Entrepreneurial marketing decision-making in rapidly internationalising and de-internationalising start-up firms

Crick, James M.; Crick, David; Chaudhry, Shiv

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.033

Cited by 64 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(138 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a closing point, most of the control paths lacked support, with the only exception being the link between degree of internationalisation and financial performance (β = 0.20; t = 1.94; Sig. = 0.06) (supplementing Low, 2007;Cadogan et al, 2009;Javalgi et al, 2011;Crick et al, 2019b). Thus, it is inferred that the core variables were explanatory factors of the different assessments of company performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Under resource-based theory and the relational view (Barney, 1991;Hunt and Morgan, 1995;Dyer and Singh, 1998;Barney et al, 2001;Coviello and Brodie, 2001;Lavie, 2006;O'Cass et al, 2015;Crick, 2018a;Dyer et al, 2018), the study's conceptual framework (Figure 1) examined the non-linear (quadratic) links between coopetition and three assessments of company performance (Luo et al, 2007;Ang, 2008;Crick, 2019), namely, customer satisfaction performance (H1), market performance (H2), and financial performance (H3) (measures guided by Hooley et al, 2005;Vorhies and Morgan, 2005;Morgan et al, 2009). Furthermore, the outcome variables were controlled by firm size, firm age, degree of internationalisation, and regional competitiveness, as additional factors that could explain their variances (Westhead et al, 2001;Low, 2007;Cadogan et al, 2009;Felzensztein and Deans, 2013;Lai and Woodside, 2015;Crick and Crick, 2016b;Geldes et al, 2017;Felzensztein et al, 2018;Crick et al, 2019b). For clarity, the non-linear (quadratic) relationships between coopetition and the three company performance outcomes were used to delve deeper into the dark-side of such activities (building upon Tidstrom, 2009;Fang et al, 2011;Abosag et al, 2016;Chowdhury et al, 2016;Crick et al, 2019a;Raza-Ullah, 2019).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Westhead et al (2001) highlighted that some entities can compete through their age and market experience to out-perform their rivals. Third, internationalisation can yield greater sales that would not exist in a home market (following Low, 2007;Cadogan et al, 2009;Javalgi et al, 2011;Crick and Crick, 2016c;Crick et al, 2019b). Thus, the outcome variables were controlled by degree of internationalisation.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Coopetition is the interplay between cooperation and competition, involving organisations sharing resources and capabilities with rival entities. Earlier work has suggested that coopetition has a linear (positive) relationship with company performance, with scarce considerations towards whether this link could have a diminishing-returns effect. Thus, this paper aims to examine the non-linear (quadratic) relationships between coopetition and three performance outcomes. Using resource-based theory and the relational view, this study is designed to evaluate the dark side of coopetition, in terms of identifying situations when such activities can be harmful for company performance. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from a sample of 101 vineyards and wineries in New Zealand. After purifying the measures through a series of multivariate statistical techniques, the research hypotheses and control paths were tested through hierarchical regression. Furthermore, the statistical data passed all major assessments of reliability and validity (including common method variance). Findings Coopetition was found to have non-linear (quadratic) relationships with customer satisfaction performance, market performance, and financial performance. These results indicate that while coopetition provides organisations with new resources, capabilities and opportunities, there are some dark sides of coopetition activities. With “too little” coopetition, firms might struggle to survive within their markets, with an insufficient volume of resources and capabilities. With “too much” coopetition, companies could experience increased tensions, potentially lose intellectual property and dilute their competitive advantages. Such negative outcomes could harm their performance in several capacities. Practical implications Firms should appreciate that coopetition is a competitive strategy. In other words, regardless of how much collaboration occurs, coopetition partners are still competing entities. It is recommended that organisations should strive to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition, as “too little” or “too much” of such strategies can be harmful for various types of company performance. To mitigate some of the dark sides of coopetition, businesses should attempt to use all the benefits of collaborating with competitors (i.e. accessing new resources, capabilities and opportunities), but at the same time, not become dependent on rivals’ assets. Originality/value This paper develops and tests a framework examining the non-linear (quadratic) linkages between coopetition and multiple assessments of company performance. It highlights the benefits and drawbacks of businesses sharing resources and capabilities with their competitors. Contrary to prior studies in the business-to-business marketing literature, the results signify that firms need to engage in an “optimal-level” of coopetition to minimise certain dark sides, such as reduced company performance. After providing some practitioner implications, this paper ends with a series of limitations and avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a clear connection between entrepreneurial opportunity development and the marketing decisions. Greater opportunity development through market research has an effect on the marketing decisions (Treffers et al 2017 ; Hoque and Awang 2019 ; Crick et al 2020 ; Morrish and Jones 2020 ), especially during COVID-19. In this case, like a human brain, technology tends to solve the dilemma of decision making.…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology and Entrepreneurial Marketing Decisions During COVID-19

Polas

Raju

2021

Glob J Flex Syst Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prime concern of this study is to explore how technology influences entrepreneurial marketing decisions during the world pandemic (COVID-19). The study uses a sample of 127 SMEs from Bangladesh. Data were collected by sending out questionnaires electronically and by mail. Smart PLS (SEM) 3.0 was used to analyse the data following the quantitative method. The study reveals positive and significant relationships between entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, opportunity development and opportunity exploitation with their entrepreneurial marketing decisions. It also claims that entrepreneurial passion mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and opportunity development with their entrepreneurial marketing decisions. However, entrepreneurial passion does not mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation and entrepreneurial marketing decisions. The study offers researchers a broader and more wide-ranging view of the importance of artificial intelligence in small firms. Researchers, educators and practitioners will benefit from the findings. The analyses are more complex and varied than the methodologies used in most of the limited previous research.

show abstract

“…Crick and Crick (2016) underpinned their qualitative investigation by theory positioned at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface (entrepreneurial marketing). This perspective concerns how organisations, especially smaller entities, engage in proactive, innovative, and risk-taking behaviours and use such processes to create value for their customers (Rocks et al, 2005;Crick and Crick, 2018;Crick et al, 2019).…”

Section: Dimensionality Of the Coopetition Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition

Crick

2019

JBIM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Coopetition, namely, the interplay between cooperation and competition, has received a good deal of interest in the business-to-business marketing literature. Academics have operationalised the coopetition construct and have used these measures to test the antecedents and consequences of firms collaborating with their competitors. However, business-to-business marketing scholars have not developed and validated an agreed operationalisation that reflects the dimensionality of the coopetition construct. Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition for marketing scholars to use in future research. Design/methodology/approach To use a highly cooperative and highly competitive empirical context, sporting organisations in New Zealand were sampled, as the key informants within these entities engaged in different forms of coopetition. Checks were made to ensure that the sampled entities produced generalisable results. That is, it is anticipated that the results apply to other industries with firms engaging in similar business-to-business behaviours. Various sources of qualitative and quantitative data were acquired to develop and validate a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition (the COOP scale), which passed all major assessments of reliability and validity (including common method variance). Findings The results indicated that coopetition is a multi-dimensional construct, comprising three distinct dimensions. First, local-level coopetition is collaboration among competing entities within a close geographic proximity. Second, national-level coopetition is cooperation with rivals within the same country but across different geographic regions. Third, organisation-level coopetition is cooperation with competitors across different firms (including with indirect rivals), regardless of their geographic location and product markets served. Indeed, organisation-level coopetition extends to how companies engage in coopetition in domestic and international capacities, depending on the extent to which they compete in similar product markets in comparison to industry rivals. Also, multiple indicators were used to measure each facet of the coopetition construct after the scale purification stage. Originality/value Prior coopetition-based investigations have predominately been conceptual or qualitative in nature. The scarce number of existing scales have significant problems, such as not appreciating that coopetition is a multi-dimensional variable, as well as using single indicators. In spite of a recent call for research on the multiple levels of coopetition, there has not been an agreed measure of the construct that accounts for its multi-dimensionality. Hence, this investigation responds to such a call for research by developing and validating the COOP scale. Local-, national- and organisation-level coopetition are anticipated to be the main facets of the coopetition construct, which offer several avenues for future research.

show abstract

Entrepreneurial marketing decision-making in rapidly internationalising and de-internationalising start-up firms

Abstract: His current research interests involve work at the Marketing/International Entrepreneurship interface and particularly work that addresses a more effective public/private sector interaction.

Cited by 64 publications

References 77 publications

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

Technology and Entrepreneurial Marketing Decisions During COVID-19

Developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure of coopetition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About