Academic articles in marketing can be very instructive, occasionally eye-opening, on various issues and topics; one can learn from them about theory, research methodology and models, and the findings and conclusions reached from their analyses. Yet, it would not be presumptuous to say that managers do not rush to search for, read and consult with academic articles. Many articles can surely be time consuming to read attentively, and sometimes are also complicated (e.g., with mathematical modelling and statistics). But more concerning, the articles of academic researchers are often regarded as being detached from the problems, situations, and actions that matter to managers in marketing practice — there seems to be a disconnect between the teaching of the articles and the marketing reality. Nevertheless, many academics are not blind to this concern, and are quite bothered that managers do not read and benefit more from their work and the knowledge they aim to disseminate.
Valarie Zeithaml with a team of her colleagues (Jaworski, Kohli, Tuli, Ulaga, & Zaltman, 2020 [1]) diligently discuss the discord found between theory developed in marketing and the marketing reality on the ground. A key problem they identify is that too frequently the foundation of theory in marketing is adopted from other disciplines (e.g., economics, psychology), and then adapted or fitted to a marketing context. That is, the ideas and concepts are not original enough for marketing, as if they were not conceived with a marketing mindset. Zeithaml et al. propose to follow an approach of theories-in-use for building marketing theory that is genuinely conceived, developed and distinctive for the discipline of marketing. Foremost, the approach is reliant on listening to managers, and in consumer marketing in particular, listening also to consumers — getting their point-of-view, discussing with them their conceptions, experiences, and insights. The authors describe in their article the process of building a theory by using the theories-in-use approach according to specific guidelines.
As explained by Zeithaml et al., the term Theories-in-Use (TIU) pertains to “individuals’ mental models of the world that guide their deliberate behavior” (originally conceived by Argyris and Schon in 1974). Specifically, these mental models relate to how things in the world actually work and happen. The mental models of TIU are distinguished from those of espoused theories which “individuals claim or purport to have”. Oftentimes the models of espoused theories suggest how things should better work or how the individuals are supposed to behave. The TIU are those according to which individuals practically act, not how they might act.
- Among managers, for example, an espoused theory on pricing may suggest that they study the value of a product to consumers (i.e., based on its benefits) and set a price to reflect that value (e.g., via consumers’ willingness-to-pay). The TIU for pricing could entail different approaches, that might be simpler and easier to implement, such as cost-based techniques, market-driven (i.e., aligned with the prices of competitors), or reliant just on experience and intuition for setting a price.
- Among consumers, for example, an espoused theory on protecting the environment may suggest that they dispose of waste in ways that help to destroy it without damaging the environment or recycling and reusing its materials (they may also reuse themselves some items at home, like jars and plastic food boxes). Yet, the mental models comprising TIU could imply that consumers do what saves them time and is easier to do (e.g., not separate waste by materials), possibly in believing that their contribution is so marginal.
It is proposed that building a theory should rest on theories-in-use, reflecting what is more realistic rather than supposedly ideal. Zeithaml and colleagues add to their case presentation the term grounded theory in the sense that “it is created from observations and data pertaining to a phenomenon on the ground”. Next to TIU, other approaches to building a grounded theory are case studies and ethnographic studies.
The research needed for building a theory in the TIU approach is a multi-phase process. Discussions for collecting data are conducted in in-depth interviews and focus groups. The participants may be managers, consumers, and even talking with both of them in parallel. Exposing the TIU of individuals can be ‘tricky’, not straightforward, because their mental models could be tacit (sub-conscious) and they are unable to articulate them, but also because individuals might be reluctant to reveal the TIU as part of a defensive reasoning (e.g., an espoused theory sounds better). Zeithaml et al. emphasise that the attitude to the TIU process of building the marketing theory should be as of a “partnership that allows for the cocreation of a theory”; the TIU approach is said to be unique in that respect. (Note: More examples are given of theories based on studies of managers’ TIU {11} than of consumers’ TIU {2}.)
- In example, Zeithaml applied a TIU approach to develop a theory on consumer perceptions of quality, price and value (1988). At its core is a model of means-end chain of value, relating between constructs of perceived product quality, price (and other costs), and perceived value. Perceived value is conceived as the difference (or ratio) between perceived quality and perceived costs (though monetary price is the most often used construct). The concepts presented in this theory seem well embedded, native in the domain of pricing and value in marketing, even when influenced by psychology and economics; her article is essential reading in this area [2].
The research and development process of the theory includes three stages: construct development (definition); developing what-if propositions on relations of the construct with antecedents and consequences; development of arguments for explaining, reasoning or justifying the propositions. Qualifications could be added to the what-if propositions (e.g., except for X, what happens if P does not hold). The process may elicit mediators of relations and moderators of their strength. In-depth person-to-person interviews, performed as conversations, are based on probing in different phases of the process. In different stages, or even within the same stage, researchers may turn to additional new participants or return to previous ones (e.g., asking for feedback on a definition or proposition configured following discussions with several participants).
Importantly, the development process is not meant to focus on TIU of a single individual but by combining the input on TIU of several individuals. Furthermore, a researcher is expected to assess the responses elicited from participants, cross-examine them, and integrate them into formal well-articulated constructs, propositions or arguments. Researchers can achieve these outcomes by generating consensus maps of the concepts agreed or shared by several participants, managers or consumers.
- In Gerald Zaltman’s methodology of Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET), inputs from consumers (e.g., thoughts, associations & metaphors, feelings, ideas), elicited with the help of visual images, are assessed and integrated into consensus maps among consumers (i.e., consumer-based ‘mind of the market’). Nevertheless, Zaltman proposed that a more complete portrayal of the mind of the market needs to consider the inner (mental) worlds of both consumers and managers (represented as two pyramids with conscious and unconscious processes ‘flowing’ between them). One has to acknowledge the interactions between them, compare their conscious and unconscious notions, and address the interplay and gaps between them. [3]
As suggested above, mental models may pertain to how things actually work or to how things should work to the better. Managers, for instance, often base their espoused theories on mental models that describe how things should better work. Consumers, on their part, are likely to have mental models that relate to how things do work (i.e., how things are perceived and experienced) and mental models that describe how they believe things should work (i.e., what is expected). The theories-in-use that guide their actual behaviour could arise from the gap between their perceptions and experiences of how things work and their expectations of how they wanted them to work. For example, consumers may respond and take action according to a gap between what they experience in an interaction with a company (e.g., obstacles in a phone call, online self-service, or combined) and how they expect such an interaction to work more helpfully. Researchers Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry updated their theory on measuring the quality of service (SERVQUAL) by conducting an additional TIU study that incorporated expectations.
In order for the exchange with participants on their TIU to be informative and productive, Zeithaml et al. stress that the participants (practitioners as well as consumers) need to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic studied, the issues and questions discussed, and of course willing to share their knowledge and experience on these matters. With respect to consumers, research could benefit from talking with the more highly knowledgeable consumers (‘experts’) on a topic or domain, but also consumers with medium level of knowledge. The consumer ‘experts’ might try to impress by perfecting their answers, advising more than telling. The moderately knowledgeable consumers could be more natural, providing more authentic answers, and yet have sufficient knowledge and experience to contribute meaningful and helpful insights.
There are other approaches of thought and research to developing theory that have made important contributions to marketing theory. However, they tend to lack the kind of connectedness and relevance that a theories-in-use approach can provide. Zeithaml and her colleagues argue that the discipline of marketing is at cross-roads. If theory is not built more often on ideas and concepts based in the field of marketing, the discipline could reach a deadlock (e.g., in irrelevance). They call for the creation of theory that is organic within the marketing discipline.
There is much to gain from learning and being inspired by other disciplines, and researchers are encouraged to do so; the question is how they utilise that knowledge to build theory in marketing. The goal should be to develop marketing-driven ideas, not just imported concepts adapted or applied to a marketing context. Consumer behaviour, for instance, is largely based on integration between concepts and models in economics and psychology, but in order to be applicable to marketing on its multiple facets the theory has to include concepts, models and tools originally developed for marketing. Likewise, concepts (e.g., ‘effects’) adopted from behavioural economics should not be just applied to marketing contexts but be more originally and deeply integrated into marketing issues and practices.
Zeithaml and her colleagues advance a strategy for building marketing theory, informed by studies of theories-in-use of managers and consumers. It opens a positive course for new marketing-native theories that will hopefully be more innovative, realistic and relevant, close to the ground of marketing practice. Different stakeholders can be expected to benefit, including practitioners (managers and professionals), consumers, and public policy makers. Unlike the early periods of marketing (1920s-1960s), marketing is already a more mature and rich discipline, that embodies a large pool of knowledge for researchers to capitalise on for updating and developing new theories, from literature yet also at the marketplace.
Notes:
[1] A Theories-in-Use Approach to Building Marketing Theory; Valarie A. Zeithaml, Bernard J. Jaworski, Ajai K. Kohli, Kapil R. Tuli, Wolfgang Ulaga, & Gerald Zaltman, 2020; Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), pp. 32-51 (available at ResearchGate.net).
[2] Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence; Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), pp. 2-22.
[3] How Customers Think: Essential Insights into The Mind of the Market; Gerald Zaltman, 2003; Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.