et al.

: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

The Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing

on Outcome Goals in SMEs

Richard C. Becherer
Marilyn M. Helms
John P. McDonald

T
his study examines how entrepreneurial marketing distinct disciplines and is used to describe the marketing
dimensions (proactiveness, opportunity focused, processes of firms pursuing opportunities in uncertain mar-
leveraging, innovativeness, risk taking, value cre- ket circumstances often under constrained resource condi-
ation, and customer intensity) are related to qualitative tions (Collinson & Shaw, 2001; Hills, 1987; Omura, Calantone,
and quantitative outcome measures for the SME and the & Schmidt, 1993). Entrepreneurial marketing utilizes a “big
entrepreneur (including company success, customer suc- picture” perspective and focuses on creative approaches to
cess, financial success, satisfaction with return goals, satis- innovation, risk management, resource leveraging, and value
faction with growth goals, excellence, and the entrepre- [Link] term describes a range of actions and responses
neur’s standard of living). Using factor analysis, three suc- SMEs can employ (Becherer, Haynes, and Helms, 2008). Read,
cess outcome variables (financial, customer, and strong Dew, Sarasvathy, Song, and Wilbank (2009) compared the mar-
company success) emerged together. A separate factor analy- keting approach of entrepreneurs versus managers with little
sis identified satisfactory growth and return goals. Stepwise entrepreneurial expertise and confirmed significant differ-
regression revealed entrepreneurial marketing impacts out- ences exist when marketing under uncertainty. They found
come variables, particularly value [Link] for managers without entrepreneurial expertise relied on predic-
entrepreneurs and areas for research are included. tive marketing techniques while the entrepreneurs marketing
tactics used effectual or nonpredictive logic.
Keywords: entrepreneurial marketing; entrepreneur; value Beverland and Lockshin (2004) defined entrepreneurial
creation; opportunity; leveraging; excellence marketing as “effectual action” or the adaptation of marketing
theory for the unique needs of small [Link] effec-
While marketing plays a significant role in successful organi- tual actions simultaneously address many issues: opportunity,
zations, it can be argued that marketing is even more critical innovation, risk, and resource constraints. For the SME, these
for small to mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), for which the loss actions are the task of the individual owner/operator.
or gain of a single customer can often determine firm sur- Constant attention to marketing is critical to success for
[Link] has become increasingly apparent to researchers newly launched or growing ventures (Hisrich, 1992;
is that conventional marketing practices are not always avail- Becherer, Halstead & Haynes, 2003; Becherer, Haynes, &
able or appropriate for entrepreneurial [Link] very fact of Fletcher, 2006). Simultaneously these decisions also pose
its newness means a nascent business venture is more likely some of the greatest challenges to these ventures (Morris,
to face both uncertain market conditions and limited Schindehutte, & LaForge, 2002; Sarasvathy, 2001; Kirzner,
resources for marketing. When pursuing new opportunities 1997; Stokes, 2000; Carson 2001).
with limited resources, the entrepreneur must use innovative Because SMEs face specific constraints, they are set apart
approaches in the face of such [Link] the market- from their larger business counterparts that have more longevi-
ing approaches used by entrepreneurs reflect this innovative ty. Thus there is justification for the adoption of an entrepre-
orientation, they may vary in their relationship or effect on neurial marketing philosophy (Birley, 1989, 1982), particularly
outcome goals. It is critical for a new venture to understand in highly innovative organizations (Chaston & Mangles, 1999).
which entrepreneurial marketing practices are most effective Gruber (2004) agreed marketing is a major determinant of suc-
and therefore important to achieve a variety of successful cess in all new firms. Marketing also is rated extremely impor-
outcome goals and ultimately for profitability and growth. tant by venture capitalists and Chaston (1997) found entrepre-
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to link entrepreneur- neurial marketing is more appropriate in smaller firms.
ial marketing practices with outcome goals in SMEs. Entrepreneurial marketing has been suggested as most
effective when environmental change is great and resources
Entrepreneurial Marketing are limited (Becherer & Maurer, 1997). Martin’s (2009)
The term “entrepreneurial marketing” merges two formerly research also found distinctions. She compared traditional

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 7

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 7
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

corporate marketing to entrepreneurial marketing and vali- Mullins & Forlani, 2005). Where others perceive problems,
dated a framework for analysis of marketing practices specif- entrepreneurs are more likely to see potential (Palich &
ic to entrepreneurs, highlighting the differences in marketing Bagby, 1995).
practices by entrepreneurs. Risk Taking. Early studies of risk taking centered on the
Traditional marketing strategies, emphasizing effective- premise that entrepreneurs are predisposed to take on risky
ness (market penetration) and efficiency, tend to dominate ventures (d’Ambroise & Muldowney, 1988).As opportunities
when markets become more stable and firms become more represent possible gains, pursuit of that gain must be tem-
established (Morris, Schindehutte, & LaForge 2002). In con- pered by the potential of loss through miscalculated efforts.
trast, a firm’s emphasis on entrepreneurial marketing varies Within an entrepreneurial framework, risk taking is not only
in intensity based on the stage of organizational development the willingness to take a chance on an opportunity, it is the
and level of environmental turbulence or hostility. Firms ability of the organization to use calculated actions to miti-
striking out in new directions will tend to have a greater gate the risk inherent in opportunity pursuit. Owner-opera-
emphasis on the entrepreneurial marketing dimensions. tor risk-taking attitudes play a crucial role in determining the
Morris, Schindehutte, and LaForge (2002) characterize actions a firm undertakes, with entrepreneurs viewing risk
entrepreneurial marketing as an organizational orientation taking as simply part of their job (Mullins & Forlani, 2005).
having seven underlying dimensions. Four of these dimen- Dushnitsky (2010) characterized entrepreneurs as optimistic
sions—proactiveness, opportunity-focused, risk taking, and individuals who consciously pursue their goals. He agreed
innovation-oriented—build directly on research examining too that these goals may often be self-serving.
the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm. Together with While a firm’s bold market-breaking actions might be
customer intensity, resource leveraging, and value creation, viewed as high risk, entrepreneurs view those actions as well
each dimension can be employed to a greater or lesser extent within their capabilities and perceive less risk than others.
by an SME. Each of these seven dimensions is discussed Rather than having a higher propensity for undertaking risky
below. ventures, entrepreneurs instead have a lower level of risk per-
ception (Palich & Bagby, 1995). In a differing approach to risk
Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Marketing taking, an SME might choose a more incremental process and
Proactiveness. Proactiveness has been characterized as tak- take actions to pursue a series of smaller, less risky outcomes
ing action to influence a firm’s environment (Bateman & (Venkatraman, 1989; Dickson & Giglierano, 1986). In their
Crant, 1993). Involving two related marketing actions, organi- 2010 study of entrepreneurial persistence, Gompers, Kovner,
zational proactiveness consists first of practices by which the Lerner, and Scharfstein found entrepreneurs with a record of
firm anticipates challenging situations and second, of the past success are tenacious in selecting the right industry and
actions taken to manage those events. From an entrepreneur- the right time to start new ventures. They agree entrepre-
ial perspective, proactivity describes marketing actions neurs who demonstrate market timing skills are more likely
through which the firm redefines its external conditions to to outperform industry peers.
reduce uncertainty and lessen dependency and vulnerability. Innovation-Oriented. Innovation-oriented marketing
Opportunity-Focused. Recognition and pursuit of oppor- actions allow the firm to concentrate on ideas that lead to
tunity are marketing actions critical to SME success. Market new markets, products or processes. The degree to which a
potential is evaluated by the degree of fit relative to the capa- successful organization emphasizes innovation in its market-
bilities and resources of the firm. It is the ability of the firm ing actions can range from the highly innovative new market
to select the “right” opportunity that determines success creator to the incremental market [Link] market creator
(Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Hamel, 2000). must break with past solutions to offer the customer a radi-
Matsuno, Metzer and Özsomer (2002) suggested an orga- cally different value while the incremental innovator builds
nization’s market knowledge determines whether innovation on existing customer relations and market knowledge. SMEs
is implemented at the appropriate time. Under less ideal cir- may choose to focus on innovative means of marketing since
cumstances, market knowledge serves as a constraint, pre- the firm may not have the resources to meet or maintain
venting the firm from squandering resources in vain. Market industry standards (Carson & Gilmore, 2000).
knowledge allows firms to take the right action at the right Marcati, Guido, and Peluso (2008) found entrepreneurs
time, directing the organization toward success. Opportuni- display a general innovativeness or openness to newness
ties requiring substantial resource commitments may be and they also display a specific predisposition to be among
unattainable to smaller owner-operated firms. However, in the first to adopt innovation within a specific domain. In a
the SME, the recognition and pursuit of opportunity are more study comparing traditional, corporate marketing to entre-
closely aligned with the entrepreneur’s individual percep- preneurial marketing, Martin (2009) found, in the case of
tions (Schindehutte & Morris, 2001; Forlani & Mullins, 2000; the entrepreneur, the marketing strategy supersedes tradi-

8 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 8
 et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

tional marketing theory by the creativity, flexibility, and LaForge, 2002). Entrepreneurs achieve better results when
innovation exhibited by the day-to-day entrepreneurs. In they find new ways to create or discover value (Becherer,
their model of entrepreneurship as a solution to environ- Finch, & Helms, 2005/6). According to Li, Huang, and Tsai
mental issues, York and Venkataraman (2010) found entre- (2009) entrepreneurial orientation is positively related to
preneurs are better at addressing environmental uncertain- firm performance. They further assert the knowledge cre-
ty and providing innovation. ation process plays a mediating role in the relationship.
Customer Intensity. Many studies suggested successful
organizations are those that place a greater emphasis on cus- Entrepreneurial Outcomes
tomer intensity (Sheth, Sisodia & Sharma 2000; Han, Kim, & Outcomes for SMEs can be measured in a number of quanti-
Srivastava 1998; Hamel & Prahalad 1994; Jaworski & Kohli tative ways and unlike large enterprises and corporations, the
1993; Narver & Slater 1990). Spence and Essoussi (2010) con- outcomes important for the entrepreneur are often qualita-
firmed that entrepreneurs need to be aware that their public tive. Even though traditional profit-motive outcomes are valid
image may reflect consumers’ perceptions of their firm. for entrepreneurs, there are a host of other reasons for start-
However, it has also been suggested that extreme customer ing a business that include being their own boss, pursuing
orientations might inhibit the breakthrough innovations that their own ideas, and pursuing opportunities without regard
create markets and disrupt equilibrium, since these radical to their current resources (Barringer & Ireland, 2010). The
changes are out in front of customers (Deshpande, Farley & entrepreneur is interested in financially oriented goals of
Webster, 1993). The dimension of customer intensity builds sales growth and increased market share and overall return
on what is often viewed as a central driving force of market- on their investment for their willingness to assume risks.
ing in the organization—a “customer-centric” orientation Additionally, entrepreneurs and owner/operators also meas-
employing innovative approaches to create, build, and sustain ure their success in ways other than pure goal achievement.
customer relationships. They can focus on building a company that attains success in
Resource Leveraging. The dimension of resource leverag- many ways, such as a solid customer base or a strong compa-
ing is not simply a matter of effectively using limited ny that can sustain itself and company employees for many
resources, but instead a creative synergistic process. In some [Link] are also many criteria and standards to evaluate
cases it is recognizing a resource not seen by others (Morris, overall company excellence as an outcome. This notion of
Schindehutte, & LaForge, 2002). In SMEs, instead of being building an organization that would be respected for its gen-
constrained by resource limitations, the firm devises an inno- eral excellence is an important outcome for some company
vative marketing strategy and is thus able to access resources owner/operators. Lastly, personal outcomes that directly
so more can be done with less, often mitigating risk through affect the owner/operator in terms of income, status, or an
a greater use of leveraging. Schindehutte and Morris (2001) improved standard of living are also important to consider as
found successful SMEs were more likely to employ resource the outcomes of the company directly impact the personal
leveraging practices such as resource sharing and outsourc- outcomes for the owner/operator or entrepreneur.
ing of key functions. Studies found that access to resources
increases innovation and risk taking while resource con- Linking Entrepreneurial Marketing
straints stifle entrepreneurial efforts (Hamel 2000; Prahalad & Dimensions and Outcomes
Hamel, 1990). Conversely, studies have found resource con- The premise of this research is that entrepreneurial market-
straints led to greater entrepreneurial efforts, suggesting the ing is critical to the success of the SME. This investigation
entrepreneur’s perception may be more important than the examines how marketing dimensions can be linked to the
resource availability (Wiklund & Shepherd 2005; various business outcomes. Hence the following hypotheses
Schindehutte & Morris 2001). emerge.
Value Creation. Value creation, central in the definition of
entrepreneurial activity, is also integral to the marketing ori- Hypotheses
entation of a firm (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater & Narver There are a number of ways to measure goal achievement of
1995; Han, Kim, & Srivastava 1998).While value creation is an the firm. One measure is how well a business performs in
essential condition for exchange to occur, successful firms terms of goals related to growth in sales revenue, profit, or
emphasize the value creation activities best suited to their market share, as well as financial returns, goals relative to
strategic intent within their competitive niche (Miller & capital investment, or equity. Thus the first two hypotheses
Floricel, 2004). While traditional marketing has placed more are
focus on the transaction and customer relationship, the focal
point of entrepreneurial marketing is innovative and is ori- H1: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a
ented toward value creation (Morris, Schindehutte, & positive effect on satisfying growth goals.

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 9

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 9
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

H2: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a es were compared with the last 20 percent (n=35) on all key
positive effect on satisfying return goals. variables and no significant differences in response patterns
were identified. This would indicate that nonresponse bias
At start-up, most entrepreneurs have a vision of the firm was not a problem (see Armstrong & Overton, 1977).Table 1
they aspire to own and the various dimensions of potential provides the demographics of the sample.
success that can be achieved. Generally, many entrepreneur- As indicated in the respondent profile in Table 1, the
ial firms are created to generate financial success, but often respondents were quite diverse. Manufacturing businesses
the entrepreneur secures equal or even more satisfaction made up 5.7 percent of the sample while retail businesses
from initiating a company that creates a loyal customer fol- constituted 18.4 percent of the sample. Nearly half (47.1%)
lowing or a company with a solid employee base and a good the businesses operated for 11 years or more and 10.3% per-
reputation. Therefore to assess success outcomes, three dif- cent had 31 or more employees. Most were wholesale and
ferent hypotheses are required. distribution businesses (52.9%) and local in scope (47.1%),
although international (8.0 %) and nationally-oriented
H3: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a (10.9%) businesses were represented.
positive effect on customer success.
H4: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a Measures
positive effect on financial success. Business Success (Customer, Financial and Strong
H5: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a Company) Measure. Positive outcomes for small to mid-
positive effect on strong company success. sized enterprises can be evaluated from a number of perspec-
tives on various [Link] capture these multiple view-
Entrepreneurial owner/managers of SMEs also have per- points, using a five-point Likert-type scale, respondents were
sonal outcome goals both for high achievement in their com- asked to indicate their level of agreement with nine state-
pany and for their own personal standard of [Link] long-
run viability of a firm is based on how well it creates manage- Table 1. Demographics of the Sampled Companies
ment practices and controls that result in an “excellent” over-
all organization with an ability to achieve sustained perform- Number Percentage
ance. The success of an entrepreneur or owner/ manager is Industry Category
Manufacturing 10 5.7%
often judged by how the compensation from the venture 92 52.9%
Wholesale/Distribution
impacts their personal wealth and standard of [Link] the Service 9 5.2%
final two hypotheses are Retail 32 18.4%
Other 31 17.8%
H6: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a Scope of Business Operations
positive effect on overall company excellence. International 14 8.0%
National 19 10.9%
H7: Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have a 53 30.5%
Regional
positive effect on the owner/operator’s personal State-wide 6 3.4%
standard of living. Local 82 47.1%
Company Age
Methodology 1-3 years 26 14.9%
66 37.9%
The Sample 4-10 years
64 36.8%
11-25 years
Using a national mailing list, a stratified random sample was 18 10.3%
26+ years
created of 1,800 owner/operators of small to medium sized
Number of Full-Time
businesses (SMEs). The sample included equal numbers of Employees 14.9%
manufacturing businesses, wholesale/distributors, retail busi- 1-2 26 37.9%
nesses, and service [Link] sample mailing included a 3-10 66 36.8%
11-30 64 10.3%
cover letter explaining the nature of the study and its
31+ 18
anonymity, the questionnaire, and a postage-paid return enve-
[Link] weeks later a second complete mailing was sent Annual Sales
Under $100,000 32 18.4%
to the entire sample encouraging completion of the survey if 100,000 – 249,000 26 14.9%
they had not already done so. 250,000 – 999,999 45 25.9%
Completed questionnaires were received from 174 1,000,000 to 4,999,999 27 15.5%
5,000,000+ 18 10.3%
respondents for a response rate of 9.7 percent, which is typ- 26 14.9%
No Response/Refused
ical for mail [Link] first 25 (n=35) of the 174 respons-

10 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 10
 et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

ments representing aspects of business success. Items includ- Goal Achievement Measures. Additional outcome meas-
ed“successful in creating a positive reputation,”“successful in ures were based on self-reports of how well the company
growing sales,” and “successful in positioning the company achieved goals. Owner/operators were asked to rate how sat-
for long-term prosperity.” Using factor analysis, three underly- isfied they were with their company’s achievement of seven
ing success dimensions—financial success, customer satisfac- specific goals. These seven items were also factor analyzed
tion success, and strong company success—emerged from and two underlying dimensions [Link] factor matrix is
the nine [Link] 2 shows the factor analysis that cre- presented in Table 3. Three of the four variables with high
ated the “success” outcome [Link] the table shows, the loadings on the Satisfaction with Return Goals emphasize
factor loadings for Customer Success are market focused and returns including Return on Investment (factor loading of
include Create Customer Satisfaction and Create Positive .868), Return on Equity (.826), and Return on Assets (.824).
Reputation where the loadings were .918 for each measure. The fourth measure is Net Profit Margin (.805). For the sec-
The second factor, Financial Success, had five variables with ond factor, Satisfaction with Growth Goals, the Growth in
loadings ranging from .677 up to .835. The highest loading Number of Employees is the strongest measure (.855 load-
was for the Profitability measure (.835) closely followed by ing) followed by Market Share Growth (.772) and Sales
Income for the Owner (.833), and then Sales Growth (.733), Growth (.559).
Increase Customer Base, (.698) and finally Position for Long- Reliability coefficients were calculated for each of the
Term Prosperity ( .677). The final success factor, Strong growth outcome measures. The Satisfaction with Return
Company Success is best characterized by Adding Good Goals measure with four items was .70, and the Satisfaction
Employees (.801) and Operates Well with/without Owner with Growth Goals with three items was .89. These values
(.752). indicated satisfactory reliability.
A Chronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was calculated for each Overall Excellence Measure. The “excellence” measure is
of the success measures. Financial Success (.86) and based on a standardized outcome measure, an adaptation of
Customer Success (.87) were both very high. Strong the EXCELL scale (Peters &Waterman, 1982).The original 16
Company Success (.54) was lower, but it was still used in this attributes that characterized excellent companies that
study due to the fact that this research is exploratory. achieved a sustainable business were adapted and opera-
tionalized by Sharma, Netemeyer and Mahajan (1990) who
Table 2. Factor Analysis of Success Outcomes created an EXCELL scale in only eight dimensions. Our study
used the condensed adaptation to accommodate the con-
Strong straints of the questionnaire and to encourage a higher
Aspects of Customer Financial
Company
Business Success Success Success
Success Table 3. Factor Analysis of Satisfaction with Goals
1 Create Customer 0.918 0.118 0.072 Satisfaction
Satisfaction Satisfaction
with Return
with Growth
GoalsCustomer
2 Create Positive 0.918 0.184 0.071 Goals
Success
Reputation
1 Return on Investment 0.868 0.221
3 Profitability 0.221 0.835 0.000

2 Return on Equity 0.826 0.304

4 Sales Growth 0.126 0.733 0.335

3 Net Profit Margin 0.805 0.132

5 Income for Owner 0.206 0.833 0.053

4 Return on Assets 0.824 0.314

6 Increase Customer -0.008 0.698 0.365
Base
5 Sales Growth 0.469 0.559
7 Position for Long- 0.003 0.677 0.524
Term Prosperity
6 Market Share Growth -0.318 0.772
8 Adding Good 0.157 0.150 0.801
Employees
7 Growth in Number of 0.088 0.855
9 Operates Well -0.002 .0165 0.752 Employees
with/without
Owner Alpha 0.89 0.70

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 11

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 11
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

response rate. The “excellence” outcome measure had an compared with their standard of living at the time they start-
alpha reliability of .71. ed their business. Using a five-point Likert-type scale, respon-
Personal Standard of Living Measure. From the perspec- dents rated their standard of living from “much worse” (1),
tive of the owner/operator, success of the business is also a through “about the same” (3), to “much improved” (5).
function of how the venture personally affects [Link] eval- Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimension Measure. Because
uate this dimension, respondent owner/operators were of the exploratory nature of this research, the items used to
asked how they would describe their standard of living today measure seven entrepreneurial marketing dimensions were

Table 4. Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimension Measures

Proactiveness (Coefficient Alpha = .78)

• I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my company.
• I am always looking for better ways to do things in my company.
• I excel at identifying opportunities for my company.
• I am great at turning problems at my company into opportunities.
• When it comes to my company, I am more action oriented than reaction oriented.
• Nothing is more exciting in my company than seeing my ideas turn into reality.
• In my company, I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas.
Opportunity-Focused (Coefficient Alpha = .72)
• My management approach looks beyond current customers and markets for more opportunities for our company.
• I am good at recognizing and pursing opportunities for my company.
• I would characterize my company as opportunity driven.
• My company is always looking for new opportunities.
• My company will do whatever it takes to pursue a new opportunity.
Risk-Taking Orientation (Coefficient Alpha = .74)
• My business would rather accept a risk to pursue an opportunity than miss it altogether.
• My business is willing to take risks when we think it will benefit the company.
• My company would not be considered gamblers, but we do take risks.
Innovation-Oriented (Coefficient Alpha = .72)
• My company tries to use innovative approaches if it will help them get the job done more efficiently.
• Being innovative is a competitive advantage for my company.
• My company tends to be more innovative that most of my competitors.
• My company’s top management creates an atmosphere that encourages creativity and innovativeness.
Customer Intensity (Coefficient Alpha = .77)
• I frequently measure my company’s customer satisfaction.
• I expect that all employees in our firm recognize the importance of satisfying our customers.
• My business objectives are driven by customer satisfaction.
• I pay close attention to after-sales service.
• I encourage my employees to strive for innovative approaches to creating relationships with customers.
• I closely monitor and assess my company’s level of commitment in serving customers’ needs.
• I ensure that business strategies in my company are driven by the goals of increasing customer value.
• Sometimes, my company does not pay attention to customers who think they know more about our business than we do.
• I make sure that my company’s competitive advantage is based on understanding customers’ needs.
Resource Leveraging (Coefficient Alpha = .62)
• I have used networking and/or an exchange of favors to our advantage in my company.
• I have been able to leverage our resources by bartering or sharing.
• People who know me well would say that I am persistent, even tenacious, in overcoming obstacles.
• I use creative approaches to make things happen.
• My company prides itself on doing more with less.
• In the past, we have always found a way to get the resources we need to get the job done.
• My company has a small staff that delegates authority efficiently.
Value Creation (Coefficient Alpha = .72)
• I make sure that my company creates value for consumers with excellent customer service.
• I make sure that my company does an excellent job of creating value for customers.
• I make sure my company’s pricing structure is designed to reflect value created for customers.
• I integrate business functions in my company to better serve the target market needs.
• I make sure my managers understand how employees can contribute to value for customers.
• Providing value for our customers is the most important thing my company does.
• My company’s values are the driving force behind its operation.

12 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 12
 et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

drawn both from studies that had previously examined each itive impact on this success outcome. While it is interesting
[Link], a series of statements was created using defi- that value-creation impacts all three aspects of success, it is
nitions and discussions of entrepreneurial marketing dimen- intuitive that risk taking has a positive and significant effect
sions. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement on a on financial success while customer intensity is directly relat-
five-point Likert-type scale with a series of statements regard- ed to customer success. Relative to building a strong compa-
ing the operation of their company. With limited existing ny, among these respondent SME’s, it is interesting being
research on measures of entrepreneurial marketing dimen- innovative and leveraging resources, along with being value
sions, validity and reliability continue to [Link] entrepre- creation driven are the variables that have a significant
neurial marketing measures utilized in this study reflect impact on building a strong company. Hence there is support
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients from 0.55 to 0.70, for H3, H4 and H5 relative to specific entrepreneurial market-
acceptable for exploratory research. Intercorrelation analysis ing dimensions for each.
refined the scales to the final items presented in Table 4. Regarding the excellence outcome measure, several entre-
preneurial marketing dimensions relate both directly and sig-
Results and Discussion nificantly to this [Link] four dimensions that demon-
To understand the relationship between the seven entrepre- strated this relationship are value-creation, (p ≤ 0.00), proac-
neurial marketing dimensions and the outcome variables, a tiveness (p ≤ 0.00), innovation-oriented (p ≤ 0.00), and cus-
stepwise regression was utilized. Table 5 shows the seven tomer intensity (p ≤ 0.00). It is interesting that again the
stepwise regression analyses regressing the entrepreneurial value creation dimension is important. Providing value to
marketing dimension variables as independent variables customers as a priority is related to creating an excellent
against each of the outcome variables as a dependent vari- company along with being proactive in marketing, seeking
able. The extent to which each entrepreneurial marketing opportunities, and being innovative and maintaining a cus-
variable impacts on each outcome variable is determined by tomer focus. Based on the above analysis, H6 is supported
which entrepreneurial marketing dimensions significantly with four entrepreneurial marketing dimensions having a
enter each stepwise regression. Entrepreneurial marketing positive and significant effect on overall company excel-
dimensions that enter the regression contribute to explain- lence.
ing the variance in each of the outcome [Link] entre- The entrepreneur’s personal standard of living is an
preneurial marketing dimensions listed in Table 5 for each important outcome and an important reason for becoming
stepwise regression are all significant and contribute to an entrepreneur or owner/[Link] entrepreneurial mar-
explaining each outcome variable. keting dimension that has a positive and significant effect on
As is indicated in Table 5, the entrepreneurial marketing the entrepreneur's personal standard of living is their risk-
dimension that has a significant and positive impact on both taking orientation (p ≤ 0.01). This supports the well-known
Growth Goals and Return Goals is the Value Creation axiom that entrepreneurs are willing to assume risk in order
Dimension (p ≤ 0.00 for both).This dimension, which reflects to achieve a reward. Therefore H7 is supported, suggesting
the extent to which the SME focuses on providing value for perhaps that risk taking is a quality that entrepreneurs must
customers is the only one that directly and positively affects possess as compared to managers and other professions.
achievement of growth and financial return goals. Hence, Of interest is the fact that opportunity focused as an entre-
both H1 and H2 are supported, regarding the value-driven preneurial marketing dimension did not significantly impact
entrepreneurial marketing dimension. any of the outcome measures in the study. So while six of the
Regarding the success related outcome variables (cus- seven entrepreneurial marketing dimensions directly and
tomer success, financial success, and strong company suc- positively affected outcome variables in the SMEs included in
cess), value creation (p ≤ 0.02) is again an entrepreneurial this research, opportunity focused did not have a similar
marketing dimension that significantly and positively affects effect. It may be that other outcome variables such as open-
each aspect of success. Relative to the specific success out- ing new markets or finding new customer segments would
come variables, as would be expected, customer intensity (p be directly impacted by the opportunity focused dimensions.
≤ 0.03) positively and significantly affects the customer-suc- Similarly, opportunity focused may relate better to SMEs clos-
cess outcome variable. Regarding financial success as an out- er to start-up in their life-cycle as compared to more estab-
come, in addition to the value creation entrepreneurial mar- lished companies.
keting dimension (p ≤ 0.00), risk taking (p ≤ 0.00) also is pos- It is also of interest that while six of the seven entrepre-
itively and significantly related. Relative to “strong company neurial marketing variables had significant impacts on out-
success,” innovativeness (p ≤ 0.01) and leveraging (p ≤ 0.04) come variables, only the “excellence outcome” with the four
are the two entrepreneurial marketing dimensions, along independent entrepreneurial marketing dimensions (value
with value-creation (p ≤ 0.00), that have a significant and pos- creation, proactiveness, innovation-oriented, and customer

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 13

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 13
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

intensity) had a large R2 of [Link] R2s for other outcome Conclusions

variable entrepreneurial marketing dimension relationships Based on the results of this research, it would appear entre-
ranged from 0.04 to [Link] high R2 for the excellence out- preneurial marketing dimensions directly and positively
come variable may also reflect that more entrepreneurial influence outcomes related to owner-operated SMEs. The
marketing outcome variables were significantly related to value-creation dimension stands out as an aspect of entrepre-
[Link] additional significant variables in the regres- neurial marketing that affects not only financial performance
sion equation may inflate the R2. but also growth, customer success, and generally building a
Table 5. Stepwise Regression Analyses of Entrepreneurial Marketing
on Outcome Variables
Dependent Variable: Satisfied Growth Goals
R2 = .07; F = 12.09; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.271 3.48 0.00
Dependent Variable: Satisfied Return Goals
R2 = .06; F = 10.07; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.249 3.17 0.00
Dependent Variable: Customer Success
R2 = .20; F = 19.77; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.256 2.40 0.02
Customer Intensity 0.228 2.14 0.03
Dependent Variable: Financial Success
R2 = .25; F = 30.99; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.310 4.20 0.00
Risk Taking 0.303 4.10 0.00
Dependent Variable: Strong Company Success
R2 = .21; F = 13.38; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.342 3.77 0.00
Innovation-Oriented 0.241 2.63 0.01
Resource Leveraging 0.173 2.06 0.04
Dependent Variable: Excellence
R2 = .66; F = 71.93; Sig = .00
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Value Creation 0.303 3.59 0.00
Proactiveness 0.229 3.51 0.00
Innovation-Oriented 0.214 3.39 0.00
Customer Intensity 0.231 3.12 0.00
Dependent Variable: Personal Standard of Living
R2 = .04; F = 8.18; Sig = .01
Entrepreneurial Dimension
Beta t Significance
Entered
Risk Taking 0.223 2.86 0.01

14 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 14
 et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

strong sustainable company. Other dimensions relate specifi- investigation among such organizations to see if they would
cally to outcomes—risk taking related to financial success, have similar benefits to entrepreneurial activity. Variables
customer intensity relating to customer success, and being such as leveraging and proactively might be key aspects of
innovative and leveraging resources to building a strong com- marketing activities in nonprofits as they often have critical
pany. The use of entrepreneurial marketing in an SME can resource constraints. Likewise, studying SMEs in key industry
influence goal attainment on a personal level for the classifications or scope of business operations (from local to
owner/operator and for the company. Entrepreneurial mar- international) may reveal unique entrepreneurial marketing
keting also relates positively to creating a strong company as effects on outcomes. While this is exploratory research, the
reflected by building a good employee base, creating a stand- findings point to interesting relationships between entrepre-
alone business that can operate with or without the owner, neurial marketing and business and personal outcomes.
and creating a culture of innovation and efficiency that can Further research should utilize additional methodologies
quickly respond to problems and support both customers including in-depth interviews to identify unique aspects of
and employees in a positive manner. entrepreneurial marketing that have particularly strong link-
While all seven entrepreneurial marketing dimensions do ages to positive organization or entrepreneur success and
not relate to all outcome variables, this research demon- raise new variables for further investigation.
strates that alone or in combination entrepreneurial market- Interestingly, there was no support for the link between
ing can affect positive [Link] it becomes more difficult entrepreneurial marketing and the opportunity focused com-
to develop effective strategies, entrepreneurial marketing ponent of new venture creation. Further research should
activities should continue to be investigated. attempt to isolate this proposed linkage and determine how
the opportunity focused motive of entrepreneurs impacts
Areas for Future Research entrepreneurial marketing. By studying only SMEs in opera-
Over the life cycle of the firm, there may be differences in tion for three years or less, it may be possible to isolate the
how important entrepreneurial marketing is in strategy for- impact of the opportunity-focused entrepreneurial market-
mation and how it is applied. By comparing SMEs with large ing [Link], this research is specifically focused on
corporations, it might be possible to determine which of the one aspect of companies that have sales under $5 million
entrepreneurial marketing dimensions are actually more annually and a limited number of businesses that are interna-
entrepreneurial and which are associated with general mar- tionally-oriented in scope. Companies that are larger and
keting tasks of all [Link], looking more closely at have a more global focus may utilize entrepreneurial market-
the demographics, such as company age and industry catego- ing in other ways and additional variables may emerge when
ry, may show how entrepreneurial marketing impacts per- such firms with a larger customer base are studied. By explor-
formance outcomes. ing companies with a more diverse demographic profile,
Similarly with the importance of nonprofit organizations additional dimensions may also emerge regarding the role of
in our economy, it would be insightful to undertake a similar entrepreneurial marketing and outcomes in SMEs.

References
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton,T.S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research, 16
(August), 396–492.
Barringer, B. R. and Ireland, R. D. (2010) Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures, 3rd Edition. New Jersey:
Pearson Publishing.
Bateman,Thomas S. & Crant, Michael J. (1993).The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior:A Measure and
Correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 (2), 103–118.
Becherer, R. C., Halstead, D., & Haynes, P. (2003). Marketing Orientation in SMEs: Effects on the Internal Environment, New
England Journal of Entrepreneurship, spring, 6(1), 13–22.
Becherer, R. C., Finch, J. H., and Helms, M.M. (2005/2006).The Influences of Entrepreneurial Motivation and New Business
Acquisition on Strategic Decision Making, Journal of Small Business Strategy. 16(2) 1-14.
Becherer, R. C., Haynes, P. J., and Helms, M.M. (2008).An Exploratory Investigation of Entrepreneurial Marketing in SMEs: The
Influence of the Owner/Operator, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 44–63.
Becherer, R. C., Haynes, P. J., and Fletcher, L. P. (2006). Paths to Profitability in Owner-Operated Firms: The Role of
Entrepreneurial Marketing, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship. 18(1), 17–32 .
Becherer, R. C. & Maurer, J. G. (1997).The Moderating Effect of Environmental Variables on the Entrepreneurial and Marketing
Orientation of Entrepreneur-Led Firms, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(1), 47–58.

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 15

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 15
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

Beverland, M. & Lockshin, L. S. (2004). Crafting a Competitive Advantage: Tempering Entrepreneurial Action with Positioning-
Based Values, Qualitative Market Research 7(3), 172–182.
Birley, S. (1982). Corporate Strategy and the Small Firm, Journal of General Management, 8(2), 82–86.
Birley, S. (1989). Female Entrepreneurs:Are They Really Different? Journal of Small Business Management 27(1), 32–37.
Carson, D. (2001). Marketing for Small to Medium Enterprises, in Baker, M. J. (Ed.) The Marketing Book, 4th edition. London:
Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers, 621–639.
Carson, D. & Gilmore,A. (2000). Marketing at the Interface: Not ‘What’ But ‘How,’ Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
8 (2), 1–7.
Chaston, I. (1997). Small Firm Performance: Assessing the Interaction between Entrepreneurial Style and Organizational
Structure, European Journal of Marketing, 31(11/12) 814–813.
Chaston, I. & Mangles,T. (1999).A Teaching Model for Integrative the Alternative Philosophies of Transactional, Relationship
and Entrepreneurial Marketing, American Marketing Association, winter, 33–39
Collinson, E., & Shaw, E. (2001). Entrepreneurial Marketing—A Historical Perspective on Development and Practice,
Management Decision, 39 (9), 761–766.
D’Ambroise, G. & Muldowney, M. (1988). Management Theory for Small Business:Attempts and Requirements. Academy of
Management Review, (13) 2, 226–240.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U. & Webster, F. E. Jr. (1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation and Innovativeness, Journal of
Marketing, 57 (1), 23–37.
Dickson, P. R., & Giglierano, J. J. (1986). Missing the Boat and Sinking the Boat:A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurial Risk,
Journal of Marketing, 50 (3), 58–71.
Dushnitsky, G. (2010). Entrepreneurial Optimism in the Market for Technological Inventions, Organization Science, 21(1),
150–167.
Forlani, D. & Mullins, J.W. (2000). Perceived Risks and Choices in Entrepreneur’s New Venture Decisions, Journal of Business
Venturing, 15, 305–322.
Gompers, P., Kovner,A., Lemer, J., and Scharfstein, D. (2010). Performance Persistence in Entrepreneurship, Journal of
Financial Economics, 96 (1), 18–29.
Gruber, M. (2004). Marketing in New Ventures: Theory and Empirical Evidence, Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 164-199.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 122–129.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., and Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing
Link? Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 30–45.
Hills, G. E. (1987). Marketing and Entrepreneurship Research Issues: Scholarly Justification, Research at the
Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, in Hills, G. E. (Ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 3–15.
Hisrich, R. D. (1992).The Need for Marketing in Entrepreneurship, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, summer, 9(3),
43–47.
Jaworski, B. J., and Kohli,A. K. (1993). Market Orientation:Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of Marketing, 57 (3),
53–70.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach, Journal of
Economic Literature, 35 (March), 60–85.
Li,Y.H., Huang, J.W., and Tsai, M.T. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Role of Knowledge
Creation Process, Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 440–459.
Marcati,A., Guido, G., and Peluso,A. Mj. (2008).The Role of SME Entrepreneurs’ Innovativeness and Personality in the
Adoption of Innovations, Research Policy, 37(9), 1579–1601.
Martin, D. M. (2009).The Entrepreneurial Marketing Mix, Qualitative Market Research. 12(4), 391–493.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. & Özsomer,A. (2002).The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Market Orientation on Business
Performance, Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 18–32.

16 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 16
 et al.: New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Spring/Fall 2012

Miller, R. & Floricel, S. (2004).Value Creation and Games of Innovation, Research Technology Management, 47 (6), 25–37.
Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M. & LaForge, R.W. (2002). Entrepreneurial Marketing:A Construct for Integrating Emerging
Entrepreneurship and Marketing Perspectives, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 1–19.
Mullins, J.W. & Forlani, D. (2005). Missing the Boat or Sinking the Boat:A Study of New Venture Decision Making, Journal of
Business Venturing, 20, 47–69.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990).The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4),
20–35.
Omura, G. S., Calantone, R. J. & Schmidt, J. B. (1993). Entrepreneurism as a Market Satisfying Mechanism in a Free Market
System, Hills and Mohan-Neill, (Eds). Scholarly Justification, Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, in
Hills, G. E. (Ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 161–171.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using Cognitive Theory to Explain Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking: Challenging Conventional
Wisdom, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425–438.
Peters,T.J., and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies, New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990).The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 79–92.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S.D., Song, M. and Wilbank. R. (2009) Marketing Under Uncertainty: The Logic of an Effectual
Approach, Journal of Marketing 73(3), 1–19.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial
Contingency, Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–63.
Schindehutte, M. & Morris, M. (2001). Understanding Strategic Adaptation in Small Firms, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 7 (3), 84–107.
Sharma, S., Netemeyer, R. G., and Mahajan,V. (1990). In Search of Excellence Revisited:An Empirical Evaluation of Peters and
Waterman’s Attributes of Excellence. In W. O. Bearden and A. Parasuraman (Ed.), Enhancing Knowledge Development in
Marketing (Vol. 1, pp. 322–328).
Sheth, J., Sisodia, R. R. & Sharma,A. (2000).The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Centric Marketing, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 55–66.
Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization, Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 63–74.
Spence, M. and Essoussi, L. H. (2010). SME Brand Building and Management:An Exploratory Study, European Journal of
Marketing, 44(7/8), 1037–1054.
Stokes, D. (2000). Putting Entrepreneurship into Marketing:The Process of Entrepreneurial Marketing, Journal of Research in
Marketing & Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–16.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises:Their Construct, Dimensionality and Measurement,
Management Science, 35 (8), 942–962.
Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance:A Configurational Approach,
Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (1), 71–91.
York, J.G. and Venkataraman, S. (2010).The Entrepreneur-Environment Nexus: Uncertainty, Innovation, and Allocation, Journal
of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449–458

THE EFFECT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKETING ON OUTCOME GOALS IN SMES 17

Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2012 17
 New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 [2012], No. 1, Art. 1

About the Authors

RICHARD C. BECHERER (richard-becherer@[Link]) holds the Clarence E. Harris Chair of Excellence in
Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He has had extensive experi-
ence both as an academic and as an entrepreneur. He cofounded one of the first for-profit Health Maintenance
Organizations in the United States, which became a public company. He has been published in numerous jour-
nals, including Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of
Marketing, and Decision Sciences.

MARILYN M. HELMS (mhelms@[Link]) holds the Sesquicentennial Chair and is a Professor of

Management at Dalton State College. She works closely with the area community on research projects, semi-
nars, and training programs. She teaches strategic management and entrepreneurship. She is the author of
numerous business articles and writes a monthly column for the Dalton (GA) Daily Citizen newspaper. She
holds a doctorate degree from the University of Memphis (Tennessee) and was a Fulbright scholar at the
University of Coimbra, Portugal.

JOHN P. MCDONALD ([Link]@[Link]) is EMBA program director at Walden University. He

teaches in the marketing, strategy, and entrepreneurial areas. Dr. McDonald has an extensive career in indus-
try, primarily in leading marketing research organizations working with a wide range of businesses from start-
ups to Fortune 100 firms. He is also the author of several articles and papers in the marketing discipline.

18 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

[Link] 18