Entrepreneurial Marketing - Assignment Example

Entrepreneurial Marketing Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 QUESTION 3 Entrepreneurial Marketing Concept 3 Entrepreneurial Marketing: First Option Software 5 Market Segmentation 6 Marketing Planning Style 6 Marketing Mix 7 Recommendation 8 QUESTION 2 9 Entrepreneurial Marketing: Procter & Gamble (P&G) 10 Marketing Mix 12 Conclusion 13 Reference List 15 QUESTION 1 In the last 15 years, importance of the term “Entrepreneurial Marketing” (EM) has increased manifold among both small and medium sized enterprise (SMEs) and large organizations (Walsh and Lipinski, 2009). In general terms, importance of Entrepreneurial Marketing among SMEs and large organizations has increased due to three reasons which are, 1- low cost requirement for executing such type of marketing activities, 2- high degree of flexibility that can be achieved while designing entrepreneurial marketing mix and 3- predictability of future business success increases exponentially with adjustment of entrepreneurial marketing mix (Simpson and Taylor, 2002). Walsh and Lipinski (2009) pointed out that development of the Entrepreneurial Marketing concept has been marked by decade long research on marketing in small businesses and quest of researchers to find non-traditional way of marketing for small level firms. However, Entrepreneurial Marketing concept is still at the development phase and modern researchers are doing research on this topic in order to define marketing mix for the newly developed concept with the help of traditional marketing strategies. Reijonen (2010) pointed out that importance of EM is not only restricted to economic outcomes but the model is also important for understanding entrepreneurial mindset of individuals. Historically, while doing research on EM, researchers focused only on SMEs. However, Miles and Darroch (2004) argued that large companies can also achieve business success through integration of EM. According to Miles and Darroch (2004), due to resource capabilities, large firms can manage ill effects of EM in better manner in contrast to SMEs. Significant amount of controversy as well as confusion exists among scholars regarding appropriateness of EM between SMEs and large organization. In such context, the study will analyze functionality of concept of Entrepreneurial Marketing in case of both SMEs and large organizations. Entrepreneurial Marketing Concept According to Burger-Helmchen (2009), most of previous researchers loosely defined concept of EM and these researchers found it difficult to segregate components of EM from traditional marketing concepts. EM is being developed with the combination of two concepts like entrepreneurship and marketing. Each of these two concepts can be defined in different manners and definition of each term changes relatively with change in environmental dynamics. Therefore, researchers found it difficult to combine concept of entrepreneurship and marketing while providing definition for EM. From marketing research perspective, EM should be conceptualized in fragmented manner rather than analyzing the term in collective manner. Harms and Grichnik (2007) pointed out that literature regarding entrepreneurship is being characterized with “potpourri” of different theories and ambiguous terms. On the other hand, literature regarding marketing is being characterized with well defined concepts, empirical findings and rigorous research works of different scholars. Now the question is how a vaguely defined concept (entrepreneurship) can be combined with well-defined concept like marketing. In simple words, entrepreneurship can be regarded as strategic perspective of firms or individuals (Mintzberg, 1987). On the other hand, Keefe (2004, p. 17) defined marketing as “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”. Therefore, it can be said that marketing activities basically have a cultural orientation and it cannot be regarded as core organizational function (Zinkhan and Willams, 2007). It is evident from the definition that significant amount of difference exists between the concept of entrepreneurship and marketing. As a result, research on marketing in small businesses will not be sufficient to develop definition of EM. Researchers need to consider elements of entrepreneurship in order to develop holistic definition of EM. Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge (2002) highlighted the fact that small level entrepreneurs and SMEs do not have resource (both financial and non-financial) capabilities to execute marketing activities in professional and sophisticated manner. Due to resource constraints, these entrepreneurs and SMEs perform marketing activities unsophisticated and personal manner. Such unplanned and non-linear marketing activities of SMEs are being directed by vision and personal preference of entrepreneurs (Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge, 2002). Bäckbrö and Nyström (2006, p. 13) defined EM as “entrepreneurial marketing is the overlapping aspects between entrepreneurship and marketing; therefore it is the behaviour shown by any individual and/or organization that attempts to establish and promote market ideas, while developing new ones in order to create value.” It is evident from the definition that functionality EM depends heavily on behaviour of individuals or more specifically entrepreneurs. While in case of planned and sophisticated marketing, adjustment of marketing mix is being directed by strategic objective of the firm. Kraus, Harms and Fink (2009, p. 9) provided more robust definition of entrepreneurial marketing such as, “Entrepreneurial marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers.…….and that is characterized by innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and may be performed without resources currently controlled”. Degree of unconventional thinking and risk taking is pretty high in case of EM in comparison to traditional marketing activities. Kraus, Harms and Fink (2009) pointed out that concept of EM and realization of marketing mixes of EM are being directed by findings of research conducted by scholars on marketing of small level firms. Stokes (2000 and 2002) and Kraus, Harms and Fink (2009) stressed on the fact that context of EM is only important for small level firms and SMEs. However, Bäckbrö and Nyström (2006) showed doubt over the notion that only small level firms and SMEs can achieve business success through integration of EM. The study has found that most of the previous researchers associated EM with SMEs and small level entrepreneurs. In order to understand functionality of EM in small level firm, the study has selected SME Software Company named as ‘First Option Software’ located in Hampshire, UK (Bespoke Software, 2014). Entrepreneurial Marketing: First Option Software First Option Software is small level private company. Service portfolio of the company includes mobile application, Bespoke Software, website design and digital guide solution. Matt Clarke took entrepreneurship role while establishing First Option Software in the year 1999 (Bespoke Software, 2014). As of 2008, total employee base of the company was 12 and annual revenue of First Option Software was almost £375,000 (Parry, Jones, Rowley and Teahan, 2012). The company has employed a sales executive in order to handle marketing activities. As of 2011, the company serves business needs of more than 20 commercial customers belongs to different industry segments such as healthcare, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and others (Parry, Jones, Rowley and Teahan, 2012). Marketing activity of the company is mostly being planned by Matt Clarke who is founder as well as Managing Director of the company (Bespoke Software, 2014). First Option Software is being classified as SME Software Company in terms of employee strength and annual revenue (Ruokolainen and Makela, 2007). According to Ojasalo, Natti and Olkkonen (2008), in case of software industry, length of product cycle is short due to quick obsolescence of software product and continuous flow of product innovation. Therefore, software industry is not only fast moving but also highly competitive in nature. In order to penetrate in highly competitive software industry, start up software firms and SME software companies need to rely on marketing activities (Ruokolainen and Makela, 2007; Ojasalo, Natti and Olkkonen, 2008). Parry, Jones, Rowley and Teahan (2012) found that marketing practices in First Option Software is pretty unplanned and casual in nature and it differs significantly from traditional marketing practices. In such context, elements of Entrepreneurial Marketing for First Option Software can be briefed in the following manner. Market Segmentation Marketing professional in First Option Software believe that frequent and proactive communication with customers help the company to increase efficiency of service delivery. First Option Software does not follow proper market segmentation strategy rather they select target market on the basis of marketing activities of immediate competitors (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). On contrary, in case of traditional marketing practices, companies select target market from market segment filtered through variety of parameters such as business needs, income level, age group, family life cycle and many others. As part of Entrepreneurial Marketing, owner of First Option Software uses personal contacts and previous client referrals to get new customer leads. Due to absence of proper market segmentation strategy, First Option Software often wastes resources while targeting wrong customer segment (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). Marketing Planning Style In case of First Option Software, owner listens to suggestion of sales person and other organizational members while developing marketing plan. However, owner manager prefer to meet business customers personally and control outcome of marketing activities. Although, owner manager of the company has extensive knowledge of team management and technological aspect of software development but the person lacks the marketing expertise to develop a marketing plan. As a result, the company focuses more on developing innovative software products and state of art technological solutions while little importance is given on marketing aspect of the product (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). On contrary, in case of traditional marketing practices, equal importance is given on all the elements of marketing plan and the plan is being developed in order to help the companies to sell products/services. Marketing Mix First Option Software does not use proper market research techniques in order to develop marketing mix. Although, the company collects market information through customer feedbacks, internet research, networking, attending events but this information is not being stored in systematic manner through Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. As a result, First Option Software does not have proper customer database. On the other hand, in case of traditional marketing practices, companies use systematically collected market information through market research in order to make strategic decisions (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). As part of product mix, software engineers of First Option Software frequently communicate with customers in order to customize the end output. Similarly, in case of traditional marketing practices, software companies also frequently communicate with clients while developing product. While setting price of new products, First Option Software copy pricing of similar software solution of other players in the industry. The company does not have its own pricing policy. On contrary, in case of traditional marketing practices, companies take help of price analysts and finance department in order to set product price (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). As part of entrepreneurial marketing strategy, software product of First Option Software is being distributed through private contacts of owner and one to one meeting with clients. On contrary, in case of traditional marketing practices, software products are being distributed in organized manner with the help of commissioned sales executives and retail distributors. As part of promotional strategy, First Option Software publishes images of software products in IT magazines, uses telemarketing and social media advertises in order to communicate product offering to customers. Owner of First Option Software attends trade exhibitions and national events in order to communicate features and benefits of software products to audience and attendees. However, promotional activities for the company are being done in non systematic and voluntary manner. First Option Software does not follow marketing campaigning plan in order to communicate latest offering of the company to customers in periodic manner (Parry, Jones, Rowley, Teahan, 2012). On contrary, in case of traditional marketing practices, companies use systematically designed marketing campaigning plan in order to communicate product or service offering to maximum numbers of target customers in periodic manner. Recommendation Many gaps in Entrepreneurial Marketing strategy of First Option Software have been identified by the study. Marketing strategy of the SME software firm is vulnerable and unplanned in nature. The firm can use following recommendation in order to increase efficiency of its Entrepreneurial Marketing strategy. The firm should use low cost open source CRM system in order to prepare customer database. More than 5% of revenue should be allocated to marketing communication activities. All social media channels should be used by the SME software company in order to communicate offering to customers in low cost manner. Frequency of promotional activities should be increased by First Option Software in attract more customers. Systematic marketing planning technique based on market segmentation and customer profiling should be by the company in order to decrease resource wastage due to redundant marketing activities. QUESTION 2 According to Keefe (2004), in free and open markets, competitive advantage for both large and small firms depends on their ability to offer value proposition to customers in sustainable manner. Miles and Covin (2002) conceptualized that both large and small firms can harness entrepreneurship as medium for delivering value to customers. Using Bayesian probability rationale, it can be said that integrating spirit and value proposition of entrepreneurship can be used by large firms in order to retain their market leadership position. Miles and Covin (2002) even suggested that organizational leaders in large firms need to nourish entrepreneurship spirit in order to integrate innovation and opportunity seeking mentality in everyday operational activities. Darroch, Miles and Paul (2005) linked entrepreneurial marketing as tactical route map for large firms to achieve competitive advantage. For large firms, integration of entrepreneurial marketing provides four types of benefits such as, 1- achieving advantageous market position through introduction of innovative marketing mix, 2- developing organizational environment of innovation and knowledge sharing, 3- deploying marketing plan without wasting huge financial and non-financial resources and 4- dissipating positional advantage by balancing sudden environmental shifts (Darroch, Miles and Paul, 2005; Eggers, Hansen and Davis, 2012). Consideration of research works of Miles and Darroch (2004) reveals the fact that confusion exists among scholars regarding the integration of entrepreneurship in corporate culture of large organizations. In such context, the term ‘intrapreneurship’ is being introduced by research scholars to explain how large companies can behave like small firms led by entrepreneurs. Antoncic and Hirsich (2003, p.9) defined the concept as, “entrepreneurship within an existing organization, referring to emergent behavioural intentions and behaviours of an organization that are related to departures from the customary”. According to the definition, organizational leaders in large firms need to adopt entrepreneurial behaviour in order to take leadership role for driving innovation and sustainable competitive advantage. According to Antoncic and Hirsich (2003), while adopting intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship, large companies need to adopt five attributes such as innovativeness, autonomy, risk taking, competitive aggressiveness and proactiveness. Autonomy- organizational leaders in large firms need to take independent actions and supervise completion of the action. Innovativeness- large organizations should have eagerness to develop new ideas and support knowledge sharing activities in order to invent new product or services. Proactiveness- organizational leaders in large firms need to have the courage for investing strategic resources to explore anticipated opportunities. Competitive aggressiveness- large organizations need to challenge its competition directly in order to penetrate in market. Risk taking- like entrepreneurs, large organizations need to have the willingness to face probable negative outcome and loss in order to pursue anticipated business opportunities. According to Kotler (2003), entrepreneurial marketing processes (EMPs) of large firms can be classified as derivative of intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship. Consideration of research works of Bjerke and Hultman (2002) reveals the fact that large and established firms prefer to avoid risks regarding adaptation of innovative marketing while small and medium firms (SMEs) show the tendency to take risks regarding adaptation of innovative marketing. Kotler (2003) pointed out that entrepreneurial marketing processes (EMPs) are pretty relevant for large firms because these companies get stuck in achieving competitive advantage through deployment of traditional marketing practices. Marketers of large companies lack the passion and creativity of the guerrilla marketers (Miles and Darroch, 2004). As a result, they fail to visualize new value proposition mechanism that cannot only satisfy requirements of customers in responsive manner but also provide additional boost to the brand. It is evident from the discussion that functionality of entrepreneurial marketing processes (EMPs) is not being restricted to small firms and SMEs rather large firms can also use entrepreneurial marketing approach in order to achieve competitive advantage and business success. Therefore, it can be said that study of marketing process of larger organization has also helped researchers to fill the gap in the literature regarding entrepreneurial marketing and intrapreneurship. In order to understand functionality of EM in large firm, the study has selected Procter & Gamble (P&G) as a sample organization (Procter & Gamble, 2012). Entrepreneurial Marketing: Procter & Gamble (P&G) Procter & Gamble (P&G) was established in the year 1837 and the company is headquartered at Ohio, Cincinnati, USA (Procter & Gamble, 2014). The company specializes in selling consumer goods like skincare product, house care products, oral care products, food items and many others. P&G products are available in more than 75 countries and at present, the company maintains portfolio of more than 290 brands (Procter & Gamble, 2014). Annual sales revenue of the consumer goods giant is greater than $ 80,000 million (Procter & Gamble, 2014). In the last 20 years, P&G has established 28 global technical centres and employee base of the company has increased to 127,000 (Procter & Gamble, 2014). Miles and Darroch (2004) found that large companies like P&G do not take the risks of deploying EM across the entire product portfolio or across all the value chain activities. O’Donnell (2004) pointed out that deploying EM is easier for small level firms due to their less complex and small product lines. On contrary, large organization like Procter & Gamble maintains complex product portfolio that are being targeted for different set of target customers. Adopting unplanned and crude marketing activities might create problem for P&G to position high end offerings for niche segment of customers. In the seminal research work, Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge (2002) pointed out that most of the small level firms adopt ‘guerrilla marketing’ as part of entrepreneurial marketing processes (EMPs) in order to push the brand. In case of ‘guerrilla marketing’, small organizations use low cost surprise elements and challenges act as conventional perceptions non linear promotional techniques (Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge, 2002). However, P&G cannot adopt guerrilla marketing for all of its brands due to two reasons such as, 1-some of the product portfolio of the company needs detail explanation of its benefits to customers and such detail explanation cannot be done through guerrilla marketing and 2- niche target segment might object surprise elements of guerrilla marketing. Consideration of research work of Martin (2009) reveals the fact that large companies tend to use entrepreneurial marketing practices for particular product portfolio. Based on the success of deploying EM, large firms decide whether they will proceed with EM strategy or deploy traditional marketing practices. P&G uses concepts of EM in fragmented and product specific manner. For example, Procter & Gamble used concepts of EMP for PERT product line which is positioned by the company as one-step shampoo and conditioner. The company has also used non-traditional marketing practices in order to promote DRYEL product line being positioned as an alternative for dry cleaning (Miles and Darroch, 2004). For these two products, P&G took help of two of the most common entrepreneurial marketing promotion techniques such as ‘Guerrilla Marketing’ and ‘Buzz Marketing’. EMP marketing mixes for above mentioned two product line of P&G can be described in the following manner. Marketing Mix While developing PERT and DRYEL, research and development (R&D) division of P&G tried to identify existing market gaps such as customer complaints regarding poor dry cleaning while using home based laundry products and absence of products that can work as one-step shampoo as well as conditioner (Miles and Darroch, 2004). After understanding the market needs, R&D) division of P&G technological resources and intellectual capital to develop PERT and DRYEL that can compete with other global brands. As part EMP, in case of PERT and DRYEL, product development idea was generated by P&G while working with customer requirement at ground level. P&G understood that customers might not believe claims made by the company while promoting product benefits of PERT and DRYEL through TV commercial and print advertisement. In such context, P&G distributed free sachets of PERT and DRYEL to customers with the help of retailers and news paper vendors. Upon using PERT and DRYEL for freely, customers get convinced about the benefits of these products offered by P&G (Miles and Darroch, 2004). Using non traditional distribution channel has helped P&G to not only convince customers regarding benefits of PERT and DRYEL but also helped the company to cater demand of target segment in responsive manner. Pricing of PERT and DRYEL is being decided by P&G in customer driven manner. On the basis of customer recommendation and price of other same types of products, P&G decided the price point for PERT and DRYEL. However, while deciding price of the mentioned products, the consumer goods giant used structured marketing planning approach. Promotion of PERT and DRYEL are being mainly done through low cost placement of surprise element, YouTube viral promotion, web advertisements and through positive word of mouth. For limited time period, PERT and DRYEL were being distributed as free samples and this entrepreneurial approach helped P&G to communicate value proposition of the products to customers in efficient manner. Adjustment in the logo of both the products had been done by the consumer goods giant in order to create surprise elements for customers. As part of buzz marketing, free sample distribution was being used by P&G in order to make offered products as subject of discussion among people (Miles and Darroch, 2004). It is evident from the above discussion that P&G adjusts entrepreneurial marketing in order to make it more structured and objective driven. Logically, it cannot be said that P&G uses pure form of entrepreneurial marketing rather it is better to say that the company integrates necessary recalibration in order to increase value proposition of implemented EM Miles and Darroch, 2004). Therefore, it can be assumed that resource capability and preference for traditional marketing practices influence large companies like P&G to follow adjusted version of EM. Conclusion Consideration of research work of Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge (2002) reveals the fact that acceptance entrepreneurial marketing techniques and methods is pretty low among large companies. Many of these large companies follow Mintzberg (1987) strategic management perspective in order to integrate mode of entrepreneurship in internal organizational process. Morris, Schindehutte and LaForge (2002) found that paradox regarding appropriateness of EM exists among large companies due to three reasons, 1- lack of availability of reference literature on functionality of EM for established firms, 2- common perception that EM is suitable for SMEs and 3- lack of belief on outcome of entrepreneurship marketing. It has been found by the study that P&G also faces paradox regarding appropriateness of EM and the company has little scope to deploy EM for its entire product portfolio. In such context, it is being recommended that Procter & Gamble should continue with its strategy of adopting EM for selected range of product portfolio in order to reduce dimension of marketing risks such as wasting resources in redundant EM practices, perturbing consumer perception regarding niche high end products and many others. In case of using fragmented and selective EM practices, the consumer goods giant needs to make few adjustments such as, strengthening relationship with customers, designing customer driven value proposition and strive for sustainable innovation. Strengthening relationship with customers- the company should provide incentives to customers to take part in the product development and marketing process. Customer feedback pool, customer survey, customer community, 24/7 customer support services and many other techniques can be used by the consumer goods giant in order to strengthen bonding with customers. Designing customer driven value proposition- P&G should conduct market research and ground level work with customers in order to find their precise requirements and existing market gaps. Value elements should be identified on the basis of realization market gaps and customer requirements. Sustainable innovation- based on identified value elements and market gaps, R&D department of Procter & Gamble should use existing resource capabilities and support of value chain partners to develop products that can address customer requirements in responsive manner. In conclusion, it can be said that P&G should imitate entrepreneur like thinking of investing significant amount of resources in order to develop product that can offer superior value proposition to customers. Reference List Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R. D., 2003. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24. Bäckbrö, J. and Nyström, H., 2006. Entrepreneurial marketing: Innovative value creation. Jönköping: Jönköping University. Bespoke Software., 2014. The Company. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 April 2014]. Bjerke, B. and Hultman, C. M., 2002. EM: The growth of small firms in the new economic era. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar. Burger-Helmchen, T., 2009. Capabilities in small high-tech firms: A case of plural-entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(3), pp. 391-405. Darroch, J., Miles, M. P. and Paul, C., 2005. Corporate venturing and the rent cycle. Technovation, 25, pp. 1437-42. Eggers, F., Hansen, D. J. and Davis, A. E., 2012. Examining the relationship between customer and entrepreneurial orientation on nascent firms’ marketing strategy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(2), pp. 203-222. Harms, R. and Grichnik, D., 2007. Zur Zukunft der deutschsprachigen Entrepreneurshipforschung - Strategien und thematische Schwerpunkte. Zeitschrift für KMU & Entrepreneurship, 55(4), pp.266—275. Keefe, L., 2004. What is the meaning of ‘marketing? Marketing News, American Marketing Association, September 15, pp.17-18. Kotler, P., 2003. Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kraus, S., Harms, R. and Fink, M., 2009. Entrepreneurial Marketing: Moving beyond Marketing in New Ventures. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Special Issue, pp. 1-20. Martin, D. M., 2009. The entrepreneurial marketing mix. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12(4), pp.391-403. Miles, M. P. and Covin, J. G., 2002. Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), pp. 21-40. Miles, M. P. and Darroch, J., 2004. Large firms, entrepreneurial marketing processes, and the cycle of competitive advantage. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), pp. 485-501. Mintzberg, H., 1987. The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), pp.11-24. Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M. and LaForge, R. W., 2002. Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 10(4), pp.1-19. O’Donnell, A., 2004. The nature of networking in small firms. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 7(3), pp. 206-17. Ojasalo, J., Natti, S. and Olkkonen, R., 2008. Brand building in software SMEs: an empirical Study. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(2), pp. 92-107. Parry, S., Jones, R., Rowley, J. and Teahan, B. K., 2012. Marketing for survival: A comparative case study of SME software firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(4), pp. 712-728. Procter & Gamble., 2012. Our History—How it Began. [pdf] Procter & Gamble. Available at https://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/media/Fact_Sheets_CompanyHistory.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2014]. Procter & Gamble., 2014. P&G Global. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 April 2014]. Reijonen, H., 2010. Do all SMEs practise same kind of marketing? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(2), pp. 279-93. Ruokolainen, J. and Makela, M. M., 2007. Constructing a market domain model for start-up software technology companies: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(3), pp. 186-202. Simpson, M. and Taylor, N., 2002. The role and relevance of marketing in SMEs: Towards a new model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 9(4), pp. 370-82. Stokes, D., 2000. Entrepreneurial marketing: A conceptualisation from qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(1), pp.47-54. Stokes, D., 2002. Entrepreneurial marketing in the public sector: The lessons of headteachers as entrepreneurs. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(3/4), pp.397-414. Walsh, M. F. and Lipinski, J., 2009. The role of the marketing function in small and medium sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(4), pp. 569-85. Zinkhan, G. M. and Willams, B. C., 2007. The new American Marketing Association definition of marketing: An alternative assessment. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26(2), pp.284-288. Read More