Exploring Marketing in Micro Firms

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to explore the practice of marketing in micro firms. Which are the challenges micro firms encounter and how do they handle them? Methodology - The research methodology is based on the theory-in-use approach (Zaltman, Heffring & LeMasters 1982) in order to inductively explore the practice of marketing in micro firms. The empirical findings rest on ten case studies, where data has been generated through repeated interactions with each case. Findings - The empirical findings show that micro firms handle their marketing challenges in a distinctive manner, by creatively using available resources and network relations. Marketing in micro firms is largely about a long-term, gradual development of a position on the market. This process we label germinal marketing. Two key dimensions of germinal marketing were identified: “earning your position” and “being your brand”. Research limitations and implications - The findings rest on an explorative study consisting of ten cases and the general applicability of the results need to be validated by further studies. These cases are however sufficient to illuminate the need for further research into the area. Value of the paper - The value of the paper is twofold. First, it expands the theory-in-use approach, and presents a research method for successful inductive empirical studies of small firm phenomena. Secondly, the paper widens our understanding of the marketing reality and practice of micro firms, identifying new dimensions of marketing and revealing the strategic implications of ordinary business activities.

Trade Liberalization, Heterogeneous Firms and Industrial Dynamics

This master thesis studies how trade liberalization affects the firm-level productivity and industrial evolution. To do so, I built a dynamic model that considers firm-level productivity as endogenous to investigate the influence of trade on firm’s productivity and the market structure. In the framework, heterogeneous firms in the same industry operate differently in equilibrium. Specifically, firms are ex ante identical but heterogeneity arises as an equilibrium outcome. Under the setting of monopolistic competition, this type of model yields an industry that is represented not by a steady-state outcome, but by an evolution that rely on the decisions made by individual firms. I prove that trade liberalization has a general positive impact on technological adoption rates and hence increases the firm-level productivity. Besides, this endogenous technology adoption model also captures the stylized facts: exporting firms are larger and more productive than their non-exporting counterparts in the same sector. I assume that the number of firms is endogenous, since, according to the empirical literature, the industrial evolution shows considerably different patterns across countries; some industries experience large scale of firms’ exit in the period of contracting market shares, while some industries display relative stable number of firms or gradually increase quantities. The special word “shakeout” is used to describe the dramatic decrease in the number of firms. In order to explain the causes of shakeout, I construct a model where forward-looking firms decide to enter and exit the market on the basis of their state of technology. In equilibrium, firms choose different dates to adopt innovation which generate a gradual diffusion process. It is exactly this gradual diffusion process that generates the rapid, large-scale exit phenomenon. Specifically, it demonstrates that there is a positive feedback between firm’s exit and adoption, the reduction in the number of firms increases the incentives for remaining firms to adopt innovation. Therefore, in the setting of complete information, this model not only generates a shakeout but also captures the stability of an industry. However, the solely national view of industrial evolution neglects the importance of international trade in determining the shape of market structure. In particular, I show that the higher trade barriers lead to more fragile markets, encouraging the over-entry in the initial stage of industry life cycle and raising the probability of a shakeout. Therefore, more liberalized trade generates more stable market structure from both national and international viewpoints. The main references are Ederington and McCalman(2008,2009).