Guest editorial

Citation

Matthyssens, P. (2006), "Guest editorial", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim.2006.08021faa.001

Guest editorial

About the Guest editor

Paul Matthyssens MBA, PhD, is Professor of Competitive Strategy at the Department of Management, University of Antwerp (Belgium) and Professor of Business-to-Business Marketing at the Department of Marketing Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (The Netherlands). His research, teaching and consultancy focuses on market strategy in business markets, international marketing strategy and purchasing strategy. He has been published in a wide range of journals such as The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Advances in Business Marketing & Purchasing, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of International Management, Long Range Planning and International Marketing Review.

The strategic relevance of the marketing-sales interface

1. Introduction to the core concepts

This special issue focuses on interfunctional coordination in general, and the marketing-sales interface in specific. Interfunctional coordination between marketing and sales can be defined as the ability by the departments of marketing and sales to communicate and collaborate in order to create customer and shareholder value. Auh and Menguc (2005, p. 252) describe interfunctional coordination as “the ability of different functional areas to accommodate disparate views and work around conflicting perspectives and mental models by putting aside functional interests for the better of the organization as a whole”. They consider it a form of social capital of an organization.

Market dynamics and professionalism of business customers force suppliers to become more agile and value-driven. In order to reach this state of excellence, the customer orientation of the company should not only be declared by top management (e.g., in a mission statement), but should be shared fully throughout the organization. Kennedy et al. (2003) have shown how a break in connectivity dilutes or even negates top leaders’ dedication to a customer focus.

Moreover, their study shows that the sharing and dissemination of market data lead to enhanced interdepartmental coordination (connectedness), which stimulates the organization to deliver value to customers. As such they conclude their study with the assertion that “connectedness is a central factor rather than a singular one in implementing a customer orientation” (Kennedy et al., 2003, p. 78).

Their findings are in line with Krohmer et al. (2002), whose research output also underscores the relevance of a cross-functional approach to marketing. They show the important saying other functions have in marketing decisions. Sales, for instance, has a large influence on pricing, service design, international market expansion and distribution decisions. One of the directions for future research, suggested by these authors, starts from the different influence of marketing and sales. They claim to treat marketing and sales as two district functions and investigate differences between them. Overall the implementation aspects of influence-sharing merits more attention by marketing and organization researchers.

2. The marketing-sales interface

One of the first researchers to pay attention to the marketing-sales interface is Cespedes (1986, 1994). In his 1986 book, he makes a distinction between the strategy part of marketing and its implementation part. The former implies the “what-to-do” of marketing activities (objectives, plans, resource allocation). The latter refers to “how-to-do” aspects, namely organization, programs and field execution (sales, service, and feedback). That way, the management of customer encounters in the field becomes on of the focal issues of marketing. Cespedes considers field sales and key account management clearly as parts of marketing organization, but he is not blind to the fact that field sales and product management are often separate division which are differently evaluated. Henceforth, managing key interfaces becomes a challenge of strategic relevance.

In his 1994 paper, Cespedes reflects on the interface between product management, sales management and customer service. He proves how the tasks of the three units have become more interlinked along a continuum of marketing tasks. However, the different units show large differences with respect to span of attention, performance criteria, information priorities and data use. The conclusion is clear: companies need liaison units, multifunctional account teams and other programs for interfunctional coordination, especially between marketing and sales.

Homburg et al. (2000) posit that within any sales unit, there is a need for account managers or customer segment managers with cross-functional experience. This is specifically necessary as more marketing tasks have shifted into a sales force’s responsibility. As such, the differences and misunderstandings between the two interdependent market-related functions must be put aside, as put forward by Cohen (1998, p. 15): “Today, though, a truce between these bitter foes is necessary for corporate success”. The study of the marketing-sales interface seems more needed than ever …

So, what do we know about this vital interface and, above all, what do we still have to explore with regard to this relation? Based on a thorough literature review of marketing interfaces, Dewsnap and Jobber (2000, p. 109) argue that much literature exists on the product development interfaces of marketing, but that “[a]cademic research has to date, however, neglected relations between the marketing sub-functions”. Another publication (Dewsnap and Jobber, 2002) reports a literature review and comes to the same conclusion. Earlier work stresses mainly the conflicts and lack of cooperation between marketing and sales.

Dewsnap and Jobber (2000, 2002) developed a model for the study of the marketing-sales interface and propose research avenues. Their study focuses, however, on fast-moving consumer goods.

This special issue seeks to fill this gap by focusing on business markets. We have sought to bring together a collection of papers that shows various aspects of the interface between marketing and sales in business-to-business (B2B) settings.

3. Overview of the contributions

In the first paper, Paul Matthyssens and Wesley Johnston make an inventory of the resources and information flows between marketing and sales, respectively during the marketing management process and during the sales process. From this analysis follows that both functions are really interdependent during the marketing management process, resulting in frequent interactions. In the sales process, the level of interaction is more limited.

Further, the authors identified barriers inhibiting the fluent interaction between marketing and sales during these processes. Eventually, this leads to the identification of devices to smoothen the interface. They are grouped in three categories: organizational factors, communication factors and human resources management. The necessity of revitalization of the product management functions is one of their recommendations.

Applying a quantitative methodology, in the second paper, Phillip Dawes and Graham Massey study the use of influence tactics by marketing managers vis-à-vis sales managers. Their study has strong conceptual and empirical thrusts. With regard to the former, the research model is rooted in the interaction approach and in resource dependence theory. Regarding the latter, the study is based on a self-administered mail survey in the UK and Australia (n=201). Structural equation modeling was applied.

The original conceptual framework built on the key constructs of power, interdependence, influence tactics, interpersonal trust and perceived relational effectiveness of the marketing management-sales management dyad. This model integrates “trust-based and power/influence/interdependence based models of relationship effectiveness”.

Results indicate that interdependence provides a sound basis for relationship effectiveness. Mutual trust is also shown to play a key role. Cognition-based trust is a strong predictor of affect-based trust. Further, it is found that threats will only be used by marketing managers as a last resort. Their impact is also very short term oriented. Legalistic pleas are ineffective.

On average, and contrary to what was expected, the relationship between marketing and sales management in these companies, was quite good, although a large variation was noted.

The third paper, written by Aberdeen Leila Borders, focuses on the influence of customers on the marketing-sales interface. In this theoretical paper, several streams of literature are combined to investigate the bearing of four specific influence tactics (request, ingratiation, threat, and promise) on the supplier. The reasoning is based on theories of power-dependence, authority, subjective expected utility and value, and social exchange.

Borders reflects on both antecedents and consequences of customer-initiated influence tactics, culminating in six research propositions. In her conclusions, the author pinpoints the fact that the expectancy of relationship continuity weighs heavily on customer and supplier firm to use influence tactics and respond to them. She also pleads for a better relationship between marketing and sales in the frame of real customer-centric marketing.

In the fourth contribution, Derrick Gosselin and Guy Bouwen demonstrate how key account management can create a competitive advantage for a supplier if it is considered as an integrated business process. It is indispensable that the supplier acquires and develops competencies to realize integration between sales and marketing. Systems architecture is the key to successful account management.

The authors base their conclusions on a thorough literature review and on a quantitative study. The literature review reveals that during the last decades, the view on (key) account management (KAM) was either sales or relational marketing oriented, which is a first source of confusion, the authors claim. Gosselin and Bouwen indicate two other sources of confusion regarding KAM: local versus global KAM, and “single best” versus a “contingent” approach to KAM.

In the quantitative study, some evidence is presented on the status of KAM in Belgium. Specifically, the management systems supporting KAM are evaluated. Organizational and practical consequences are drawn. The paper identifies two sustainable account relationships and two dominant account management strategies. The authors conclude by asking three fundamental questions to managers. Their paper shows that account management is not a sales or marketing activity. It is a top management priority.

The fifth paper from Micheal Beverland, Marion Steel and G. Dapriran, uses a qualitative research method (44 in-depth interviews across four companies) to identify the cultural frames that drive negative perceptions of each other. The case companies studied are active in the telecommunications, gas, and automotive industry in Australia and New Zealand.

Key differences in cultural frames are observed in the following areas: “valid scope and focus of activity” (sales considered active, experienced only in a narrow, not strategic field), “time focus” (sales as short term oriented in contrast to marketing which is considered as long term), “valid sources of knowledge” (e.g. sales criticize the lack of customer contact by marketers), and “valid relationship to the environment” (marketing considered by sales people as being divorced from day-to-day reality). Perceived and real status differences among the functions as well as an imbalance of information flows hampered the relationship between marketing and sales. CEO support is needed to overcome such barriers.

In the final paper, a viewpoint article, Ralph Oliva reports how US managers think about the marketing-sales interface, based on their discussions at a recent ISBM workshop on the topic. In an informal and relaxed atmosphere, managers reflected on both their positive and negative experiences when managing this vital interface. The “best practices” they shared displayed similar characteristics in three areas. First, “language traps” should not be underestimated. The author proposes companies to clarify these issues first. The ISBM value delivery framework could guide companies through this exercise.

A second area of attention was “organizational linkages” with some companies creating new coordinating functions to seek growth opportunities rather than cost savings. Process mapping techniques and a re-orientation and re-conceptualization of sales and marketing processes into a “demand generation chain” is a third best practice area (“linkages of process”).

The diversity of sales and marketing must be managed. Successful firms seem to be able to mobilize each function around its strengths, while simultaneously bridging the functions in order to produce results.

With this special issue, we do not claim full coverage of this challenging topic. Nevertheless, we feel comfortable that this portfolio of papers will put forward inspiring research opportunities and managerial approaches.

Paul Matthyssens