journals research on marketing

• Join the AMA
• Find learning by topic
• Free learning resources for members
• Certification
• Training for teams
• Why learn with the AMA?
• Marketing News
• Academic Journals
• Guides & eBooks
• Marketing Job Board
• Academic Job Board
• AMA Foundation
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
• Collegiate Resources
• Awards and Scholarships
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Strategic Partnerships

We noticed that you are using Internet Explorer 11 or older that is not support any longer. Please consider using an alternative such as Microsoft Edge, Chrome, or Firefox.

Journal of Marketing | Current Issue

Online first articles full issue archive, just accepted articles search journal of marketing, current issue | march 2021.

Reality Check: Infusing Ecological Value into Academic Marketing Research Harald J. van Heerde, Christine Moorman, C. Page Moreau, Robert W. Palmatier

Artificial Intelligence Coaches for Sales Agents: Caveats and Solutions Xueming Luo, Marco Shaojun Qin, Zheng Fang, Zhe Qu

Caring for the Commons: Using Psychological Ownership to Enhance Stewardship Behavior for Public Goods Joann Peck, Colleen P. Kirk, Andrea W. Luangrath, Suzanne B. Shu

The Impact of Platform Protection Insurance on Buyers and Sellers in the Sharing Economy: A Natural Experiment Xueming Luo, Siliang Tong, Zhijie Lin, Cheng Zhang

Do Spoilers Really Spoil? Using Topic Modeling to Measure the Effect of Spoiler Reviews on Box Office Revenue Jun Hyun (Joseph) Ryoo, Xin (Shane) Wang, Shijie Lu

Salesperson Dual Agency in Price Negotiations Justin M. Lawrence, Lisa K. Scheer, Andrew T. Crecelius, Son K. Lam

Working It: Managing Professional Brands in Prestigious Posts Marie-Agnès Parmentier, Eileen Fischer

Pretty Healthy Food: How and When Aesthetics Enhance Perceived Healthiness Linda Hagen

The current issue of the Journal of Marketing is updated every other month. A complete issue archive is available along with new articles posted online first ahead of issues as well as just accepted works available within 3-4 days of acceptance. To learn more about the Journal of Marketing or for member access to articles, visit ama.org/jm

By continuing to use this site, you accept the use of cookies, pixels and other technology that allows us to understand our users better and offer you tailored content. You can learn more about our privacy policy here

Research in marketing strategy

• Review Paper
• Published: 18 August 2018
• Volume 47 , pages 4–29, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Neil A. Morgan 1 ,
• Kimberly A. Whitler 2 ,
• Hui Feng 3 &
• Simos Chari 4  

44k Accesses

125 Citations

32 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Marketing strategy is a construct that lies at the conceptual heart of the field of strategic marketing and is central to the practice of marketing. It is also the area within which many of the most pressing current challenges identified by marketers and CMOs arise. We develop a new conceptualization of the domain and sub-domains of marketing strategy and use this lens to assess the current state of marketing strategy research by examining the papers in the six most influential marketing journals over the period 1999 through 2017. We uncover important challenges to marketing strategy research—not least the increasingly limited number and focus of studies, and the declining use of both theory and primary research designs. However, we also uncover numerous opportunities for developing important and highly relevant new marketing strategy knowledge—the number and importance of unanswered marketing strategy questions and opportunities to impact practice has arguably never been greater. To guide such research, we develop a new research agenda that provides opportunities for researchers to develop new theory, establish clear relevance, and contribute to improving practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

The future of social media in marketing

Social media marketing strategy: definition, conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future agenda

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Developing and executing marketing strategy is central to the practice of marketing. Recent reports regarding the top challenges facing marketers (Table 1 ) reveal numerous questions within the domain of marketing strategy including: (1) how to create organizational structures that better enable development of marketing strategies that help navigate and adapt to changing customer and firm needs; (2) how to choose the optimal set of marketing strategies to drive outcomes given competing priorities and myriad internal and external stakeholders; and (3) how to lead enterprise-wide executives in developing and implementing strategies that create greater customer centricity and engagement. As a result of its centrality to practice, marketing strategy is also a key area of business school pedagogy, pivotal in marketing theory explanations of firm performance, and a focus of inquiry among academic researchers. However, while there has been a growing research interest in the general field of strategic marketing (i.e., marketing-related phenomena and decisions that are important to understanding the long-term performance of product/brands, SBUs, and firms), it is unclear how much of this research relates to marketing strategy—the central construct within the field of strategic marketing. Footnote 1

Since developing and executing marketing strategy is central to what marketers do in practice, research germane to understanding these activities is key to establishing the relevance of the academic discipline of marketing. Better understanding the state of marketing strategy knowledge is also important for developing theoretical understanding in marketing. For example, knowing what theories have been drawn on in past research and which aspects of marketing strategy have received little attention is a pre-cursor to any attempt to develop indigenous marketing theory. Systematic analyses of the use of different research approaches and methods in a particular domain, and how these have changed over time can also uncover insights for the development of new approaches and methods. As a result, periodic reviews of research in a domain are useful in consolidating knowledge and enabling cumulative knowledge development (e.g., Palmatier et al. 2018 ).

The last major review of research in marketing strategy was undertaken by Varadarajan and Jayachandran ( 1999 ). Clearly, much has happened in the worlds of both practice and research in the past twenty years, making the present study needed and timely. This study therefore undertakes a comprehensive review of the strategic marketing literature since 1999, with three specific objectives: (1) to develop a framework through which to assess the current state of research conducted within marketing strategy; (2) to illuminate and illustrate the “state of knowledge” in core sub-domains of marketing strategy development and execution; and (3) to develop a research agenda identifying aspects of marketing strategy that require greater.

In addressing these objectives, this study makes a number of contributions to strategic marketing knowledge. First, we show that marketing strategy research published in the major journals over the past 19 years (1999–2017) has primarily focused on either marketing tactics or marketing-related inputs (resources and capabilities) to marketing strategy and their performance outcomes (both directly and under different external and internal environmental conditions), with relatively little research in the core domain of marketing strategy. If our understanding of marketing strategy before 1999 had been complete—and no significant changes had occurred since that time—this may not be a significant problem. However, clearly neither of these conditions is true. The relative lack of attention to marketing strategy during this period should be viewed as a particularly significant gap in marketing knowledge since marketing strategy is the central construct in the field of strategic marketing and in practice marketers spend most of their time engaged in marketing strategy–related activities.

Second, we develop a new conceptualization of marketing strategy, identifying four key sub-domains (i.e., formulation–content, formulation–process, implementation–content, implementation–process). This provides a new framework that can be used to assess the state of the field, identify critical knowledge gaps, and direct future research. In this study, we use it as a lens with which to assess and calibrate which marketing strategy sub-domains—and issues within each domain—have received more or less attention. For example, we show that while marketing strategy implementation appears to be an area of relatively strong research coverage, most studies in this sub-domain are marketing-mix models examining linkages between one or more marketing program elements and performance outcomes while controlling for the remaining elements of a brand or firm’s marketing program. Conversely, we find that very few marketing strategy studies have focused on the processes by which marketing strategy is developed.

Third, building on such insights we identify a new research agenda for future marketing strategy research. Synthesizing existing knowledge within a domain of inquiry and identifying research gaps is an important stage of cumulative knowledge development in any field (e.g., Palmatier et al. 2018 ). Such cumulative knowledge building in marketing strategy is essential since its centrality to marketing practice makes research in marketing strategy of particular importance in establishing the relevance of academic research and its utility and legitimacy to practicing managers. We therefore use relevance to practice as one of the lenses used to identify and prioritize a new research agenda for marketing strategy.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we develop a new integrated conceptual model of marketing strategy to guide our review. Next, we describe the journal sample and review procedure adopted. We then present and discuss the descriptive statistics arising from our review. Within the sub-domains of marketing strategy identified, we next present exemplar studies and briefly synthesize existing knowledge. We then discuss the implications of the review findings for marketing theory and practice. Finally, we develop a research agenda for future research in marketing strategy.

Conceptualizing marketing strategy

A necessary first step in reviewing research in any domain is to clearly establish its external boundaries and identify important internal boundaries among sub-domains. In accomplishing this, we draw initially on Varadarajan’s ( 2010 ) exploration of the conceptual domain and definition of marketing strategy:

Marketing strategy is an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions that specify its crucial choices concerning products, markets, marketing activities and marketing resources in the creation, communication and/or delivery of products that offer value to customers in exchanges with the organization and thereby enables the organization to achieve specific objectives. (Varadarajan 2010 , p. 119)

In line with this, the marketing literature broadly indicates that a firm’s marketing efforts impact its marketplace and economic performance through the formulation and implementation of specific patterns of resource deployments designed to achieve marketing objectives in a target market (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016 ; Morgan 2012 ). This formulation–implementation dichotomy perspective suggests that goal-setting and marketing strategy development systems are used as future-oriented decision-making frameworks to define desired goals and identify and select marketing strategy options that may enable these goals to be accomplished, followed by a period of enactment in which firms seek to operationalize the intended marketing strategy decisions to achieve the desired goals (e.g., Morgan et al. 2012 ; Noble and Mokwa 1999 ; Piercy 1998 ).

From this perspective, marketing strategy formulation involves managers making explicit “what” decisions regarding goals and the broad means by which they are to be accomplished in terms of target market selection, required value offerings and desired positioning, timing, etc. (e.g., Kerin et al. 1990 ; Slater and Olson 2001 ). Conversely, marketing strategy implementation concerns “doing it” in terms of translating these broad “what” marketing strategy decisions into a set of detailed and integrated marketing tactics and accompanying these with appropriate actions and resource deployments to enact them (e.g., Slater et al. 2010 ; Varadarajan and Jayachandran 1999 ). While the literature has consistently distinguished between strategy formulation and implementation, both the marketing and strategic management literature also suggests that they are interdependent, with implementation (what a firm is able to do) shaping and constraining marketing strategy content decisions over time (e.g., Cespedes 1991 ; Moorman and Miner 1998 ).

A second “dichotomy” evidenced widely in the strategic management literature (e.g. Farjoun 2002 ; Mintzberg and Lampel 1999 ; Van de Ven 1992 ), and to a lesser extent in the marketing literature (e.g., Frankwick et al. 1994 ; Menon et al. 1999 ; Walker Jr and Ruekert 1987 ), is between strategy content and strategy process. From this perspective, marketing strategy content concerns the specific strategic decisions (e.g., what and how many segments to target, what the firm’s value proposition needs to be to achieve required sales) and integrated tactical marketing program decisions (e.g., the required sales-force incentive plan, channel selection and merchandizing platform design, marketing communication media selection) made. Conversely, strategy process concerns the organizational mechanisms leading to these marketing strategy decisions (e.g., situation assessment, goal-setting, top-down vs. bottom up strategic planning process, planning comprehensiveness) and those used to make and realize decisions regarding how they are enacted (e.g., marketing mix planning, budgeting, internal communication, organization re-design, performance monitoring and control systems).

We use these two common “dichotomies” as a framework (see Fig.  1 ) for establishing the external boundaries of the domain of marketing strategy and to identify important sub-domains within the marketing strategy construct. Footnote 2 Identifying these sub-domains within the broad domain outlined in Varadarajan ( 2010 ) allows us to refine his original definition of marketing strategy. We therefore define marketing strategy as encompassing the “what” strategy decisions and actions and “how” strategy-making and realization processes concerning a firm’s desired goals Footnote 3 over a future time-period, and the means through which it intends to achieve them by selecting target markets and customers, identifying required value propositions, and designing and enacting integrated marketing programs to develop, deliver, and communicate the value offerings. We use this definition of marketing strategy and the sub-domains it encompasses in the conceptual framework developed as a lens through which to identify and examine recent research in marketing strategy (see Fig. 1 ).

Review framework

Our new definition of marketing strategy also allows us to identify and capture studies examining strategic marketing phenomena related to—but not directly encompassing—marketing strategy. As shown in Fig. 1 , the most important categories of these related phenomena deal with: (1) inputs to marketing strategy including resources such as market knowledge, brand portfolios, financial resources, etc. and capabilities such as NPD, CRM, etc.; (2) outputs of marketing strategy including customer “mind-set” and behavior outcomes and marketplace and economic performance; and (3) environmental factors distinct from marketing strategy but that may impact marketing strategy phenomena and their relationships with other phenomena including internal factors such as organizational culture, size, etc. and external factors such as market characteristics, technology turbulence, competitive intensity, etc.

Review of marketing strategy research

Journal selection.

To ensure the representativeness and high quality of studies included in our review, we examined the ten most influential marketing journals in Baumgartner and Pieters’s ( 2003 ) study of journal influence, and identified the six of these that publish research in the field of strategic marketing: Journal of Marketing ( JM ), Journal of Marketing Research ( JMR ), Marketing Science ( MKS ), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), Journal of Retailing ( JR ), and Industrial Marketing Management ( IMM ). The remaining four “top ten” journals are either not typical outlets for strategic marketing research ( Journal of Consumer Research, Management Science, and Advances in Consumer Research ) or are managerial and provide little detail regarding theory or research method ( Harvard Business Review ). We replaced the lowest ranked (10th) journal on this list, Industrial Marketing Management ( IMM ) , with International Journal of Research in Marketing ( IJRM ) as this journal has grown significantly in stature over the past 15 years and is now considered the top non-U.S. based marketing journal (Kumar et al. 2017 ; Roberts et al. 2014 ).

Thus, we include six journals in this review: JM, JMR, MKS, JAMS, JR, and IJRM . We first obtained digital copies of every article published in these six journals from their official websites during the 1999 thru 2017 period. Each article was examined (title, abstract, keywords, hypotheses/conceptual framework, etc.) and initially coded where appropriate into one or more of the four broad categories shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., marketing strategy, inputs, outputs, and environment). Articles with “marketing strategy,” “strategy,” or any other keywords or similar concepts listed in Fig. 1 ’s marketing strategy conceptualization such as “goals,” “strategic/marketing planning,” “marketing mix,” “integrated marketing program,” and “segmentation/targeting/positioning” were retained for further additional analysis.

Article selection criteria

Four primary criteria were then used to screen studies for inclusion in our analysis: (1) the focus of the study must be on strategy (vs. individual tactics) as specified in Fig. 1 , either as a primary objective or as part of a wider research design; (2) the study should be of marketing (vs. purely management) phenomena; (3) the unit of analysis is at firm, SBU, brand or product level (or product or brand portfolios), rather than at individual level (e.g., salesperson or consumer/customer); (4) the study was published during the 1999–2017 period, after the last widely-cited review of marketing strategy was undertaken by Varadarajan and Jayachandran ( 1999 ). To avoid “double counting” we exclude empirical meta-analytic papers in our review sample.

We excluded tactical marketing papers that focus only on one or two of aspects of the “4Ps” marketing program (e.g., advertising or pricing) without at least controlling for the other aspects of the marketing program. This is because, per our marketing strategy conceptualization, only studies dealing with (or at least controlling for) all aspects of the marketing program can provide useful strategic (vs. purely tactical) insights. We also excluded purely methodological papers such as studies of new segment identification methods and studies focusing on individual employee or consumer perceptions and purchase intentions. Finally, studies examining industry-level development and strategy were not included in our review.

Three experienced researchers independently examined all of the published articles to determine if it should be coded as a marketing strategy paper, with an accompanying rationale for each paper’s inclusion or exclusion following the above four criteria. Average interrater agreement was 96%, and all remaining discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. A total of 257 marketing strategy articles remained in the review sample after this filtering process. Each of these papers was then further examined and coded according to the specific aspects of marketing strategy covered and the theory and methodological characteristics of each study.

Coding procedure

Following procedures recommended for literature review papers (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016 ; Lipsey and Wilson 2001 ), we developed a protocol for coding each of the key aspects of marketing strategy (i.e., first coding single aspects such as “formulation” vs. “implementation” and “content” vs. “process”; then composite aspects such as “formulation–content,” “formulation–process,” “implementation–content,” “implementation–process”, and “hybrid”). We first, created a document specifying the definitions, keywords, and examples for each aspect of marketing strategy. Second, two experienced marketing strategy researchers independently coded a randomly selected set of 60 articles (10 from each journal) using this draft protocol to assess the accuracy and thoroughness of the evaluative criteria and made revisions and improvement. Third, we pretested the revised protocol using two additional expert judges, who independently evaluated another 10 randomly selected articles from each journal. Full agreement was attained, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of our coding scheme.

Three experienced researchers then coded each of the 257 eligible articles, under the supervision of the lead investigator, who had extensive knowledge of marketing strategy and coding procedures. Interrater agreement ranged from 86%–100%, and all discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus. Finally, the lead investigator also coded another 10 randomly selected articles from each journal, and the results were fully consistent with those of the three coders, enhancing confidence in the reliability of the evaluation procedure in this study.

Following this, two experienced researchers also coded the key theory and methodological characteristics of each study in terms of: (1) the primary research approach of paper (i.e., conceptual/qualitative/empirical/analytical); (2) data type (i.e., primary, secondary or both) for empirical papers; (3) data analysis approach (analytical, regression, time series, structural equation modelling-SEM etc.); and, (4) argumentation approach (e.g., single theory, multiple theories, conceptual development/grounded theory, and logic or data-driven approaches) following a coding scheme. Interrater agreement on this coding was high (97%).

Descriptive analysis of marketing strategy papers

As defined in Varadarajan ( 2010 ), “strategic marketing” refers to the general field of study, while “marketing strategy” refers to the organizational strategy construct that is the principal focus of the field. Thus, while all marketing strategy–focused papers are within the field of strategic marketing, not all strategic marketing research concerns marketing strategy. We follow this distinction. For example, in their study examining the influence of research in the field of strategic marketing Kumar et al. ( 2017 ) focus on papers that examine all strategic marketing issues, decisions, and problems, which include but is not limited to marketing strategy. Conversely, our study focuses on research examining issues that fall within the more specific domain of marketing strategy (Fig. 1 ), which is the construct at the heart of the conceptual domain of the field of strategic marketing (Varadarajan 2010 ), and is where most CMOs and marketers spend most of their time and effort in practice.

To provide insight into the relative frequency of different types of marketing strategy–related research we also identified and coded papers that do not focus directly on marketing strategy but do focus on the related areas of (1) inputs to marketing strategy, (2) outputs of marketing strategy, and (3) environmental factors (internal and external to the firm) that may affect marketing strategy and its relationship with other phenomena. These include studies focusing, for example, on the impact of possession of marketing-related resources/capabilities on performance, the value of internal environmental factors such as organizational culture, or the role of external factors such as market dynamism on the marketing capability-performance relationship. We also coded studies focusing on relationships involving individual tactical actions covering specific marketing mix elements (without directly controlling for the remaining marketing mix areas). For example, Bruce et al. ( 2012 ) examined the impact of word of mouth and advertising on demand. Following Fig. 1 , this was therefore coded as a study of a specific marketing tactic rather than within the domain of marketing strategy.

As summarized in Table 2 , almost 95% of the papers published in the six most influential journals publishing strategic marketing research during the 1999–2017 period are “non-strategy” papers (i.e., they do not examine phenomena within the marketing strategy domain delineated in our review framework—even though some of these examine phenomena that are within the general field of strategic marketing). In fact, the largest category of papers published in these journals (36%) contains studies of marketing tactics that examine one or two individual marketing program elements such as advertising (e.g., Fang et al. 2016 ), product and price (e.g., Slotegraaf and Atuahene-Gima 2011 ; Steiner et al. 2016 ), channel (e.g., Gooner et al. 2011 ; Samaha et al. 2011 ), and selling (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2014 ; Harmeling et al. 2015 ) without examining or explicitly controlling for the remaining marketing mix elements.

The second largest category of papers published in these journals during this period (15%) deal with marketing strategy–related inputs (6%) (e.g., marketing resources and capabilities) (e.g., Grewal et al. 2013 ; Luo and Homburg 2008 ), outputs (9%) (positional advantages and performance outcomes) (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016 ; Morgan and Rego 2006 ; Rego et al. 2013 ), or both (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2014 ; Homburg et al. 2011 ; Rego et al. 2009 ). A further 6% of all papers published in these journals focus on internal (i.e., organizational) (e.g., Samaha et al. 2014 ) or external (e.g., market, technology) environmental phenomena (e.g., Song et al. 2008 : Varadarajan et al. 2008 )—with the majority focusing on external versus internal environmental factors (262 vs. 40 papers). Footnote 4

While not by a large margin, research on marketing strategy (as delineated in Fig. 1 ) comprises the smallest number (less than 6% of all published papers) of the different types of strategic marketing papers coded in our review across the six journals we examine (vs. Tactics, Internal/External Environment, Inputs, and Outputs). However, we also observe large variance across the journals covered. Notably, JM (9.8%) and JAMS (8.6%) are the outlets for a much higher percentage of marketing strategy papers as a percentage of all the papers they publish than the remaining four journals—and jointly published the majority (57%) of the combined total marketing strategy papers published across the six journals. More specifically, as shown in Fig.  2 , during this period JM published the greatest number of marketing strategy studies ( n  = 81 or 32% of the combined total across the six journals), followed by JAMS ( n  = 63 or 25%). However, the trend lines showing the ratio of marketing strategy versus all other types of papers published in each of the six journals over the 1999–2017 period are clearly downwards. This trend line is particularly steep for JM , with JAMS averaging a higher ratio of marketing strategy versus other types of papers published than JM over the past eight years (2010–2017). Footnote 5

Marketing strategy papers published by journal

Table 2 suggests some balance across the individual aspects (i.e., formulation vs. implementation and process vs. content) covered in the marketing strategy research studies we identify. However, the more granular breakdown in Table 3 , categorizing the marketing strategy papers published by the four sub-domains of marketing strategy (i.e., formulation–content, formulation–process, implementation–content, implementation–process; capturing papers covering more than one sub-domain as “hybrid”) in our framework, reveals a clear dearth of research in the formulation–process sub-domain. This may be due to the lack of secondary data on such difficult-to-observe phenomena. Published papers in this domain therefore tend to be conceptual or use qualitative, survey, or other primary data collection methods.

While “process” papers in the implementation sub-domain also deal with difficult-to-observe phenomena, there are a greater number of studies in this sub-domain as researchers are able to use secondary marketing mix data along with policy and field experiments to build normative models of how managers can make and execute marketing program decisions. For example, Sun and Li ( 2011 ) used call history from a DSL service to show how firms can learn from customer-call center interactions to improve resource allocation decisions, and Petersen and Kumar ( 2015 ) conducted a large-scale field experiment to investigate product return data and develop a process by which managers can make better marketing resource allocations.

Table 3 also suggests that while JM and JAMS tend to publish studies within and across all four sub-domains of marketing strategy, the other three journals tend to skew toward or away from certain sub-domains. For example, 58% of the marketing strategy papers published in MKS and 44% of those in JMR during this period have been in the implementation–content area. This is mainly a result of marketing mix modeling studies being located in this sub-domain of marketing strategy research. Conversely, MKS published no hybrid papers, and JMR , IJRM , and JR published no papers in the formulation–process sub-domain of marketing strategy.

As shown in Table 4 , the vast majority (202) of the 257 marketing strategy papers in our sample are empirical in nature, with some balance between primary (109) and secondary (78) data used, but few (15) using both primary and secondary data. However, an examination of the numbers by year indicates a recent decrease in the use of primary data and increasing use of secondary data. Table 4 further reveals the relatively small number of conceptual/theoretical (35), qualitative (8), and analytical (12) marketing strategy studies published in the six journals since 1999. To the extent that empirical papers tend to test existing theory, and conceptual and qualitative approaches are more often used to develop theory, this suggests that theory development in published marketing strategy research is rare. While the numbers of papers published by year are small in each of these areas, an examination of the numbers by year since 1999 generally indicate a growth in the proportion of papers that are empirical and a drop-off in the number that are conceptual/theoretical. We also observe some variation across the six journals in this realm, with JM and JAMS dominating conceptual/theoretical work in marketing strategy theory development and publishing a greater number of qualitative papers (while still very few in number) than analytical papers in the theory-building domain.

For the non-conceptual/theoretical and qualitative papers published, we also coded the primary analysis approach used (Table 5 ). This shows that regression-based analysis models dominate, with structural equation modeling (SEM) approaches a distant second. While time-series models are used less frequently overall, an examination of the by year numbers indicate that their use is increasing over time (in line with growing use of secondary data). We also observe a recent relative decline in the use of SEM (in line with the recent relative decrease in the use of primary data noted above).

To provide insight into the nature of the theoretical approaches adopted in the marketing strategy research in our sample, we also coded and analyzed the argumentation approach i.e. rationale used to identify the marketing strategy phenomena and variables examined and/or develop hypotheses regarding expected relationships between them, used in each study. Specifically, following a review of the papers in our sample we coded each as: (1) adopting a single theory lens; (2) using multiple theories (typically in the development of hypotheses); (3) developing theory through a grounded approach and/or conceptual development; or (4) using atheoretical logical argumentation (usually in primarily data-driven studies).

Table 6 shows the use of these four approaches overall and also within the four primary sub-domains of marketing strategy. Overall, the most commonly-used is the logic and data-driven approach (48%), used disproportionately in the formulation–content and implementation–content domains (see Table 6 ). Collectively, the remaining three approaches—each of which is more theoretical—are used only slightly more frequently. Thus, close to half of all published marketing strategy research in our sample is largely atheoretical in nature. However, examining trends in the by year data (as shown in Fig. 3 ) indicates some evidence of (1) a general shift away from theory development using grounded approaches and/or conceptual development to data-driven approaches and (2) a growing proportion of studies using multi- versus single-theory lenses. The increasingly small numbers of marketing strategy papers developing new theory and/or conceptual frameworks may not be a cause for concern if there was already a strong base of indigenous marketing strategy theory. However, this is obviously not the case. In addition, there is arguably an even greater need for new theory in light of the dramatic changes in the marketing landscape driven by technology developments and usage in the recent past.

Argument approach trends

To provide greater insight into the specific theories being most often used to identify phenomena on which to focus in addressing marketing strategy research problems, and to predict relationships among constructs/variables identified, we also examined the specific theories used in studies employing a single-theory lens. This produced a list of almost 60 different theories employed (Table 7 ). The majority of these (69%) were used only in a single marketing strategy study published in this period. Only nine theories were used in five or more marketing strategy studies: Institutional Theory, Resource-based View, Agency Theory, Contingency Theory, Performance Feedback Theory, Organizational Theory, Configuration Theory, Organizational Learning Theory, and Structure-Conduct-Performance Theory. Interestingly, this suggests that while theories from psychology and economics dominate behavioral and modeling research in marketing respectively, recent marketing strategy research draws mainly on strategic management theories, with some sociological (e.g., Institutional Theory) and economic (Agency Theory, Structure-Conduct-Performance) theory influences.

Illustrative research in domains of marketing strategy

To provide insight into the types of research and knowledge outputs that have been typical in the different sub-domains of marketing strategy, we next identify the most commonly studied topics and discuss exemplar studies in each of the four marketing sub-domains as well as some “hybrid” studies that capture more than one sub-domain. We also provide some high-level synthesis overview of overall knowledge in each area. Table 8 shows the most frequently studied topics in each of the four sub-domains of marketing strategy in the 257 published marketing strategy papers that we identified, and Tables  9 , 10 , 11 , 12 and 13 details illustrative studies within each sub-domain, as well as some that cross sub-domains.

Formulation–content research

The strategy formulation–content sub-domain concerns the specific goals that a marketing strategy is designed to deliver and the major broad strategic decisions concerning how these are to be achieved. The most frequently studied issue in this sub-domain—examined in more than a quarter of all published studies—involves the intended (planned) strategy pursued by a SBU or firm. Studies of this issue have primarily used existing strategy typologies from the management literature (e.g., Miles & Snow’s Strategic Archetypes, Porter’s Generic Strategies) and primary survey research designs. For example, Slater et al. ( 2007 ) examined how the type of strategy pursued by a firm (Prospectors, Analyzers, Low Cost Defenders, Differentiated Defenders) affects the firm’s subsequent choice of target market and behaviors and its performance outcomes. Among other results, they show that Prospectors perform better when they target innovator and early adopter customers and exhibit technology-oriented behaviors and worse when they target early majority customers. Meanwhile Analyzers perform better when they target early adopters and early majority customers and exhibit competitor-oriented behaviors. Overall, results of this and similar research show that decisions regarding intended strategy choices generally only explain performance outcomes to the extent that firm’s marketing program choices and behaviors are consistent with the intended strategy.

However, some empirical research on this issue examines realized (vs. planned) strategy to identify strategy content decision(s). For example, Chandy and Tellis ( 2000 ) observed the types of innovations (radical or incremental) launched by a firm to identify the firm’s marketing strategy content and examine the relationship between these marketing strategy innovation content decisions and firm size. In contrast to prior assumptions, they show that: (1) large firms engage in radical innovation (and do so more than smaller firms) and (2) the “incumbent’s curse” (tendency to shift to more incremental innovations as firms become bigger and more established) varies across countries and over time. Similarly, Mizik and Jacobson ( 2003 ) use the proportion of a firm’s expenditures allocated to R&D versus Advertising to infer firms’ “strategic emphasis” toward value creation versus value capture as routes to achieving desired strategic goals. They find that investors reward resource shifts toward R&D and away from Advertising.

Our analyses also reveal that in the strategy formulation–content domain, there has been much less focus on studying the goals that marketing strategies are designed to achieve. In one recent example of such work, Spyropoulou et al.( 2018 ) examine the extent to which an SBU’s strategic goal to establish a differentiated and/or cost-based advantage determines the subsequent achievement of such positional advantages at a later point in time. They find that while setting differentiation goals aids their subsequent achievement the same is not true for cost goals, and that market-based knowledge, marketing capabilities, and external market characteristics moderate the marketing strategy goal–positional advantage achieved relationship. This is consistent with work on strategy decision content in suggesting that goals are linked to outcomes to the extent that firm resources, capabilities, and behaviors are aligned with the strategy content decisions and implementation requirements of the selected goals.

Formulation–process research

The marketing strategy formulation–process sub-domain concerns the mechanisms used to develop marketing strategy goals and identify and select the broad strategic means (i.e., market target(s), required value proposition, desired positioning, timing) by which these goals should be accomplished. With less than 6% of the published marketing strategy studies in our sample focusing on how managers develop marketing strategies, this is the least investigated of the four major sub-domains of marketing strategy—and by a big margin. As seen in Table 8 , by far the most frequently studied aspect of marketing strategy formulation–content in the relatively few published studies has been the marketing strategy making (MSM) process. For example, Menon et al. ( 1999 ) used a discovery-based approach including qualitative and survey-based methods to conceptualize and develop measures of the MSM process, and primary data to empirically examine its antecedents and consequences. They find that innovative culture is an antecedent of MSM and that different elements of MSM have differing impact on outcomes.

More broadly within the MSM area of this sub-domain, much of the research that has been published is conceptual in nature. This may be because disentangling and assessing different aspects of the MSM process requires data beyond secondary sources, using primary collection approaches such as interviews, surveys, observation, and other mechanisms. One conceptual marketing strategy formulation–process paper, is the study by Dickson et al. ( 2001 ). This study identifies and develops dynamic, mental model mapping techniques for marketing strategy development. The authors contend that in the MSM process, executives should view the market as a moving video rather than the common practice of viewing it as a static snapshot. The study provides a normative process to help marketing executives improve their marketing strategy decision-making in this way.

While many papers in this domain are conceptual in nature, in an example of a novel empirical approach to understanding marketing strategy decision-making process, Montgomery et al. ( 2005 ) conduct three studies to assess the degree to which managers attempt to predict competitive reactions (strategic competitive reasoning) in making marketing strategy decisions. In the first, students interviewed managers involved in a strategic decision to understand the degree to which they employed strategic competitive reasoning in their deliberation. In a second study, they assess whether the results generalize by asking executives to make decisions in a simulated context. In study three, executives were asked to review and assess the accuracy of the results observed in the first two studies. The authors find that there is a relatively low use of strategic competitive reasoning in the MSM process due to several factors including: low perceived returns from anticipating competitive reactions, difficulty in accessing competitive information, and uncertainty in being able to accurately predict competitive behavior. With little empirical research conducted in the strategy–process domain, this type of novel approach to data collection provides an interesting roadmap.

Implementation–content research

In contrast to strategy formulation–content, which focuses on the direction and broad strategic choices leaders select to achieve desired outcomes, the strategy implementation–content sub-domain concerns the detailed integrated marketing program tactics decisions taken, and actions and resource deployments to convert these into a concrete set of realized actions. As shown in Table 8 , almost half of the published work in this sub-domain has focused either on developing analytical models or using secondary data and marketing mix modeling to understand the performance impact of marketing program decisions. Footnote 6

Given the nature of the types of research most commonly conducted in this domain, it is difficult to synthesize as it tends to be contingent. For example, Hauser and Shugan ( 2008 ) develop models to identify a firm’s optimal profit maximizing decisions in response to a rival’s new product launch. They find that under specific conditions and assumptions, it is optimal to decrease investment in driving awareness, decrease distribution expenditures, and to potentially increase price. In another example, Bruce et al. ( 2012 ) construct a dynamic linear model to study the effects of two marketing program tactics (word of mouth and advertising) on demand for different products across different launch stages. Controlling for other marketing program elements, they find that word of mouth and advertising both influence demand for new products but do so at different stages of the relationship between the company and consumer.

Most published research on this issue is empirical and focuses on the direct and interactive effects of marketing tactics and actions—often using expenditures in different tactical areas as indicators—across multiple marketing program components. However, research that examines all 4 P’s simultaneously and dynamically to ensure relevant managerial insight is rare (12% of all marketing mix studies included in our sample). In one such study, Ataman et al. ( 2010 ) simultaneously examine the effect of all 4 P’s on the performance of mature brands. This study broadens integrated marketing program research beyond previously typical considerations of advertising and/or price promotions to also include product and distribution programs and characteristics. The authors find greater elasticities for product and distribution than for advertising and price promotion, suggesting that the research emphasis on investigating price promotions and advertising typical in earlier studies should be expanded.

Conceptual and theoretical papers tend to be less common in the implementation–content area. However, one example of such work in the second most frequently studied area of this sub-domain (marketing actions/behaviors) is Bolton et al. ( 2004 ) development of an integrated conceptual framework to help service organizations understand how marketing actions influence their customer assets. The authors create a customer asset management of services framework which integrates and links marketing instruments (promotions, reward programs, advertising) with customer perceptions of their relationship and subsequent customer behavior with its impact on the focal firm. By conceptually linking marketing actions with customer perception and actions, this study shows how short-term marketing actions may affect the lifetime value of firms’ customers.

Implementation–process research

The marketing strategy implementation–process sub-domain concerns the mechanisms (e.g., budgeting, communication systems, performance monitoring, alignment and coordination processes, organizational structure design, etc.) used to identify, select, and realize integrated marketing program tactics designed to deliver marketing strategy content decisions. As revealed in Table 8 , while there is generally a wider distribution of attention across topics in this sub-domain than in others, the most commonly studied issue is marketing organization design—the mechanisms by which required marketing tasks are accomplished. Research in this area has included both conceptual and empirical studies. For example, Homburg et al. ( 2000 ) use field interviews to explore marketing organization design and the broader shift toward customer-focused structures. They distinguish a new type of marketing organization that is more customer-focused and identify the transitional steps taken as firms migrate toward this new type of structure in accomplishing required marketing execution tasks. In contrast, Vorhies and Morgan ( 2003 ) use primary survey data and secondary performance data in a single industry to examine the fit between a firm’s strategy content and its marketing organization design. Drawing on configuration theory and utilizing a “fit as profile deviation” perspective, they find that marketing organization design-strategy content fit predicts both marketing effectiveness and efficiency performance outcomes.

Another relatively popular research focus of studies in this domain concerns marketing performance monitoring. For example, O'Sullivan and Abela ( 2007 ) use primary data and secondary performance data to study the impact of firms’ marketing performance measurement ability. They find that this is positively related to subjective measures of marketing performance outcomes, CEO satisfaction with the marketing function, and objective stock price—and that the use of marketing dashboards does not affect these relationships. Likewise, Homburg et al. ( 2012 ) use primary data to examine the comprehensiveness of marketing performance measurement systems (CMPMS) and find that this helps drive marketing alignment and market knowledge, which in turn positively predict performance. They also report that the strategy fit and “cause and effect” insight components of CMPMS matter more than the number and range of different metrics used.

Within the implementation–process sub-domain there is also a stream of research investigating how marketing’s engagement with other functions impacts implementation efforts. For example, Maltz and Kohli ( 2000 ) combine prior research, interviews with managers, and survey-based evidence to investigate marketing’s interactions with three functions that impact strategy implementation and the achievement of marketing goals. The authors identify six integrating mechanisms that can reduce the interfunctional conflict that commonly impairs marketing strategy implementation. Additionally, they demonstrate differential effects across marketing’s interactions with finance, manufacturing, and R&D.

Hybrid marketing strategy research

While most published marketing strategy research in the journals we examined primarily examines only one of the four sub-domains of marketing strategy identified in Fig. 1 , some studies cover more than one area. Some of these are conceptual papers covering a broad domain of marketing strategy. For example, Morgan ( 2012 ) develops a meso-level conceptual framework that theoretically links firm resources and marketing capabilities to firms’ marketing strategy decisions and marketing strategy implementation to positional, market, and financial performance outcomes. Consequently, the paper cuts across the formulation–content and implementation–content sub-domains of marketing strategy. Similarly, Varadarajan ( 2010 ) establishes a domain statement for the field of strategic marketing, distinguishing between key concepts such as the difference between strategic and tactical decisions (i.e., formulation–content and implementation–content) in the marketing strategy decision process.

Given the scope involved, there are relatively few empirical hybrid studies in our sample. In one such paper, Krush et al. ( 2015 ) investigate the impact of marketing’s influence when capabilities are dispersed, rather than centralized, within the firm. Controlling for business strategy type (formulation–content), they examine how the type of marketing capability dispersion (implementation–content) chosen impacts marketing’s influence and marketing implementation outcomes. This study finds that the form of marketing capability dispersion affects marketing’s influence within the firm, which in turn affects customer responsiveness that drives marketing strategy implementation success and ultimately business unit performance.

Discussion and implications

Our descriptive and sub-domain content exploration of research published in the most influential marketing strategy journals over the past 19 years reveals a number of new insights for marketing strategy research. First, is the relative (and increasing) rarity of research focusing on one or more aspects of the core marketing strategy construct at the heart of the field of strategic marketing. Our coding of research in these journals reveals that the focus of research attention in the recent past has been much more on individual marketing mix elements (i.e., individual tactics) than on the marketing strategies and integrated marketing programs with which individual marketing mix elements are associated. While knowledge of the impact of various individual marketing mix elements under different conditions is obviously useful (more knowledge regarding any type of marketing phenomena is generally a good thing), the relative emphasis in current research seems out of balance given the focus of practice on marketing strategy.

Second, in terms of theory building and theory use, our analysis suggests that almost half of the papers published in the last 19 years have been logic- or data-driven in developing arguments—and this trend is increasing. Of course, data-driven approaches are not necessarily bad, and managers are often very interested in observed relationships. In addition, finding “what” empirical relationships exist can lead to “why” propositions that can aid theory building. Likewise, logic is always a useful device for developing arguments that can be empirically tested. However, both approaches are insufficient for understanding “why” relationships involving marketing strategy phenomena exist. This is problematic for researchers and the academic sub-discipline of strategic marketing since answering “why” questions is the raison d’être of any social science. However, it is also problematic from a relevance perspective. Well-crafted research in marketing strategy increasingly controls for many sources of variance in order to isolate specific relationships of interest and rule out alternative explanations. This is good scientific practice, but also makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to derive generalizable and actionable practical implications for managers. This makes theoretical understanding of “why” relationships involving marketing strategy phenomena exist more valuable sources of guidance for managers than knowing “what” relationships exist under strict conditions.

In addition, among the theory-based marketing strategy studies published we find there are increasingly few theory-building papers, and a greater proportion of theory-testing papers. Clearly, theories used in marketing strategy need to be tested and their boundary conditions established. In doing so, we also observe some shift toward using multi- versus single-theory lenses—which may be necessary to deal with the complexity that is typical (and increasingly so) of marketing strategy problems in practice. However, the paucity of new theory development in marketing strategy over the past 19 years is alarming given the dramatic changes that have taken place in the world of marketing strategy practice. There has been much talk generally of the need for building indigenous theories in marketing (e.g., Yadav 2010 ). Behavioral and modeling researchers, while often contributing to theories in consumer psychology and economics rarely seek to build theory that is specific to marketing. Given that marketing is an applied discipline, marketing strategy researchers may be the best placed to build such indigenous marketing theory. Yet it appears they are less and less likely to do so.

Third, in terms of data sources and analysis methods, our study shows that the use of qualitative approaches in published marketing strategy research is rare—and trending down toward zero. While marketing strategy research is defined by the domain of inquiry rather than the research method adopted, this may be problematic for knowledge development for a number of reasons. First, it is rarely possible to examine new marketing strategy phenomena empirically without first being able to deeply understand their nature (you cannot measure something you cannot define). Yet, casual observation of the nature, magnitude, and rate of change in marketing practice suggests that new marketing phenomena are bound to be emerging. This suggests that marketing strategy research is increasingly lagging practice. Second, qualitative approaches are also necessary for observing many existing marketing strategy phenomena. For example, understanding marketing strategy implementation failures, influence in goal setting, participation in marketing strategy decision making, marketing strategy–tactic alignment, etc. will be extremely limited if only survey- or text-based measures are used.

In terms of quantitative data sources and analyses, we find a relative balance between primary and secondary (only and combined with primary) data used in published research in marketing strategy. However, the trends are clearly away from primary-only research and toward studies using secondary data. We also observe some mirroring of this in the level and trends of different analysis approaches used, with increasing use of time series and regression-based models and a drop in SEM. Again, this raises concerns with respect to the types and aspects of marketing strategy phenomena that are studied. For example, while researchers have made increasingly creative uses of secondary data to infer a number of marketing strategy phenomena it may be hard to study marketing strategy processes using such approaches—yet conceptually these comprise half of the marketing strategy construct. Newer techniques such as text analysis may open up new ways to study some process phenomena (e.g., mining archival documents concerning a firm’s market analyses and marketing plans). However, there are likely to remain other process phenomena which may always need to be explored and empirically examined using primary qualitative, observation, and/or survey data.

In terms of causation, it is unclear whether the trends that we observe in published marketing strategy papers are a result of increasing numbers of researchers not engaging in research designs of this type or that the major journals are simply less likely to publish marketing strategy research using such approaches. These two things are likely not independent. Reviewers, Associate Editors and Editors being less likely to accept qualitative and primary research designs lowers the incentive for researchers to pursue them. Likewise, the fewer researchers employing such approaches, the weaker the “talent pool” of reviewers and Associate Editors who can assess and constructively improve research using them. Irrespective of the cause, important marketing strategy phenomena may become increasingly under-researched unless the trends change.

A marketing strategy research agenda

In practice, not only is the domain of marketing strategy as delineated in our definition and review framework central to what marketers and CMOs do, but it is also the domain of many of the most important challenges facing them. With this in mind, we first identify areas within the sub-domains of marketing strategy that our review of research in the most influential journals over the past 19 years suggest are under-investigated, managerially relevant, and present opportunities for theoretically interesting research. Second, drawing on some “bigger picture” conceptual questions and practice-based questions that have been overlooked in extant research we also identify some “hybrid” problems and questions that cross sub-domains. In each area we briefly highlight data sources and research approaches that may be appropriate. Finally, we also consider some research design issues for conducting such marketing strategy research.

Formulation–content

The historical focus of published research in this sub-domain has been on strategy type and positioning, with significantly less research conducted on questions related to goals, business model design, timing, and specific stages of strategy formulation such as market selection. Interestingly, many of the issues that practicing managers are grappling with concern the dynamic and changing role of marketing, such as how to lead change when goals are shifting, how to make trade-offs between short-term and long-term business needs, and how the shift in the CMO’s role interacts with marketing strategy viability. In combination, we identify three key topic areas for additional research that are both under-examined in existing marketing strategy research, and of clear relevance to the challenges facing CMOs: marketing strategy goals , the role of the CMO/marketing function , and longer- versus shorter-term emphasis in marketing strategy . In Table 14 A, we develop exemplar research questions and identify potential research approaches that may be particularly useful or appropriate in addressing these questions.

Formulation–process

Within this sub-domain, the dominant focus of research has been the process of marketing strategy making generally, and mechanisms for specific stages of this such as market analysis and target market/customer selection. Significantly less research has examined questions related to who should take part in the MSM process, when and how they should take part, what contingencies may make different approaches more or less effective, and how communication mechanisms may be used during the MSM process. Ironically, many of the issues that practicing managers are grappling with align with these under-researched topics and questions. In Table 14 B we therefore focus on three areas for additional research in this sub-domain that are both under-examined in existing marketing strategy research, and of clear relevance to the challenges facing CMOs: planning participation , planning process design , and planning enablers/inhibitors . Again, we also develop exemplar research questions and identify potential research approaches that may be particularly useful or appropriate in addressing these questions.

Implementation–content

As previously described, research in this sub-domain has been dominated by marketing mix studies, with significantly less research conducted on any other questions such as what resource deployments work best and under what conditions, what degree of alignment is achieved, and what performance outcomes are monitored. Again, a number of the most pressing challenges faced by marketers highlighted in Table 1 seem to fall primarily in such lesser-researched areas. In Table 14 C we therefore focus on three areas for additional research in this sub-domain that are under-examined in existing marketing strategy research, and relevant to addressing these practical challenges: marketing organization , integrated marketing programs , and marketing tactic enactment . Key research questions in each of these areas and potential research approaches that may be useful in addressing these questions are also identified.

Implementation–process

Prior research in this sub-domain has been more diffuse than in other domains. Interestingly, a number of the most pressing challenges faced by marketers highlighted in Table 1 fall in areas that many may consider “management” versus “marketing.” However, adopting such a perspective runs two risks: (1) assuming that management researchers are willing and able to answer such CMO questions and (2) assuming that the answers to such CMO questions will be the same as for a general manager. These are important and likely invalid assumptions. In Table 10D we therefore focus on three areas for additional research in this sub-domain: marketing strategy adaptation , strategy realization processes , and marketing organization design . Key research questions in these three areas and allied research approaches are also identified. While marketing strategy researchers will need to be careful in framing some of these questions, they are marketing (vs. purely management) strategy questions—and ones to which CMOs need answers.

In addition to the “within sub-domain” questions, we identify two hybrid “across domain” areas that are either under-researched to date but theoretically very important, or that are both under-researched and an area of keen managerial interest: intended versus realized marketing strategy “gaps” and marketing – strategy alignment . While the existence of intended versus realized strategy gaps is conceptualized in the management literature, empirical verification of this and understanding why they may exist is almost completely absent in marketing strategy. We identify some exemplar questions and suggest some research approaches that may address this key knowledge gap. In addition, “alignment” is one of the most frequently used words in practice when managers talk about how they seek to implement intended marketing strategy. Yet empirically we have little understanding of these phenomena. This is clearly an important gap in marketing strategy knowledge that is highly relevant to CMOs and other marketers.

Future research

In addition to the need to address such specific research questions, there are also broader approaches to studying marketing strategy research problems and questions that may offer new opportunities for knowledge development. For example, drawing on sociological and anthropological theories and approaches there is a large and growing field of research in strategic management labelled “strategy as practice” that considers the “doing of it” including the actors involved, the perspectives they hold, and tools that they use (e.g., Feldman and Orlikowski 2011 ; Whittington 2006 ). How might such an approach inform marketing strategy research with respect to better understanding who does it, what they do, how they do it, and how this shapes strategy decisions, their implementation and outcomes? For example, how does what CMOs think that marketing strategy is vary across firms and why? When, why and with what consequences do CMOs use different perspectives and tools in developing marketing strategy (e.g., complex formal plans vs. goals and improvisation vs. simple rules)?

While some of the work on “strategy as practice” is similar in nature to process research in terms of some of the process-related marketing strategy sub-domain and hybrid research questions highlighted earlier, it also has a stronger focus on the individuals and groups involved. Such an individual- and group-level focus also opens up potentially interesting new avenues for using other theories and research approaches to study marketing strategy. For example, psychology and behavioral economics researchers have shown that people have systematic (and predictable) biases in thinking and decision-making. Since humans (individually and collectively) make and execute marketing strategy decisions, how do such individual-level biases affect marketing strategy decision making and with what consequences? For example, do “blindspots” exist in managers’ analyses of customers and competitors during marketing strategy making? What are the implications for designing marketing strategy-making and execution processes that recognize and limit such biases? Such an individual-level decision-maker focus may also allow researchers to begin to explore the “micro-foundations” of marketing strategy such as managers’ strategic thinking skills.

This research agenda and these new approaches also suggest some important questions and implications for data sources and research method approaches that can be used to explore these areas of marketing strategy. For example, qualitative tools of observation are widely used in management research on strategy. Behavioral experiments can also be used with individual marketing strategy decision-makers. Simulations and games can provide insights into both individual-level and group-level marketing strategy phenomena.

In addition, new technologies are also opening up new data sources and analysis possibilities. For example, new text analysis tools and approaches enable new possibilities for data collection of some important strategic marketing phenomena such as market orientation. New image analysis tools are also emerging. How can such tools be applied to some of the marketing strategy questions outlined here? There is also a rapid growth in tools and approaches for managing and analyzing unstructured data (Balducci and Marinova 2018 ). These may offer exciting opportunities for researchers to work with firms to collate and analyze previously untouched data sources such as presentation content topics, calendar appointments, email threads, workplace collaboration software content, etc. These may provide exciting new ways to gain insights into some of the problems and questions we identify in our new research agenda.

Marketing strategy lies at the conceptual heart of the strategic marketing field. It is also central to marketing practice and the area within which many of the most pressing challenges for marketers arise. Using a new conceptualization of the domain of the marketing strategy construct as a lens, we assess the current state of marketing strategy research. We uncover important challenges to marketing strategy research but also numerous opportunities for developing important and highly relevant new marketing strategy knowledge. The research agenda we develop provides opportunities for researchers to develop new theory, establish clear relevance, and contribute to improving practice. Since many of these cannot be adequately addressed with current publicly available secondary data, researchers need to become more eclectic and creative in their research designs, including emerging new technologies for data capture and analysis. Correspondingly, Editors, Associate Editors, and reviewers will need to become more open, eclectic, and skilled in evaluating such research designs. While there may be institutional obstacles in doing so, our research suggests the payoffs can be enormous—the number and importance of unanswered marketing strategy questions and opportunities to impact practice has arguably never been greater.

We follow Varadarjan’s (2010) distinction, using “strategic marketing” as the term describing the general field of study and “marketing strategy” as the construct that is central in the field of strategic marketing—just as analogically “strategic management” is a field of study in which “corporate strategy” is a central construct.

Following the strategic management literature (e.g., Mintzberg 1994 ; Pascale 1984 ), marketing strategy has also been viewed from an “emergent” strategy perspective (e.g. Hutt et al. 1988 ; Menon et al. 1999 ). Conceptually this is captured as realized (but not pre-planned) tactics and actions in Figure 1 .

These may be at the product/brand, SBU, or firm level.

These strategic marketing but “non-strategy” coding areas are not mutually exclusive. For example, many papers in this non-strategy category cover both inputs/outputs and environment (e.g., Kumar et al. 2016 ; Lee et al. 2014 ; Palmatier et al. 2013 ; Zhou et al. 2005 ), or specific tactics, input/output, and environment (e.g., Bharadwaj et al. 2011 ; Palmatier et al. 2007 ; Rubera and Kirca 2012 ).

The relative drop in marketing strategy studies published in JM may be a function of the recent growth of interest in the shareholder perspective (Katsikeas et al. 2016 ) and studies linking marketing-related resources and capabilities directly with stock market performance indicators. Such studies typically treat marketing strategy as an unobserved intervening construct.

Since this concerns integrated marketing program design and execution, marketing mix studies contribute to knowledge of strategy implementation–content when all four major marketing program areas are either directly modeled or are controlled for in studies focusing on one or more specific marketing program components.

Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 75–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ataman, M. B., Van Heerde, H. J., & Mela, C. F. (2010). The long-term effect of marketing strategy on brand sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 866–882.

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2004). Antecedents and outcomes of marketing strategy comprehensiveness. Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 33–46.

Balducci, B., & Marinova, D. (2018). Unstructured data in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (4), 557–590.

Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 123–139.

Bharadwaj, S. G., Tuli, K. R., & Bonfrer, A. (2011). The impact of brand quality on shareholder wealth. Journal of Marketing, 75 (5), 88–104.

Bolton, R. N., Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2004). The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset management: A framework and propositions for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 271–292.

Bruce, N. I., Foutz, N. Z., & Kolsarici, C. (2012). Dynamic effectiveness of advertising and word of mouth in sequential distribution of new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 469–486.

Cespedes, F. V. (1991). Organizing and implementing the marketing effort: Text and cases . Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 1–17.

Choi, S. C., & Coughlan, A. T. (2006). Private label positioning: Quality versus feature differentiation from the national brand. Journal of Retailing, 82 (2), 79–93.

Dickson, P. R., Farris, P. W., & Verbeke, W. J. (2001). Dynamic strategic thinking. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (3), 216–237.

Esper, T. L., Ellinger, A. E., Stank, T. P., Flint, D. J., & Moon, M. (2010). Demand and supply integration: A conceptual framework of value creation through knowledge management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (1), 5–18.

Fang, E. E., Lee, J., Palmatier, R., & Han, S. (2016). If it takes a village to Foster innovation, success depends on the neighbors: The effects of global and Ego networks on new product launches. Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 319–337.

Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (7), 561–594.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1240–1253.

Frambach, R. T., Prabhu, J., & Verhallen, T. M. (2003). The influence of business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (4), 377–397.

Frankwick, G. L., Ward, J. C., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1994). Evolving patterns of organizational beliefs in the formation of strategy. Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 96–110.

Ghosh, M., & John, G. (1999). Governance value analysis and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 131–145.

Gonzalez, G. R., Claro, D. P., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Synergistic effects of relationship Managers' social networks on sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 76–94.

Gooner, R. A., Morgan, N. A., & Perreault Jr., W. D. (2011). Is retail category management worth the effort (and does a category captain help or hinder). Journal of Marketing, 75 (5), 18–33.

Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., Johnson, J. L., & Mallapragada, G. (2013). Environments, unobserved heterogeneity, and the effect of market orientation on outcomes for high-tech firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 206–233.

Harmeling, C. M., Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Arnold, M. J., & Samaha, S. A. (2015). Transformational relationship events. Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 39–62.

Hauser, J. R., & Shugan, S. M. (2008). Defensive marketing strategies. Marketing Science, 27 (1), 88–110.

Homburg, C., Workman Jr., J. P., & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in marketing organization: The movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (4), 459–478.

Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of Marketing, 75 (2), 55–74.

Homburg, C., Artz, M., & Wieseke, J. (2012). Marketing performance measurement systems: Does comprehensiveness really improve performance? Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 56–77.

Hutt, M. D., Reingen, P. H., & Ronchetto Jr., J. R. (1988). Tracing emergent processes in marketing strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52 (1), 4–19.

Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 1–20.

Kerin, R. A., Mahajan, V., & Varadarajan, P. (1990). Contemporary perspectives on strategic market planning . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Krush, M. T., Sohi, R. S., & Saini, A. (2015). Dispersion of marketing capabilities: Impact on marketing’s influence and business unit outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 32–51.

Kumar, V., Dixit, A., Javalgi, R. R. G., & Dass, M. (2016). Research framework, strategies, and applications of intelligent agent technologies (IATs) in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 24–45.

Kumar, V., Sharma, A., & Gupta, S. (2017). Accessing the influence of strategic marketing research on generating impact: Moderating roles of models, journals, and estimation approaches. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 164–185.

Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 219–240.

Lee, J. Y., Sridhar, S., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Effect of customer-centric structure on long-term financial performance. Marketing Science, 34 (2), 250–268.

Lewis, M. (2004). The influence of loyalty programs and short-term promotions on customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (3), 281–292.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Luo, X., & Homburg, C. (2008). Satisfaction, complaint, and the stock value gap. Journal of Marketing, 72 (4), 29–43.

Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions: The differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (4), 479.

Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: A model and a test. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 18–40.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72 (1), 107–114.

Mintzberg, H., & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan Management Review, 40 (3), 21.

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 63–76.

Montgomery, D. B., Moore, M. C., & Urbany, J. E. (2005). Reasoning about competitive reactions: Evidence from executives. Marketing Science, 24 (1), 138–149.

Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62 (3), 1–20.

Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 102–119.

Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25 (5), 426–439.

Morgan, N. A., Katsikeas, C. S., & Vorhies, D. W. (2012). Export marketing strategy implementation, export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (2), 271–289.

Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 57–73.

O'Sullivan, D., & Abela, A. V. (2007). Marketing performance measurement ability and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 71 (2), 79–93.

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. Journal of Marketing, 71 (4), 172–194.

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2013). Relationship velocity: Toward a theory of relationship dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 13–30.

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 1–5.

Pascale, R. T. (1984). Perspectives on strategy: The real story behind Honda’s success. California Management Reviews, 26 (3), 47–72.

Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 167–176.

Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2015). Perceived risk, product returns, and optimal resource allocation: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (2), 268–285.

Piercy, N. F. (1998). Marketing implementation: The implications of marketing paradigm weakness for the strategy execution process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (3), 222–236.

Rego, L. L., Billett, M. T., & Morgan, N. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk. Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 47–60.

Rego, L. L., Morgan, N. A., & Fornell, C. (2013). Reexamining the market share–customer satisfaction relationship. Journal of Marketing, 77 (5), 1–20.

Roberts, J. H., Kayande, U., & Stremersch, S. (2014). From academic research to marketing practice: Exploring the marketing science value chain. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31 (2), 127–140.

Rubera, G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 130–147.

Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75 (3), 99–117.

Samaha, S. A., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). The role of culture in international relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 78–98.

Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2001). Marketing's contribution to the implementation of business strategy: An empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (11), 1055–1067.

Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, E. M. (2007). On the importance of matching strategic behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 5–17.

Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, E. M. (2010). Factors influencing the relative importance of marketing strategy creativity and marketing strategy implementation effectiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (4), 551–559.

Slotegraaf, R. J., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2011). Product development team stability and new product advantage: The role of decision-making processes. Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 96–108.

Song, M., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Zhao, Y. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of manufacturer–distributor cooperation: An empirical test in the US and Japan. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (2), 215–233.

Spyropoulou, S., Katsikeas, C. S., Skarmeas, D., & Morgan, N. A. (2018). Strategic goal accomplishment in export ventures: the role of capabilities, knowledge, and environment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 109–129.

Steiner, M., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., & Backhaus, K. (2016). Do customized service packages impede value capture in industrial markets? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 151–165.

Sun, B., & Li, S. (2011). Learning and acting on customer information: A simulation-based demonstration on service allocations with offshore centers. Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (1), 72–86.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (5), 169–188.

Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: Domain, definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (2), 119–140.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Jayachandran, S. (1999). Marketing strategy: An assessment of the state of the field and outlook. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 120–143.

Varadarajan, R., Yadav, M. S., & Shankar, V. (2008). First-mover advantage in an internet-enabled market environment: Conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (3), 293–308.

Venkatesan, R., & Kumar, V. (2004). A customer lifetime value framework for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 106–125.

Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2003). A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 100–115.

Walker Jr., O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1987). Marketing's role in the implementation of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51 (3), 15–33.

Whitler, K. A., & Morgan, N. (2017). Why CMOs never last and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 95 (4), 46–54.

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27 (5), 613–634.

Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74 (1), 1–19.

Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 42–60.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 E. Tenth St., Bloomington, IN, 47405-1701, USA

Neil A. Morgan

Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

Kimberly A. Whitler

Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University, 3337 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA, 50011-1350, USA

Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

Simos Chari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil A. Morgan .

Additional information

Mark Houston served as Area Editor for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morgan, N.A., Whitler, K.A., Feng, H. et al. Research in marketing strategy. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 , 4–29 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0598-1

Download citation

Received : 14 January 2018

Accepted : 20 July 2018

Published : 18 August 2018

Issue Date : 15 January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0598-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Marketing strategy
• Strategic marketing
• CMO marketing challenges
• Research design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Consumer Survey Data Tools
• Company Analysis
• Industry Research
• Advertising
• Digital Transformation
• Ethics & Reputation
• Global Markets
• Books & Articles
• Top Marketing Journals
• Data Services
• Fashion & Luxury Marketing This link opens in a new window

A Selection of Top Ranked Marketing Journals

• Consumption Markets & Culture
• Journal of Advertising
• Journal of Consumer Research
• Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
• Journal of International Marketing
• Journal of Marketing
• Journal of Marketing Research
• Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
• Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
• Journal of Vacation Marketing
• Marketing Letters
• Marketing Science

Search NYU's Electronic Journal Subscriptions by Title

• Search by E-Journal Title
• << Previous: Books & Articles
• Next: Data Services >>
• Last Updated: May 1, 2024 11:13 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/marketing

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Marketing →

• 29 Feb 2024

Beyond Goals: David Beckham's Playbook for Mobilizing Star Talent

Reach soccer's pinnacle. Become a global brand. Buy a team. Sign Lionel Messi. David Beckham makes success look as easy as his epic free kicks. But leveraging world-class talent takes discipline and deft decision-making, as case studies by Anita Elberse reveal. What could other businesses learn from his ascent?

• 17 Jan 2024

Psychological Pricing Tactics to Fight the Inflation Blues

Inflation has slowed from the epic rates of 2021 and 2022, but many consumers still feel pinched. What will it take to encourage them to spend? Thoughtful pricing strategies that empower customers as they make purchasing decisions, says research by Elie Ofek.

• 05 Dec 2023
• Cold Call Podcast

What Founders Get Wrong about Sales and Marketing

Which sales candidate is a startup’s ideal first hire? What marketing channels are best to invest in? How aggressively should an executive team align sales with customer success? Senior Lecturer Mark Roberge discusses how early-stage founders, sales leaders, and marketing executives can address these challenges as they grow their ventures in the case, “Entrepreneurial Sales and Marketing Vignettes.”

Tommy Hilfiger’s Adaptive Clothing Line: Making Fashion Inclusive

In 2017, Tommy Hilfiger launched its adaptive fashion line to provide fashion apparel that aims to make dressing easier. By 2020, it was still a relatively unknown line in the U.S. and the Tommy Hilfiger team was continuing to learn more about how to serve these new customers. Should the team make adaptive clothing available beyond the U.S., or is a global expansion premature? Assistant Professor Elizabeth Keenan discusses the opportunities and challenges that accompanied the introduction of a new product line that effectively serves an entirely new customer while simultaneously starting a movement to provide fashion for all in the case, “Tommy Hilfiger Adaptive: Fashion for All.”

• Research & Ideas

Are Virtual Tours Still Worth It in Real Estate? Evidence from 75,000 Home Sales

Many real estate listings still feature videos and interactive tools that simulate the experience of walking through properties. But do they help homes sell faster? Research by Isamar Troncoso probes the post-pandemic value of virtual home tours.

• 17 Oct 2023

With Subscription Fatigue Setting In, Companies Need to Think Hard About Fees

Subscriptions are available for everything from dental floss to dog toys, but are consumers tiring of monthly fees? Elie Ofek says that subscription revenue can provide stability, but companies need to tread carefully or risk alienating customers.

• 29 Aug 2023

As Social Networks Get More Competitive, Which Ones Will Survive?

In early 2023, TikTok reached close to 1 billion users globally, placing it fourth behind the leading social networks: Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Meanwhile, competition in the market for videos had intensified. Can all four networks continue to attract audiences and creators? Felix Oberholzer-Gee discusses competition and imitation among social networks in his case “Hey, Insta & YouTube, Are You Watching TikTok?”

• 26 Jun 2023

Want to Leave a Lasting Impression on Customers? Don't Forget the (Proverbial) Fireworks

Some of the most successful customer experiences end with a bang. Julian De Freitas provides three tips to help businesses invest in the kind of memorable moments that will keep customers coming back.

• 31 May 2023

With Predictive Analytics, Companies Can Tap the Ultimate Opportunity: Customers’ Routines

Armed with more data than ever, many companies know what key customers need. But how many know exactly when they need it? An analysis of 2,000 ridesharing commuters by Eva Ascarza and colleagues shows what's possible for companies that can anticipate a customer's routine.

• 30 May 2023

Can AI Predict Whether Shoppers Would Pick Crest Over Colgate?

Is it the end of customer surveys? Definitely not, but research by Ayelet Israeli sheds light on the potential for generative AI to improve market research. But first, businesses will need to learn to harness the technology.

• 24 Apr 2023

What Does It Take to Build as Much Buzz as Booze? Inside the Epic Challenge of Cannabis-Infused Drinks

The market for cannabis products has exploded as more states legalize marijuana. But the path to success is rife with complexity as a case study about the beverage company Cann by Ayelet Israeli illustrates.

• 07 Apr 2023

When Celebrity ‘Crypto-Influencers’ Rake in Cash, Investors Lose Big

Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, and other entertainers have been accused of promoting crypto products on social media without disclosing conflicts. Research by Joseph Pacelli shows what can happen to eager investors who follow them.

• 10 Feb 2023

COVID-19 Lessons: Social Media Can Nudge More People to Get Vaccinated

Social networks have been criticized for spreading COVID-19 misinformation, but the platforms have also helped public health agencies spread the word on vaccines, says research by Michael Luca and colleagues. What does this mean for the next pandemic?

• 02 Feb 2023

Why We Still Need Twitter: How Social Media Holds Companies Accountable

Remember the viral video of the United passenger being removed from a plane? An analysis of Twitter activity and corporate misconduct by Jonas Heese and Joseph Pacelli reveals the power of social media to uncover questionable situations at companies.

• 06 Dec 2022

Latest Isn’t Always Greatest: Why Product Updates Capture Consumers

Consumers can't pass up a product update—even if there's no improvement. Research by Leslie John, Michael Norton, and Ximena Garcia-Rada illustrates the powerful allure of change. Are we really that naïve?

• 29 Nov 2022

How Much More Would Holiday Shoppers Pay to Wear Something Rare?

Economic worries will make pricing strategy even more critical this holiday season. Research by Chiara Farronato reveals the value that hip consumers see in hard-to-find products. Are companies simply making too many goods?

• 26 Oct 2022

How Paid Promos Take the Shine Off YouTube Stars (and Tips for Better Influencer Marketing)

Influencers aspire to turn "likes" into dollars through brand sponsorships, but these deals can erode their reputations, says research by Shunyuan Zhang. Marketers should seek out authentic voices on YouTube, not necessarily those with the most followers.

• 25 Oct 2022

Is Baseball Ready to Compete for the Next Generation of Fans?

With its slower pace and limited on-field action, major league baseball trails football in the US, basketball, and European soccer in revenue and popularity. Stephen Greyser discusses the state of "America's pastime."

• 18 Oct 2022

When Bias Creeps into AI, Managers Can Stop It by Asking the Right Questions

Even when companies actively try to prevent it, bias can sway algorithms and skew decision-making. Ayelet Israeli and Eva Ascarza offer a new approach to make artificial intelligence more accurate.

• 08 Aug 2022

Building an 'ARMY' of Fans: Marketing Lessons from K-Pop Sensation BTS

Few companies can boast a customer base as loyal and engaged as BTS fans. In a case study, Doug Chung shares what marketers can learn from the boyband's savvy use of social media and authentic connection with listeners.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• Data library

2024 Housing Market Forecast and Predictions: Housing Affordability Finally Begins to Turnaround

As we look ahead to 2024 , we see a mix of continuity and change in both the housing market and economy. Against a backdrop of modest economic growth, slightly higher unemployment, and easing inflation longer term interest rates including mortgage rates begin a slow retreat. The shift from climbing to falling mortgage rates improves housing affordability, but saps some of the urgency home shoppers had previously sensed. Less frenzied housing demand and plenty of rental home options keep home sales relatively stable at low levels in 2024, helping home prices to adjust slightly lower even as the number of for-sale homes continues to dwindle. 

Realtor.com ® 2024 Forecast for Key Housing Indicators

Home Prices Dip, Improving Affordability

Home prices grew at a double-digit annual clip for the better part of two years spanning the second half of 2020 through 2022, a notable burst following a growing streak that spanned back to 2012. As mortgage rates climbed, home price growth flatlined, actually declining on an annual basis in early 2023 before an early-year dip in mortgage rates spurred enough buyer demand to reignite competition for still-limited inventory. Home prices began to climb again, and while they did not reach a new monthly peak, on average for the year we expect that the 2023 median home price will slightly exceed the 2022 annual median.

Nevertheless, even during the brief period when prices eased, using a mortgage to buy a home remained expensive. Since May 2022, purchasing the typical for-sale home listing at the prevailing rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20% down payment meant forking over a quarter or more of the typical household paycheck. In fact, in October 2023, it required 39% of the typical household income and this share is expected to average 36.7% for the full calendar year in 2023. This figure has typically ranged around 21%, so it is well above historical average. We expect that the return to pricing in line with financing costs will begin in 2024, and home prices, mortgage rates, and income growth will each contribute to the improvement. Home prices are expected to ease slightly, dropping less than 2% for the year on average. Combined with lower mortgage rates and income growth this will improve the home purchase mortgage payment share relative to median income to an average 34.9% in 2024, with the share slipping under 30% by the end of the year.

Home Sales Barely Budge Above 2023’s Likely Record Low

After soaring during the pandemic, existing home sales were weighed down in the latter half of 2022 as mortgage rates took off, climbing from just over 3% at the start of the year to a peak of more than 7% in the fourth quarter. The reprieve in mortgage rates in early 2023, when they dipped to around 6%, brought some life to home sales, but the renewed climb of mortgage rates has again exerted significant pressure on home sales that is exacerbated by the fact that a greater than usual number of households bought homes over the past few years, and despite stories of pandemic purchase regret , for the most part, these homeowners continue to be happy in their homes. 

This is consistent with what visitors to Realtor.com report when asked why they are not planning to sell their homes. The number one reason homeowners aren’t trying to sell is that they just don’t need to; concern about losing an existing low-rate mortgage is the top financial concern cited. Our current projection is for 2023 home sales to tally just over 4 million, a dip of 19% over the 2022 5 million total. 

With many of the same forces at play heading into 2024, the housing chill will continue, with sales expected to remain essentially unchanged at just over 4 million. Although mortgage rates are expected to ease throughout the course of the year, the continuation of high costs will mean that existing homeowners will have a very high threshold for deciding to move, with many likely choosing to stay in place.  Moves of necessity–for job changes, family situation changes, and downsizing to a more affordable market–are likely to drive home sales in 2024. 

Shoppers Find Even Fewer Existing Homes For Sale

Even before the pandemic, housing inventory was on a long, slow downward trajectory. Insufficient building meant that the supply of houses did not keep up with household formation and left little slack in the housing market. Both homeowner and rental vacancy remain below historic averages . In contrast with the existing home market, which remains sluggish, builders have been catching up, with construction remaining near pre-pandemic highs for single-family and hitting record levels for multi-family . 

Despite this, the lack of excess capacity in housing has been painfully obvious in the for-sale home market. The number of existing homes on the market has dwindled. With home sales activity to continue at a relatively low pace, the number of unsold homes on the market is also expected to remain low.  Although mortgage rates are expected to begin to ease, they are expected to exceed 6.5% for the calendar year. This means that the lock-in effect, in which the gap between market mortgage rates and the mortgage rates existing homeowners enjoy on their outstanding mortgage, will remain a factor. Roughly two-thirds of outstanding mortgages have a rate under 4% and more than 90% have a rate less than 6%.

Rental Supply Outpaces Demand to Drive Mild Further Decline in Rents

After almost a full year of double-digit rent growth between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the rental market has finally cooled down, as evidenced by the year-over-year decline that started in May 2023 . In 2024, we expect the rental market will closely resemble the dynamics witnessed in 2023, as the tug of war between supply and demand results in a mild annual decline of -0.2% in the median asking rent.

New multi-family supply will continue to be a key element shaping the 2024 rental market.  In the third quarter of 2023, the annual pace of newly completed multi-family homes stood at 385,000 units. Although absorption rates remained elevated in the second quarter, especially at lower price points, the rental vacancy rate ticked up to 6.6% in the third quarter. This uptick in rental vacancy suggests the recent supply has outpaced demand, but context is important. After recent gains, the rental vacancy rate is on par with its level right before the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, still below its 7.2% average from the 2013 to 2019 period.  Looking ahead, the strong construction pipeline– which hit a record high for units under construction this summer –is expected to continue fueling rental supply growth in 2024 pushing rental vacancy back toward its long-run average. 

While the surge in new multi-family supply gives renters options, the sheer number of renters will minimize the potential price impact. The median asking rent in 2024 is expected to drop only slightly below its 2023 level. Renting is expected to continue to be a more budget friendly option than buying in the vast majority of markets, even though home prices and mortgage rates are both expected to dip, helping pull the purchase market down slightly from record unaffordability. 

Young adult renters who lack the benefit of historically high home equity to tap into for a home purchase will continue to find the housing market challenging. Specifically, as many Millennials age past first-time home buying age and more Gen Z approach these years, the current housing landscape is likely to keep these households in the rental market for a longer period as they work to save up more money for the growing down payment needed to buy a first home. This trend is expected to sustain robust demand for rental properties. Consequently, we anticipate that rental markets favored by young adults , a list which includes a mix of affordable areas and tech-heavy job markets in the South, Midwest, and West, will be rental markets to watch in 2024.

Key Wildcards:

• Wildcard 1: Mortgage Rates With both mortgage rates and home prices expected to turn the corner in 2024, record high unaffordability will become a thing of the past, though as noted above, the return to normal won’t be accomplished within the year. This prediction hinges on the expectation that inflation will continue to subside, enabling the recent declines in longer-term interest rates to continue. If inflation were to instead see a surprise resurgence, this aspect of the forecast would change, and home sales could slip lower instead of steadying.
• Wildcard 2: Geopolitics In our forecast for 2023 , we cited the risk of geopolitical instability on trade and energy costs as something to watch. In addition to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East has not only had a catastrophic human toll, both conflicts have the potential to impact the economic outlook in ways that cannot be fully anticipated. 
• Wildcard 3: Domestic Politics: 2024 Elections In 2020, amid the upheaval of pandemic-era adaptations, many Americans were on the move. We noted that Realtor.com traffic patterns indicated that home shoppers in very traditionally ‘blue’ or Democratic areas were tending to look for homes in markets where voters have more typically voted ‘red’ or Republican. While consumers also reported preferring to live in locations where their political views align with the majority , few actually reported wanting to move for this reason alone. 

Housing Perspectives:

What will the market be like for homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers.

First-time homebuyers will continue to face a challenging housing market in 2024, but there are some green shoots. The record-high share of income required to purchase the median priced home is expected to begin to decline as mortgage rates ease, home prices soften, and incomes grow. In 2023 we expect that for the year as a whole, the monthly cost of financing the typical for-sale home will average more than $2,240, a nearly 20% increase over the mortgage payment in 2022, and roughly double the typical payment for buyers in 2020. This amounted to a whopping nearly 37% of the typical household income. In 2024 as modest price declines take hold and mortgage rates dip, the typical purchase cost is expected to slip just under $2,200 which would amount to nearly 35% of income. While far higher than historically average, this is a significant first step in a buyer-friendly direction.

How can homebuyers prepare? 

Homebuyers can prepare for this year’s housing market by getting financially ready. Buyers can use a home affordability calculator , like this one at Realtor.com to translate their income and savings into a home price range. And shoppers can pressure test the results by using a mortgage calculator to consider different down payment, price, and loan scenarios to see how their monthly costs would be impacted. Working with a lender can help potential buyers explore different loan products such as FHA or VA loans that may offer lower mortgage interest rates or more flexible credit criteria. 

Although prices are anticipated to fall in 2024, housing costs remain high, and a down payment can be a big obstacle for buyers. Recent research shows that the typical down payment on a home reached a record high of $30,000 .  To make it easier to cobble together a down payment, shoppers can access information about down payment assistance options at Realtor.com/fairhousing and in the monthly payment section of home listing pages. Furthermore, home shoppers can explore loan products geared toward helping families access homeownership by enabling down payments as low as 3.5% in the case of FHA loans and 0% in the case of VA loans .

What will the market be like for home sellers?

Home sellers are likely to face more competition from builders than from other sellers in 2024. Because builders are continuing to maintain supply and increasingly adapting to market conditions, they are increasingly focused on lower-priced homes and willing to make price adjustments when needed. As a result, potential sellers will want to consider the landscape for new construction housing in their markets and any implications for pricing and marketing before listing their home for sale.

What will the market be like for renters?

In 2024, renting is expected to continue to be a more cost-effective option than buying in the short term even though we anticipate the advantage for renting to diminish as home prices and mortgage rates decline. 

However, for those considering the pursuit of long-term equity through homeownership, it’s essential to not only stay alert about market trends but also to carefully consider the intended duration of residence in their next home. When home prices rise rapidly, like they did during the pandemic, the higher cost of purchasing a home may break even with the cost of renting in as little as 3 years. Generally, it takes longer to reach the breakeven point, typically within a 5 to 7-year timeframe. Importantly, when home prices are falling and rents are also declining, as is expected to be the case in 2024, it can take longer to recoup some of the higher costs of buying a home. Individuals using Realtor.com’s Rent vs. Buy Calculator can thoroughly evaluate the costs and benefits associated with renting versus buying over time and how many years current market trends suggest it will take before buying is the better financial decision. This comprehensive tool can provide insights tailored to a household’s specific rent versus buying decision and empowers consumers to consider not only the optimal choice for the current month but also how the trade-offs evolve over several years.

Local Market Predictions:

All real estate is local and while the national trends are instructive, what matters most is what’s expected in your local market. 

Sign up for updates

Join our mailing list to receive the latest data and research.