Expert practice

2  x  2  matrix’  (Jacobi  et  al.,  2015  p.  53)  was  used  to  ‘position’  Silver  Ant  into  one   of  the  four  quadrants  which  represented  the  existing  drinks  market.  Here  this   marketing  tool  demonstrates,  along  with  STP,  how  marketing  practice  can  be   generative,  able  to  accomplish  and  materialise  concepts  such  as  segmentation   and  positioning,  and  that  through  bringing  segments  into  being  a  market   position  can  be  established.    

Whilst  this  section  has  shown  a  role  for  tools,  frameworks  and  concepts  in   stabilising  and  framing  an  object  what  remains  somewhat  problematic  is  how   marketing  practice  can  achieve  this  materialisation  when  the  market  object   may  have  little  material  presence.  Therefore,  what  is  lacking  is  an  

understanding  of  how  this  specific  issue  is  addressed  in  marketing  practice  and   this  is  an  area  which  becomes  a  theme  in  the  empirical  chapters  and  a  focus  of   the  discussions  and  concluding  chapter  of  this  thesis.    

2.5.2 Expert practice  

The  final  section  of  this  chapter  considers  what  constitutes  expertise,  what  it  is   which  is  ‘required’  for  an  individual  to  be  recognised  or  to  present  themselves   as  a  marketing  expert  and  the  role  of  performative  practice  in  building  

marketing  expertise.  Here  effective  marketing  practice  is  considered  to  be   marketing  activity  which  can  produce  the  most  ‘successful’  results  (Cochoy  and   Dubuisson-­‐Quellier,  2013).  Making  implicit  links  to  both  Austin’s  (1962)  

performativity  of  language  and  Lyotard’s  (1984)  production  of  knowledge  this   discussion  broadens  out  and,  as  well  as  the  perspectives  of  marketing  practice   offered  by  Market  Studies,  a  more  normative  undertaking  drawn  from  the   academic  study  of  marketing  management  and  marketing  practice  is  included.    

Theorising  a  practical  approach  to  what  constitutes  marketing  knowledge,   Hackley  (1999)  sought  to  expand  an  understanding  of  what  is  involved  in   becoming  or  presenting  as  an  expert  in  marketing  practice.  Importantly,  his   work  examined  the  possibility  that,  through  the  marshalling  of  performative   marketing  practices,  individuals  could  present  an  impression  of  marketing   capability  and  attempt  to  direct  or  influence  organisational  strategy  through   their  marketing  activities.  In  so  doing  Hackley  (1999)  conceptualised  tacit   knowledge  as  an  important  aspect  of  accomplishment  including  both  theory   and  practice  as  contributors  to  this  form  of  knowledge.  Using  the  example  of   the  ‘expert  systems’  (p.  725)  of  computers,  he  compared  the  processes  of   knowledge  acquisition  in  marketing  practice  to  that  of  building  a  computer   system  through  the  processing  of  multiple  sources  of  information  to  produce   successful  outcomes.  Similarly,  in  marketing  practice  this  could  be  considered   as  acquiring  an  understanding  of  the  marketing  tools  and  concepts  or  

undertaking  to  study  the  marketing  discipline  (Cochoy,  1998)  discussed  earlier   in  this  chapter,  which,  accordingly,  results  in  an  explicit  form  of  marketing   knowledge.    

Whilst  this  marketing  knowledge  may  indeed  be  functionally  comprehensive   and  effective,  Hackley  (1999)  suggested  such  a  systematic  approach  was   somewhat  lacking,  proposing  that  tacit  knowledge  was  needed  to  draw   inferences  in  the  complex  process  of  making  sense  or  use  of  the  insights  and   data  from  marketing  frameworks,  tools  and  concepts  (p.  730).  Examining  the   epistemology  of  marketing  expertise  by  questioning  whether  explicit  but   accomplished  marketing  practice  is  enough  to  be  an  expert  in  marketing,   Hackley  proposed  tacit  knowledge  as  a  subtler  and  less  obvious  form  of   knowledge.  The  contribution  which  was  made  in  this  work,  and  which  has   relevance  in  this  thesis,  is  that  marketing  expertise  is  constituted  of  not  only   explicit  knowledge  but  intuitive  understanding:  an  aspect  of  marketing   knowledge  which  may  not  be  captured,  formally  recorded  or  acquired  via  a   marketing  education.  Notably  in  this  thesis  where  ‘difficult’  marketing  practice   is  examined  both  tacit  knowledge  and  expertise  may  have  significance  in  the   examination  of  marketing  practice.    

Knowledge  which  may  be  acquired  in  less  formal  circumstances,  that  is   unarticulated,  may  remain  understated  and  may  at  times  develop  without   official  recognition,  is  considered  as  tacit  knowledge  (Hackley,  1999).  

Returning  to  the  earlier  case  study  of  Silver  Ant  (Jacobi  et  al.,  2015),  this  study   highlighted  the  practice  in  an  advertising  agency  to  use  indiscriminately  the   same  tool  in  a  variety  of  contexts  or  different  projects  on  a  day-­‐to-­‐day  basis.  As   an  example  of  the  universal  application  of  models  and  processes,  or  explicit   systematic  knowledge,  this  case  showed  the  employment,  as  a  matter  of  course,  

of  marketing  tools  and  concepts  which  were  relied  upon  to  perform  and  deliver   the  project.  Interestingly,  in  this  empirical  case,  context  specific  expertise  in   the  sector  into  which  Silver  Ant  was  to  be  launched  seemed  lacking  therefore   raising  questions  as  to  how  the  project  was  delivered.  Thus,  what  seems  to   emerge  in  the  case  of  this  advertising  agency  is  that  effective  delivery  was  a   result  of  both  the  explicit  marketing  knowledge  shown  in  the  accomplished  use   of  marketing  tools  and  the  tacit  knowledge,  or  the  ‘know-­‐how’,  held  by  

individuals  at  the  agency  from  frequently  envisaging  and  defining  a  product   which  had  yet  to  materialise.    

Undoubtedly,  what  can  be  deduced  from  examining  the  use  of  tools  and   concepts  by  practitioners  is  a  reified  status  for  marketing  models,  tools  and   concepts  in  the  marketing  discipline,  so  a  prominence  of  explicit  knowledge.  

Indeed,  the  popularity  of  this  form  of  knowledge  spans  both  practice  and   theory  and  such  frameworks  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  marketing  practice.  

This  was  examined  by  Ardley  and  Quinn  (2014)  in  a  study  which  scrutinised   what  was  contained  within  student  textbooks,  manuals  for  marketing  

practitioners  and  some  academic  journals,  together  with  practitioner  accounts   of  what  was  being  used  in  practice  in  workplace  settings.  Ardley  and  Quinn   found  these  frameworks  to  be  the  foundations  of  a  body  of  discipline-­‐specific   marketing  material,  recognising  that  a  select  and  trusted  body  of  marketing   material  formed  the  basis  of  curriculum  design  and  marketing  teaching  in   business  schools.  Referring  to  such  marketing  texts  as  ‘articles  of  faith’  (p.  100),   they  reflected  not  only  on  a  reliance  on  this  marketing  material  but  also  the  

recursive  nature  of  these  models  and  tools  between  marketing  education  and   practice.  In  the  case  of  Silver  Ant  (Jacobi  et  al.,  2015),  the  beliefs  raised  by   Ardley  and  Quinn  (2014)  were  evident  as  account  planners  and  agency  

executives  seemed  convinced  that  the  marketing  tools  applied  to  position  the   product  would  achieve  the  necessary  outcome  and  effects  to  satisfy  their  client,   the  producer  of  Silver  Ant.  However,  questions  remain  as  to  whether,  without   any  form  of  ‘tacit’  knowledge,  just  tools  alone  could  have  produced  the  

necessary  results?    

Here  drawing  on  both  Hackley’s  (1999)  unpacking  of  what  constitutes  expertise   and  how  productive  performative  knowledge  circulates  and  becomes  accepted   and  established  in  organisations  broadens  the  thinking  about  what  constitutes   marketing  expertise.  This  has  relevance  for  thinking  about  the  mobilising  of   marketing  within  organisations:  how  marketing  is  organised  and  assigned.  For   example,  what  form  of  marketing  expertise  is  found  in  marketing  teams,  and   does  designating  individuals  and  resources  as  part  of  a  ‘marketing’  function   presume  marketing  expertise  consists  of  only  the  accomplished  use  of   marketing  tools  and  concepts?  Significantly,  can  marketing  expertise  be   located  solely  amongst  those  who  have  been  designated  as  practitioners,  carry   a  marketing  title  or  have  been  ‘educated’  in  the  use  of  these  marketing  

frameworks?    

The  suggestion  of  performative  marketing  practice  having  a  role  beyond  

organising  of  markets  and  being  purposefully  employed,  for  example  to  provide  

authority  and  substance,  and  to  legitimise,  is  considered  as  the  final  section  of   this  chapter.    

2.5.3 Legitimising performative marketing practice  

A  study  which  contributed  to  considering  if  proficiency  in  marketing  activities   could  be  carried  out  by  individuals  other  than  recognised  marketers  has  been   considered  in  research  carried  out  by  Dibb  et  al.  (2014).  In  their  empirical  study   of  the  ‘doing’  of  marketing  or  undertaking  of  tasks  and  activities  identified  by   participants  as  belonging  to  ‘marketing’  they  found  that  these  activities  were   frequently  undertaken  by  people  in  roles  outside  the  marketing  team  (p.  395).  

Investigating  the  scope  of  micro  level  marketing  activities  and  the  range  of  who   might  contribute  to  marketing  in  an  organisation,  Dibb  et  al.  acknowledged   some  dispersal  of  these  activities,  besides  confusion  within  the  organisation  as   to  who  should  carry  out  marketing  practice.  Uncertainty  about  who  could,  or   indeed  should,  carry  out  marketing  practice  within  an  organisation  was,   similarly,  found  in  research  by  Hagberg  and  Kjellberg  (2010)  who  identified   several  ‘nonprofessional’  (p.  1029)  organisational  actors  ‘doing’  marketing  and   accomplishing  tasks  and  activities  regarded  as  the  responsibility  of  marketing   in  their  study  of  two  Swedish  retailers.  Hagberg  and  Kjellberg  (2010)  concluded   that  it  had  been  beneficial  for  an  organisation  not  to  exclude  non-­‐professional   marketers  from  making  their  contribution  to  the  organisation  and  that  

allowing  their  involvement  in  what  was  considered  as  marketing  activities  had