Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries
Summary Articles
Week 1 Introduction
- Suddaby, R. 2010 Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization Academy of
Management Review Vol. 35, No. 3, 346–357.
- Kennedy, M. T. 2008. Getting counted: markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review
73:270–295. Link-Baum, J. A., & Shipilov, A. V. (2006). 1.2 Ecological Approaches to
Organizations. The Sage handbook of organization studies, 55.
- Kuijken, B. Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, (2016) Effective Product Service Systems: a Value-Based
Framework, Industrial Marketing Management
- Deresiewicz, William. "The Death of the Artist—and the Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur." The
Atlantic 315.1 (2015): 92.
Week 2 Competition or Market
- Ginsburgh, V. (2003) Awards, Success and Aesthetic Quality in the Arts, Journal of Economic
Prspectives, Vol. 17, No. 2, 99-111.
- Hitters, E. & Kamp, M. van der (2010) Tune in, fade out: Music companies and the classification of
domestic music products in the NetherlandsPoetics 38, 461–480
- Seaman, B. (2004). Competition and the Non-Profit Arts: the Lost Industrial Organization Agenda.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 2004, 28(3), pp. 167-193
- Mol, J.M., Wijnberg, N.M. & Carroll, C. (2005) “Value Chain Envy: Explaining New Entry and Vertical
Integration in Popular Music”, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 2, 251-276.
- Rindova, V., Becerra, M., & Contrado, I. (2004). Enacting competitive wars: Actions, Language Games,
and Market Consequences. Academy of Management Review, 29, 4, 670-686.
Week 3 Organization or Network
- Simon, Herbert A. (1991) Organizations and markets, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol 7, no2, 23
- Kogut, B (2000) “The Network as Knowledge: generative Rules and the Emergence of Structure”,
Strategic Management journal, Vol. 21, 405-425.
- Uzzi, B., and J. Spiro 2005 "Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem." American Journal
of Sociology, 111: 447-504.
- Ebbers, J.J. & Wijnberg, N.M. (2009). Latent Organizations in the Film Industry: Contracts, Rewards,
and Resources. Human Relations. 62(7): 987–1009.
Week 4 Strategyor Identity
- Ghoshal, Sumantra and Moran, Peter (1996) “Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost
Theory”. Academy of Management Review 21/1: 13-47.
- Phelan, S.E and Lewin, P (2000) Arriving at a Strategic Theory of the Firm, International Journal of
Management reviews, vol. 2, no 4, 305-323.
- Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (2002) “Strategy as Improvisational Theatre”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol 43, no 2, 76-82.
- Seong, S., & Godart, F. C. (2018). Influencing the influencers: diversification, semantic strategies, and
creativity evaluations. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 966-993. Link- Glynn, M.A. and Abzug,
R. (2002) “Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names” , Academy of
Management Journal, vol 45, no.1, 267-280.
Week 5 Innovation or Industry Life Cycle
- Suarez, Fernando F., Stine Grodal, and Aleksios Gotsopoulos. (2015) "Perfect timing? Dominant
category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry." Strategic Management
Journal 36.3: 437-448.
- Kuijken, B., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Categorization and willingness to pay for new
products: The role of category cues as value anchors. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
34(6), 757-771.
1
, - Reid, S.E. and De Brentani, U. (2004) “The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for
Discontinuous Innovation: A Theoretical Model”, Journal of product innovation Management, Vol. 21,
170-184.
- Wijnberg, N.M. (2004) “Innovation and Organization: Value and Competition in Selection Systems”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 1469-1490.
Week 6 Resource or Capability
- Miller, D. and Shamsie, J. (1996) A Resource-Based View of the Firm in two Environments: The
Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 39, no. 3, 519-543.
- Shamsie, J., Martin, X., & Miller, D. (2009). In with the old, in with the new: Capabilities, strategies, and
performance among the Hollywood studios. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1440-1452.
- Arend RJ, Bromiley P. 2009. Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: spare change, everyone?
Strategic Organization 7(1): 75–90.
- Mol, J.M. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2011) From Resources to Value and Back: Competition Between and
Within Organizations, British Journal of Management, 22, 1: 77-95.
- Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation—performance
relationship: A resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36(3), 588-609.
Week 1 Introduction
Article 1 Suddaby (2010)
This article is about the concepts in management science is about Scope conditions. How to
define something. Constructs are conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be
directly observed. Construct as a concept that has been deliberately and consciously
invented or adopted for a special scientific purpose. Constructs are not reducible to specific
observations but, rather, are abstract statements of categories of observations. Clear
constructs are simply robust categories that distill phenomena into sharp distinctions that
are comprehensible to a community of researchers. Constructs are the foundation of theory.
Four elements of construct clarity
- 1. Definitions: construct clarity involves the skillful use of language to persuasively
create precise and parsimonious categorical distinctions between concepts.
- 2. Scope conditions: construct clarity requires the author to delineate the scope
conditions or contextual circumstances under which a construct will or will not apply.
- 3. Semantic relationship: show the semantic relationship between conceptual
distinctions related to constructs.
- 4. Coherence: demonstrate a degree of coherence or logical consistency of the
construct in relation to the overall theoretical argument he or she is trying to make.
1. A good definition should
- Effectively capture the essential properties and characteristics of the concept or
phenomenon under consideration.
- Avoid tautology or circularity.
- Be parsimonious, it should try to capture as concisely as possible the essential
characteristics of a phenomenon or concept.
2. Categories of scope conditions
- Space: constructs may apply differently in different types of organizations, at
different levels of organizations or in varying environmental circumstances.
- Time: the antecedents and nature of a construct can vary over different time scales.
Measured over short time frames or longer time frames.
2
, - Values: scope conditions of a theoretical construct that arise as a result of the
assumptions or world view of the researcher. Researchers must make their best
efforts to explicate the hidden assumptions that they bring to the theorization of a
construct.
3. Relationships between constructs
Constructs are the outcome of a semantic network of conceptual connections to other prior
constructs. The goal of the researcher, however, should still be to strive for clarity,
parsimony, and precision in capturing the essential elements of the construct and in
mapping out the relationships between the focal construct and other constructs within
which the focal construct is embedded.
4. Coherence
The construct, its definition, its scope conditions, its lineage, and its relationship to other
constructs must all make sense. The need for coherence derives from the inherently
multidimensional nature of management research. Most of the constructs we use are highly
contextually sensitive, and over time constructs developed in management re- search tend
to consist of a number of interrelated attributes or dimensions that may vary somewhat in
different organizational contexts but still meaningfully capture a comprehensive element of
organizational experience. As a result, constructs often become multidimensional.
Article 2 Kennedy (2008) Markets, Media and Reality
This article is about the media’s central role in market formation. A firm must be counted to
move into the mainstream, but being outside the mainstream means not getting counted.
How can firms that are doing something new, get categorized and counted? Shared beliefs,
define reality.
Market formations = patterns of associations among market entrants found in the relevant
public discourse. Media coverage is ideal for extracting and analyzing these patters, because
coverage is traceable through firms’ press releases.
Entrants benefit from publicity efforts in a market’s early days when press releases
reference a rival or two, thus embedding them in an emerging category. As a category takes
shape, these references no longer legitimate the market and they become unhelpful. Media
discourse embeds firms in shared structures for making sense of new markets. These
structures enable counts of new populations, shaping firm performance and perceptions
that a market is for real.
Article 3 Baum (2007) Ecological approaches to organizations.
This article is about the ecological approaches of organizations. There are three observations
by which ecological research begins:
- Diversity is a property of aggregates of organizations that has no analogue at the
level of the individual organization.
- Organizations often have difficulty devising and executing changes fast enough to
meet the demands of uncertain, changing environments.
- The community of organizations is rarely stable, they arise and disappear continually.
3
, Organizations, populations and communities of organizations constitute the basic elements
of an ecological analysis of organizations. A set of organizations engaged in similar activities
and with similar patterns of resource utilization constitutes a population. Populations form
as a result of processes that isolate or segregate one set of organizations from another,
including technological incompatibilities, institutional actions such as government
regulations and imprinting effects. Populations themselves develop relationships with other
populations engaged in other activities that bind them into organizational communities.
Article 4 Kuijken et. al. (2017)
This paper proposes a framework that helps manufacturers to overcome this servitization
paradox. The underlying premise of our framework is the need to give primacy to the value
customers derive from PSS. The framework builds on the idea that products and services
differ with regard to the value that is created by the tangible elements and the interaction
moments between manufacturers and customers; this is presented in a 2 × 2 matrix.
Servitization = relates to manufacturing companies shifting their business focus from
designing and selling physical products only, to designing and selling a system of products
and services.
Intangibility or the degree of material intensity refers to the fact that services are not
material-based. Being material-based also implies that something can be physically stored.
Unstorability or perishability relates to the fact that services only exist in time and not in
space: thus, they cannot be stored.
Simultaneity deals with the simultaneous production and the consumption of services, which
implies interactions between manufacturers and customers.
To develop effective PSS, the products and services that make up the PSS should have
autonomous (the products and services that comprise the PSS could be sold separately as
stand-alone offerings on the market) value for the customers. The combination of the
products and service elements in a PSS should be super additive or synergetic (the whole is
valued higher than the sum of its parts) rather than additive (the whole equals the sum of its
parts) or sub additive (the whole is less than the sum of its parts).
Tangibility = the form or expression of the offering. The essential issue is whether the
tangible or intangible elements have value for (potential) customers. Products may possess
aspects that are intangible and services may have tangible aspects. This has an effect on how
customers use and experience the products or services.
Interaction = The presence of (repetitive) interaction between manufacturers and
customers, and particularly the degree to which this interaction contributes to the value of
the offering. This real interaction must create additional value.
4
