EXPLORING SOURCE OF MARKETING

Exploring Sources of Marketing Knowledge 

for Small Business Decision Makers

Donald R. Bacon and Abigail B. Schneider

Purpose of the Study. Where do small business owners and managers get the marketing knowledge they need 

to make marketing decisions? Using a marketing knowledge value chain framework, this research identifies the 

sources used by these marketing decision makers.

Method/Design and Sample. An online survey of small business owners and managers (n = 226) was conducted. 

Using a constant sum response format, respondents were asked to report the degree to which they used 15 different 

information sources, including such things as formal education, trade publications, and on-the-job training. Various 

demographics were included to explore differences across groups.

Results. On-the-job training was the most heavily weighted information source (25% weight), followed by 

colleagues, peers, and associates (18%). Even though 59% of the sample had taken a college-level marketing 

course at some point, formal education had a modest importance weight (13%). Academic journals received a very 

low weight (1%). Few differences in sources used were found across education level, size of organization, and 

revenue growth. 

Value to Marketing Educators. Recognizing that a large percentage of marketing graduates will work for small 

businesses, this study highlights the need for marketing faculty to make marketing knowledge creation and 

dissemination more relevant to small businesses. To accomplish this goal, more academic research can be 

targeted toward small business challenges, and client projects, internships, and case analyses can integrate more 

small businesses. 

Keywords. Small business marketing, SME, marketing science value chain, practitioner learning, value of marketing 

education.

Donald R. Bacon (corresponding author), Professor of Marketing, Daniels College of Business, University of 

Denver, 2101 S. University Blvd, Denver, CO 80208. Tel: 303-871-3317, Email: [email protected]. Abigail B. 

Schneider, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Anderson College of Business, Regis University, 3333 Regis 

Boulevard K-24, Denver, CO 80221. Tel: 303-458-4083, Email: [email protected]

s marketing educators, we are often interested in 

preparing and developing our students to 

become successful business professionals 

through the content that we teach in the classroom 

(Bacon, 2017; Finch, Nadeau, & O’Reilly, 2013; 

Rundle-Thiele, Bennett, & Dann, 2005; Schlee & Karns, 

2017; Wellman, 2017). However, we also realize that 

many of the ideas, insights, and tools students need to 

be successful are learned on the job. Students’ sources 

of learning are the agencies with which they work, the 

business press, their managers, the web, and most 

likely many other sources. To fully understand 

marketing education, marketing educators must 

understand the entire process by which novices

become experts so we can better understand the limits 

and potential opportunities within the role of the 

professional marketing educator. 

LITERATURE REVIEW

The foundational work on the “marketing science value 

chain” and the research on which this paper is largely 

based, was conducted by Roberts, Kayande, and 

Stremersch (2014) who proposed that three stages of 

marketing knowledge are processed by three types of 

actors. First, academic marketing science knowledge is 

generated by academics. In the next step, 

intermediaries such as marketing research firms or 

consultancies integrate the knowledge into practical 

tools. In the final step, practitioners use this practical 

knowledge to make marketing decisions. 

 Roberts et al. (2014) originally conceptualized that 

the intermediaries include marketing research and/or 

consulting firms that integrate the knowledge into 

practical tools. We extend intermediaries for the 

purposes of our study to include textbooks, popular 

business books, and the business press, which Roberts 

et al. (2014) categorized as “direct” influences (see the 

adaptation in Figure 1). This extension recognizes that 

intermediaries also translate the knowledge in many 

forms and include academics who did not originally 

generate the knowledge as well as journalists, 

consultants, and various marketing agencies who 

translate the knowledge into white papers, magazine 

publications, or applied models presented on websites 

or directly to clients. Academics may also be 

practitioners, and practitioners may also generate new 

knowledge, so the knowledge processes and roles are

Importantly, the value chain model presented by 

Roberts et al. (2014) includes a connection between the 

generation of knowledge by faculty and the application 

of knowledge by practitioners. These knowledge 

generators directly share their knowledge with current 

or future practitioners, often in forms that are modified 

to directly apply to marketing decisions. Although 

Roberts et al. (2014) define the direct impact of 

marketing science as the adapting of academic articles 

to the solving of practical problems, the direct path is 

essentially the role of formal marketing education. 

Through case analyses, client projects, and a variety of 

other methods, faculty members help students to 

understand marketing and to learn how to apply tools to 

make marketing decisions. 

 Conceptualizing the production and distribution of 

knowledge as a value chain linking knowledge 

generators with practitioners raises several important 

questions. The primary question for readers of this 

journal is the role of formal education in shaping 

marketing decisions. Marketing educators may assume

that the knowledge taught in school will shape the 

marketing decisions made by their students for years to 

come, but how substantial is this influence relative to 

the influence of other sources? One limitation of the 

Roberts et al. model (2014) is that it only addresses

marketing science knowledge from academic sources

(specifically academic journal articles) so it is not 

possible to determine the relative impact of academic 

knowledge compared to other knowledge types.

Another limitation is that their study sample focuses

on fairly sophisticated knowledge users. For example, 

the intermediaries include professionals working for 

some of the largest marketing research companies in 

the world such as AC Nielsen. Their survey of 

practitioners includes senior managers with 

connections to the Marketing Science Institute or the 

Institute for the Study of Business Markets. It is unlikely

that smaller firms will find positive ROIs in hiring costly 

intermediaries or utilizing advanced marketing science 

techniques that may require hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in research spending. For example, a company 

with only $20,000 in annual marketing spending will 

have difficulty justifying spending the entire budget on 

marketing research and forgoing all other spending for 

a year. For a company with $5 million in annual 

marketing spending, a $20,000 investment or more in 

marketing research makes good sense. Thus, the 

model needs to be revised in the context of small 

businesses.

Small and Medium Enterprise Marketing

The use of marketing knowledge among small 

businesses is particularly important to understand 

because marketing knowledge is critical to small and 

medium enterprise (SME) success (Bocconcelli et al., 

2018; Hills, 1995; Lussier, 1995), and many students 

will be employed by small businesses. In the United 

States, nearly half (47.8%) of all employees in the US 

work for firms with fewer than 500 employees (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2016). In his comprehensive study of.

Table 1

Study Sample: Industries Represented 

Industry Frequency Percentage

Construction/remodeling 55 24%

Other 45 20%

Professional services 30 13%

Home services (HVAC, plumbing, 

electrician, etc.) 29 13%

Financial & insurance services 17 8%

Healthcare services 16 7%

Automotive services 12 5%

Retail 12 5%

Nonprofit 6 3%

 Sub total 222 98%

No response 4 2%

 Total 226 100%

Table 2

Sample: Level of Education Achieved

Level Frequency Percentage

Less than high school 0 0%

High school/GED 9 4%

Trade school (cosmetology, HVAC, etc.) 8 4%

Some college 32 14%

2 year college degree/associate degree 36 16%

4 year college degree 92 41%

Masters degree 30 13%

Doctoral degree 19 8%

Total 226 100%

Enjoyed this article? Stay informed by joining our newsletter!

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

About Author