CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL PAPER

A holistic market conceptualization

Cristina Mele & Jaqueline Pels & Kaj Storbacka

Received: 15 February 2013 /Accepted: 13 March 2014# Academy of Marketing Science 2014

Abstract Mainstream marketing’s view on markets builds onneoclassical economics. By integrating mainstreammarketingthinking with the emergent marketing literature that acknowl-edges a set of shortcomings related to the neoclassical-basedmarket conceptualization, this paper aims to provide a marketconceptualization that captures complexity. Grounded on theetymology of the word market, we review literature andidentify two market dimensions: market-as-noun andmarket-as-verb; and four distinct themes: market entities (re-ferring to which actors are involved), market representation(regarding how markets are signified), market performing(referring to what actions are carried out), and market sense-making (concerning how markets emerge and evolve). Eachtheme has several elements. The proposed market conceptu-alization allows market complexity to be addressed by inte-grating conventional and newmarket forms. It also offers newavenues for research and invites managers to emancipatethemselves from product-based market thinking, to createsubjective market definitions and to think in terms of non-predictive strategies.

Keywords Market .Market conceptualization .Marketcomplexity . Market shaping .Market driving

Introduction

It is surprising that marketing has been so uninterested inexamining the most fundamental concept that it is supposedto understand and explain—namely, the market (Alderson1965). Venkatesh et al. (2006) observe that “paradoxicallythe term market is everywhere and nowhere in our literature”(p. 252). Johanson and Vahlne (2011) concurr, stating that“in marketing, market conceptualizations are almost absent”(p. 484). Ellis et al. (2010), seeking to explain this absence,conclude that “marketing scholars have taken for granted theexistence of ‘the market’ as a priori, self-generating reality”(p. 228). Hence, the notion of the market is not discussed, andinstead mainstream marketing’s view on markets builds—often implicitly—on neoclassical economics (Buzzell 1999;Johanson and Vahlne 2011; Sheth et al. 1988; Weitz andWensley 2002). In neoclassical economics, markets areviewed as “exchanges between buyers and sellers” (Stiglerand Sherwin 1985, p. 555).

The legacy of neoclassical economics entails several weak-nesses. First, its focus on exchange accentuates the role of the“product” as a central ingredient in all business activities. Thisis particularly evident in how market actors define their mar-ket and their industry, the prevailing view being the use ofsupply-side characteristics in the definition of product mar-kets, such as insurance or automotive market. As far back asthe 1960s, Levitt (1960) warned that businesses would dobetter if they focused on meeting customers’ needs, ratherthan on selling products. Two decades later, Day et al.(1979) argued against product markets, claiming they lead tozero-sum games and do not focus on the benefits that theproducts provide for customers. Nevertheless, most main-stream marketing literature uses a product-category lens.

Second, the focus on the exchange of products inevitablyleads to a biased view of value creation, because it emphasizesthe importance of exchange value (i.e., the value created when

C. Mele (*)Università Degli Studi di Napoli Federico II,Via Cinthia Monte S. Angelo, Naples, Italye-mail: crimele@unina.it

J. PelsUniversidad Torcuato Di Tella,Saenz Valiente 1010, C1428BIJ Buenos Aires, Argentinae-mail: jpels@utdt.edu

K. StorbackaUniversity of Auckland Business School,Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealande-mail: k.storbacka@auckland.ac.nz

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.DOI 10.1007/s11747-014-0383-8

selling a product) at the expense of use value (i.e., the valuecreated during the usage of the product) (Vargo and Lusch2004, 2008). Sheth and Uslay (2007) advise that “the ex-change paradigm has been questioned by marketing scholarswith respect to its ability to explain the relational engagementof firms (e.g., Grönroos 1990; Sheth et al. 1988; Sheth andParvatiyar 1995a; Webster 1992)” (p. 303). Additionally,scholars in the fields of industrial marketing and purchasing(IMP) and relationship marketing have suggested interaction(vs. exchange) as an enabler of value creation (Ford et al.2011; Grönroos 2004; Gummesson and Mele 2010;Parvatiyar and Sheth 2000).

Third, the focus on the seller–buyer dyad functions as ablinder, making it difficult to see this dyad not only as part ofvalue chain but also as part of a larger network of actors whocontribute to the creation of value. Success in the dyad maydepend on the ability to support the development of a largernetwork (Håkansson and Snehota 1995). This was initiallydiscussed in the B2B context (Morgan and Hunt 1994) but isbecoming pertinent to internet-based business models, such asmulti-sided platforms (Chesbrough 2011; Gawer 2011; Hagiu2009), which build on network effects and network external-ities (Parker and Van Alstyne 2005). Multi-sided platformmarkets have different groups that businesses have to securein order to succeed (Boudreau and Hagiu 2009; Evans 2003).

Fourth, the focus on a stage model to explain marketevolution (Levitt 1965) means that development is seen as aset of demand/supply equilibria (Dekimpe and Hanssens1995). This view, which is restricted to normative assump-tions, does not take into account social construction stances inorder to understand organized, as well as spontaneous, pat-terns in market making and shaping (Aspers 2009).

The logic behind the emergence of new billion-strongconsumer markets helps to illustrate these shortcomings.Two examples are Amazon.com and Unilever’s Lifebuoysoap. Amazon started out as an online store operating in thebook market. Today the company defines itself as an onlineretail company (selling 16 main categories). The AmazonMarketplace (Amazon’s fixed-price online marketplace), Am-azon Kindle (Amazon’s e-reader), and Amazon EC2 (ElasticCompute Cloud, one of Amazon’s web-based services) are notnew offerings; they are platforms for multi-sided markets thatgo beyond the traditional buyer–seller dyad. The AmazonMarketplace is envisioned and created by the company butperformed by other actors, who activate their value-creatingprocesses. Enlarging the network of actors allows the compa-ny to create the market.

The Lifebuoy soap case is archetypical of changes inmarket behavior (Prahalad 2010) occurring in emerging econ-omies (Achrol and Kotler 2012; Burgess and Steenkamp2006; Karnani 2011; Sheth 2011). Hindustan Lever Limited,the Indian subsidiary of Unilever, developed agreements withnon-profit organizations, development agencies, and local

governments to communicate that disease (such as diarrhea)can be prevented by hand washing with soap. Unilever de-fined itself not as being in the soap market (product marketfocus on exchange value) but in the health market (marketdefined in terms of use value). This case illustrates that inorder to succeed, Unilever needed to look beyond buyer–seller dyads and related marketing channel issues, to focuson a larger network of actors to create the institutional contextwherein the markets could develop, i.e., to create markets(Simanis and Hart 2008).

There have been some attempts to put forward new marketconceptualizations. Parasuraman and Grewal (2000) suggestthat markets consist of two sets of entities, namely producersand customers, and “all possible linkages within and betweenthe two sets” (p. 10, emphasis added). Jaworski et al. (2000)suggest that “market structure refers to a set of players and theroles played by them … [whereas] market behavior refers tothe behavior of all players in the industry value chain” (pp.46–47, emphasis added). These conceptualizations extend theneoclassical view where entities and players expand the no-tion of “buyers” and “sellers,” and where “exchange” isbroadened to include all linkages and behavior. In so doing,they provide a greater distinction between two market dimen-sions: market structure (e.g., entities, players) and marketprocess (e.g., linkages, behaviors, exchange).

Building on this duality and the above discussion of theweaknesses of neoclassical economics, we argue that bothmarket structure and market process need to be better under-stood. With respect to market structure, we consider it isnecessary to look at which actors are involved and broadenthe scope of players taken into account beyond the buyer–seller dyad (e.g., Crittenden et al. 2011; Johanson and Vahlne2011). Additionally, more discussion is needed on the diverseways inwhichmarkets are signified (e.g., Rinallo and Golfetto2006), i.e., how firms frame their own markets beyond theexchanged products.

With respect to market process, we argue that to understandhow value is created in a market it is necessary to transcendnotions relating to the exchange of goods or services formoney (e.g., Vargo and Lusch 2011) and analyze what actionsare carried out (e.g., Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a) before,after, and sometimes instead of the monetary exchange, whencreating use value. Finally, in the current complex marketenvironment we need to ask whether the life-cycle modelallows us to fully understand how markets emerge and evolve(e.g., Jaworski et al. 2000).

We argue that there is an emergent marketing literature thatacknowledges a set of shortcomings related to theneoclassical-based market conceptualization. These gapshighlight that a market conceptualization is well worth furtherinvestigation. Scholars looking to understand the above-identified gaps often search for answers outside the neoclas-sical economics literature; for instance, in new institutional

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

economics (Coase 1998; North 1990), economic sociology(Granovetter 1992; Swedberg 1994), behavioral economics(Colin and George 2004), evolutionary economics (Dopferet al. 2004), and science and technology studies (Callon 1998;Cochoy 2007). Though they respond to different researchstreams, they share the advice to move from the “rationali-ty–individualism–equilibrium nexus” to the “institutions–his-tory–social structure nexus” (Davis 2006) when studyingmarkets. Nobel Prize winner Coase (2012) recently advisedemphasizing the socially embedded conception of markets“opportunities for economists to study how the market econ-omy gains its resilience in societies with cultural, institutional,and organizational diversities” (p. 1).

In marketing, important contributions have been put for-ward; however, we posit that we still do not have an accuratemarket conceptualization because current studies “do notpresent a full picture of the market” (Samli and Bahn 1992,p. 147). Scholars do not take into account market complexity,which consists of many different and connected elements thatare not captured by existing conceptualizations.Markets differnot only in size, form, extent, location, and participants butalso in the types of goods and services traded. The variety, aswell as the variability, of markets—be they physical or virtual,embryonic, or developed—need to be addressed.

We believe that to capture market complexity we have togo beyond single viewpoints, which result in restricted con-ceptualizations, and integrate various contributions from dif-ferent research schools. With this scope in mind, the paperseeks to answer the following research question: How can weprovide a market conceptualization that captures complexity?

Our paper is structured as follows. First, we outline themethodological choices pertinent to the paper. Second, wereview the literature and elicit four themes and a number ofelements related to these. Third, we present our holistic con-ceptualization of the market. Finally, we address the paper’stheoretical contributions as well as the practical implications.

Methodological considerations

To answer our research question we draw on the etymology ofthe word market, which, according to the online OxfordEnglish Dictionary (2014) can be defined as both “a market”(noun) and “to market” (verb). This approach has two advan-tages in relation to the research question. First, it provides ahigher level of abstraction that allows the accommodation ofboth neoclassical and novel efforts to explore the market.Second, using the dual foci (noun and verb) as a lens for ourliterature review allows us to identify themes that deepen ourunderstanding of market structure and process.

Since the beginning of the discipline, the term marketinghas been conceived of as both noun and verb (Arthur 1964;Bartels 1976). Shaw and Tamilia (2001) noticed that “the term

marketing entered the language as a noun, indicating market-ing thought, rather than its longtime use as a verb, indicatingmarketing practice” (p. 159). Over time, this double concep-tualization has been used with specific aims; for example,Gibbert et al. (2006) speak of marketing of competencies“where ‘marketing’ is used as a verb” (p. 148). By analyzingthe evolution of educational marketing, Foskett (2012) insteademphasizes that “marketing as a verb is well known in thepublic domain” (p. 39). The dual etymological nature of themarket has, however, rarely been explicitly acknowledgedwithin the marketing literature. Kjellberg and Helgesson(2007) were amongst the few to do so by “direct[ing] attentionto the verbs (the process) rather than the nouns (the outcome)when studying economic organizing” (p. 141).

Terms with a dual nature are not specific to the marketingdiscipline. Within strategic management, for example, thedual nature of strategy has been a research focus for sometime (c.f., Chaffee 1985; Johnson et al. 2003; Mintzberg andWaters 1985; Whittington 2006). According to Chaffee(1985), “theorists who segment the strategy construct implic-itly agree that the study includes both the content of strategyand the process by which actions are decided and implement-ed” (p. 89).Within organizational theory, Nicolini et al. (2003)observe that verbs supplant nouns with respect toorganization.

In order to better comprehend the dual nature of the market,we decided on a research methodology characterized by athree-step analytical process commensurate with MacInnis’s(2011) typology of conceptual contributions—revising, sum-marizing, and integrating. All three fall into the process ofjustification.

Step 1: Revising

We began this process by looking at texts and articles con-taining classical conceptualizations of “market,” and then weexplored more recent approaches. We sought out market con-ceptualizations in articles contained in scientific databases(e.g., Emerald, Science Direct, SciVerse Scopus, JSTOR,Google Scholar) and drew on the reference lists in the identi-fied articles. Despite our best efforts, the most recent literaturereview we were able to identify was by Samli and Bahn(1992), who examined market definitions from 1906 to 1990.

Next, we used a cross-referencing approach to organize theidentified market conceptualization articles. From there, weused an abductive reasoning process (Reichertz 2004) toexamine the emergent research streams for clarity and differ-ence, and provide the best explanation of the phenomenonunder investigation. In this process we moved back andforth between the articles in each research stream, identi-fying their main theoretical and methodological underpin-nings (i.e., their respective backgrounds), market definitions,and key contributions. The review allowed us to identify: (1)

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

two dimensions that we label market-as-noun and market-as-verb and (2) two themes within each dimension.

Step 2: Summarizing

Our literature review showed a diversity of positions onthe identified four themes. This diversity led us to ask:How can we best capture this rich plurality in a syn-thesized form? Following Bolton’s (2005) suggestion toadopt multiple approaches and to learn from other dis-ciplines, we reviewed the rich paradigmatic debate notonly from within marketing literature, but also fromwithin organizational theory literature.

Within the marketing domain, academics largely adopteither a positivist or an interpretivist approach (e.g., Daviesand Fitchett 2005; Hunt 2010). Davies and Fitchett (2005) andHunt (1991, 1994), along with Wilk (2001), suggest combin-ing approaches, but their focus is on how to integrate theresearch methodologies. We therefore turned our attention tothe organizational theory literature (e.g., Gioia and Pitre 1990;Lewis and Grimes 1999; Schultz and Hatch 1996) in the hopeof finding answers there.

When engaged in theory building, organizational the-ory scholars recommend adopting a broad approach com-prising multiple paradigmatic assumptions. The intent ofthis meta-perspective “is to understand, to accommodate,and if possible, to link views generated from differentstarting assumptions” (Gioia and Pitre 1990, p. 596).According to Lewis and Grimes (1999), multi-paradigmtheorists sit at a midpoint between dogmatism and rela-tivism, a position that has tremendous, yet unrealized,theory building potential. Concurring with this conclu-sion, and mindful of the integrative purpose of our re-search, we adopted a pluralistic stance (Pels and Saren2005) in order to summarize the essence of our literaturerevision (MacInnis 2011).

In other words, we managed to overcome the diversity ofpositions by searching for concepts that provide a higher levelof abstraction, allowing the accommodation of both neoclas-sical and novel efforts. Our revision work elicited 13noun/verb-related elements.

Step 3: Integrating

Integration implies finding novel, simplified, and higher-order means of perceiving the relationships between andacross themes and elements. It involves synthesis—thatis, creating a whole from diverse parts. It allows us topresent overarching ideas that can accommodate previ-ous findings, resolve contradictions or puzzles, and pro-duce novel perspectives. In short, it can accommodatecomplexity (MacInnis 2011).

We can view this higher-order perspective as the syn-thesis of a unified whole whose meaning is different fromthe meanings ascribed to its parts. O’Driscoll (2008) pointsout that, during the process of analyzing a paradox (i.e.,where two tensions appear, as in thesis versus antithesis), aprocess of synthesis can emerge not as either/or but asboth/and; “searching for a synthesis,” O’Driscoll explains,“becomes an inclusive, pluralistic process” (p. 96). Thus,with respect to our analysis, we were able to integrate thefour themes encompassing the market into a conceptuali-zation showing the holistic, pluralistic, and dialectical na-ture of the market.

Market themes

Using our market-as-noun and market-as-verb dimensions asa lens, our literature review identified four specific marketthemes. Scholars with a market-as-noun focus are interested inunderstanding which actors are involved in the market ex-change process, a theme that we label “market entities”(following Parasuraman and Grewal 2000), or in studyingthe diverse ways in which markets are signified, a theme thatwe label “market representations” (following Kjellberg andHelgesson 2006).

Scholars with a market-as-verb focus investigate what ac-tions are carried out, a theme that we label “marketperforming” (following Araujo and Kjellberg 2009), or exam-ine how markets emerge and evolve, a theme that we label“market sense-making” (following Rosa et al. 1999). Thesethemes are discussed in the following sections.

Market-as-noun themes

Market entities (which actors are involved) Parasuraman andGrewal (2000) synthesize mainstreammarketing’s view of themarket actors as the buyer–seller dyad. Sellers are producersof goods/services, and buyers are customers/consumers.Though Parasuraman and Grewal’s conceptual frameworkacknowledges additional buyer–seller dyads, these are visual-ized as sequential stages in a supply chain. We identified twoadditional views that consider a broader scope of players.

First, the IMP group (e.g., Håkansson and Snehota 1995;Ford et al. 2011) and the e-market literature (e.g., Varadarajanet al. 2008) emphasize the need to understand and account fora larger network or community of actors. IMP scholars rejectthe idea that the buyer–seller dyad can be analyzed in isola-tion. Building on inter-organizational theory (Sweeney 1972)and new institutional economic theory (Williamson 1975), theIMP group criticize neoclassical economics, highlighting theneed to go beyond the buyer–seller dyad and take into accountthe broader set of actors: sellers’ suppliers, buyers’ buyers, etc.(Håkansson and Snehota 1995). The key difference is that this

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

view does not take a sequential perspective (i.e., value chain),but it considers all actors simultaneously. Johanson and Vahlne(2011) suggest “regarding markets as networks” (p. 487).Given their focus on industrial markets, the end consumer isnot taken into account.

The e-marketing literature stresses the evolution “from apredominantly physical marketplace to one encompassingboth the physical and the electronic marketplace”(Varadarajan et al. 2008, p. 295). Varadarajan and Yadav(2002) conceptualize the electronic marketplace as “anetworked information system” (p. 297) that serves as anenabling infrastructure for marketplace participants. Recentstudies on open innovation and crowdsourcing see e-marketsin terms of open, networked marketplaces formed and shapedby open communities of actors (i.e., consumers, designers,solvers, developers, intermediaries) (Chesbrough andAppleyard 2007; Kozinets et al. 2008).

Second, although the service-dominant logic (S-Dlogic) (Vargo and Lusch 2004), emerging economy(Prahalad 2010), and sustainability (Crittenden et al.2011) literatures build on different research schools andlook at different actors, they share the rationale oflooking at an even broader set of market players: namely,the ecosystem.

The S-D logic redefines the essence of the actors. Itargues that the supplier–consumer distinction is no longerrelevant because all actors are mutual service providers(Vargo 2007). Here, rigid role differences between marketactors become untenable (Vargo 2007; Vargo and Lusch2011). Gummesson (2011) suggests eliminating role dis-tinctions such as buyers and sellers and, instead, labelseach solely as actors who then interact with other actors(A2A). More importantly, by considering all actors asmutual service-providers the S-D logic goes beyond thebuyer–seller dyad to include all the actors in theecosystem (Vargo and Lusch 2011).

Academics looking at how firms can reach the untappedlow-income consumer market with their goods and/or services(Hammond et al. 2007; Prahalad 2010; Weidner et al. 2010)have highlighted the absence or dysfunctional role of institu-tions in the ecosystem (Gradl et al. 2008; McInnes 1964;Simanis and Hart 2008). They have argued that thereis a functional need to collaborate (leverage on existingsocial capital) with non-market actors such as commu-nities, non-profit organizations, and governments in or-der to make a market (Gradl et al. 2008; Vachani andSmith 2008).

Finally, the sustainability literature emphasizes that “re-searchers have called for the broadening of ‘market’ so as toinclude a larger constituency base … a broader set of stake-holders” (Crittenden et al. 2011, p. 73). Stakeholders mayinclude government agencies, trade unions, stockholders, themedia, etc. They are relevant because, even though not

directly engaged in the economic transaction, they can affectits actions.

To summarize, the literature review shows that differ-ent approaches take into account diverse actors: sellers,buyers, sellers’ suppliers, government agencies, non-profit organizations, developers, or the all-encompassingactors. We adopt the generic term market entities toencompass the set of three elements: the buyer–sellerdyad, networks, and ecosystems.

Market representations (ways in which markets aresignified) Quoting Brownlie (1994), “mainstream marketingthinking has considered the environment as external and,when developing marketing strategies, focus has been set inunderstanding the environment and adapting to it” (p. 150);that is, mainstream marketing adopts a contingency theoryview of the environment (Sheth et al. 1988; Zeithaml andZeithaml 1984). The contingency theory (Burns and Stalker1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967) takes a deterministic viewof the environment and argues that markets are given. Amarket is an a priori, self-generating reality defined by productcategories. The actors that understand the market and are bestat adapting to it will be successful.

Our review of the literature reveals two streams of researchthat argue against the neoclassical conceptualization of themarket as an a priori, self-generating reality. These draw ondifferent literatures (e.g., Berger and Luckmann 1967;Mintzberg et al. 1998), and their goal is to understand howthe representation of “the market” comes to be (e.g., Araujoet al. 2010).

First, adopting the socio-cognitive perspective (Rosaet al. 1999) means arguing that “much of what con-sumers and producers know of … markets resides inthe knowledge structures shared by these two parties”(p. 65): namely, shared stories. Markets are social con-structions whose meanings emerge from buyer–selleragreement; in other words, markets exist “because mar-ket actors agree on their existence” (p. 66). Close to thesocio-cognitive perspective, even when drawing from adifferent research tradition (Philips and Hardy 2002),scholars building on the discourse perspective claim thatthe market is a metaphor (Lien 1997). The online OxfordEnglish Dictionary (2014) defines metaphor as “an ob-ject, activity, or idea that is used as a symbol of some-thing else.” Ellis et al. (2010) argue that managers’ dis-courses construct markets, which are later used to shape,guide, and legitimize their actions. In this way, things aretransformed into “commodities” and agents into “sellers”and “buyers,” allowing for “markets to exist” (Callon 1998).

Second, the practice-based approach to social science(Callon 1998; Callon and Muniesa 2005; Schatzki et al.2001) focuses on the social structure of the markets(Swedberg 1994). It also argues that a market does not pre-

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

exist. Markets are the outcome of the representation of theiractors (Rinallo and Golfetto 2006; Kjellberg and Helgesson2006; Venkatesh and Peñaloza 2006), where each is trying toshape the market in a different fashion in a way that isbeneficial to themselves (Azimont and Araujo 2007, 2010).The effectual logic (Read et al. 2009; Sarasvathy and Dew2005; Sarasvathy 2008) draws on Simon’s (1981) idea ofartifact seen as “a boundary (interface) between an innerenvironment and an outer one” (Sarasvathy 2008, p. 153).Thus, this logic seesmarkets as co-created artifacts; that is, theresult of the “actions” of all the actors (Sarasvathy and Dew2005). Moreover, this approach suggests that there is not onemarket, but rather actors consider alternative markets(Sarasvathy and Dew 2005).

To summarize, the review on how markets are signi-fied shows a shift from a taken-for-granted, pre-existingmarket defined by a product category in which actorscompete for positions toward markets as metaphors thathelp set boundaries within which to operate, or asartifacts arising from a set of representations or actions.Adopting the generic term representation highlights, andintegrates, the diversity of views.

Market-as-verb themes

Market performing (what actions are carried out) Aldersonand Miles 1965 article “Transactions and Transvections”provided the initial impetus for the exchange view ofthe type of activity that takes place in the market.Transactions were defined as “a fundamental buildingblock which suggests possibilities for a more rigoroustype of marketing theory” (p. 83), leading to Kotler’s(1972) statement that “a transaction is the exchange ofvalues between two parties” (p. 48); this was furtherdeveloped by Bagozzi (1979) into his theory of ex-change, later to be enriched by Hunt’s (1983) “Funda-mental Explanada of Marketing.” Our review allowed usto identify three streams of research that go beyond theexchange of products for money.

First, the umbrella term relationship hosts a wide-rangingset of views (e.g., Arndt 1979; Grönroos 1990; Gummesson2002; Håkansson 1982; Thorelli 1986; Sheth and Parvatiyar1995a, b) that build on the ideas of the early institutionaleconomists (e.g., Coase 1937; Schumpeter 1934, 1947;Williamson 1975), behavioral theories (e.g., Burns and Stalker1961; Chandler 1977; March and Simon 1958;), resource-based theory (e.g., Penrose 1959; Pfeffer and Salancik1978), and political economy (e.g., Stern and Reve 1980).However, they all share the idea of an exchange relationship(vis-à-vis an exchange transaction) and agree on the need tomove attention toward interaction as an enabler of mar-ket relationships. In this conceptualization, the exchangeparties are not only pushed by rational economic aims

but also “engage in relational market behavior due topersonal influences, social influences and institutionalinfluences” (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995a, b, p. 255).The focus on interactions as an enabler of value creationis also shared by the IMP scholars (Håkansson 1982) andacademics in the field of e-marketing (Varadarajan et al.2008).

Second, the S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) movesbeyond the relational proposition of ongoing interaction toargue that the core activity taking place in markets is that ofactors integrating resources to their mutual benefit (Vargo2007; Vargo and Lusch 2011). The focus shifts from value-in-exchange to value-in-use, whereas value co-creation ismade possible by resource integration (Vargo and Lusch2011).

Third, the practice-based approach (Callon 1998;Callon and Muniesa 2005; Schatzki et al. 2001) and theeffectual logic (Read et al. 2009; Sarasvathy and Dew2005; Sarasvathy 2008) focus on how individual actorscan, with their action, influence market developments.The practice view looks at “what actors do, in a highlyspecific and concrete sense” (Kjellberg and Helgesson2006, p. 842). Scholars address three categories of prac-tices: exchange practices, which are the concrete activi-ties involved in consummating individual economic ex-changes; normalizing practices, which contribute to es-tablishing normative objectives for actors; and represen-tational practices, which depict markets and/or how theywork. A central tenet of the market as practices is tounderstand how the exchange, normalizing, and represen-tational practices shape or transform the market (Araujoet al. 2008). Effectuation relies on non-predictive control(Read et al. 2009) and “allows who comes on board todetermine what the new market will look like”(Sarasvathy and Dew 2005, p. 558). It is about seeking“to establish viable courses of action that may or maynot lead to value creation for the people and the com-munities involved” (Sarasvathy 2008, p. 192). Effectua-tion is based on a dynamic model of stakeholder inter-action with particular focus on the entrepreneurs, whotransform external realities into new possibilities (mar-kets, but also new products, services, and firms).

To summarize, the literature review on the type of actionsperformed shows a diversity of views: exchanging,interacting, integrating resources, and transforming. We adoptthe generic term performing to encompass the four elements.

Market sense-making (how markets emerge andevolve) Theodore Levitt’s 1965 article “Exploit the ProductLife Cycle” represents the mainstream view of how marketsevolve. It argues that “the life story of most successful prod-ucts is a history of their passing through certain recognizablestages” (p. 31, emphasis added). Thus market evolution is

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

acknowledged but the evolution happens in recognizablestages. We identified two views that question the existenceof predictable stages.

First, the socio-cognitive perspective (Rosa et al. 1999), thediscourse perspective (Philips and Hardy 2002), and thepractice-based approach (Callon 1998; Callon and Muniesa2005; Schatzki et al. 2001) share the core idea that firms areactive players, and that it is the dynamic relationship betweenfirms that shapes markets.

From the socio-cognitive approach, market processes are notpredictable; they are enacted. KarlWeick (1969) introduced theterm enactment to highlight the proactive role of organizations.Within marketing, the IMP school is close to this view. Whenreferring to market dynamics, the IMP scholars argue that themarket is inherently unstable as the participants continuouslychange and revise their plans and modify the content (also interms of product) of their relationships (Snehota 2003). Theymutually adjust to each other’s behavior, as well as to exoge-nous changes. Market-making is a process of collective enact-ment (Johanson and Vahlne 2011).

The discourse perspective, as mentioned, tends to see mar-ket actors in terms of an ongoing “conversation” between“‘internal’ ideas, desires and affections, and ‘external’ im-ages” (Ellis et al. 2010, p. 231). According to this approachmarket dynamics are the discourses. These discourses allowthe framing of elements that are taken into account and thosethat are ignored or treated as “external” (Hernes and Paulsen2003), and, ultimately, how markets emerge and evolve.

The practice-based approach has as a central tenet the ideathat markets are always in the making, shaped by the marketpractices of consumers, marketers, regulatory agencies, etc.(Araujo et al. 2008). Based on this perspective, marketsshould be studied as ever-changing, rather than as stabilized.

Second, the configurational approach (Storbacka andNenonen 2011b) draws from Miller’s (1986) definition ofconfigurations as “constellations of elements that commonlyoccur together because their interdependence makes them fallinto patterns” (p. 236). This approach argues that the individ-ual actor’s views (and associated actions) play a central role inhow markets evolve. The markets-as-configurations perspec-tive stresses the dynamic feature of markets. Actors can ac-tively alter market configurations by engaging in marketscripting (Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a), i.e., offering mar-ket propositions that illustrate their view on how the marketshould be configured and engaging actors in activities aimedat creating a shared market view.

To summarize, the literature review on how marketsemerge and evolve shows a shift from a predictable positionto an unpredictable view. Market evolution has been seen as aset of stages in the product life cycle, as the result of firms’proactive discoursing, and of individual actors’ scripting. Wesuggest the term sense-making as comprehensive of the pre-vious terms.

A holistic view of the market

It is not the goal of our paper to argue in favor of any of thedifferent approaches we reviewed. We believe that each offersa specific contribution, but none, individually, succeeds inoffering a complete picture of the complexity of the market.

Instead we propose a market conceptualization that cap-tures complexity. Adopting a pluralistic stance that goes be-yond particular approaches, we suggest a holistic conceptual-ization that integrates the various themes and their elements.Figure 1 provides a summary of the literature review. The firstcolumn shows the two dimensions (market-as-noun andmarket-as-verb), the second column shows the four themes(entities, representations, performing, and sense-making), andthe remaining columns list the 13 elements showing what eachapproach maintains with regards to each theme.

The two dimensions, four themes, and 13 elements are notscattered pieces, but together they provide a terminology or a“formal language system” (Alderson 1965; Hunt 2002) fordescribing the market. Our conceptualization highlights theassociations between the elements in each theme, and also theassociations among the four themes.

Links between the elements within each theme

The four themes allow us to describe a multiplicity of marketperspectives. Figure 1 shows that each theme has severalelements. We contend that these elements are not mutuallyexclusive, and that relationships can be drawn between theviews.

Market entities imply that a focal actor needs to decidewhich actors to take into account when studying or operatingin a market. Actors can see markets as buyer–seller dyads, orthey can adopt a wider view to involve larger networks andeventually move toward an ecosystem view. However, wecontend that these entities are interconnected: the buyer–sellerdyads are subsets of the networks, which are parts of thetransitory market ecosystem. Consider, for instance, Skype.The firm has been able to create a growing “freemium”business model for audio and video communication withpeers using voice-over Internet protocol by liberating them-selves from the telecom firms’ definition of the “voice” mar-ket, by using software to transform voice into data and enablemillions of people to communicate in a more cost-efficientmanner. This would not have been possible without an eco-system view of the market, as freemium business models aredependent on network effects.

Market representations highlight the diversity of ways ofsignifying markets. It is important to acknowledge that a viewof a market defined by a product category can coexist with aview of the market perceived as a metaphor, or as an artifact. Itcan even be argued that product category is a metaphor andthat many products are artifacts. A good example is Pfizer,

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

which has developed a new understanding of the healthcaremarket. In its representation of the market, Pfizer moved froma focus on products (drugs) to an understanding of healthcarenot only in terms of the disease (in the biomedical sense,objectively measurable), but also in terms of the illness (thesubjective experience of feeling ill) and sickness (the socialdimension of feeling ill). This view co-exists with the product(drug) market definition of Pfizer’s competitors.

Market performing covers the multiplicity of market ac-tions carried out. Companies are involved in exchange trans-actions, but they also perform diverse type of actions before,during, and instead of transactions that enhance long-terminteractive processes in which actors support each other’sresource-integration processes or transformation possibilities.The iPhone is a good example as Apple goes beyond sellingthe iPhone (i.e., exchange transaction). An iPhone is interest-ing as a product in that it becomes “ready” as users customizeit by downloading apps. Apple first created iTunes, which laidthe foundation for longitudinal interaction with customers,and, simultaneously, educated them to understand the role ofapps. These apps can be seen as resources that are integratedand embedded in each user’s value-creating process. There isno doubt that the choices Apple made with respect to theirbusiness model and activities fundamentally transformed thesmartphone market.

Market sense-making encompasses diverse ways of under-standing the emergence and evolution of markets. The stagesin the life cycle rely on sequential steps in market develop-ment, whereas discoursing and scripting focus on the non-predictive nature of market development. Scripting blendsinto a conversational process throughwhich actors’ discourseslead to market evolution. The market develops in an oscillat-ing process where actors interact and try to influence each

other. A Procter & Gamble case illustrates this theme.Through Connect+Develop, the firm engages several actors(customers, suppliers, partners, scientists) in a process ofdiscourse directed toward developing breakthrough innova-tions (e.g., the Swiffer duster) that change the market, andmake the firm a “market game-changer” (Lafley and Charan2008).

To summarize, we contend that to comprehend marketcomplexity it is necessary to see not only the coexistence ofa multiplicity of perspectives on markets—here called“themes”—but also the relationships between the variouselements within each theme.

Links among the four themes

Adopting a holistic perspective allows us to create the hoped-for overarching synthesis that can accommodate both themarket-as-noun and the market-as-verb dimensions. Theseare linked in a dialectical relationship as the outcome (thenoun) and the process (the verb) of the market. Each influ-ences the other and is the result of the other: the processproduces an outcome, which shapes the process. The notionof outcome is intimately associated with the notion of processin that the outcome can be seen as a (intermediary) stage of theprocess. We can study the market in its making as “a film”(thus, market as a process in time: t1..........tn), or we cancapture it in a specific moment, which is not a final status,as “a snapshot” (thus, market as a cross-sectional outcome: t1,t2, t3,… tn). Understanding the market comes from seeing thefilm and the snapshots as linked elements.

The conceptualization of markets as noun- and verb-basedthemes allows us to achieve the underlying dialectical inte-gration. Figure 2 shows the interplay between the four themesof the market.

Thus, to understand the market, one can start from any ofthe four themes and proceed in either direction. If we look atFig. 2 clockwise, the market representations (whether definedby either product, metaphors, or artifacts) guide the process ofsense-making (viewed as stages in a life cycle, or as the resultof the collective actors’ discoursing or scripting) that defineswhich market entities (the specific dyads, or the network, orthe ecosystem) are viewed as important, and finally, theseentities perform actions (either exchanging or integrating re-sources, or transforming possibilities into realities).

The Lifebuoy example considered earlier in this paper illus-trates this interplay. Unilever starts from a new representation(they shift from the market as given by the product—the soapmarket—to a metaphor: the health market), which leads to anew sense-making. They no longer see life cycles and maturemarkets, but this allows them to script their “internal” ideas and“external” images, which, through internal and external dia-logues, shape the market. As a result, a modified set of entitiesare taken into account, and Unilever starts incorporating non-

Fig. 1 Market: a holistic conceptualization

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

market actors (non-governmental organizations, localgovernments) from the broader ecosystem. As a result, newinteractions and integration of resources take place(performing).

If we view Fig. 2 counterclockwise, the market represen-tations (for example, the discourse generates a metaphor, thatmany actors share) guide the performing of practices throughwhich entities are framed (for example, the resource integra-tion involves an ecosystem of actors), and the process ofsense-making is produced.

Our earlier example of Amazon.com illustrates the coun-terclockwise interplay. Adopting the online retailing marketrepresentation leads to shifting from performing exchanges toacting as a facilitator that transforms the market by allowingexchanges but also interaction to take place (e.g., consumer-to-consumer advice, and various forms of interactions withsuppliers). This change led to a new view of the marketentities, shifting from the linear dyad buyer–seller value chainview to a network of relationships. Amazon Marketplace,Kindle, and Cloud computing are not simply new offerings,but they are platforms for the broader ecosystem. For Ama-zon, the market is no longer seen as given, but as emergingthrough multiple market-actors’ discourses, led by thecompany’s scripting actions (sense-making).

The four themes host a multiplicity of perspectives onmarkets. It is the acknowledgment of this diversity of viewsthat allows understanding market complexity. For example,choices of entities imply competing in different markets; e.g.,Amazon’s focus on a network of customers, partners, andstakeholders differs from bookstore chain Barnes and No-ble’s focus on consumers. In a similar way, diverse repre-sentations lead to viewing different markets; e.g., Niveacompetes in the soap market, while Unilever (with Lifebuoy)sees itself as being in the healthcare market. Furthermore,various market performing actions focus firms differently;e.g., Acer focuses on exchanging computers and tablets,whereas Apple offers devices that users can integrate witha platform of apps. Finally, diverse sense-making views ofhow markets evolve lead to different scripting activities; e.g.,YouTube’s discoursing with content providers differs from

Comcast’s announcement of a $45.2 billion offer for TimeWarner Cable (an action linked to the traditional lifecycleapproach: wherein a market consolidates and the actors needto reinforce their positions).

Discussion

Our work answers recent calls for fundamental changes inacademic marketing research. Webster and Lusch (2013)argue that “the marketing discipline faces an urgent needfor rethinking its fundamental purpose, premises and im-plicit models that have defined marketing for at least thepast 50 years” (p. 389, emphasis added). They continue byarguing that marketing has had an excessive reliance on anarrow neoclassical economics paradigm that does not fitwell with the diversity of marketing practices happening inthe real world. According to Clark et al. (2013), mainstreammarketing has focused too much on micro-level phenomenaand on methodological refinements, instead of on substan-tive issues and theory development. They suggest that it isthe role of the leading journals to broaden marketing’s levelof analysis and to explore a larger role for marketing in thefirm. We posit that challenging the implicit models ofmarketing and providing a more holistic market conceptu-alization creates a platform for revitalizing marketing as ascience.

In our paper, we contend that to capture market complexityit is necessary to move beyond mainstream marketing’s view,defined in terms of product categories and buyer–seller ex-change processes. Recent calls for the need to conceptuallyreconnect “marketing” to “market” have been made by vari-ous researchers (Araujo et al. 2008, 2010; Kjellberg et al.2012; Venkatesh and Peñaloza 2006; Vargo 2007). Our liter-ature review shows that many of these scholars are drawingfrom alternative research streams to address the shortcomingsof the neoclassical conceptualization. However, their contri-butions do not present a complete picture of the market.

Our aim was to answer the following research question:How can we provide a market conceptualization that capturescomplexity? To capture market complexity, based on a plural-ist approach, we presented a holistic conceptualization thatembraces market multiplicity.

Next, we discuss the theoretical contributions of our paper,identify further avenues for research, and highlight implica-tions for practitioners.

Theoretical contributions

Mindful of Yadav’s (2010) argument that the dearth of con-ceptual articles is limiting advancement of the marketingdiscipline, this paper aims to contribute to the market debate.Our market conceptualization aims to go beyond single-

Fig. 2 Market: a dialectical and integrated view

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

market aspects by integrating contributions from various lit-eratures. We stress that insights gained from our conceptual-ization do not mean a rejection of the neoclassical approach.Paraphrasing Vargo and Lusch (2011), much of what is con-sidered mainstreammarketing will continue to be important; itwill just be transcended by a more encompassing conceptual-ization of the market. Specifically, the paper contributes tomarketing theory in three ways:

(1) Identifying two market dimensions—market-as-nounand market-as-verb: Here we draw on the etymology ofthewordmarket as both a noun and a verb. Recent debateshighlight positions that show a shift toward viewing mar-kets as processes (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2007). Thenoun-to-verb migration is the result of an ontological shiftfrom an objective to an interpretative position that accen-tuates, in turn, the move from an information-based de-scription toward socio-historically-situated institutions(Araujo et al. 2010). This view highlights that marketsconstantly evolve (Kjellberg et al. 2012; Venkatesh andPeñaloza 2006; Vargo 2007) and will continue to evolvein the future (Buzzell 1999). While acknowledging thisshift, we contribute to knowledge by (1) proving a higherlevel of abstraction that allows the accommodation of bothneoclassical and novel efforts and (2) addressing the na-ture of the market as a duality (not a dualism), to useGiddens’ (1984) expression. The duality highlights theimportance of both dimensions, rather than one over theother.

(2) Categorizing the analyzed literature into themes andtheir elements: Here we contribute to knowledge byidentifying the themes that conform to the market con-ceptualization: (1) market entities, concerning whichactors are involved; (2) market representations, regard-ing the ways in which markets are signified; (3) marketperforming, referring to what actions are carried out; and(4) market sense-making, concerning how marketsemerge and evolve. Each theme has several elements.We contend that the 13 elements we have identified arenot mutually exclusive, and that links can be foundamong them.

(3) Providing a holistic market conceptualization that linksthe themes, and the elements within the themes: Theconceptualization of the market as four noun- and verb-based themes allows us to arrive at a synthesis: theunderlying dialectical integration. We contribute toknowledge by highlighting that markets become throughthe interplay of the four themes of the market. As Fig. 2shows, there is no “beginning” or “direction” in theinterplay. Actors can start from market representations,or from performing actions. The different starting theme,the diverse elements and the various relationships lead tomultiple markets.

In short, we offer a holistic market conceptualization basedon a pluralistic approach that goes beyond single aspects andintegrates the identified themes and elements. It is the adop-tion of the pluralistic perspective that has enabled us to createthe hoped-for overarching synthesis that accommodates alldimensions, themes, and elements, thereby allowing us tosee market multiplicity and integrate both conventional andnew market forms.

Future research

The holistic conceptualization offers several interesting ave-nues for both conceptual and empirical research. We echoWebster and Lusch (2013), who argue that academic market-ing is lagging behind, and therefore suggest that empiricalwork should focus on forward-facing firms who have alreadyadopted a broader market view and developed managementpractices to support these.

When pursuing research related to our findings, the firstand most obvious avenue relates to the links between thethemes and the elements. Each of the four themes and theirelements can be addressed through sub-questions, such as thefollowing:

(1) Market entities: What are the properties of these entities?What is the relationship across the different entities (e.g.,buyer–seller dyad versus network versus ecosystem)?

(2) Market representations: As a general question, what isthe role of artifacts and metaphors in markets? Specificresearch questions could include: How do market actors(i.e., individuals and groups) organize, perceive, andcommunicate their market views? What is the role ofsemiotics in markets?

(3) Market performing: The overarching question here re-lates to how actors enact market actions in order toachieve their aims. Aspects of this question can be stud-ied more deeply: How does the exchange and integrationof resources contribute to market making? Which prac-tices do the market actors deploy to shape markets? Inwhat ways does the geographical-specific and cultural-specific mix of social histories and contexts, institutionalarrangements, rules, and connections influence the mar-ket’s performing nature?

(4) Market sense-making: Analysis needs to focus on theprocesses of discoursing and scripting: How do marketactors discourse? How do market actors script theirmarkets? How do they make sense of creating/shapingthe market? How does the discoursing and scriptingcontribute to market making? In what ways do norms,rules and social context affect the process of discoursing?In what ways do institutions and social structure influ-ence the process of scripting?

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

In addition to examining the discrete elements, wealso need to undertake an analysis that helps us under-stand how the themes relate to one another. In order todevelop managerial relevance, for example, we need tounderstand how entities and representations influencesense-making and performing, and vice versa. This typeof analysis should elicit deeper understanding of variousmarket aspects, including market actors (who acts),market actions (how they act), market boundaries (inwhich contexts), market resources (with which), andmarket artifacts (through which).

Seeing the market as both the film and the snapshot—inwhich the process produces a structure, which shapes theprocess—also invites longitudinal research covering all direc-tions of the relationships among the themes (as illustrated inFig. 2). Various market contexts need to be studied as well.The impact of contextuality can be derived from an analysesof different types of industries (Spender 1989), different levelsof marketness (Storbacka and Nenonen 2011a), and differenttypes of markets (e.g., physical versus virtual marketplace).

Finally, given that our approach rests on the noun-and-verbdimension of the word market, further research could expandthis perspective and search for other themes in an effort todevelop a wider classification system. Informed by Stern’s(2006) analysis of the etymology of brand, we consider thatadditional analysis of the market could focus on the nature ofmarket as literal and metaphoric, its locus as physical andmental, and its valence as positive and negative.

Implications for practitioners

Today—more than ever—it is critical for managers to under-stand market complexity. A richer market conceptualizationoffers guidance to marketing practitioners.

First, our holistic conceptualization highlights market mul-tiplicity. As such, it illustrates that what we call “marketing”can be quite different depending on how actors view thecontent of the four themes. If we view the market as cus-tomers, the marketing focus will be on managing those cus-tomers. If we view the market as practices, the marketingfocus will be on influencing market practices, and so on. Thisperspective-based approach highlights the importance formanagers to explicate their view of how markets work andwhat the role of marketing should be within them.

Second, the conceptualization highlights that marketing’srole is to understand the interrelationship between the themesof the market, and then to influence these connections so thatnew markets emerge and existing markets evolve in such away that they work in the focal actor’s favor. This line ofreasoning would, we believe, reconnect marketing to thefunctional approach (Alderson 1957, 1965), because of thefocus on the functions performed by various market institu-tions and because of the opportunity to engage in “the study of

systems with the aim of understanding how they workand how they can be made to work better” (Alderson1965, p. 318).

Such an approach could require managers to redirect theirefforts in line with the market themes that they focus on. Forexample, instead of focusing only on customers, marketerswould need to understand the whole ecosystem that fostersaction and makes value creation possible. Marketers mightalso need to influence market representations by creating newlanguage that helps various actors frame markets and see newopportunities for value creation. For example, Apple added“apps” to our lexicon, and with it a set of new businessopportunities. In attempting to pursue any of these objectives,marketers engage in sense-making and performing processes.Sense-making implies engaging in discourses that change thedominant metaphors, and/or scripting the market by aligningmarket actors’ mental models and business models. For ex-ample, Ryan Air’s re-framing radically changed airlines’ prac-tices. Performing implies efforts to change existing exchangepractices in order to create new networks and transform theresource integration processes of the actors in the network.

Third, the movement away from seeing the market as agiven, toward viewing it as a socio-historically situated sys-tem, has consequences for marketing management:

(1) Emancipation from product markets: Using product cat-egories as a starting point for market definitions maycreate barriers that hinder an actor from observing rele-vant competition—other actors may have alternativemarket definitions, and therefore competition can comefrom surprising directions. By being liberated from themental shackles of product categories, actors can createnew language (metaphors) to frame their market in amore interesting way. Building on this, framing actorscan perform actions, such as changing their own businessmodel, and thereby influence the material artifacts in themarket. This kind of development is driven by the ten-sion created by the ongoing interaction and dialoguebetween the abstract (the metaphors) and the real (theartifacts). The need for this dialogue is one of the reasonsfor the increased importance of design as a translatorbetween the abstract and the real. Ideo.com is a goodexample of how a company can use a design-basedapproach to help other organizations to integrate theneeds of people, the possibilities of technology, and therequirements for business success, and thus script theirmarkets or guide market shifts.

(2) Expressing markets: If markets are in the making, we cansay that markets are not—they become (Kjellberg et al.2012). This suggests that market actors should focus onexpressingmarkets; that is, on creating subjectivemarketdefinitions and from there attempting to influence howother actors view the market—cf. discussions addressing

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

market-driving strategies (Jaworski et al. 2000; Kumaret al. 2000; Varadarajan 2010). From a marketing man-agement point of view, this would accentuate the role ofbrands at the expense of products. Brands are both ametaphor and an artifact, and they can be key marketorganizers as they engage the customer in a process ofdiscourse and learning. A good example is Virgin, whichhas stretched its brand beyond products to envision newmarkets (music, travel, communication, health clubs, andeven space travel).

(3) Non-predictive strategy: The dialectical approach of ourconceptualization should help managers understand thatmarkets result from the conscious efforts of individualactors to “drive the market,” as well as from emergentpatterns (cf., Mintzberg and Waters 1985). As firmsengage in market actions, opportunities occur and firmsneed to be nimble at capturing emergent value fromthem. This consideration highlights the role of non-predictive strategy (Wiltbank et al. 2006), in which firmsaim to influence the development of their market througha combination of an active market scripting and learningprocess. Non-predictive strategy has profound impactson the keystone of marketing management, namely mar-keting planning. Using a traditional 4P (or 7P) versionfor blueprinting an organization’s overall marketing ef-forts will not suffice, and firms need to develop newplanning methods that acknowledge the dialectical na-ture of market complexity. Facebook and Twitter aretypical examples of companies born of a non-predictivestrategy; an effectual logic allows other actors to becomeinvolved in the development of the social-media market.

In addition to these firm-level implications, our researchalso has implications for policy makers. First, it is obvious thatmany firms are confirmed into the “iron-cage” (Di Maggioand Powell 1983) of statistical institutions. Starting fromindustrial classification and national statistics, the dominantparadigm is to use products as the organizing idea. Breakingfree from these restraints is especially difficult in certainindustries, such as those offering fast-moving consumergoods. Our research suggests the need for new ways to defineindustries and measure economic activity. Such measuresshould not only be freed from product definitions but alsomeasure use value, in addition to exchange value.

Second, our research suggests that re-framing market def-initions is central to successful strategies. Unfortunately, re-search shows that market analysts working to neoclassicaleconomist precepts will not value uniqueness in market defi-nitions, which explains why capital markets systematicallydiscount uniqueness in their strategy choice of firms. As it isobvious that uniqueness drives economic rents and firm value,it seems that that new market conceptualization will requirenew practices to emerge in capital markets as well.

We conclude—on the basis of the research and analysisthat informed our conceptualization—that managing a set ofprocesses for creating and managing markets lies at the heartof marketing’s role in the firm (Webster 1992, 2002). Ourconceptualization not only helps return “market” to the heartof the marketing discipline by offering an approach that ispluralistic, holistic, and dialectic, but it also moves the debateon the theoretical basis of marketing beyond an economicsperspective to a wider social sciences view. Our ultimate hopeis that this new conceptualization may serve to guide the waymarkets evolve in the future.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Lisa Abendroth,Rod Brodie, Tomas Kidd, Suvi Nenonen, Thomas Hult and three anon-ymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the paper.

References

Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (2012). Frontiers of the marketing paradigm inthe third millennium. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,40(1), 35–52.

Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action.Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Alderson,W. (1965).Dynamicmarketing behavior: a functionalist theoryof marketing. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Alderson, W., & Miles, W. M. (1965). Toward a formal theory oftransactions and transvections. Journal of Marketing Research,2(2), 117–127.

Araujo, L., & Kjellberg, H. (2009). Shaping exchanges, performingmarkets: the study of marketing practices. In P. Maclaran, M.Saren, B. Stern, & M. Tadajewski (Eds.), The SAGE handbook ofmarketing theory (pp. 195–218). London: Sage.

Araujo, L., Kjellberg, H., & Spencer, R. (2008). Market practices andforms: introduction to special issue. Marketing Theory, 8(1), 5–14.

Araujo, L., Finch, J., & Kjellberg, H. (2010). Reconnecting marketing tomarkets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arndt, J. (1979). Toward a concept of domesticated markets. Journal ofMarketing, 43, 69–75.

Arthur, H. B. (1964). Market structures and functions in agriculturalcontrol programs. In R. Cox, W. Alderson, & S. J. Shapiro (Eds.),Theory in marketing. Homewood: American MarketingAssociation.

Aspers, P. (2009). How are markets made? (No. 09/2). MPIfG workingpaper.

Azimont, F., & Araujo, L. (2007). Category reviews as market-shapingevents. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 849–860.

Azimont, F., & Araujo, L. (2010). Governing firms, shaping markets: therole of calculative devices. In L. Araujo, J. Finch, & H. Kjellberg(Eds.), Reconnecting marketing to markets (pp. 78–96). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1979). Buyer behavior: toward a theory of the middlerange. Der Markt, 70, 177–182.

Bartels, R. (1976). The history of marketing thought. Grid Pub.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A

treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Baltimore: Penguin.Bolton, R. N. (2005). Marketing renaissance: opportunities and impera-

tives for improving marketing thought, practice, and infrastructure.Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 1–25.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platforms rules: multi-sided plat-forms as regulators. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets andinnovation. London: Edward Elgar.

Brownlie, D. (1994). Organizing for environmental scanning: orthodox-ies and reformations. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(8),703–723.

Burgess, S. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2006). Marketing renaissance:how research in emerging markets advances marketing science andpractice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4),337–356.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation.London: Tavistock.

Buzzell, R. D. (1999). Market functions and market evolution. Journal ofMarketing, 63(4), 61–63.

Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the market. Oxford: Blackwell.Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic markets as calculative

collective devices. Organizations Studies, 26(8), 1229–1250.Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Threemodels of strategy.Academy ofManagement

Review, 10(1), 89–98.Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in

American business. Harvard University Press.Chesbrough, H. W. (2011). Open services innovation: rethinking your

business to grow and compete in a new era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation andstrategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57–76.

Clark, T., Key, T. M., Hodis, M., & Rajaratnam, D. (2013). The intellec-tual ecology of mainstream marketing research: an inquiry into theplace of marketing in the family business disciplines. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 1–19.

Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Blackwell Publishing, 4(16),386–405.

Coase, R. H. (1998). The new institutional economics. AmericanEconomic Review, 88(2), 72–74.

Coase, R. H., & Wang, N. (2012). Saving economics from the econo-mists. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 36.

Cochoy, F. (2007). A sociology of market-things: on tending the gardenof choices in mass retailing. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 109–129.

Colin, C., & George, L. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present,future. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., Ferrell, L. K., Ferrell, O. C., &Pinney, C. (2011). Market-oriented sustainability: a conceptualframework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 39(1), 71–85.

Davies, A., & Fitchett, J. A. (2005). Beyond incommensurability?Empirical expansion on diversity in research. European Journal ofMarketing, 39(3/4), 272–293.

Davis, J. B. (2006). Heterodox economics, the fragmentation of themainstream and embedded individual analysis, in Future directionsin heterodox economics. In: R. Garnett and J. Harvey (Eds.),. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

Day, G. S., Schocker, A. O., & Srivastava, R. K. (1979). Consumer-oriented approaches to identifying product-markets. Journal ofMarketing, 43, 8–19.

Dekimpe, M. G., & Hanssens, D. M. (1995). Empirical generalizationsabout market evolution and stationarity. Marketing Science, 14(3),G109–G121.

Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institu-tional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizationalfields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.

Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal ofEvolutionary Economics, 14(3), 263–279.

Ellis, N., Jack, G., Hopkinson, G., &O’Reilly, D. (2010). Boundary workand identity construction in market exchanges. Marketing Theory,10(3), 227–236.

Evans, D. S. (2003). Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platforms.Review of Network Economics, 2(3), 1–19.

Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2011). Managingbusiness relationships. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Ford, D., Gadde, L-E., Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2011). ManagingBusiness Relationships, Third Edition, Chichester: John Wiley.

Foskett, N. (2012).Marketisation and education marketing: the evolution ofa discipline and a research field. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Gawer, A. (2011). What managers need to know about platforms. TheEuropean Business Review, 40–43.

Gibbert, M., Golfetto, F., & Zerbini, F. (2006). What do we mean by“marketing” resources and competencies? A comment on Hooley,Greenley, Cadogan, and Fahey (JBR 2005). Journal of BusinessResearch, 59(1), 148–151.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory ofstructuration. Cambridge: Polity.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives in theorybuilding. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

Gradl, C., Sobhani, S., Bootsman, A., & Gasnier, A. (2008).Understanding the markets of the poor. Sustainability Challengesand Solutions at the Base of the Pyramid: Business, T, 1(84), 29–50.

Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology.In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations:structure, form and action (pp. 25–56). Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Grönroos, C. (1990). Service management: a management focus forservice competition. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 1(1), 6–14.

Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: communica-tion, interaction, dialogue, value. Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, 19(2), 99–113.

Gummesson, E. (2002). Total relationship marketing (2nd ed.). Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gummesson, E. (2011). 2B or not 2B: that is the question. IndustrialMarketing Management, 40(2), 190–192.

Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creationthrough network interaction and resource integration. Journal ofBusiness Market Management, 4(4), 181–198.

Hagiu, A. (2009). Two-sided platforms: product variety and pricingstructures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4),1011–1043.

Håkansson, H. (1982). An interaction approach. In H. Håkansson (Ed.),International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: aninteraction approach (pp. 10–27). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in busi-ness networks. London: Routledge.

Hammond, A. L., Kramer, W. J., Katz, R. S., Tran, J. T., &Walker, C. (2007). The next 4 billion—market size and busi-ness strategy at the base of the pyramid. Washington, DC:World Resources Institute.

Hernes, T., & Paulsen, N. (2003). Introduction: boundaries and organi-zation. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries inorganizations: multiple perspectives (pp. 1–15). Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.

Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda ofmarketing. Journal of Marketing, 47, 9–17.

Hunt, S. D. (1991). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumerresearch: toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. Journal ofConsumer Research, 18(1), 32–44.

Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our practice,our methods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13–25.

Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: toward a generaltheory of marketing. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Hunt, S. D. (2010).Marketing theory: foundations, controversy, strategy,resource-advantage theory. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versusdriving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,28(1), 45–54.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (2011). Markets as networks: implications forstrategy-making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,39(4), 484–491.

Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro-strategy andstrategising: towards an activity-based view. Journal ofManagement Studies, 40(1), 3–22.

Karnani, A. (2011). The bottom of the pyramid strategy for reducingpoverty: a failed promise. In Sundaram & C. Anis (Eds.), Poorpoverty: the impoverishment of analysis, measurement and policies(pp. 149–164). New York: Bloomsbury.

Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. (2006). Multiple versions of markets:multiplicity and performativity in market practice. IndustrialMarketing Management, 35(7), 839–855.

Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. (2007). On the nature of markets and theirpractices. Marketing Theory, 7(2), 137–162.

Kjellberg, H., Storbacka, K., Akaka, M., Chandler, J., Finch, J.,Lindeman, S., Löbler, H., Mason, K., McColl-Kennedy, J., &Nenonen, S. (2012). Market futures/future markets: commentaryon future research directions in the study of markets. MarketingTheory, 12(2), 219–223.

Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing,33, 10–15.

Kozinets, R. V., Hemetsberger, A., & Schau, H. (2008). The wisdom ofconsumer crowds: collective innovation in the age of networkedmarketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 339–354.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). Frommarket driven to marketdriving. European Management Journal, 18(2), 129–142.

Lafley, A. G., &Charan, R. (2008). The game-changer: how you can driverevenue and profit growth with innovation. Random House LLC.

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment.Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38(4),45–56.

Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle.Harvard Business Review,43, 81–94.

Lewis,M.W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: building theoryfrom multiple paradigms. The Academy of Management Review,24(4), 672–890.

Lien, M. E. (1997). Marketing and modernity. Oxford: Berg.MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.McInnes, W. (1964). A conceptual approach to marketing. In R. Cox &

W. Alderson (Eds.), Theory in marketing (2nd ed., pp. 51–57).Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: towards asynthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233–249.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate andemergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: aguided tour through the wilds of strategic management. New York:Free Press.

Morgan, M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theoryof relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction toward apractice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D.Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organiza-tions: a practice-based approach (pp. 3–31). Armonk: M. E.Sharpe.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economicperformance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Driscoll, A. (2008). Exploring paradox in marketing: managing ambi-guity towards synthesis. Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, 23(2), 95–104.

Oxford English Dictionary (2014). Oxford University Press.Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). Serving customers and con-

sumers effectively in the twenty-first century: a conceptual frame-work and overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,28(1), 9–16.

Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2005). Two-sided network effects: atheory of information product design. Management Science,51(10), 1494–1504.

Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2000). Handbook of relationshipmarketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pels, J., & Saren, M. (2005). The 4Ps of relational marketing, perspec-tives, perceptions, paradoxes and paradigms: learning from organi-zational theory and the strategy literature. Journal of RelationshipMarketing, 3(1), 59–84.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York:John Wiley and Sons.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organiza-tions. A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Philips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: investigating pro-cesses of social construction (Qualitative Research Methods, vol.50). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Prahalad, C. K. (2010). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid:Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Revised and Updated 5thAnniversary Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton SchoolPublishing.

Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009).Marketing under uncertainty: the logic of an effectual approach.Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.

Reichertz, J. (2004). Abduction, deduction, and induction in qualitativeresearch. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A compan-ion to qualitative research (pp. 150–164). London: Sage.

Rinallo, D., & Golfetto, F. (2006). Representing markets: the shaping offashion trends by French and Italian fabric companies. IndustrialMarketing Management, 35(7), 856–869.

Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. R., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999).Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal ofMarketing,63, 64–77.

Samli, A. C., & Bahn, K. (1992). The market phenomenon: an alternativetheory and some metatheoretical research considerations. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 20(2), 143–153.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurialexpertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N. (2005). New market creation throughtransformation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(5), 533–565.

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (2001). The practiceturn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: thecase of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies.Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529–557.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: aninquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle.New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. TheJournal of Economic History, 7(02), 149–159.

Shaw, E. H., & Tamilia, R. D. (2001). Robert Bartels and the history ofmarketing thought. Journal of Macromarketing, 21(2), 156–163.

Sheth, J. N. (2011). Impact of emergingmarkets onmarketing: rethinkingexisting perspectives and practices. Journal of Marketing, 75(4),166–182.

Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995a). The evolution of relationshipmarketing. International Business Review, 4(4), 393–418.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995b). Relationship marketing in con-sumer markets: antecedents and consequences. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 255–271.

Sheth, J. N., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition ofmarketing: from exchange to value creation. Journal of PublicPolicy & Marketing, 26(2), 302–307.

Sheth, J. N., Gardner, D. M., & Garrett, D. E. (1988). Marketing theory:evolution and evaluation. New York: Wiley.

Simanis, E., & Hart, S. (2008). The base of the pyramid protocol: towardnext generation BoP strategy. Ithaca: Cornell University.

Snehota, I. (2003). Market-as-network. So what? Proceedings of the 19thIMP Conference, University of Lugano, September 4–6.

Spender, J. (1989). Industry recipes: an inquiry into the nature andsources of managerial judgment. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Stern, L. W., & Reve, T. (1980). Distribution channels as politicaleconomies: a framework for comparative analysis. Journal ofMarketing, 44, 52–64.

Stern, B. B. (2006). What doesbrand mean? historical-analysis methodand construct definition. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 34(2), 216–223.

Stigler, G., & Sherwin, R. A. (1985). The extent of the market. Journal ofLaw and Economics, 28(3), 555–585.

Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011a). Markets as configurations.European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 241–258.

Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011b). Scripting markets: from valuepropositions to market propositions. Industrial MarketingManagement, 40(2), 255–266.

Swedberg, R. (1994). Markets as social structure. In N. Smelser & R.Swedberg (Eds.), Handbook of economic sociology (pp. 255–282).NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.

Sweeney, D. J. (1972). Marketing: management technology or socialprocess. Journal of Marketing, 36, 3–10.

Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: between markets and hierarchies.Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 37–51.

Vachani, S., & Smith, N. C. (2008). Socially responsible distribution:distribution strategies for reaching the bottom of the pyramid.California Management Review, 50(2), 52–84.

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, R., & Yadav, M. S. (2002). Marketing strategy and theinternet: an organizing framework. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 30(4), 296–312.

Varadarajan, R., Yadav, M. S., & Shankar, V. (2008). First-mover advan-tage in an internet-enabled market environment: conceptual frame-work and propositions. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 36(3), 293–308.

Vargo, S. L. (2007). On a theory of markets and marketing: from posi-tively normative to normatively positive. Australasian MarketingJournal, 15(1), 53–60.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic formarketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuingthe evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1),1–10.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B and beyond: toward asystems perspective of the market. Industrial MarketingManagement, 40(2), 181–187.

Venkatesh, A., & Peñaloza, L. (2006). From marketing to markets: a callfor paradigm shift. In J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia (Eds.), Doesmarketing need reform? Fresh perspectives on the future (pp. 134–150). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Venkatesh, A., Peñaloza, L., & Firat, F. (2006). The market as a signsystem and the logic of the market. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo(Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, anddirections (pp. 251–266). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corpo-ration. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 1–17.

Webster, F. E., Jr. (2002). The role of marketing and the firm. In B. Weitz& R. Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of marketing (pp. 66–84). London:Sage Publications.

Webster, F. E., Jr., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). Elevating marketing: marketingis dead! Long live marketing! Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 41, 389–399.

Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading:Addison-Wesley Pub.

Weidner, K. L., Rosa, J. A., & Viswanathan, M. (2010). Marketing tosubsistence consumers: lessons from practice. Journal of BusinessResearch, 63(6), 559–569.

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

Wilk, R. R. (2001). The impossibility and necessity of re-inquiry: findingmiddle ground in social science. Journal of Consumer Research,28(2), 308–312.

Williamson, O. E. (1975).Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrustimplications: a study in the economics of internal organization. NewYork: Free Press.

Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2006). What to donext? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic ManagementJournal, 27(10), 981–998.

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

Zeithaml, C. P., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1984). Environmental management:revising the marketing perspective. Journal of Marketing, 48, 46–53.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.