ADVANCED MARKETING STRATEGY Instructor: Gaia Rubera Office: 4C1‐ 15, 4th floor Office hours: By appointment Email: [email protected] COURSE OVERVIEW Description: This seminar examines classic and current topics in marketing strategy. Its primary objective is to expose each of you to some of the thinking – in marketing and in related disciplines – on this topic. Although I have tried to construct a reading list of relatively representative papers in the area, it is by no means exhaustive. Therefore, this seminar is just a starting point for those of you who have research interests in this area. For those with other research interests, this course will provide a foundation for understanding a broad range of issues in marketing strategy. Goals: The seminar will seek to provide: 1) Exposure to key theoretical streams in the area. 2) Familiarity with the issues, methods, and findings in the area. 3) Skills in critiquing the literature, defining research problems, and writing papers in this

area. Format: One of the best ways to understand a research area is to critically evaluate examples of research in that area. This approach provides a deeper understanding of specific issues, a better appreciation of the research process, and training in research skills. So the seminar readings will consist primarily of key articles on each topic. The sessions will involve a discussion of the readings assigned for the day. Attendance: I ask for regular and punctual attendance at all sessions. You must provide a valid excuse for non‐attendance, in advance. Assignments 1. Session summary (15%) For each session, you are asked to prepare a “boxes and arrows” Figure for each assigned paper where you represent the model tested and – for empirical papers only – the results. Also, you are asked to prepare a Summary Figure/Table where you summarize all the constructs discussed in the assigned papers. The purpose of this Summary Figure/Table is: a) to provide an overview of the existing literature on the topic discussed in the session, and b) to identify potential gaps and avenues for future research. You may want to compile all of these Figures/Tables in a Powerpoint presentation. You are asked to bring copies of this presentation to the start of each class so they can be shared with the other seminar participants and me. 1   

2. Class Contribution (35%) For each session, you will be asked to lead a discussion of an assigned paper. I let the seminar participants decide which paper they want to discuss (there cannot be more than one leader per paper). As discussion leader, you are expected to describe the main constructs investigated in the paper, present the theoretical model to be tested, describe (in detail) the methodological challenges and the solutions adopted in the paper, and present the results. I encourage discussion leaders to create slides to help supplement the discussion, which should last 20 to 30 minutes. It is extremely important that you adopt a “reviewer” perspective here and answer the following questions:   

Why was the paper published? What are the main weaknesses of the paper (they may be theoretical or empirical)? How can I use this paper in my research? You may want to refer to, e.g., theoretical perspectives, construct measurements, empirical methods, …

Please also note that although you may only be responsible for leading the discussion of one paper per week, you are expected to read and take notes on all of the articles. Failure to do so will significantly impact your ability to participate in our discussions (and consequently your grade). Students’ in‐class contribution will be assessed based on the quality and consistency of their participation. The quality of our class discussions depends on how well prepared you are and on your willingness to share the results of your preparation with the class. High quality contributions are those that reflect both depth and breadth of knowledge gained from the assigned readings, are clearly stated and effectively communicated, and are insightful and relevant to the issues under discussion. Further, high quality contributions are those that generate discussion by yielding a new perspective 3. Final Paper (50%) The final paper must focus on any one of the topics covered in the syllabus. When writing the paper, you should try to adopt the style and rigor of the best journal articles. The final paper provides students with the opportunity to develop a research proposal much like that prepared when working on a dissertation. The proposal developed must include the following: 1.

Introduction ‐ An Overview of the Proposed Research

2.

Literature Review ‐ Concepts and Principles, Theory, Empirical Studies (ideally this section should be sufficient in depth and breadth so as to lead to a publishable review article).

3.

Proposed Research Design and Methodology, including: study rationale, research objectives, theory development, statement of hypotheses, research design, model specification, statistical tests, dummy tables, etc.

4.

References (provided in a bibliography). 2 

 

The final paper should be 15 pages long, double spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font. You will be asked to present your Final Paper during the last session. This presentation should last 30 minutes.

3   

Schedule and Reading List 1. Marketing Meets Wall Street – Session 1 & 2 a. Srinivasan, Shuba and Dominique Hanssens (2009), “Marketing and Firm Value: Metrics, Methods, Findings and Future Directions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 293‐312. b. Luo, Xueming, and C.B. Bhattacharya (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value,” Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1‐18 c. Sorescu, Alina B, and Jelena Spanjol (2008), “Innovation's Effect on Firm Value and Risk: Insights from Consumer Packaged Goods,” Journal of Marketing, 72, 114‐132. d. Aksoy, Lerzan, Bruce Cooil, Christopher Groening, Timothy L. Keiningham, and Atakan Yalçın (2008), “The Long‐Term Stock Market Valuation of Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (4), 105‐122. e. Mizik, Natalie and Robert Jacobson (2003), “Trading off Between Value Creation and Value Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis,” Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63‐74. f. Moorman Christine, Wies Simone, Mizik Natalie, Spencer Fredrika J. (2012), “Firm Innovation and the Ratchet Effect among Consumer Packaged Goods Firms,” Marketing Science, 31(6), 934–951. 2. Marketing Capabilities ‐ Session 3 & 4 a. Slotegraaf, Rebecca J., Moorman Christine, and Inman Jeffrey J. (2003), “The Role of Firm Resources in Returns to Market Deployment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 295‐ 309. b. Dutta, Shantanu, Om Narasimhan, and Surendra Rajiv (1999), "Success in High‐ Technology Markets: Is Marketing Capability Critical?" Marketing Science, 18 (4), 547‐ 68. c. Xiong Guiyang and Bharadwaj Sundar (2013), “Asymmetric Roles of Advertising and Marketing Capability in Financial Returns to News: Turning Bad into Good and Good into Great,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 706‐724. d. Wiles, Michael A., Morgan, Neil A., and Rego, Lopo L. (2012), “The Effect of Brand Acquisition and Disposal on Stock Returns,” Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 38‐58. e. Krasnikov, Alexander, and Jayachandran, Satish (2008), “The Relative Impact of Marketing, Research‐and‐Development, and Operations Capabilities on Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 1‐11. f. Vorhies, Douglas W., and Morgan, Neil A. (2005), “Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80‐94. 3. Innovation ‐ Session 5 & 6 a. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Gerard J. Tellis (2000), “The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation,” Journal of Marketing, 64(July), 1‐17. b. Tellis, Gerard J., Prabhu, Jaideep C., and Chandy, Rajesh K. (2009), “Radical Innovation Across Nations: The Preeminence of Corporate Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 73, 3–23 c. Srinivasan, Shuba, Koen Pauwels, Jorge Silva‐Risso, and Dominique M. Hanssens (2009), “Product Innovations, Advertising, and Stock Returns,” Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 24‐43. d. Rubera, Gaia and Ahmet H. Kirca (2012) “Firm Innovativeness and its Performance Outcomes: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130‐147. e. Sood, Ashish, and Gerard J. Tellis (2009), “Do Innovations Really Pay Off? Total Stock Market Returns to Innovation,” Marketing Science, 28(3), 442‐456. 4   

f. Sorescu, Alina B, Rajesh Chandy, and Jaideep C. Prabhu (2003), “Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals,” Journal of Marketing, 67(October), 82‐102. g. Kornish, Laura J., and Ulrich, Karl T. (2014). “The Importance of the Raw Idea in Innovation: Testing the Sow's Ear Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 14‐ 26. 4. Brand Strategies – Session 7 & 8 a. Rao, Vithala R., Manoj K. Agarwal, and Denise Dahlhoff (2004), “How Is Manifest Branding Strategy Related to the Intangible Value of a Corporation?” Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 126‐141. b. Luo, Xueming, Raithel, Sascha, and Wiles, Michael A. (2013), “The Impact of Brand Rating Dispersion on Firm Value,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 399‐415. c. Morgan, Neil A. and Lopo L. Rego, (2009), “Brand Portfolio Strategy and Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 59‐74. d. Bahadir, S.Cem, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajendra K. 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. 5. Design Innovation ‐ Session 9 & 10 a. Rindova, V. P., and A. P. Petkova. 2007. “When Is A New Thing A Good Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, And Perceptions Of Value For Product Innovations,” Organization Science 18(2) 217‐232 b. Veryzer, R. W. Jr. 1999. “A Nonconscious Processing Explanation Of Consumer Response To Product Design,” Psychology and Marketing 16(6) 497‐522. c. Blumer, H. 1969. “Fashion: From Class Differentiation To Collective Selection,” Sociological Quarterly 10(3) 275‐29. d. Hoegg, J. J., and W. Alba. 2011. “Seeing is Believing (Too Much): The Influence Of Product Form on Perceptions of Functional Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3) 346–359. e. Landwehr, J. R., A. Labroo, and A. Herrmann. 2011. “Gut Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts,” Marketing Science , 30(3) 416‐429. f. Rubera, G. (2016) Design Innovativeness and New Product Sales. Marketing Science, 34(1):98‐115 6. Social Media ‐ Session 11 a. Toubia, Olivier, and Stephen, Andrew T. (2013). “Intrinsic vs. Image‐Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?” Marketing Science, 32(3), 368‐392. b. Yogesh V. Joshi , Ma Liye, Rand William M., and Raschid Louiqa. (2013). “Building the B[r]and: Understanding How Social Media Drives Consumer Engagement and Sales,” MSI Working Paper Series, 2013, 13‐113. c. Hyoryung Nam and P.K. Kannan (2014), “The Informational Value of Social Tagging Networks,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 21‐40.

5   

d. Buechel Eva, and Jonah Berger. “Facebook Therapy? Why Do People Share Self‐Relevant Content Online?” Working Paper Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2013148 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2013148 7. Presentation of the Final Paper ‐ Session 12

6