Nath and Mahajan (see the article “Chief Marketing Officers: A Study of Their Presence in Firms’ Top Management Teams” in the January 2008 JM issue) focus attention on an important and unexplored research topic. One measure of the degree of prominence accorded to Marketing within a corporation is whether or not it has a CMO. Arguably, a CMO’s presence means more than a place at the corporate decision-making table for Marketing; it is also a tacit acknowledgment by the firm that successful nurturance of customer relationships is critical for its future revenue and profit streams.

This article provides several new insights. The presence or absence of CMOs is influenced by innovation, differentiation, type of branding strategy, diversification, top management’s experience in marketing, and whether or not the CEO is an outsider. I was especially intrigued by their assertion that a firm using the corporate branding approach has a higher likelihood of CMO presence on the top management team.

However, their finding that CMO presence has no tangible impact on firm performance could be driven by the somewhat restrictive set of performance dependent measures available within the COMPUSTAT database. Although this database facilitates computation of finance-metrics such as ROA, ROS, and Tobin’s q, it does not offer dollar-metric measures that are closer to the marketing realm such as customer lifetime value and brand equity. Nevertheless, stewardship of the marketing function often requires CMOs to devote considerable attention to the latter outcomes. Because CMOs are custodians of brand equity, for example, firms with high brand values (e.g., those in InterBrand’s list of best global brands) may be more likely to have a CMO than firms with low brand values. Hopefully, such questions will stimulate future study on this very interesting topic. I enthusiastically applaud the authors for initiating this promising line of research inquiry.

I thank JM readers for their contributions to the spirited debate in the blog threads at this website. Once again, I welcome your comments on the research issues raised by Nath and Mahajan in this study. Please take a few moments of your time now to contribute your thoughts.

Siva K. Balasubramanian
Journal of Marketing Web Site Editor

Posted by Chris at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Eyuboglu and Buja (see the article "Quasi-Darwinian Selection in Marketing Relationships" in the October 2007 issue) provide a lucid exposition on an unusual topic for marketers i.e., Quasi-Darwinian Carpentry, defined as the "chiseling away" of natural selection "on a population in such a way that previously nonexisting associations emerge" (p. 49).

Their work sheds new and insightful light on the evolution, preservation, growth and downfall of marketing relationships. The examples they use are quite relevant and timely for marketers. Quasi-Darwinian selection allows readers to recognize that the process of selection may carve out an observable association between two constructs, despite the fact that one construct may not have a causal influence over the other. In other words, as they succinctly convey, "selection creates association."

The authors cast Quasi-Darwinian Selection as a paradigm that should be evaluated "side by side with the conventional paradigms of causal explanation." This statement deserves careful consideration. It is a simple yet revolutionary, sweeping yet thought-provoking argument. Marketing practitioners familiar with cause-affect relationships among constructs may find it useful to rethink them in terms of associations engendered by natural selection. Notions such as failure and adaptation that are integral elements of Quasi-Darwinian selection resonate with potential meaning and relevance across a variety of marketing contexts.

Recent blog threads have attracted spirited discussion among JM readers about recent articles in the Journal. In a similar vein, I look forward to hearing your responses to the profound questions raised by Eyuboglu and Buja in their recent article. Please take a few moments to contribute your thoughts to this blog thread now.

Siva K. Balasubramanian
Journal of Marketing Web Site Editor

Posted by Chris at 9:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Keiningham, Cooil, Andreassen and Aksoy (see the article "A Longitudinal Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth" in the July 2007 JM issue) provide an insightful critique of the Net Promoter metric that has witnessed a meteoric rise in adoption and popularity by leading companies within a very short time.

The Net Promoter concept, originally advanced by Frederick Reichheld in a Harvard Business Review article, involves a "recommend likelihood" survey item about a given firm. It is measured as the difference in proportions of responses considered "promoters" (i.e., those with ratings of 9 – 10) and those labeled "detractors" (i.e., with ratings below 6) of that firm.

Keiningham et al. find evidence that contradicts two Reichheld assertions: (a) Net Promoter is a superior metric for assessing growth (relative to other metrics) and (b) ACSI and growth are unrelated. These authors must be applauded for their extraordinary efforts to objectively compare their analyses with Reichheld's analyses under circumstances where the data from the latter were not accessible.

I wholeheartedly agree with the authors' assertion that new metrics that claim to predict business outcomes must be rigorously tested before they are widely adopted by business firms. To some extent, their study showcases the chasm that sometimes exists between marketing academics, who emphasize sound theory, analytical rigor, and a scientific approach, and marketing consultants/practitioners, who often place greater importance on awareness and management of input-output relationships of interest to businesses than on understanding the "black box" behind those relationships (i.e., the theoretically complex reasons why those inter-relationships exist).

On balance, it is beneficial to hear both sides of any story. I suspect JM readers may want to hear Reichheld's response to this article. JM readers may also weigh in on the many other important issues discussed in this article. I welcome their participation in this blog thread.

Siva K. Balasubramanian
Journal of Marketing Website Editor

Posted by Chris at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (33)

Min Ding argues for a game theoretic framework even when strategies and outcomes are confined to the same individual (see the article "A Theory of Intraperson Games" in the April 2007 JM issue). In other words, such a game does not involve multiple players, but multiple selves of one player.

The concept advanced is intriguing. Ding proposes a theory of intraperson games (TIG) and draws on psychological, psychiatric, and artificial intelligence domains for supportive rationales. This theory posits two types of intrapersonal game players: the efficiency agent and the equity agent. Ding also provides an empirical application of TIG to variety-seeking behavior. Finally, he offers thought-provoking ideas for additional research.

This article raises interesting questions about consumers’ decision-making behaviors. For example, consider widely accepted notions that (1) personality traits are invariant over time and (2) key individual difference variables capture stable elements of consumer heterogeneity. If a strong personality trait in an individual implies the consistent dominance over time of one self over others, do intraperson games work less well for that individual? Similarly, if different consumers have different (but stable) levels of an important enduring characteristic that defines their self-identities, what are the implications for predicting strategies and outcomes of intrapersonal games within each consumer?

I am sure JM readers will have many additional thoughts and insights to share about this article. I welcome JM readers to join this blog discussion thread.

Siva K. Balasubramanian
Journal of Marketing Web Site Editor

Posted by Siva K. Balasubramanian at 5:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Jean-Francois Ouellet’s article in the January 2007 Journal of Marketing, “Consumer Racism and Its Effects on Domestic Cross-Ethnic Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the United States, Canada, and France,” offers a timely investigation of consumer racism and how it influences product choices.

Most people express discomfort with any form of racism. Perhaps this explains why consumer racism has remained a relatively unexplored topic. Ouellet’s research focuses on negative expressions of consumer racism (e.g., ethnic animosity in consumer choices). Earlier work on ethnic identification and ethnic choice orientation (e.g., Herche and Balasubramanian 1994, Journal of Shopping Center Research) centered on positive biases in racism (e.g., intense loyalty among consumers from an ethnic minority toward stores owned by members of their ethnic group, which Ouellet labels “ethnic-based ethnocentrism”). Both areas hold much promise for future research.

Ouellet notes that the focus of germane research has moved in two important directions: (1) from ethnocentrism to ethnic ethnocentrism and (2) from national animosity to ethnic-based animosity. Perhaps these shifts mirror the rampant globalization and outsourcing phenomena that undermine consumers’ ability to confidently identify or link a given product with a particular country. Because most products contain components produced in several nations, consumers can no longer easily cultivate ethnocentrism on the basis of national animosity. However, they can readily perceive the ethnicity of the individual who owns an enterprise that sells specific products. Overall, the easy availability of “ethnic” cues (as opposed to “national” cues) may affect product choices for consumers depending on their ethnic background. Ouellet’s research suggests that this phenomenon is robust and pervasive across ethnic groups in multiple countries. It richly deserves greater research scrutiny.

I invite JM readers to participate in this blog discussion.

—Siva K. Balasubramanian
Journal of Marketing Web Site Editor

Posted by Chris at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)