Behavioral Field Studies in Marketing--论文代写范文

量化营销学者应该特别感兴趣的是基于心理学理论的杠杆。营销学者可以通过学习积累有价值的理论和知识，通过有效性概念的复制行为。下面的essay代写范文进行论述。

Introduction
  Marketing is an eclectic field with multiple base disciplines and research paradigms; and we should be justifiably proud of this tradition of being willing to use the right tools to address the right questions. One challenge, however, is that often research streams operate in parallel with limited interactions between them. Thus, as a field, we are not able to capitalize on the potential from research interactions across base disciplines and research paradigms. As discussed earlier, the interaction between analytical game theory and empirical research is a knowledge production success story in quantitative marketing. At the intersection of behavioral and quantitative marketing, there is a large missed opportunity. While behavioral scholars primarily do laboratory studies, quantitative marketers primarily work with field data. Quantitative marketing scholars should be particularly interested in whether behavioral levers based on psychological theory that have been tested in the lab can be leveraged by managers in the field. 

  Marketing scholars can accumulate theoretically and managerially valuable knowledge by studying the effectiveness of conceptual replications of behavioral theories in different field contexts (Lynch et al. 2012). Let me provide a few examples of how behavioral field studies can add to our knowledge. Comparing the elasticities of various costless behavioral levers supported by insights from behavioral research (e.g., message framing) with costly economic levers such as pricing, advertising, and personal selling using field experiments is both theoretically and managerially useful. When multiple behavioral levers are simultaneously tested through appropriate conceptual replications within an experiment, we can learn about the relative elasticities of behavioral levers—useful in practical policy and managerial settings, where the most effective behavioral lever has to be chosen. 

  A common critique of such measured elasticities among behavioral scholars is that the magnitude of the effects is largely a function of the idiosyncratic treatments and contexts. For quantitative scholars, this should not be a real concern. Estimated elasticities in quantitative research with respect to economic levers such as price and advertising are also a function of contexts such as product categories, target customer populations, and (usually unobserved) advertising messages. 

  Quantitative marketing has created generalizable knowledge through meta-analysis of elasticities across a large number of studies. In fact, by publishing results in different contexts, we understand how these effects vary across contexts and populations and how such effects vary by moderating factors. These insights add to the science and are also valuable to managers. A second critique of behavioral studies is that the mechanism underlying the impact of behavioral levers is hard to tease out as precisely in the field as in laboratory experiments. Rather than see the cup as half empty when viewed through the reference point of laboratory experiments, reviewers should be encouraged to see the cup as half-full, relative to the reference point of secondary data commonly used in quantitative research, where such identifying variation is naturally impossible to obtain. With this lens, behavioral field experiments augment secondary data (in the spirit of natural experiments) with identifying variation. 

  As with secondary data, we can continue to look for heterogeneous treatment effects with respect to different segments, interaction effects of behavioral levers with economic levers, etc. in the analysis to generate a rich set of insights from behavioral field studies. When such behavioral field experiments are seen as augmenting secondary data with a new kind of identifying variation, it is easy to see how they fit squarely within the mission of Marketing Science. There has been a recent surge in the use of field experiments in marketing; partly aided by the ease with which field experiments can be conducted in digital environments especially in the areas of targeting and personalization. 

  Even in non-digital areas of marketing, field experiments have had an significant impact in the area of behavioral economics; this stream of research is close to the intersection of quantitative and behavioral marketing. Farther from mainstream marketing, field experiments have had an important impact in development economics, where the research has been in poor, developing countries trying to understand a variety of incentive, framing, and informational levers in improving adoption of ideas, products, and technologies among the poor. By demonstrating the effect of these levers in the field, both behavioral economics and development economics have had a significant impact among policy makers. By embracing field experiments with economic and behavioral levers in a number of emerging areas, such as societal marketing, non-profit marketing, sustainability, green marketing, health marketing, and marketing in emerging markets, we can substantially enlarge both the scope of our research and our field’s impact on practice.

 Substantive Areas
  oft-mentioned complaint is that quantitative marketing scholarship is overweighted on topics where rich data are readily available through secondary sources. A casual look at the empirical papers we publish does suggest that there is much greater work around frequently purchased categories with scanner data, durable goods categories such as cars, entertainment products such as movies, and topics around Internet/mobile search and purchase behavior. This is not surprising, given that detailed secondary data allow us to do sophisticated research that supports credible causal claims with little time or effort spent on data collection. As discussed earlier, this is part of the excitement among marketing scholars around big data. The field needs answers to research questions in areas where data are not easily available. As the old story goes, it will not serve us well “to search for keys only where the light is.” 

  One problem is that as a field, we do not adequately recognize or reward scholars for primary data collection, or for assembly of datasets that help open new areas of research. When the best minds in our field can study important substantive questions unconstrained by where data are easily available, knowing that their efforts to assemble useful data would be rewarded by the field not just in terms of publication but also by broader recognition such as awards and greater spotlight, we will draw people towards such research.3 At the margin, I will be extra supportive of work that introduces new data as long as they cross reasonable quality thresholds. Our focus on studying problems where secondary data can be readily acquired has led us to “knowledge darkness” in many classical and emerging topics. For example, there is relatively scant attention to classical areas such as B2B marketing, social, and non-profit marketing among quantitative marketers. 

  Areas such as innovation and entrepreneurship have not received much attention in marketing, though at many business schools, marketing and entrepreneurship sit together as one department. It would be important for some of our best minds to provide both conceptual guidance and empirical research on these topics. In terms of newer areas, quantitative marketing can gain much from research on emerging markets and international marketing. Last year, Preyas Desai published a special section on emerging markets (which I co-edited with Kannan Srinivasan). The published papers included theory, secondary data, and field experiment based papers—reflecting how new substantive areas can provide opportunities for scholars with different methodological expertise. In our editorial to the special section, we articulated why the large cross-sectional variation across and within emerging markets, as well as the speed of temporal variation across many new types of variables that are relevant to marketers, makes emerging markets a particularly valuable place to mine for opportunities to answer research questions that can aid both our understanding of markets and marketing. 

  Areas such as health/wellness and sustainability are gaining in importance in MBA education as well as managerial interest. Marketing knowledge and tools can be valuable for managers navigating these areas. We should aspire to produce knowledge grounded in research on these topics. Interestingly, many economists, operations, and management scholars are using marketing tools and concepts to contribute to scholarship in these areas. It would serve us well to remain central and relevant to the debates around these big management issues with our research. I hope theoretical, empirical, and behavioral marketing scholars will all contribute to knowledge development in these emerging areas.（essay代写)

  51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
  51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多paper代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供paper代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。

标签：essay代写  Studies in Marketing  论文代写