Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should firms invest more in marketing or R&D to maintain sales leadership? An empirical analysis of sales leader firms

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some firms have successfully maintained their position as sales leaders for years, as evidenced by their presence on the annual Fortune 500 list. While sustained investments in both marketing and R&D are crucial to sales leadership maintenance, should firms invest more in marketing or R&D? Is the relative emphasis on marketing versus R&D for sales leadership maintenance contingent upon environmental and firm-related factors? We address these questions by building on resource-based and organizational adaptation theories. We present a conceptual model and hypotheses delineating the main effects of marketing and R&D capital, and the moderating effects of environmental dynamism, environmental munificence, and financial leverage on sales leadership maintenance. We use a left-truncated Cox proportional hazards survival model to test the hypotheses on an unbalanced panel dataset of 114 Fortune 500 manufacturing firms tracked over the period 1981 to 2016. We find that both marketing capital and R&D capital have a direct and positive effect on sales leadership maintenance. We also find that environmental dynamism and financial leverage interact with R&D capital, but not marketing capital, to enhance the probability of sales leadership maintenance; and investing more in R&D than in marketing enhances sales leadership maintenance in dynamic environments for highly leveraged firms. A sales leader firm that incrementally spends 1% of its five-year average sales revenue on each of marketing and R&D activities can improve its probability of sales leadership maintenance by 50%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge that other measures of marketing and R&D capabilities such as brand equity and number of patents may also influence sales leadership maintenance. However, the lack of continuous data on these for the period 1981 to 2016 precludes us from including these measures in our subsequent empirical analysis.

  2. Incumbents may be just as adept as newcomers in introducing radical innovations (Sorescu, Chandy, and Prabhu 2003). However, this observation might be specific to an industry such as studied in Sorescu et al. (2003).

  3. In the robustness check section, we use dispersion around a regression trend line as an alternative measure, consistent with Dess and Beard (1984) and Jindal and McAlister (2015). The results are substantively similar.

  4. We subsequently test a model with simple sales growth rate measure as a proxy for industry growth rate as a robustness check. The results are substantively similar.

  5. We do not report correlations involving interaction terms to save space.

References

  • Agarwal, R., Sarkar, M. B., & Echambadi, R. (2002). The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: An industry life cycle approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 971–994.

  • Albers, S., Mantrala, M., & Sridhar, S. (2010). Personal selling elasticities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 840–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis with SAS: A practical guide. Cary: SAS Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, T. J., Fang, E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science, 20, 410–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W. P., & McKendrick, D. G. (2004). Why are some organizations more competitive than others? Evidence from a changing global market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 535–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., Darnall, N., & Husted, B. W. (2015). Sustainability strategy in constrained economic times. Long Range Planning, 48, 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 999–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory creating and sustaining competitive advantages (p. 327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B., Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (2003). The financial rewards of new product introductions in the personal computer industry. Management Science, 49(2), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Position, leverage and opportunity: A typology of strategic logics linking resources with competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, A. R., & St. John, C. H. (2007). Measuring environmental complexity. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 296–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, M., & Hackett, R. (2014). The 10 biggest R&D spenders worldwide. Fortune. Nov. 7. https://fortune.com/2014/11/17/top-10-research-development/. Accessed 17 Dec 2020.

  • Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1991). Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16, 542–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Census Bureau. (2015). Statistics of U.S. Businesses, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2020

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product introduction. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J., & Antia, K. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovations. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charan, R., & Useem, J. (2002). Why companies fail. Fortune, 27, 50–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Noronha, G., & Singhal, V. (2004). The price response to S&P 500 index additions and deletions: Evidence of asymmetry and a new explanation. Journal of Finance, 59(4), 1901–1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comanor, W. S., & Wilson, T. A. (1967). Advertising, market structure and performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 49(4), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekimpe, M., Hanssens, D. M., & Silva-Risso, J. M. (1999). Long-run effects of price promotions in scanner markets. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1/2), 269–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis, D., McConnell, J. J., Ovtchinnikov, A. V., & Yu, Y. (2003). S&P 500 index additions and earnings expectations. Journal of Finance, 58(5), 1821–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derfus, P. J., Maggitti, P. G., Grimm, C. M., & Smith, K. G. (2008). The red queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: Methodology and empirical application. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (1992). Gaining comparative advantage through discretionary expenditures: The returns to R&D and advertising. Management Science, 38(9), 1264–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S. (1987). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95(4), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fainshmidt, S., Wenger, L., Pezeshkan, A., & Mallon, M. R. (2019). When do dynamic capabilities lead to competitive advantage? The importance of strategic fit. Journal of Management Studies, 56(4), 758–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, L., & Peress, J. (2009). Media coverage and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance, 64(5), 2023–2052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazzari, S. M., & Peterson, B. C. (1993). Working capital and fixed investment: New evidence on financing constraints. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24(3), 328–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, H., Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2017). Firm capabilities and growth: The moderating role of market conditions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. H., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furr, N., & Kapoor, R. (2018). Capabilities, technologies, and firm exit during industry shakeout: Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 33–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A., Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding conditions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 510–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann, W., & Garry, M. (1986). Does delisting from the S&P 500 affect stock price? Financial Analysts Journal, 42, 64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, H. G., & Mueller, D. C. (1978). Industrial research and development, intangible, capital stocks, and firm profit rates. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., Citrin A. V. (2010). Customer satisfaction heterogeneity and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 612–26.

  • Grewal, R., Chandrashekaran, M., Johnson, J. L., & Mallapragada, G. (2013). Environments, unobserved heterogeneity and the effect of market orientation for high-tech firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 206–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanssens, D. M., Parsons, L. J., & Schultz, R. L. (2003). Market response models: Econometric and time series analysis (2nd ed.). Guildford: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V., & Verdin, P. (2003). Is performance driven by industry- or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1243–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillegeist, S. A., Keating, E. K., Cram, D. P., & Lundstedt, K. G. (2004). Assessing the probability of bankruptcy. Review of Accounting Studies, 9(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himme, A., & Fischer, M. (2014). Drivers of the cost of capital: The joint role of non-financial metrics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(2), 224–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemin, A. P., & Berry, C. H. (1979). Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(4), 359–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jindal, N., & McAlister, L. (2015). The impacts of advertising assets and R&D assets on reducing bankruptcy risk. Marketing Science, 34(4), 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, B. W., Johnson, J. L., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2016). Strategic marketing ambidexterity: Antecedents and financial consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 539–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly, J. (1976). Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klooster, A. (2020). Fortune announces 2020 Fortune 500 list, launches first ever "History of the Fortune 500" data analytics visualization site with partner Qli. Cision PR Newswire, May 18. Retrieved December 17, 2020.

  • Koh, P., & Reeb, D. M. (2015). Missing R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60, 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlenkova, I., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008). The relative impact of marketing, R&D, and operations capabilities on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L., Ofek, E., & Stulz, R. (1996). Leverage, investment, and firm growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigson, S. C. (2004). Consumer confidence and consumer spending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. D. (2007). Are joint venture partners more opportunistic in more volatile environments? Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. (2008). When marketing strategy first meets wall street: Marketing spendings and firms’ initial public offerings. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 98–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malshe, A., & Agarwal, M. K. (2015). From finance to marketing: The impact of financial leverage on customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham Jr., J. W. (2011). Lessons from competition law from the economic crisis: The prospect of antitrust responses to the too-big-to-fail phenomenon. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Finance Law, 16, 261–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L., Srinivasan, R., & Kim, M. (2007). Advertising, research and development, and systematic risk of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N. (2010). The theory and practice of myopic management. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 594–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2007). Myopic marketing management: Evidence of the phenomenon and its long-term performance consequences in the SEO context. Marketing Science, 26(3), 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2009). Brand portfolio strategy and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C. (2001). Capital structure. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, L. (2003). A trillion dollars a year in intangible investment and the new economy in Intangible assets: Values, measures, and risks. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, O., Rajiv, S., & Dutta, S. (2006). Absorptive capacity in high-technology markets: The competitive advantage of the haves. Marketing Science, 25(5), 510–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peress, J. (2014). The media and the diffusion of information in financial markets: Evidence from newspaper strikes. Journal of Finance, 69(5), 2007–2083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M. (2019). Only 52 US companies have been on the fortune 500 since 1955, thanks to the creative destruction that fuels economic prosperity. [available at: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/only-52-us-companies-have-been-on-the-fortune-500-since-1955-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-prosperity/. Accessed 17 Dec 2020.

  • Richard, O. C., Murthy, B. P. S., & Ismail, K. (2007). The impact of radical diversity on intermediate and long-term performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12), 1213–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W. (1999). Product innovation, product-market competition and persistent profitability in the U.S pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 655–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021). Organizational adaptation. Journal of Management, 47(1), 43–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V. (2008). Strategic marketing resource allocation: Methods and insights in Marketing Mix Decisions: New Perspectives and Practices (Kerin and O’Regan, eds.), American Marketing Association, 154-183.

  • Shankar, V., Azar, P., & Fuller, M. (2008). BRAN*EQT: A model for estimating, tracking, and managing brand equity for multicategory brands. Marketing Science, 27(4), 545–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway, T. (2001). Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A simple hazard model. The Journal of Business, 74(1), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L., & Li, M. (2000). Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: A theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, D. R. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking into the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Arregle, J. L., & Campbell, J. T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: Investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1386–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar, S., Narayanan, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2014). Dynamic relationships among, R&D, advertising, inventory, and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2004). First in, first out? The effects of network externalities on pioneer survival. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Sridhar, S. (2011). Should firms spend more on research and development and advertising during recessions? Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(January), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, J. H. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuli, K., Bharadwaj, S.G. (2009). Customer satisfaction and stock returns risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 184–97.

  • ValueR (2019). How innovation helped Fortune 500 companies remain relevant. Available at: https://www.valuer.ai/blog/how-innovation-helped-fortune-500-companies-remain-relevant. Accessed 17 Dec 2020.

  • Waring, G. F. (1996). Industry difference in the persistence of firm-specific returns. The American Economic Review, 86(5), 1253–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wies, S., & Moorman, C. (2015). Going public: How stock market listing changes firm innovation behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(5), 694–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilden, R., & Gudergon, S. P. (2015). The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational, marketing and technological capabilities: Investigating the role of environmental turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zingales, L. (1998). Survival of the fittest or the fattest? Exit and financing in the trucking industry. The Journal of Finance, 53(3), 905–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwiebel, J. (1996). Dynamic capital structure under managerial entrenchment. American Economic Review, 86(5), 1197–1215.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Gautham Vadakkepatt

  2. Center for Retailing Studies, College Station, TX, USA

    Venkatesh Shankar

  3. Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Rajan Varadarajan

Authors
  1. Gautham Vadakkepatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Venkatesh Shankar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajan Varadarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Venkatesh Shankar.

Additional information

Rajkumar Venkatesan served as Area Editor for this article.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vadakkepatt, G., Shankar, V. & Varadarajan, R. Should firms invest more in marketing or R&D to maintain sales leadership? An empirical analysis of sales leader firms. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 49, 1088–1108 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00774-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00774-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation