of market orientation on innovativeness.

Journal of Marketing Management 22(5/6): 529–551.

Verhees FJHM and Meulenberg TG (2004) Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management 42(2): 134–154.

Webster FE, Jr (1988) Rediscovering the marketing concept. Business Horizons 31(May–June): 29–39.

Weinrauch JD, Man K, Robinson PA and Pharr J (1991) Dealing with limited financial resources: A marketing challenge for small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 29(4): 4–54.

Zontanos G and Anderson AR (2004) Relationships, marketing and small business: An exploration of links in theory and practice. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 7(3): 228–236.

Rosalind Jones is a Lecturer in Marketing, at Bangor Business School, Bangor University. Her research interests include SME marketing and entrepreneurial marketing. Her PhD was in the area of software technology firms and other research interests include tourism, hospitality and public sector research. She teaches SME marketing, entrepreneurial marketing, marketing strategy and management.

Jennifer Rowley is Professor of Information and Communications at Manchester Metropolitan University.

Her research interest are wide ranging and embrace information and knowledge management, e-marketing, branding and relationship marketing.