中小企业网络营销战略外文文献翻译2013年译文3000多字

文献出处：Jones R, Suoranta M, Rowley J. Strategic network marketing in SMEs[J]. Journal of Marketing Management, 2013, 29(5-6): 671-697.

原文

Strategic network marketing in SMEs

Introduction

This paper responds to the need for enhanced understanding of the value of networks in marketing in small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in business-to-business (B2B) contexts. Networks, in the form of, for example, social networks and supply-chain or business networks are widely acknowledged as important precursors to business success and growth (H?kansson & Snehota, 1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). This reported study sits at the interface between networking, marketing, and entrepreneurship, acknowledging two key interrelated streams of research associated respectively with relationship marketing and markets-as-networks approaches (Mattsson, 1997). Hence, the study is viewed through a marketing lens (Hansen & Eggers, 2010), as the theoretical underpinning for this study is informed by entrepreneurial marketing theory, an emerging field of research that is becoming a substantial school of thought (Hills, Hultman, & Miles, 2008; Kraus, Filser, Eggers, Hills, & Hultman, 2012).

Despite the research interest in networks and their value creation potential, previous research and theory development into the nature or types of such networks, their role in marketing, and their specific value-creating opportunities is limited. Such research tends to focus on one specific type of network such as supply-chain relationships (e.g. Lambert & Cooper, 2000; Lamprinopoulou & Tregear, 2011), entrepreneurial and SME networks (Gilmore, 2011; Shaw, 2006), and innovation networks (Lipparini & Sobrero, 1994; von Hippel, 2007). Only Malaska, Saraniemi, and Tahtinen (2011) specifically identify different types of business relationships which exist in networks, in the context of B2B SME branding. Furthermore, the focus of much research on networks is on either the structural dimension (such as network

links, size, density, stability, diversity), or the relational dimension (such as trust, commitment, and co-operation). In respect of the value accruing from networks, the concept of networks as ‘value constellations’ is particularly useful (Bjerke & Hultman, 2002). Several studies have generated insights into the valuecreating opportunities of networks in the entrepreneurial and SME marketing context (Carson, Gilmore, & Rocks, 2004; O’Reilly & Haines, 2004; Rocks, Gilmore & Carson, 2005; Westerlund & Svahn, 2008), but there is considerable scope for further research as to the specific value creation achieved within firms by use of network marketing approaches.

This paper, then, seeks to make a contribution to B2B marketing theory, in general, and entrepreneurial marketing theory, more specifically, by a two-country study (the UK and the United States) that gathers insights regarding software technology SMEs and their network marketing approaches. More specifically, the objectives of this study are to identify and generate a typology of the range of different types of networks in which software technology SMEs engage; offer insights into the value creation opportunities offered by each network type; and propose a model of strategic network marketing in the context of software technology SMEs.

The paper commences with a literature review that summarises previous research relating to marketing in technology industries, and entrepreneurial networks and relationships. Next, the research design and methodology, including the selection of participants, and the interview process are discussed. The findings offer insights into each of the types of networks illustrating the opportunities and value that they provide. The discussion and conclusion section explains the Strategic Network Marketing Model (SNMM), and outlines the contribution of this research to theory and practice, and offers suggestions for further research.

Literature review

The network approach to the study of industrial or B2B markets has a long history which predates notions of relationship marketing (Mattsson, 1997). Networks are recognised as being important to the strategic success of businesses in B2B marketplaces (H?kansson & Snehota, 1995). Mattsson (1997) identifies two distinct but interrelated streams of research on network marketing: relationship marketing and

the ‘markets-as-networks’ approach. Relationship marketing focuses on the management of customer and other relational exchanges (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). According to the definition offered by Gr?nroos (1996), marketing concerns the management o f the firm’s market relationships, whilst Ballantyne (1997) views relational marketing as being concerned with creating, developing, and sustaining exchanges of value between the parties involved. A slightly different perspective is offered by the ‘network s-as-markets approach’, in which the focus is on markets as sets of interconnected exchange relationships between actors who control resources for production, leading to an early focus on buying as well as selling. This approach acknowledges that individual, interconnected relationships form network structures (Mattsson, 1997). M?ller and Halinen (1999) suggest that traditional markets are being replaced by networks, and suggest that firms need to move beyond a focus on customer and supplier relationships and develop intricate webs of firms, including research and development (R&D) networks and competitive coalitions.

Although early definitions of networks tended to privilege the network relationships in the supply chain or the marketplace, more recent definitions embrace a range of activities and competencies. For example, Elg (2002) suggests that ‘a network can be viewed as a set of firms that coordinate their activities to fulfil different roles and add different competencies’ (p. 634). Such inter-firm networks and relationships are often regarded as a basis for success in a more global, uncertain, and competitive environment (Anderson, H?kansson, & Johanson, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Research linking marketing and networks tends to focus on one type of network, such as those in the supply chain (e.g. Ellis & Mayer, 2001), internal networks (e.g. Ballantyne, 1997), innovation networks (e.g. Corsaro, Ramos, Heneberg, & Naude, 2012), and social networks (e.g. Ali, 2011). In terms of understanding the range of types of networks that firms may engage in and with whom, two key models offer inspiration. First, the Six Markets Model proposed by Payne, Ballantyne, and Christopher (2005), a stakeholder relationship planning model, which recognises that organisations need to build relationships with the following six markets: customer,

referral, supplier, influencer, recruitment, and internal. Second, bridging the strategy and marketing literature, is the concept of ‘value constellations’. ‘Value constellations’ are v alue-creating systems where focal actors create value by configuring their portfolio of direct business relationships in a specific and integrated manner, leading to outcomes such as value co-creation or resource combination and innovation (Bjerke & Hultman, 2002; M?ller & Rajala, 2007).

Zolkiewski (2011) notes that value is a persistent undercurrent in B2B relationship and network research, with discussion of customer and supplier value, as well as relationship value being ongoing themes of research. Furthermore, what can be seen within this research stream is that value is usually only investigated from the perspective of one particular actor. The work on value from a network perspective (e.g. M?ller, Rajala, & Svahn, 2005) has been written from the role of relationships and networks in a strategic action viewpoint, and includes such aspects as gaining competitive advantage. Indeed, M?ller and Rajala (2007) criticise much of the extant B2B value literature for failing to recognise the interactive nature of value creation. The entrepreneurial marketing literature (Bjerke & Hultman, 2002) refers to that interactive nature by using the concept of ‘value constellations’ as opposed to sequential value chains. These constellations emphasise the non-sequential way that value is co-created by the set of cooperating firms, customers, marketers, and other stakeholders. However, the notion of value is contested, and there are very few empirical studies that have attempted to study value creation in networks (Corsaroetal., 2012).

Granovetter, in 1985, highlighted the significance of network embeddedness, arguing that the behaviour of individuals is closely embedded in networks of interpersonal relations. The Uppsalla school of researchers extended the term to cover the set of industrial and social network relationships of relevance to the firm (Lundgren, 1992). Yli-Renko and Autio (1998) explored network embeddedness in the context of new technology firms based on synergistic value-creating systems, which develop the firm’s distinctive competencies to create value for its customers (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1992). External complementary resources are available,

with which the firm can leverage its firm-specific resources through a continuous resource-generation process. Yli-Renko and Autio (1998) acknowledge that network actors external to the new technology firm work partly internally and externally to the firm via a network relationship.

Entrepreneurial marketing, entrepreneurship, and SME marketing researchers have identified a range of network types, which include business networks, social networks, and industry and marketing networks (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Carson, Cromie, McGowan, & Hill, 1995; Gilmore, Carson, & Grant, 2001; Hill, 2001; Shaw, 2006). Networks are important to small firms because they lack business capabilities and capacity due to their small size, and, in particular, face challenges in marketing. Carson (1985) suggests that SMEs are challenged by three groups of specific marketing constraints: limited resources (i.e. a lack of marketing knowledge and time), a lack of specialist expertise (as managers and entrepreneurs in SMEs tend to be generalists rather than specialists), and a limited impact in the marketplace (as SMEs have fewer orders and fewer employees than larger companies). However, there is a wide body of evidence which suggests that entrepreneurs are adept at overcoming some of the SMEs’ resource constraints by leveraging resources through use of networks (Hill, McGowan, & Drummond, 1999; Jarill o, 1989; O’Donnell & Cummins, 1999; Stevenson, Roberts, & Grousbeck, 1994; Timmons, 1994).

Hence, there is recognition that the building of effective networks (Carson et al., 1995; Lindman, 2004; Storey, 1994) is a key feature of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial marketing (Collinson & Shaw, 2001), with the use of social networks as informal and social linkages which provide a higher and more stable flow of information and resources than formalised business network approaches (Premaratne, 2001; Shaw, 2006). In addition, Stokes (2000) suggests that SME owner managers tend to develop close relationships with their customers, such that the customer is involved as the co-creator in the value creation process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) making it is easier to build customer loyalty (Reichheld, 2003) and to manage customer expectations (Groth & Dye, 1999). Harrigan, Ramsey, and Ibbotson (2010) make an important recent contribution that contributes to understanding of technology

in SME relationship building by identifying the critical factors which underpin marketing and electronic customer relationship marketing (e-CRM) activities for SMEs. They see e-CRM as offering opportunities to exploit further SMEs recognised customer communication competencies.

Despite this wealth of research on the use of networks by SMEs, studies that take a more holistic perspective on the relationship between marketing and networking in SMEs are scarce. Only a few studies discuss the actual value accruing from networks. For example, O’Reilly and Haines (2004) suggest that in marketing quality products, networks enhance product promotion, quality assurance, and access to information, and Carson et al. (2004) examine the ‘usage dimension’ in which they consider outcomes or value creation by examining the marketing activities that are influenced by networks. Other recent studies have explored the role of product launch, product advantage, and market orientation on organisational performance (O’Dwyer & Ledwith, 2008); the role of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and innovation on new bio-technology firms (Renko, Carsrud, & Brannback, 2009); entrepreneurial marketing in software technology SMEs (Jones & Rowley, 2011); and the role of entrepreneurial business and social network relationships in the exploration and exploitation of internationalisation opportunities (Vasilchenko & Morrish, 2011).

There is recognition that technology SMEs stimulate economic growth, and this has spawned a range of research on topics associated with innovation, including new product development and business performance (Helander & Ulkuniemi, 2006; Im & Workman, 2004; Narver, Slater, & Maclachlan, 2004; Salavou & Lioukas, 2003; Verhees & Meulenberg, 2004). A study by Westerlund and Svahn (2008) carried out qualitative research of software technology SMEs from a social capital, interorganisational networks, and relationship value perspective.

译文

中小企业网络营销战略

引言

本文对中小型企业中企业对企业电子商务模式的网络营销价值做出了回应。网络的形式，例如，社交网络和供应链或商业网络被广泛认为是企业成功与发展的重要预兆(Hakansson & Snehota，1995；Morgan & Hunt，1994)。研究显示，网络，营销和创业精神的相互联系，确认两个相关且关键的研究分别是：与客户关系营销或网络市场营销方法相联系的(Mattsson，1997)。因此，这项研究是从营销角度加以解读（Hansen & Eggers，2010），作为本研究的理论基础是企业营销理论，一个新兴的研究领域，正在成为一个实质性的学派（Hills, Hultman, & Miles, 2008; Kraus, Filser, Eggers, Hills, & Hultman, 2012）。

尽管这项研究关注的是网络和他们的价值创造潜力，前期研究和理论发展成这种网络的性质或类型，他们在市场营销中的作用与具体的价值创造机会是有限的。这样的研究往往集中于一个特定类型的网络中，如供应链关系(例如Lambert & Cooper, 2000; Lamprinopoulou & Tregear, 2011)，创业和中小企业网络(Gilmore, 2011; Shaw, 2006)，创新网络(Lipparini & Sobrero, 1994; von Hippel, 2007)。只有Malaska、Saraniemi Tahtinen(2011)专门识别存在于网络中的不同类型的业务关系，在企业对企业的电子商务模式的背景下中小企业品牌。此外，许多对网络的研究重点是结构性维度(如网络链接、大小、密度、稳定性、多样性)，或关系维度(如信任、承诺和合作)。关于网络的价值，网络作为“价值星丛”的概念尤其有益(Bjerke & Hultman，2002)。几项研究表明，在创业企业与中小企业的营销过程中，网络创造机会的价值已得到认可(Carson，Gilmore & Rocks,，2004；O’Reilly & Haines，2004；Rocks，Gilmore & Carson，2005；Westerlund & Svahn，2008)，但是，还有相当大的空间去对企业网络营销方法和具体价值创造进行下一步研究。

本文试图对企业的电子商务模式营销理论和创业营销理论做出相关探讨，具体来说，通过对两个国家的对比研究（英国和美国），对软件技术中小企业及其