Marketing Issues
Research service firms are active within a market characterized by a limited number of direct
customers, forcing firms to be active on a geographically larger market. Furthermore, their core
operations are often very specialized, contributing to the limited numbers of potential customers. This
puts stress on firms’ abilities to put out their message to stakeholders, through the right channel, and
achieving the desired effect (Malhotra 1982; McLuhan 1964). To formulate a communication strategy
aiming to address firms’ stakeholders, firms need a good holistic perspective of the internal and external
environment to find a fit between the two.
None of the theories discussed can by itself explain the whole, but make up interdependent parts
to cover the holistic view proposed for this study. For this it is important to separate “what” should be
marketed, and “how” it should be communicated, as Steyn (2004) discusses. The “what” is the
established corporate communication strategy, and “how” the action plan to put the strategy into
practice. Another aspect to consider is where the strategy work takes place, as well as who is
responsible for the implementation. Corporate communication strategy is characterized as a functional
strategy, which should be formulated by firms’ marketing function. This is in contrast to the integrated
marketing communication (IMC), which should, theoretically, be implemented on corporate and
operational levels (Kliatchko 2008).
IMC theory takes a more top management approach to strategy implementation, as theory
focuses on the marketing function’s role (Kliatchko 2008). It can be questioned whether it is a top
management issue to decide upon details such as the choice of communication channels. It can be wise
to include top management in decisions to steer from production focus in firms’ marketing
communication to a marketing focus. That would be more in line with corporate communication
strategy theory, where corporate and operational strategies determine “what” should be marketed and
what target groups to approach. How it should be marketed is determined in a functional strategy, or
the action plans to take strategy into action (Steyn 2004). Theories on IMC discuss the planned
integration of multiple communication channels to become a benefit in firms marketing communication
(Kliatchko 2008). However, as Schultz (1996) discusses, customers have always in one way or another,
integrated what sending firms have sent through different channels even when messages are not
coordinated.
Danaher and Rossiter (2011) argue there are no increased benefits from incorporating channels as
suggested by the IMC theory. There are synergies between channels, but the correlation were not
strong enough to confirm the IMC theory’s effect of communication channel integration. However, this
is not to say that the usage of several channels and trying to achieve synergies, would not render results.
IMC might be more effective for firms in certain contexts, and 18 perhaps necessary for getting the
audience to actively participate in firms’ communication. It could be that IMC is more applicable in a B2C
context, rather than B2B.
Marketing Focus Both corporate communication strategy and IMC theories are designed to help
firms narrow down the number of stakeholders that should be addressed (some are given more
emphasis than others), and determine what should be communicated to them. Firms cannot serve all
interests and simultaneously have an effective marketing communication (Danaher and Rossiter 2011;
Hoffman et al. 2009; Lasswell 1948; Malhotra 1982; Nowak et al. 2002). Therefore, firms must find focus
in the marketing communication (Steyn 2004).
Corporate and operational strategies should act as a roadmap to guide the work of designing
communication plans into “how” the “what” should be communicated. However, both corporate
communication strategy and IMC theory lack concrete methods of how to actually put the adopted
strategy into practice (Steyn 2004). Danaher and Rossiter’s (2011) research about communication
channel attributes, add to the “how” the message could be communicated. The knowledge about
channel attributes can help marketers choose communication channel(s) based on receivers’ perception
of certain channels. Communication channels possess different attributes, making some more suitable
for B2B, and others for B2C.
It is important to understand the differences, and match communication channels with the
knowledge of target groups. Media and contact channels that Danaher and Rossiter (2011) discuss may
not necessarily be the best in the context of research service firms. Furthermore, these channels
presented by Danaher and Rossiter are more one-way, as described by Lasswell (1948), except for e-
mail, phone, SMS and door-to-door salespersons. As Danaher and Rossiter propose, their findings can be
complemented with research on other communication channels. Their list of communication channels is
comprehensive and covers the most common communication channels. However, the pilot study
indicate that some specific channels are important for research service firms, namely scientific articles,
conferences (Carlsson 2012b), and published periodicals (Carlsson 2012a).
Marketing theories such as IMC, corporate communication strategy, and relationship marketing,
aims at establishing a dialogue with stakeholders (Kliatchko 2008; Grönroos 2004; Steyn 2004).
Relationship marketing aims at closing the ties between firms and stakeholders, based on the premiss
that a business relationship will generate larger values for both parties. Relationship marketing and
corporate communication theory aim at putting together planned communication processes, supporting
firms’ strengths and core business, to build relationships, or strengthen existing relationships (Anderson
and Narus 1991; Grönroos 2004; Steyn 2004). Customer Relationships Establishing new business
relationships is often a long and complex process. As Dwyer and Tanner (2009) discuss, it is not until
potential customers begin feeling comfortable and familiar early in a relationship that customers start to
make disclosures about needs, preferences, and/or goals.
The pilot study suggests that a close and trusting relationship is necessary for research service
firms because research services demand much capital and human resource, and often involves sensitive
information. 19 Relationships between service firms and customers affect the communication between
the two. It affects both content and channel choice and how receivers respond to communication
Grönroos 2004). Expectations are also different. Customers in close business relationships with service
firms may expect to be contacted through specific contact individuals, directly by phone, rather than
reading up on offers through magazine advertisement. This can add other communication channel to
those presented by Danaher and Rossiter (2011), but also industry specific channels may add to the list
(Gilmore, Carson, and Grant 2001). As Grönroos (2004) discusses, relationship marketing is a continuous
process. Furthermore it is described as a way of working, to close the ties between two or more
stakeholders to capitalize on mutual benefits. A relationship does always exist between two parties, the
strength and depth of the same is affected by several aspects, such as if any mutual benefit can be found
(Dwyer and Tanner 2009; Grönroos 2004).
In that matter, relationship marketing is part of “what must be communicated” in the corporate
communication model. Additionally, Grönroos argues that there is no explicit marketing variable to
handle relationship marketing. That further supports the authors’ discussion of handling relationship
marketing as an internal strength that should be communicated externally. The aspects of relationship
marketing will affect the thinking and logic behind firms’ corporate communication strategy, but not the
“how it must be communicated”, which is the work of putting strategy into action. All theories
presented express the importance of relationships, and are constructed in such way as the goal is to
create, build, and strengthen relationships with firms’ stakeholders (Grönroos 2004; Steyn 2004).
Therefore it should not be neglected in firms’ overall marketing strategy, and incorporated in the model
as an interdependent part of the whole. PTMs have been found to be significant for customers’ choice of
service firms, as they often are in contact with customers and other stakeholders. To that, they take part
in the production and delivery of the service offering. PTMs impact on customers have been found to be
greater than full-time marketers.
Another benefit of PTMs are that they directly can engage in dialogue with customers. However,
PTMs cannot be seen as a communication channel by itself. Following Lasswell’s (1948) definition of
communication, PTMs are the source, or sender from service firms, or the receiver of customers’
communication. Communication Issues Research have found that a divergence in communication
channels decrease the predicted purchase intention. Senders cannot appeal to the receiving, potential
customers, as firms cannot communicate what potential customers actually prefer. This divergence can
be in message content and/or channel choice. It is up to senders to adapt to receivers’ preferences,
especially concerning channel choice, if the message penetration should render maximum results
(Danaher and Rossiter 2011).
Using receivers’ choice of channel by themselves does not mean a successful transmission – it
depends on other aspects as well, such as if the message creates interest and attracts receivers to act on
it. The right channel choice increases the chance for that to occur. To better appeal to potential
customers interest, service firms must understand the message content demanded by potential
customers in firms’ 20 communication. Additionally, it is important to deliver the correct message
content, at the correct time (Danaher and Rossiter 2011; Grönroos 2004; Hoffman et al. 2009). Firms’
marketing communication must minimize the perceived risks and issues associated with the
characteristics of services. One of the most challenging issues is to get potential customers to take
notice of a service though they cannot see it. Tackling the intangible aspect of services is often a
problem among service firms (Hoffman et al. 2009), and evident in Swerea Mefos’ case.
To give a more comprehensive and holistic view of service firms’ marketing communication
strategy, the authors suggest that these theories should be tested in combination with one another. This
to see if there are any synergies to be found between the theories. The usage of a combination of these
theories could further enhance/remove what one of the theories lack by itself. Each theory individually
is too narrow to give the necessary picture and understanding for this study. This could not only give
practitioners a better understanding of how the different tools are linked and working together, but it
can also enhance the roadmap of what to consider when working with marketing of a service firm. As
none of these models have been tested towards the context of research service firms, some attributes
may be found obsolete, or some might be found missing in the model.
REFERENCES
Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1991), ”Partnering as a Focused Market Strategy,” California
Management Review, 33(3), 95–113.
Carlsson, Göran (2012a), personal communication, August 20, 2012.
Carlsson, Göran (2012b), personal communication, December 5, 2012.
Carlsson, Göran (2012c), personal communication, December 12, 2012.
Danaher, Peter J. and John R. Rossiter (2011), ”Comparing Perceptions of Marketing Communication
Channels,” European Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 6–42.
Dwyer, Robert F. and John F. Tanner (2009), Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy, Relationships, and
Learning, 4th ed. (int’l ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Finne, Åke and Tore Strandvik (2012), ”Invisible Communication: A Challenge to Established Marketing
Communication,” European Business Review, 24(2), 120–33.
Freeman, Susan and Mark Sandwell (2008), ”Professional Service Firms Entering Emerging Markets: The
Role of Network Relationships,” Journal of Services Marketing, 22(3), 198– 212.
Ghingold, Morry and David T. Wilson (1998), ”Buying Center Research and Business Marketing Practice:
Meeting the Challenge of Dynamic Marketing,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
13(2), 96–108.
Gilmore, Audrey, David Carson, and Ken Grant (2001), ”SME Marketing in Practice,” Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), 6–11.
Grayson, Kent (2007), “Friendship Versus Business in Marketing Relationships,” Journal of Marketing,
71(4), 121–39.
Grove, Stephen J., Les Carlson, Michael J. Dorsch (2002), "Addressing Services’ Intangibility Through
Integrated Marketing Communication: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Services Marketing,
16(5), 393–411.
Grönroos, Christian (1982), ”An Applied Service Marketing Theory,” European Journal of Marketing,
16(7), 30–41.
Grönroos, Christian (1996), ”Relationship Marketing: Strategic and Tactical Implications,” Management
Decision, 34(3), 5–14.
Grönroos, Christian (1999), ”Internationalization Strategies for Services,” Journal of Services Marketing,
13(4), 290–97.
