This research was conducted to examine the antecedents of perceived service quality (PSQ) factors in Airbnb by using Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. The findings include that the SERVQUAL model requires adjustment in this context, and it is well-enhanced by cognitive and attitudinal factors, including intimacy, authenticity, privacy, and security.

Introduction This research was conducted in order to examine the influence of corporate innovation such as product innovation and profit model innovation towards sustainable competitive advantage and marketing performance. In B2B, the two biggest concerns of a manufacturing company are to provide products suitable for customer's business and to secure profitability of company business. Especially in an age when customer needs are diverse, companies need a lot of investment and effort to differentiate their products. Even though it is doubtful whether products that achieve such differentiation can achieve successful business results. Unless it is a monopoly, there are limitations in satisfying individualized and customized market trends and diverse customer needs with the technology and product competitiveness of companies alone. Therefore, corporate innovation requires a comprehensive approach in terms of product innovation and business model innovation. And product innovation and continuous profit model innovation for improving the company's profit is a very important factor. In order to achieve these two core values, the company conducts efficient operations internally to continuously develop products that meet customer needs and to conduct close customer relationship management to maintain a firm brand position in the market. Therefore, this study is designed to investigate how the innovation efforts of companies in B2B affect the sustainable competitive advantage development and market performance. Unlike previous researches on corporate innovation which included product innovation, this study included profit model innovation as corporate innovation to investigate the effects of profit model innovation on the actual marketing performance of firms. In addition, it is distinguished from the existing customer-oriented competitive advantage study (Porter, 1985) by studying the effects of sustainable competitive advantage on market performance by defining and applying sustainable competitive advantage variables from the perspective of internal marketing efforts. Theoretical Development Firms' needs and efforts for technological innovation and product innovation are very important for sustainable growth through securing economic benefits of firms (Hauser et al., 2006, Dave et al., 2013). In order to achieve competitive advantage (low cost, product differentiation), companies pursued technological innovation and product innovation through R & D investment. However, in terms of providing a total solution that satisfies the needs of various customers in the global competitive environment and improving the profitability of the company, it is difficult to explain the innovation area of the company only by technological innovation and product innovation. Therefore, in this study, it defines the corporate innovation including the business model innovation such as profit model from the perspective of the system operation to the innovation area of the company according to the claim that the business model mediates the firm and business performance (Markides, 2006; Baden -Fuller & Haefliger, 2013). And using sustainable competitive advantage in terms of product leadership, operational excellence, and customer intimacy, this study analyzes the effects of these firm innovations on the sustainable competitive advantage and business performance. Corporate innovation is broadly categorized into three categories: process innovation, product innovation, and operational management innovation (Lee et al., 2013). And the Oslo manual classifies them as product innovation, process innovation, marketing innovation, and organizational innovation (OECD, 2005). In the past, where product-centered markets and external competition were stable, changes in product technology made business models largely changeable, so corporate innovation could be described as technological innovation and product innovation. However, the development of advanced technologies such as information and communication technology (ICT) requires that the field of corporate innovation activities be analyzed from a new business model perspective. This is because existing product innovation, process innovation, marketing innovation, and organizational innovation are insufficient to explain the birth and change of new business types occurring in the same industry. In addition, we can find examples of business model innovation as a type of corporate innovation in existing studies (Christensen, 1997; Christensen and Raynor, 2003; Markides, 2006; Taylor et al., 2012). Therefore, this study reflects these changes and includes business model innovation such as profit model as a type of corporate innovation. In addition, Porter (1985)'s traditional competitive strategy (low cost, product differentiation) has limitations in evaluating the impact of corporate innovation and analyzing its relationship with business performance. In order to compensate for this, we introduce three main variables: product leadership, operational excellence, and customer intimacy, which can segment the value domain of sustainable competitive advantage and measure strategic performance capability, as a sustainable competitive advantage (Treacy and Wiersema, 1995). Research Design In previous researches, it has focused on technological innovation and product innovation to achieve the competitive advantage of product for better business performance in competitive market. However, these studies do not adequately suggest corporate innovation direction for corporate’s sustainable growth in complex and evolving business environment. Therefore, this study redefines the domain of corporate innovation and sustainable competitive advantage and then analyzes the effect of corporate innovation and sustainable competitive advantage on business performance. The hypothesis to be analyzed through the research model is as follows: H1. Product innovation has a positive impact on sustainable competitive advantage. H2. Profit model innovation in Business model has a positive impact on sustainable competitive advantage. H3. Sustainable competitive advantage has a positive impact on marketing performance. H4. Product innovation has a positive impact on marketing performance. H5. Profit model innovation in Business model has a positive impact on marketing performance. <Figure 1 research model> To analyze this hypothesis, it surveyed 300 machinery manufacturing companies producing intermediate goods in Korea through questionnaires with 5 point Likert scale. And the results were analyzed using SPSS (ver. 24.0) and AMOS (ver. 24.0). Result and Conclusion The findings show that profit model innovation of business model has a positive effect on the sustainable competitive advantage. However, product innovation has only a positive effect on product leadership of sustainable competitive advantage. And the sustainable competitive advantage has had a positive impact on market performance. Profit model innovation of business model also has an impact on market performance but product innovation has not a positive effect on market performance. It is meaningful that the company has confirmed the importance of the profit model innovation as well as the existing product innovation as the corporate innovation direction to pursue continuously. A practical implication of this study is that rapid technological advances, market changes, and globalization, as Bashir and Verma (2017) argue, should change profit model of a business model in order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage in B2B of manufacturing industry. In order to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, business model innovation with a clear profit model is highly needed as a new management strategy for the future. The theoretical implication of this study is that the existing studies on corporate innovation are focused on technology innovation, and the effect of product innovation on business performance is relatively small. In particular, empirical studies on the effect of business profit model innovation on marketing performance were not enough. Therefore, it can be said that the fact that product innovation and business profit model innovation have an influence on market performance expands empirical research.

Introduction Business model (BM) research currently represents rapidly developing area of knowledge that helps businesses in finding new sources of competitive advantage and growth drivers. Multiple studies demonstrate that BM studies are multidisciplinary by their nature as this helps better understanding complex processes happening in real life that are described by BM research (Zott, Amit, Massa, 2011; Tikkanen et al, 2005). This means that BM research is built on a basis of strategic management, marketing, sociology, psychology, logistics, institutional economics and other disciplines. Regardless the growing amount of publications in this area (more than 6 times growth for the last 15 years reaching 2100 publications per year according to Scopus) the amount of successful BM in practice remains low. BM studies are primarily linked to the notion of value that is jointly created for the final consumer by multiple participants of the value chain (suppliers, manufacturers, distribution channels). Within the interaction of BM participants the key role is played by their orientation towards the interests of the final consumer who makes the decision on whether to acknowledge or not the created value. As value chain generally consists of multiple commercial organizations, their major interest is in making profits as a result of joint value creation activities. Therefore the key role in BM analysis is played by marketing that helps searching and offering such values for the customer that enable satisfying his needs. Multiple research in marketing confirms that long term customer orientation, cooperation of value chain actors offer companies better development opportunities and lead to better financial results as well as help increasing value generated for the final consumer. However, the current level of marketing involvement into the BM research remains low. This, in turn, significantly limits the opportunities of creating successful and sustainable BM that bring profits to the commercial units of the value chain and satisfy the needs of the final consumer. To address the existing gap the current paper explores the links between BM research and marketing which are then used to develop a new approach to BM innovation. The approach is based on value chains and interfirm relationships. Literature review Regardless large and steadily growing amount of BM publications the questions related to building a unified theoretical basis for BM research are still under discussion (Teece, 2010; Zott, Amit, Massa, 2011; DaSilva, Trkman, 2014; Baden- Fuller, Mangematin, 2015). There is a lack of alignment between the researchers on a broad spectrum of questions (such as BM definition, BM components, the relation between BM and company strategy, BM boundaries, the impact of various BM types on company performance etc). At the same time some consolidation of researchers’ positions can be observed in relation to the domination of a value component within BM definition. The questions related to BM analysis that enable to evaluate the current state of a BM, understand its key components (Hamel, 2000; Johnson, Christensen, Kagermann, 2008; Teece, 2010) and find better opportunities for BM improvement (Osterwalder, Pigneur, 2010; Girotra, Netessine, 2014) are actively researched. Many authors come to a conclusion that a BM spans the boundaries of a single firm and includes a whole complex of interaction participants – suppliers, distribution channels, final consumers. This is because cooperation of various market participants enables to significantly increase jointly created value for the customer (Nenonen, Storbacka, 2010; Zott, Amit, Massa, 2011). This understanding of a BM also leads to the need of thorough analysis of mismatches and inconsistencies between value chain participants that regularly appear in the business (Gassmann, Frankenberger, Csik, 2013; Girotra, Netessine, 2014). Regardless the existing variety of BM studies, most of the papers draw the attention to the process of value creation for the final consumer, which is a zone of marketing interests, as marketing studies the directions of identifying and satisfying customer’s needs. Therefore it is hard to imagine building successful BM oriented on the final consumer and bringing stable income to the companies participating in the BM without organic inclusion of the customer into the value chain by using methods and tools from marketing. These questions are studied within multiple relationship marketing papers (Parvatyar, Sheth, 1995; Gumesson, 1999; Juttner, Christopher, Baker, 2007; Tretyak, 2013). However, nowadays the involvement of marketing researchers in BM studies is low (only 5% of BM studies are published in marketing journals (Coombes, Nicholson, 2013)) which is also confirmed by the current study. Despite the very broad spectrum of studied questions, the importance of value acknowledgement by the customer is neglected by BM researchers. At the same time in case the value is not acknowledged, the BM loses its commercial value for the other participants as it stops bringing them profits. Therefore there is a growing need to incorporating the final consumer into the value chain, understanding its interests. This is possible in case of using the results of marketing research which is demonstrated in the current study. Research design To explore the link between marketing and BM research we review the literature on relationship marketing that is specialized on the value creation process for the customer, inclusion of the customer into the value chain, cooperation and coordination of value chain participants (Parvatyar, Sheth, 1995; Gumesson, 1999; Juttner, Christopher, Baker, 2007; Tretyak, 2013). The similarities between BM research and marketing were examined from two sides. The first examination analyzes the publications statistics of BM papers. We particularly look at the amount of BM publications in marketing journals. The classification of journals by different categories is conducted according to Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) list. For the purpose of this analysis we use Scopus publications database and all the available articles with “business model” in title published before 2018. The relative “typicality” of these papers and journals is evaluated using citation index (number of citations per article/journal divided by total number of citations). Along with this we analyze not only journals which publish BM articles, but also the journals referring to them. The second examination looks into the actual similar attributes of marketing and BM research. The BM literature is studied through the prism of seven schools of thought that are recently proposed by (Gassmann, Frankenberger, Sauer, 2016): Activity system school (Zott, Amit), Process school (Demil, Lecocq), Cognitive school (Baden Fuller, Morgan), Technology-driven school (Chesbrough, Teece), Strategic choice school (Casadeus-Masanell, Ricart), Recombination school (Gassmann, Frankenberger, Csik), Duality school (Markides, Charitou). These seven schools provide a comprehensive outlook on major BM research tendencies that help in understanding of BM essence, structure, components, goals and objectives, BM performance evaluation, and the directions of future BM studies. Additionally to better understand BM key research trends we analyzed top 25 most cited publications according to Scopus and Ebsco publication databases (the publications with “business model” notion in title were selected). For the purpose of theoretical analysis we applied the methods of comparison, generalization, methods of grouping and classification. The basis of the current research is formed by value chains studying methods that are used in both BM and marketing studies. Results and conclusions The analysis of BM research demonstrated that BM spans the boundaries of a single firm and includes the whole complex of interaction participants that jointly create and deliver value to the final consumer - suppliers, manufacturers, distribution channels. Because of that multiple BM research papers focus on the analysis of the value chains and intercompany networks. Understanding of these specifics formed the basis of a new approach to BM innovation. It is demonstrated that the existing approaches to BM analysis and improvement don’t include the final consumer as a specific BM component, and don’t focus the attention on fulfilling his needs as well as building the mechanism of BM actors’ interaction in accordance with customer’s needs. At the same time the acknowledgement of the value by the customer defines the financial wellbeing of BM actors. Addressing these questions can significantly improve BM performance and can be done through building a link between BM research and marketing. The analysis demonstrated that only 6% of BM papers are published in marketing journals, and only 8% of studies that are citing BM research are published in marketing journals which confirms limited involvement of marketing scholars in BM research. The following similarities between BM and marketing studies were identified and explored: value chains and interfirm networks (examples of marketing studies: Tretyak, 2013; example of BM studies: Nenonen, Storbacka, 2010; Zott, Amit, Massa, 2011), cooperation and partnerships between value chain participants (examples of marketing studies: Parvatyar, Sheth, 1995; example of BM studies: Zott, Amit, 2008), coordination of value chain participants (examples of marketing studies: Juttner, Christopher, Baker, 2007; example of BM studies: Girotra, Netessine, 2014), customer orientation and customer involvement (examples of marketing studies: Gumesson, 1999; example of BM studies: Johnson, Christensen, Kagermann, 2008; Teece, 2010), long term orientation of relationship marketing and sustainable BM (examples of marketing studies: Parvatyar, Sheth, 1995; example of BM studies: Girotra, Netessine, 2014). To close the existing gap a three-level conceptual model (1st level – structure of the BM, 2nd level – mechanism of BM participants’ interactions, 3rd level – results of their interactions) and new approach to BM innovation are offered within the current study. The approach demonstrates a step-by-step sequence of actions within three previously highlighted levels and is targeted on increasing the jointly created value for the customer by the BM by eliminating mismatches and inconsistencies between BM participants. Comparing to other approaches, the new approach allows orienting BM participants towards the interests of the final consumer, acknowledges different abilities of BM actors to influence the value creation process and proposes analyzing the ways of coordination of other BM actors by the dominating actor in order to improve the results of the BM. The practical implementation of the approach demonstrated that it’s key provisions could be successfully applied within different market conditions and lead to improved BM performance (Klimanov, Tretyak, 2016; Lyashchuk, Sterligova, 2016). The following sequence of actions is proposed within the approach: 1st level - structure of the BM (a. Visualization of intercompany network with its key actors and description of their roles; b. Defining and highlighting the dominating actor (hypothesis); c. Analysis of BM variety, their classification), 2nd level - interaction mechanism (a. Defining the mechanism (concrete forms) and coordination directions that are applied by the dominating actor and other BM actors; b. Definition and analysis of mismatches and inconsistencies that appear between various BM actors, and also the ways to overcome them; c. Identifying the most critical inconsistencies, their ranking (where there is the biggest gap between the value created for the customer and the value captured by other BM actors)), 3rd level - results of BM actors’ interaction (a. Analysis of the indicators that characterize BM on various levels; b. Analysis of the impact of mismatches and inconsistencies between the BM actors on the flows’ characteristics: material, financial, customer flow). The new approach to BM innovation has multiple similarities with Activity system school that is based on the approach offered in (Zott, Amit, 2010), which views BM as a system of interdependent activities conducted by the focal firm and other value chain participants in order to create value for the customer and generate profits. The approach assumes that it is possible to analyze or develop a BM by considering the components, structure and control mechanism of the activity system. However, the approach offered in the current study is different from the Activity system perspective at the level at which the activity system is analyzed - these are components of a whole value creation system, rather than a single focal firm. Thus, the proposed approach develops the Activity system perspective by proposing the use of a marketing scheme that integrates certain aspects of BM analysis into an organic whole and offers a threelevel analysis of a BM. Considerable attention in the Activity system perspective focuses on the activities of BM participants and their interaction. The activity system design element related to transaction management also reflects one of the key elements of the new approach proposed in the current study - BM participants occupy different positions in the value chain and have different opportunities to influence the value creation process for the consumer. The highlighted similarities demonstrate that the new approach to BM innovation developed in the study is organically linked to the Activity system perspective proposed by Zott and Amit and elaborates on it.

This preliminary qualitative research investigates how stylistic innovation affects sales performance of small arts and crafts firms in business-to-business and business-to-consumer markets in Taiwan. Specifically this research examines entrepreneurial cognitive complexity, which is the cognitive structure of an entrepreneur on his or her social world, and its interplay with stylistic innovation, particularly the changes of design in appearance or symbolic meaning of products, and strategic decisions of five Taiwanese small arts and crafts firms. Applying cognitive mapping to determine the cognitive contents, structures and also their relations of the entrepreneurs in making decision related to stylistic innovation, this research examines how owners of small Taiwanese arts and crafts firms specifically seek, interpret and internalize information and knowledge on style and design in the new product development and innovation processes. Research results show that the domain specific cognitive complexity of the entrepreneur influences the selection of relevant and appropriate dimensions in stylistic innovation. Entrepreneurs’ strategic decision to target at the business-to-consumer (customer-oriented or designer-driven) or business-to-business (mainly designer-driven) markets and also the buyer-seller relationship will affect the seeking, interpretation and internalization of information and knowledge in the process of stylistic innovation. Respondents targeting at business-to-business markets tend to have a higher level of cognitive complexity, compared with those targeting at business-to-consumer markets. Research results tend to suggest that the higher level of cognitive complexity, the greater the sales turnover. Future research should determine the relationship between cognitive complexity and marketing performance.

A well-known dilemma in strategic marketing is whether a firm can be simultaneously both efficient in its existing business and innovative in creating new business (Atuahene-Gima 2005; Christensen 1997). Beleaguered companies such as AOL, Kmart, Motorola, Nokia, Polaroid, and Sears are examples that were once highly efficient in serving customers, but partly due to that efficiency in their existing business, paradoxically failed to introduce innovations. The potential tension “between innovation and efficiency—is one that’s bedeviling CEOs everywhere” (Hindo 2007). Two questions regarding the efficiency–innovation tradeoffs are especially intriguing to researchers and managers alike. First, to what extent are such tradeoffs driven by efficient firms’ lack of eagerness or willingness to innovate in the first place, or lack of ability to innovate and promote innovations? Second, can certain strategic marketing factors mitigate the tension of such tradeoffs? Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that not all firms that are efficient in their current business (e.g., Charles Schwab, Capital One) lack innovative thrust. In fact, efficient firms may actually be eager to innovate: Nokia, for instance, originally innovated an online “app store” service as well as touchscreen smartphones and Internet tablets in the 1990s and 2000s, much earlier than Apple (Ben-Aaron 2009; MobileGazzette 2008). Similarly, Polaroid was originally a pioneer in developing digital cameras and imaging services in the 1980s (Tripsas and Gavetti 2000). The eventual failures of Nokia’s and Polaroid’s innovation efforts, thus, do not seem to be due to their lack of eagerness to innovate, but perhaps the inability to manage the efficiency–innovation tension. In contrast, other companies seem to be able to manage this tension. For instance, in financial services, Charles Schwab is often commended both for its efficiency and its innovativeness, and the firm itself feels the “need to invest in innovation to maintain a competitive edge” (Gilson 2012). Against this backdrop, we focus on two questions: (1) What exactly are the tradeoffs and tensions between a firm’s existing efficiency, innovativeness in its new offerings, and new offering performance? And (2) how can strategic marketing assets such as customer base and advertising intensity mitigate the tradeoffs? Should such assets help to alleviate the inherent tension, they would give executives tools to pursue both efficiency and innovation at the same time and succeed with their new innovative offerings. Empirically, we focus on the service sector, whereby the actual technical development of innovations is not very costly in tangible financial terms (Crawford and di Benedetto 2008; Droege et al. 2009; Thomke 2003)―making the intangible firm capabilities most likely determinants of (innovation) performance rather than tangible resources (cf. Vorhies, Morgan, and Autry 2009). Therewith, we examine our research questions with a comprehensive census dataset of all new service introductions (n≈500) in one national market: The Finnish mutual funds industry (1997–2010). The sector of financial services is especially relevant for the efficiency–innovation tradeoffs because in this sector, many firms are compelled to engage in both efficient operations and effective (financial) innovations. Our empirical focus on all firms in one market precisely identifies and measures the efficiency levels of all competing firms, relative to the best-performing competitors, as well as innovativeness (earliness) in introducing new services compared to all rivals. For a marketing perspective, we focus on firms’ existing customer-perceived service efficiency (over the entire portfolio of existing services, i.e., funds)—defined through the ratio of output value that customers obtain from the firms’ current services to the (customer) cost inputs. We also carefully delineate between (a) innovativeness of a new service introduction and (b) its performance. Doing so can reveal the potentially contradictory effects of existing efficiency on new service innovativeness (willingness to innovate) vis-à-vis new service performance (ability to make innovations succeed). As our key results, we firstly identify and explicate the baseline efficiency–innovation tradeoffs. Specifically, our results suggest that while existing service efficiency increases the innovativeness of new services introduced by the firm, it simultaneously (1) leads to decreased business performance for the new services introduced and (2) diminishes the positive influence of innovativeness on performance. In sum, these findings imply that on the baseline, highly efficient service firms may be too eager to innovate, considering the sub-par performance they are likely to receive for those innovations. Secondly, our results reveal two strategic marketing factors, which have the potential to mitigate the tradeoffs. We find that the firm’s (a) focused customer base and (b) high advertising intensity can nullify the negative effect of existing service efficiency on innovativeness and the negative moderating effect of efficiency on the innovativeness–performance link.

This research deals about the phenomenon of crowd-funding as an interesting way of interactive marketing where consumers are involved in co-creation value. Our research objective is to evaluate the impact of the type of rewards (financial vs. symbolic) on consumer level of investment. We propose an experimental design with a real case study in order to evaluate the impact of the type of rewards (financial vs. symbolic) towards the intention of investing in the project. The results indicate that the financial reward brings higher level of investment than the symbolic one. Moreover, in the case of a financial reward, attitude towards investment into the project is significantly higher than for symbolic reward. This research illustrates the key role playing by the value-marketing proposition in this particular context of collaborative investment where consumers as investors are more sensitive to a financial reward than a symbolic one.

This paper analyses the importance of innovation for 680 EU multinationals subsidiaries involved in international marketing in China, the period of 1998-2009, using unbalanced panel data analysis. To date, the literature on EU subsidiaries has failed to consider product innovation in the strategy interplay in approaching new markets overseas. Building on the resource-based view of the firm, linked with host economic and political institutions, the authors empirically examine the inferential marketing strategy in an EU-China context, by applying econometric techniques to investigate innovation capabilities and to test the presence of agglomeration effect of past innovation activities. We find that EU innovation in China is influenced by both host country institutions and firm capabilities, rendering support to the theory. Our analysis indicates EU subsidiaries’ innovation is positively related to firm advertisement, labour training and host market size. R&D expenditure has a negative bearing on innovation. However, openness has a negative and significant effect on product innovation in China. The study findings have important implications for research on international marketing, new venture decision making, and overseas innovation expansion strategies.

This paper reviewed the relationship between internal marketing and incremental innovation, and the moderating effect of firm size. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis, based on the responses from 322 employees in small business, showed that almost internal marketing factors effects positively on incremental innovation. All internal marketing factors(CEO support, compensation system, education & training, internal communication, authority delegation) appeared to be related positively with process innovation and service innovation. And all other factors(compensation system, education & training, internal communication, authority delegation) except CEO support showed to have positive relationship with operation innovation. In the moderating effects, internal communication effects more positively on incremental innovation in large firm-size than in small firm-size. But delegation effects more positively on incremental innovation in small firm-size than in large firm-size.

Purpose – Market orientation is a key factor for business performance in today’s fluctuating conditions. This study investigates whether the employment of innovation can improve the innovative capability and increase the performance by gaining competitive advantages or not. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effects of market orientation on the performance of small and medium size distributer enterprises (SMDEs) in Iran. Research design, data, and methodology – Customer orientation, Competitor orientation, and Inter-functional coordination have been regarded as market orientation indices to determine the effects of these indices on marketing innovation, gaining competitive advantages, and companies’ performance as well. Data were collected from managers and experts in SMDEs in Iran. The structural equations modeling are used for analysis. Results – The results indicated that marketing innovation has been improved in competitive companies that enjoyed a high level of Inter-functional coordination among the various units. Besides, marketing innovation resulted in gaining competitive advantages regarding cost management, concentration, and differentiation in these companies. In addition, it was observed that SMDEs that obtain competitive advantages are equipped to reap superior performance. Conclusions – With cost management, differentiation and concentration are more likely to enhance the enterprise efficiency and effectiveness than other companies. Additionally, competitiveness, inter-functional coordination, and marketing innovation in SMDEs have a positive impact on marketing innovation.