Accessing the influence of strategic marketing research on generating impact: moderating roles of models, journals, and estimation approaches

Abstract

Although the literature debates the sophistication and contributions of statistical/econometric models to strategic findings, there is a lack of understanding of how different model types contribute to the impact of strategic marketing research. We collected data from 485 studies published in top-tier marketing journals over the last 50 years to assess the influence of core strategy areas, and the moderating roles of models, journals, and estimation approaches on the impact of strategic marketing research, measured in terms of citations of the articles. Using descriptive and regression analyses, we find that strategy research focusing on the “customer” and “other areas” had a relatively greater impact, whereas “sales” had a relatively lesser impact on citations than the “4Ps strategy area.” Linear regression, multivariate analysis, and structural equation models had a significantly higher impact on citations than other models. We also find that linear models and SEM positively and analytical models negatively moderate the relationship between strategy research focusing on “customer” and citations. Further, linear, analytical models and multivariate analyses negatively moderate the relationship between “sales” and citations. While strategy-focused journals positively moderate the relationship between strategic research focusing on “other area” and citations, it has a negative impact on the relationship between strategic research focusing on “sales” and citations. Relationship between strategy research focusing on “customer” and “other areas” and citations respectively is positively moderated by the estimation approach. Our study provides a perspective to the “rigor vs. relevance” debate in strategic marketing research.