This article was downloaded by: [Oklahoma State University]

On: 20 December 2014, At: 20:02

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Small Business &

Entrepreneurship
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsbe20

Academic Roots: The Past and Present

of Entrepreneurial Marketing
a b
Gerald E. Hills & Claes M. Hultman
a
Bradley University , Peoria , Illinois
b
Swedish Business School, Orebro University , Orebro , Sweden
Published online: 19 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Gerald E. Hills & Claes M. Hultman (2011) Academic Roots: The Past and
Present of Entrepreneurial Marketing, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 24:1, 1-10,
DOI: 10.1080/08276331.2011.10593521

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2011.10593521

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 Academic Roots: The Past and Present of
Entrepreneurial Marketing
Gerald E. Hills, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

Claes M. Hultman, Swedish Business School, Orebro University, Orebro,

Sweden
Abstract. Research in entrepreneurial marketing is about 30 years old. During this period research has followed
many trajectories. Two important but divergent routes are small business marketing and entrepreneurial marketing,
mirroring the discourse of small businesses versus entrepreneurial firms. Today, small business marketing and
entrepreneurial marketing are regarded as separate—but related—research fields. Entrepreneurial marketing
research has been very open-minded towards different approaches in methodology, especially compared to research
within mainstream marketing in the US. During this rather long period of time, advances in other disciplines have
been beneficial for our own research. One such example is the development of effectuation theory allowing us to
understand entrepreneurial decision-making and, consequently, important aspects of entrepreneurial marketing
behaviour. Many of the research questions regarded as important by scholars in a panel in 1986—when interest in
marketing and entrepreneurship was evolving—are still regarded as important (e.g. new venture growth). Other
issues have lost their relevance. But, overall, many important questions still are waiting for an answer and the
whole field of entrepreneurial marketing offers tremendous research opportunities.

Résumé. Le marketing entrepreneurial fait l’objet de recherches depuis environ 30 ans. Au cours de cette
période, diverses avenues de recherche dans le domaine ont fait l’objet d’études. Deux avenues importantes,
mais divergentes sont le marketing chez les petites et les grandes entreprises, qui sont des exemples types des
différences qui existent entre les petites et les grandes entreprises. Aujourd’hui, le marketing chez les petites
entreprises et le marketing chez les grandes entreprises sont considérés comme étant deux champs de recherche
distincts, quoiqu’apparentés. La recherche en marketing entrepreneurial a été jusqu’à ce jour très ouverte à
diverses approches méthodologiques, surtout comparées à la recherche en marketing en général aux États-Unis.
Au cours de cette assez longue période, les avancées dans certaines autres disciplines furent bénéfiques pour la
recherche en marketing entrepreneurial. Un tel exemple est celui de l’élaboration de la théorie de l’effectuation qui
nous a permis de comprendre la prise de décisions chez les entreprises et, par conséquent, des aspects importants
du comportement de marketing chez les entreprises. Plusieurs des questions qui étaient considérées comme
importantes par un panel d’universitaires en 1986, une période pendant laquelle le marketing et l’entrepreneuriat
étaient en évolution, le sont encore aujourd’hui (p. ex. la croissance des nouvelles entreprises). Par contre, d’autres
sujets n’ont plus la cote auprès des universitaires, mais en général, plusieurs questions sont toujours en attente
d’une réponse et le domaine de recherche qu’est le marketing entrepreneurial offre des opportunités de recherches
extraordinaires.

The Growing Importance of Entrepreneurial Marketing

The importance of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are widely recognized. The
entrepreneur has become a hero in recessionary times. And the ability to operate, and often
also to grow, a business in a challenging business environment is important for society.
So there is a need for scholarly studies of entrepreneurship and its intersections with other
academic disciplines, such as marketing.
The basic idea of linking Marketing and Entrepreneurship has been discussed for many
years. Early authors linking the two fields together were, for example, Murray (1981) and

Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 24.1: pp. 1–10  1

 2  hills and hultman

Tyebjee et al. (1983). In the 90s, both education at various university levels and published
research in entrepreneurial marketing (EM) grew significantly. We find more courses,
conferences and symposia organized than ever before (Hills et al., 2010). Particularly
satisfying is that the number of Ph.D. candidates and new dissertations in the field are
increasing. This is very promising for future expansion and we expect an increasing number
of young scholars disseminating new knowledge.
Today it is a Scattered Research Field
As in other emerging academic research fields, we can expect multi-direction development
processes. Looking at EM in the past and its long journey, it is not surprising to find the
present scholarly knowledge rather scattered. EM is not yet a well-defined area of research
and, in fact, we are continuing to define both the concept of EM and the research domain.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

The lowest common denominator is the study object, the entrepreneur, and EM is
directly linked to marketing as practiced by entrepreneurs (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Entrepreneurial Marketing is the Result of Entrepreneurial Interpretation of Information,

Decision-making and Marketing Actions

Entrepreneurial decision-making

• Proactive Observable
• Growth oriented Entrepreneurial
The Business
• Risk-taking Propensity Marketing
Environment
• Innovative Outcome
• Opportunity oriented

Interpretation Actions taken

This is an important demarcation in contrast to mainstream marketing, which can be

regarded as marketing practised by managers. The differences in business behaviours
between entrepreneurs and managers are well documented in the literature; see for example
Schultz and Hofer (1999) and Bjerke and Hultman (2002). It is reasonable to expect that
marketing thinking and behaviour is different in accordance. And here we find a theoretical
foundation and rationale for the development of EM.
But not even the concept of an entrepreneur is clearly defined. Over the past 30 years
entrepreneurs have been used both for the traditional small business owner and as for the
high growth, high-tech entrepreneur. Within the evolution of EM this discrepancy has been
reflected in a conceptual separation between small business marketing and entrepreneurial
marketing as related, but dissimilar research fields, reflecting the differences in behaviour
between a small business owner, running his or her business as a basic operation, in contrast
to the behaviour of the innovative entrepreneur who continuously strives for growth.
The scattered state of the present EM research may be a weakness but it also opens
tremendous opportunities for integrative research. In our opinion, EM is in a very exciting
stage of development and we can expect a fruitful future with more conceptual and
integrative research.
 academic roots: the past and present of entrepreneurial marketing  3

The Definitions of EM
Definitions of EM and its interface reflect entrepreneurial behaviour. Concepts such as
change, innovations and opportunities are typically present. One example is an early
definition of the interface (Gardner, 1994: 37):
… the interface of entrepreneurial behaviour and marketing is that where
innovation is brought to market. […] Marketing’s role in innovation, then, is to
provide the concepts, tools, and infrastructure to close the gap between innovation
and market positioning to achieve sustainable competitive advantages.
As the interface has evolved, we have regarded EM to represent something more complex
than just supply concepts and tools to position and create sustainable competitive advantage
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

for new innovations. We have chosen to regard EM as a complex process as well as an

orientation for how entrepreneurs behave at the marketplace (Hills et al., 2010: 7):
EM is a spirit, an orientation as well as a process of passionately pursuing
opportunities and launching and growing ventures that create perceived customer
value through relationships by employing innovativeness, creativity, selling,
market immersion, networking and flexibility.

EM’s Relation to Mainstream Marketing: Converging or Diverging?

Related to a paradigm discussion is the question of EM’s relationship to one of its parents—
the marketing discipline. U.S. mainstream marketing has dominated both education
and research in the discipline for several decades. Therefore, it is of special interest to
analyse EM’s relation to the definition of marketing provided by the American Marketing
Association (AMA). For many years, the AMA did not change their definition, but revisions
were made in 1935, 1982 and 2004, and the latest modification came in 2007.
As we can see in Table 1, the definition of marketing has evolved from being focused on
performing business activities (1935) to focus on activities, institutions and processes for
value-creating offerings. At the time of the first Marketing and Entrepreneurship Symposium
in 1982, mainstream marketing, as defined by the AMA in 1981, was very different from
discussions of EM. However, the gap has been reduced by the way the AMA changed
the definition in 2004 and in 2007. Most entrepreneurs focus intensely on how to create,
communicate and deliver value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.

Table 1. American Marketing Association’s Definitions of Marketing

1935
“…the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producers to
consumers.”
1981
Marketing is the process of planning and executing the conception of ideas, goods and services to create
exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.
2004
Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering
value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its
stakeholders.
2007
Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and
exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
 4  hills and hultman

Today we regard EM as research that supplements the established mainstream marketing

theories, but focusing on marketing as performed by entrepreneurs. It is not a question
of challenging the dominating perspectives of marketing. However, it is a question of
supplementing existing marketing theory with knowledge about marketing as performed
by entrepreneurs. As entrepreneurs become increasingly important in the world economy
we can expect EM to play a more prominent role in marketing theory. Such evolution may
well lead to greater convergence between EM and mainstream marketing.
EM is to Effectuate
In the last decade, in the development of effectuation theory, Sarasvathy (2001: 245) has
offered important understanding of how EM differs from mainstream marketing. Effectuation
processes, as implemented by entrepreneurs, may help to explain the uniqueness of EM
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

as compared to traditional mainstream marketing. She contrasts effectuation processes to

causation processes:
Causation processes take a particular effect as a given and focus on selecting
between means to create the effect. Effectuation processes take a set of means as
given and focus on selecting between possible effects that can be created with that
set of means.
Sarasvathy (2001) cites Kotler’s classic textbook, Marketing Management, as an example
of causation processes, where the market is assumed to exist, classic market research
methods are engaged, and marketing strategies and programs are developed with attention
to segmentation, targeting and positioning. Sarasvathy (2001: 245) contrasts this approach
to the use of effectuation processes to start a new restaurant:
… (the entrepreneur) would have to proceed in the opposite direction […] instead
of starting with the assumption of an existing market and investing money and
other resources to design the best possible restaurant for the given market, she
would begin by examining the particular set of means or causes available to her.
With limited resources of only $20,000, she thinks creatively about convincing an
established restaurateur to become a strategic partner or using other approaches that allow
the entrepreneur to create one of several possible effects irrespective of the generalized end
goal with which she started. Effectuation processes allow a decision maker to change his
or her goals and even to shape and construct them over time, making use of contingencies
as they arise. The logic of effectuation processes is: to the extent that we can control the
future, we do not need to predict it. The traditional logic of causation processes is: to the
extent that we can predict the future, we can control it. The set of means encompasses who
I am, what I know and whom I know. EM, including generating novel and useful ideas for
business ventures, is a creative process.
Applying this theme to strategic management, it was concluded by Sarasvathy (2001)
that the traditional view of attaining ends (e.g. profit, market share) must be complemented
with entrepreneurship, the achievement of beginnings, and the creation of products, firms
and markets. The same observation may be made about the nature of EM. Although it is
not possible to do justice to her theoretical contribution in so few words, herein, we call on
scholars to weigh her insights as we further develop EM.
 academic roots: the past and present of entrepreneurial marketing  5

Pluralistic View of Methodology

It is interesting how pluralistic EM researchers have been regarding legitimate methodologies
in research for the past 30 years. Especially within the academic North American
mainstream, marketing as a positivistic, quantitative approach has been dominant. Yet
within the field of EM, regardless of geographical and cultural origin, researchers seem to
be open to accepting and applying different methodological approaches, such as qualitative
case studies, interpretive studies, grounded-theory research, etc. This can be observed in
proceedings from EM symposia. Some of the later examples of such proceedings are Würth
and Gaul (2007); Hills et al. (2008); and Kocak et al. (2009).
Past and Current Research Opportunities
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

The history of scholarly academic work regarding marketing and entrepreneurship was
recently reviewed for the past quarter century by Hills, Hultman and Miles (2008). What
has not been done, however, is to compare the perceived importance of specific marketing/
entrepreneurship (M/E) research issues by leading scholars at an early stage, in 1986,
as compared to today. During that early period, there were three discussion oriented
research workshops held with invited participating scholars. These meetings were held in
conjunction with the annual conferences of the International Council for Small Business,
the U.S. Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and the American Marketing
Association. These closely preceded the first Research Symposium on Marketing and
Entrepreneurship. As noted in the first conference proceedings (that came to be called the
“blue books”), the objective was to engage in brainstorming and discussion to identify
critical knowledge voids and to attach research priorities.
If a theory is a systematically related set of statements, including some law-like
generalizations—that are empirically testable—then the starting point is to work toward
that so-called set of statements (Hunt 1976: 3). This was the objective of the symposium—
to initiate this process. We inevitably adopted what Zaltman called the “theories in use”
approach, an inductive process that, in this case, assumed that the current practices of
successful entrepreneurs provided an appropriate source for identifying researchable
propositions (Zaltman, LeMasters and Heffring, 1982: 113-138). Still today, we need
concepts at the M/E interface, the building blocks of theory, and also taxonomies if we are
to progress. There was also a call for longitudinal studies, to better understand the process
of new venture creation and growth.
So, 21 invited panelists in the workshops first offered their high-priority research
issues, and then there was an exchange of ideas for a total of 10 hours in the three meetings.
Additional participants were added who were well known to be knowledgeable in this
research realm. Based on tape recordings and notes, the research questions shown in Table
2 were listed and rated on a 10-point importance scale from 1 (most important) to 10 (least
important).
In 2010, for comparative purposes, peers identified the current leading scholars, a
questionnaire using the research questions from nearly a quarter century ago was developed,
and the leading researchers were emailed the questionnaire to obtain their ratings, again on
a 10-point scale. This survey of expert opinion resulted in 20 respondents.
Using “5” as the midpoint on a 10-point scale as our measure of “importance,” we can
then draw implications. In the case of the t1 (1986) means, all of the research questions
were viewed as “important.” Currently (t2), however, 20 of the original 28 research
questions were considered to be important (≤5.00). There were nine questions reported in
 6  hills and hultman

Table 2. Past (t1) and Present (t2) Research Opportunity Importance in the Field of Entrepreneurial
Marketing: Most Important (1) to Least Important (10) in t2
Rank Standard
Comparable
Research Question Order (t2 Deviation
t1 Means
Means) (t2)
To what extent is firm growth a function of market limitations (such as size and window of
3.55 2.34 4.00
opportunity) as opposed to owner propensity for growth?
How can market research techniques be better developed and used to identify market
3.64 2.75 3.15
opportunities?
What conditions dictate a departure from a planned marketing strategy? 3.73 2.66 4.65
Is niche marketing more linked to entrepreneurial success than the pursuit of larger, broader
3.84 2.22 3.96
markets?
How does the marketing function within the organization develop over time and with firm gro
4.00 2.94
wth?
When does a firm grow to a size at which it is “out of touch” with its markets and needs formal
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

4.09 2.64 3.79

market research?
Should marketing strategies be more flexible under high conditions of uncertainty? 4.18 2.59 4.41
Are there more market-related venture failures than technology/product based failures? 4.36 2.44 3.54
Is there a parallel between the creativity process and the marketing process? 4.36 2.40 4.05
Is the interpersonal, leadership role of the owner/entrepreneur critical to implementing
4.41 2.92 4.10
marketing strategy?
How is the promotion function different for a new enterprise with no image or market presence? 4.41 2.87
How is the appropriate marketing strategy different when no customer loyalty exists at start up? 4.45 2.82 4.72
Should marketing studies for new firms be more qualitative vs. quantitative as compared to
4.52 3.01 4.67
mature firms?
Can marketing curricula content in universities be characterized as non-entrepreneurial? 4.62 2.56
Is a non-price based strategy better for new/small firms than for larger, mature firms (with more
4.64 2.74 3.53
resources)?
Is there less professional marketing infrastructure for entrepreneurs (vs. accounting, legal) and
4.68 2.34 4.09
if so, why?
Can new, unique products be priced so as to enhance the perceived value? 4.81 2.54 4.74
Do new businesses face greater uncertainty and less data availability than mature firms? 4.82 2.65 4.70
Is there an inverse relationship in ventures between technology sophistication and marketing
4.86 2.77 4.23
sophistication?
What differences exist between early life cycle businesses and small firms? 4.89 2.83 4.43
Is marketing decision making more often a solo process in new firms vs. that within mature
4.91 2.62 4.90
firms?
Do entrepreneurs make intuitively vs. scientifically-based marketing decisions (and rely less on
4.91 2.93 3.60
a corporate-type planning process?
To reach cash break even, do firms use a combination of marketing strategies to shorten the
4.91 2.31 4.23
process?
Are certain types of product/markets better for starting new ventures? 4.91 2.47
Do business-to-business relationships often lead to cooperation on new product/service
4.95 3.23
development?
Can a roll out strategy and market test reduce new venture risks? 5.05 2.48 4.83
What methodologies can best enable us to screen new business vs. new product market
5.14 2.57 3.31
feasibility?
Do entrepreneurs avoid marketing research due to their blind faith in their idea/product? 5.27 2.88 3.76
Is access limited to high quality sales people in new independent ventures? 5.27 2.62
Is a made-to-order or custom vs. a commodity strategy better for small/new firms? 5.36 2.30 4.54
Are competitive market position and margins more important to new firm success than the
5.36 2.74 4.26
management team?
Do entrepreneurs typically underbudget for and underestimate the requirements for marketing
5.41 2.61
their products?
Are innovative new products faced with great uncertainty, due in part to the absence of market
5.45 2.50 4.30
information?
Do most venture business plans substantially overstate the amount and the timing of demand? 5.45 2.82
What role does luck play in market opportunity identification and market strategy success? 5.59 2.74 4.57
Do new ventures have difficulty in obtaining good quality distribution arrangements? 5.77 2.84
Is marketing strategy success in new ventures typically contingency (or situation) based? 6.05 2.65 4.04
 academic roots: the past and present of entrepreneurial marketing  7

the historical study for which there were no t1 means in Table 2, however, and five of these
were “important” currently (t2 ≤ 5.00). Including these research questions results in 25
of the t2 research question means being “important,” certainly confirming that numerous
research opportunities remain at the M/E interface as perceived by leaders in the field. This,
of course, does not include many other opportunities not identified long ago at t1.
Why are half of the research questions in time period 1 no longer viewed as important?
Hopefully, this is partly explained by the new knowledge that has been generated in the
past two decades, thereby offsetting the void that existed! Respondents in this survey were
also asked to indicate research questions where there has been “significant” progress in
addressing these questions. Several respondents did not reply to that request, but some
indicated that progress had indeed been made regarding a number of research topics. So,
indeed, several questions may be less important today because of progress due to research.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

It may also be that some expert respondents are more confident in their replies due to
learning that has taken place over time. This could be contributing to higher standard
deviations today and more “unimportant” means.
Let us now examine the 10 most important research questions shown in Table 2. Looking
to the lower means (and highest importance) currently, the question regarding new venture
growth is revealing. What curtails growth in new ventures: lack of owner/entrepreneur
propensity or such market limitations as size and the window of opportunity? This factor
may be the most important influence affecting firm growth. Also, the inadequacy of market
research techniques for identifying market opportunities is increasingly noted. Opportunity
recognition is a market- and marketing-focused process and yet the mainstream marketing
discipline has largely ignored the need for new knowledge in this area. Instead, the focus is
only on evaluation after the initial identification of the business idea.
The research question in Table 2 regarding a “departure from a planned marketing
strategy” is also striking, given our knowledge today of the vast number of business plans
that are modified or aborted early on in response to market forces.
Another highly rated research opportunity concerns niche marketing. Despite the
temptation to assume this is most appropriate, there are clearly numerous exceptions.
Why? Is this an evolutionary issue that must be considered at various stages of growth,
for example? This leads us to a similar but broader question regarding the entire marketing
function within the organization. To what extent does marketing change over time and with
respect to firm growth?
Also concerning market research, the research question that addresses the stage of
organizational growth as it pertains to being “out of touch” with its markets is revealing. At
what stage does the entrepreneur begin to need formal market research to replace the loss
of day-to-day market immersion?
The seventh-ranked question again concerns the issue of flexibility of marketing
strategies under uncertainty. There is also a specific focus on not only failures in general,
but market-related failures (vs., for example, technology). Also of considerable importance
is the relationship between the creativity process and the marketing process. A related
manuscript recently presented a creativity model of the opportunity recognition process
and there is a significant conceptual parallel. Also, tied for the top 10 in current importance,
the leadership role of the entrepreneur is equal in importance to the promotion function
when no image or market presence exists.
It may be seen in Table 2 that the remaining “important” research questions (≤ 5.00)
refer to several uniquenesses of new firms that seemingly demand differences in marketing.
For example, there is attention to no customer loyalty, a need for more qualitative research
 8  hills and hultman

into market feasibility, less marketing professional infrastructure, solo leadership start-ups,
technology and other types of product markets, intuitive decision making by entrepreneurs,
early life cycle uniquenesses, as well as smaller firm size, pricing flexibility and the unique
pressure to generate cash flow. Marketing educators are also challenged to determine if
their curricula are non-entrepreneurial!
The “unimportant” (≥ 5.00) items currently are shown in Table 2, because in studying
the response distributions, nearly all questions resulted in skewed distributions supporting
the importance of the items as seen by at least some of our expert respondents. Also, with
certain questions, it appears that the expert respondents no longer debate existing support,
so there is less importance attributed as a research question.
Finally, as shown in Table 3, the changes in mean importance between t1 and t2 are
rank ordered, with all but one of the changes representing a shift to being less important as
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

compared to more than two decades ago. Beginning with the largest change with a mean of
2.01 (on the 10-point scale) is attention to contingency/situation-based marketing strategy,
feasibility methodologies and avoiding formal market research. Several other research
questions dropped in importance as well, confirming the discussion just concluded. If there
is less than a .5 difference in the means of t1 and t2, they are not listed in Table 3. Using this
decision guideline, the one item of higher importance concerned the conditions dictating “a
departure from planned marketing strategy.”

Table 3. Historical Changes in Research Question Importance (means t2 minus t1) Largest to Least
Change in Mean Importance
Difference
Research Question
(t2 minus t1)
Is marketing strategy success in new ventures typically contingency (or situation) based? 2.01
What methodologies can best enable us to screen new business vs. new product market
1.83
feasibility?
Do entrepreneurs avoid marketing research due to their blind faith in their idea/product? 1.51
Do entrepreneurs make intuitively vs. scientifically based marketing decisions (and rely less
1.31
on a corporate-type planning process?
Are innovative new products faced with great uncertainty, due in part to the absence of
1.15
market information?
Is a non-price based strategy better for new/small firms than for larger, mature firms (with
1.11
more resources)?
Are competitive market position and margins more important to new firm success than the
1.10
management team?
What role does luck play in market opportunity identification and market strategy success? 1.02

Is a made-to-order or custom vs. a commodity strategy better for small/new firms? 0.82

Are there more market-related venture failures than technology/product-based failures? 0.82
To reach cash break even, do firms use a combination of marketing strategies to shorten the
0.68
process?
Is there an inverse relationship in ventures between technology sophistication and marketing
0.63
sophistication?
Is there less professional marketing infrastructure for entrepreneurs (vs. accounting, legal)
0.59
and if so, why?
What conditions dictate a departure from a planned marketing strategy? -0.92
 academic roots: the past and present of entrepreneurial marketing  9

To conclude, despite the differences, it should be noted that if we were to define

“important” to be 6.0 on a 10-point scale, rather than 5.0, only one questionnaire item
in Table 2 would be unimportant. This bodes well for the array of important research
opportunities going forward. And going beyond this historical analysis, there are numerous
new current research opportunities with a significant theoretical base that are not addressed
here.
Conclusion
Looking at the rich research that has evolved for the last 30 years, and with the worldwide
recognition of the importance of entrepreneurs, EM research can be expected to grow
substantially in importance. As can be expected, research questions vary over time and
some seem to be valid for a long period. The theoretical foundations for EM need to be
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014

better clarified, and we need more empirical observations to reveal the complexity of EM
behaviour. However, each conference and each special issue of established international
journals dedicated to EM are important supplements to the already existing outlets for our
joint research efforts.
Acknowledgements
The following experts contributed their research importance ratings to this study: Nicole
Coviello, Jenny Darroch, Jonathan Deacon, Fabian Eggers, Joseph Giglierano, Kenneth
Grant, David Hansen, Gerald Hills, Claes Hultman, Chicery Kasouf, Sascha Kraus,
Morgan Miles, Michael Morris, Sussie Morrish, Gina O’Connor, Minet Schindehutte,
Robert Schwartz, Stanley Stasch, Richard Teach, and Can Uslay.
Contact Information
For further information on this article, contact:

Gerald E. Hills, Turner Endowed Chair and Professor of Entrepreneurship, Bradley University, 1501
West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625
E-mail: [email protected]

Claes M. Hultman, Professor of Business Administration, Swedish Business School, Orebro

University, SE-701 82 OREBRO, Sweden
Phone: +46-19303522
Fax: +46-19332546
E-mail: [email protected]

References
Bjerke, B., and C. Hultman. 2002. Entrepreneurial Marketing – The Growth of Small Firms in the New Economic
Era. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK.
Gardner, D. 1994. “Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface: A Conceptualization.” In G. Hills (ed.), Marketing
and Entrepreneurship: Research Ideas and Opportunities (pp. 35-54). Quorum Books: Westport, CN.
Hills, G., C. Hultman, S. Kraus, and R. Schulte. 2010. “History, Theory and Evidence of Entrepreneurial Marketing
– An Overview.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 11(1): 3-18.
Hills, G., C. Hultman, and M. Miles. 2008. “The Evolution and Development of Entrepreneurial Marketing.”
Journal of Small Business Management 46(1): 99-112
Hills, G., C. Hultman, J. Monllor, and L. Ofstein (eds.). 2008. Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship
Interface. UIC: Chicago.
Hunt, S.D. 1976. Marketing Theory: Conceptual Foundations of Research in Marketing. Grid, Inc.: Columbus,
OH.
 10  hills and hultman

Kocak, A., T. Abimbola, A. Özer, and L. Watkins-Mathys. 2009. Marketing and Entrepreneurship. Proceedings
from AUMEC 2009, Ankara, Turkey.
Murray, J. (1981) “Marketing is Home for the Entrepreneurial Process” in Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 10, 93-99.
Sarasvathy, S. 2001. “Causation and Effectuation. Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to
Entrepreneurial Contingency.” Academy of Management Review 26(2): 243-263.
Schultz III, W., and C.W. Hofer. 1999. Creating Value through Skill-based and Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Pergamon: Kidlington, Oxford, UK.
Tyebjee, T., A. Bruno, and S. McIntyre. 1983. “Growing Ventures Can Anticipate Marketing Stages.” Harvard
Business Review (January-February): 62-66.
Würth, R., and W. Gaul, W. (eds.). 2007 “Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface: Revisited and Future Directions.”
in The Entrepreneurship-Innovation-Marketing Interface: 2nd Symposium. Swiridoff Verlag: Künzelsau,
Germany.
Zaltman, G., K. LeMasters, and M. Heffring. 1982. Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughts on
Thinking. John Wiley and Sons: New York.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 20:02 20 December 2014