This article posits a framework that shows how market-based assets and capabilities are leveraged via market-facing or core business processes to deliver superior customer value and competitive advantages. These value elements and competitive advantages can be leveraged to result in superior corporate performance and shareholder value and reinvested to nurture market-based assets and capabilities in the future. The article also illustrates how resource-based view (RBV) and marketing considerations in the context of generating and sustaining customer value can refine and extend each other's traditional frames of analysis. Finally, the article posits a set of research directions designed to enable scholars to further advance the integration of RBV and marketing from both theory-driven practice management as well as a problem-driven theory development perspectives.

SUM MARYThis paper incorporates both diversification strategy and market structure variables in a study of corporate economic performance. A subsample of 128 firms from Rumelt's 1974 study was updated and utilized to investigate the possibility that market structure variables might moderate or confound the diversification/performance relationship he reported. Study results indicate that performance differences could be demonstrated for some of Rumelt's categories, but, across the range of categories, a hypothesis of performance differences was rejected. As expected, categories associated with distinctly high or distinctly low economic performance were also associated with significant differences in a series of market structure variables.Researchers from several disciplines have sought to identify factors which influence corporate economic performance. Strategic management researchers have sought to relate corporate economic performance to the major direction-setting decisions made by the firm. For a new and growing firm, these decisions frequently relate to the degree and manner in which its product line and served market should be extended. For an older firm which wishes to continue to grow, the key decisions generally relate to the degree and manner in which it should diversify into different businesses (Chandler, 1962;Scott, 1971).Starting from a very different perspective, researchers in industrial organization economics have been guided by a conceptual framework which examines possible relationships among (1) the structure of the industry (or industries) in which the firm operates, (2) the conduct of the firms within that industry, and (3) the level of economic performance both of the individual firms and of their Associated industries. This effort has yielded an extensive literature, much of which supports the proposition that firm profits are strongly influenced by the structure of the market or markets in which the firm operates (Scherer, 1970).These two streams of research have developed in large measure independently of each other. It is the purpose of the present research to incorporate both diversification strategy and market structure variables in a study of corporate economic performance.

This article defines the domain of strategy content research as embracing decisions about the goals, scope, and/or competitive strategies of a corporation or one of its business units. It reviews and evaluates several important streams of strategy content research (goals, diversification, strategic groups, market share, competitive strategy taxonomies, and stages of market evolution) in terms of the relationships among environmental conditions, strategic decisions, and performance results. It also makes recommendations for future research.

PurposeIn the author's experience, even veteran executives often make statements about competitive advantage that reflect either genuine misunderstanding or casual misuse of the term. This paper aims to offer a clear explanation of what constitutes competitive advantage so as to facilitate identification, assessment and strategizing.Design/methodology/approachThe paper proposes a definition of competitive advantage that differs from that proposed by many textbooks. It is based on the idea that competitive advantage can only be defined in terms of customer value.FindingsA number of cases are examined in the light of the customer value approach to identifying competitive advantage.Practical implicationsCompany executives learn to periodically engage in systematic information gathering regarding customer‐perceived competitive advantages.Originality/valueOrganizations that adopt this customer‐perceived approach to competitive advantage can make better assessments of where to expend their efforts and resources to outmaneuver their rivals and improve profitability.

No abstract