Flaig

Industrial Marketing Management 96 (2021) 254–266
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman
Research paper
Market-shaping strategies: A conceptual framework for generating

market outcomes
Alexander Flaig, Daniel Kindström *, Mikael Ottosson
Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: We identify four market-shaping strategies and their related activities that enable a focal market actor to work
Market shaping towards specific market outcomes. The conceptual framework provides firms with a tool for choosing specific
Market driving market-shaping strategies depending on their market-shaping intention (offensive/defensive) and perception of a
Market strategy
market's stability (stable/unstable). Accordingly, and in line with market-shaping literature, the four market-
Competitive advantage
shaping strategies enable a firm to widen, reduce, maintain, or disrupt a market. Whereas previous market-
strategy conceptualizations emphasized firm-level outcomes, the four identified market-shaping strategies
focus on market outcomes and encompass a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of a firm's strategic
actions on a market. Thereby, this study offers new perspectives on the implementation of market strategies in
the context of markets as complex adaptive systems. By exemplifying the four market-shaping strategies using
four industry cases, we illustrate how market-shaping strategies can appear in practice and demonstrate how
firms can strategically leverage and steer market processes to their advantage.
1. Introduction strategic intentions, as they attempt to achieve favorable market out

comes (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Hawa et al., 2020; Kindström, Ottos
Since the introduction of market-driving as an approach to shaping son, & Carlborg, 2018). Here, market outcomes are not the shaping of
markets (Jaworski, Kohli, & Sahay, 2000; Kumar, Scheer, & Kotler, the market itself, but the state of the market after the shaping; in other
2000), the field of marketing has progressively distanced itself from the words, “markets are not precursors, but rather outcomes of strategy”
view of markets as static and immutable entities, and moved towards a (Storbacka, 2019, p. 4).
conceptualization of markets as malleable and complex adaptive sys While the market-shaping literature has introduced notions such as
tems encompassing a wide array of market actors beyond the buyer- “market maintenance” (Beninger & Francis, 2021), “market widening”
seller dyad (Mele, Pels, & Storbacka, 2015; Mollinger-Sahba, Flatau, (Burr, 2014), “market creation” (Baker, Storbacka, & Brodie, 2019), and
Schepis, & Purchase, 2020; Nenonen et al., 2014). This view considers “market innovation” (Kjellberg et al., 2015) as possible outcomes of
markets as processes of constant change, in which the practices and market-shaping activities, these concepts have not been delineated into
related activities of different market actors intentionally and uninten distinct and applicable market-shaping strategies. Considering that
tionally shape a market (Hawa, Baker, & Plewa, 2020; Kjellberg, Azi market-shaping strategies can enable firms to improve their competi
mont, & Reid, 2015; Sprong, Driessen, Hillebrand, & Molner, 2021). tiveness and overall performance (Brege & Kindström, 2020; Kindström
When market shaping occurs intentionally, focal market actors et al., 2018; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019), firms must be able
attempt to direct the market-shaping process in their own favor, either to steer changes, manage the market, and channel their own objectives
by inducing change to a market or by attempting to prevent emerging through the shaping process (Kjellberg et al., 2015; Kjellberg & Hel
change (Kachouie, Mavondo, & Sands, 2018; Kjellberg et al., 2015). gesson, 2007; Mele et al., 2015), making market-shaping strategies a key
Whereas the former describes a more offensive approach, the latter mechanism for attaining competitive advantage (Humphreys & Car
could be characterized as more defensive (cf. Hietanen & Rokka, 2015; penter, 2018; Jaworski, Kohli, & Sarin, 2020; Kindström et al., 2018).
Porter, 2008) as to the focal actor's intention. Following this, market However, despite more than two decades of market-shaping
actors will thus design market-shaping strategies according to their research, market-shaping strategies remain largely underexplored
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alexander.flaig@liu.se (A. Flaig), daniel.kindstrom@liu.se (D. Kindström), mikael.ottosson@liu.se (M. Ottosson).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.004
Received 1 June 2020; Received in revised form 19 April 2021; Accepted 7 June 2021
Available online 17 June 2021
0019-8501/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Flaig et al. Industrial Marketing Management 96 (2021) 254–266
(Jaworski et al., 2020; Sprong et al., 2021). Much of the recent market- market activities constitute changes to the market configuration (Stor
shaping research has focused on describing market changes and market backa & Nenonen, 2011a).
dynamics, often analyzing market-shaping as the result of system-level Underlying any given current market configuration, there is an
changes or collaborative shaping efforts (Baker & Nenonen, 2020; established market vision to which the various market actors are aligned
Beninger & Francis, 2021; Humphreys, 2010; Maciel & Fischer, 2020). (Adner, 2017; Araujo, 2007; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a). A market
Moreover, considering that concepts such as market driving (Jaworski vision can be defined as a market-shaper's “view on how the market should
et al., 2000), market scripting (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b), and be configured” (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a, p. 253) and should consist
market innovation (Kjellberg et al., 2015) are all considered to describe of a compelling and beneficial vision of a future market (Jaworski et al.,
the market-shaping phenomenon (Nenonen, Storbacka, Sklyar, Frow, & 2020; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019). Thus, a firm aiming to
Payne, 2020; Sprong et al., 2021), the increasing theoretical and con shape a market will attempt to realize its market vision by engaging in
ceptual ambiguity makes it more difficult to derive insights of practical deliberate market-shaping activities in order to reconfigure the current
relevance, widening the purported theory–practice gap (Möller, Neno market configuration in line with its own vision (Storbacka & Nenonen,
nen, & Storbacka, 2020; Reibstein, Day, & Wind, 2009). Given that 2011a; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b; Ulkuniemi, Araujo, & Tähtinen,
marketing scholars are increasingly aware that a firm's performance and 2015). The key constructs used in this paper are summarized in Table 1.1
its competitiveness can be enhanced through market-shaping (Gavetti, The extant market-shaping literature has identified several market
Helfat, & Marengo, 2017; Maciel & Fischer, 2020; Nenonen, Storbacka, configurations as outcomes of market-shaping processes (see Fig. 1).
& Windahl, 2019), calls for a strategic view of the market-shaping Firstly, Burr (2014) introduced “market widening” as a type of market-
phenomenon are warranted. shaping outcome that refers to an “expansion” of a market. Secondly,
Guided by the definition of market-shaping strategy as the set of and similarly, “market reduction” has been identified as a potential
purposeful activities a firm employs to shape a market in order to increase its market-shaping outcome based on, for example, delegitimization ac
competitiveness and create new opportunities (Gavetti et al., 2017; Neno tivities (Maguire & Hardy, 2009; Regany, Benmecheddal, Belkhir, &
nen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019; Porter, 1996), we draw on extant Djelassi, 2021), focusing on reducing a market. Thirdly, “market main
market-shaping research to derive distinct sets of market-shaping ac tenance” (Beninger & Francis, 2021; Yngfalk, 2019) describes an active
tivities and their associated market-shaping outcomes. Based on this approach to maintaining the current shape of a market by employing
analysis, we conceptualize a two-dimensional framework and delineate deliberate activities aimed at impeding market change. Finally, while
four overarching and generic market-shaping strategies in line with “market innovation” (Kjellberg et al., 2015; Sprong et al., 2021) and
discussions in the market-shaping literature (Fligstein, 2001; Hawa “market creation” (Baker et al., 2019; Humphreys, 2010) can be
et al., 2020; Pontikes & Rindova, 2020). We base the two dimensions on considered outcomes of market-shaping strategies, any change in and of
(i) the firm's ability to perceive the market (cf. Nenonen, Storbacka, & a market can be considered as a market innovation. Thus, since the
Windahl, 2019; Rui & Yip, 2008; Teece, 2007), as the success of a concept of market innovation can encompass both the alteration of
strategic choice is contextually dependent on the firm's perception of the existing markets and the creation of new ones (Kjellberg et al., 2015), for
market (cf. Hagel, Brown, & Davison, 2008; Lovas & Ghoshal, 2000; the purpose of greater conceptual clarity, we distinguish between market
Miles & Snow, 1978), and (ii) the strategic intent of the market-shaping creation, as the beginning of a new market detached from any estab
firm, as this influences and guides the type of activities it will employ lished market, and market innovation, as the transformation of an exist
(Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Lovas & Ghoshal, 2000; Rui & Yip, 2008). ing market (Hawa et al., 2020; Martin & Schouten, 2014; O'Connor &
With our proposed conceptualization, we contribute primarily to the Rice, 2013). However, as market creation can denote a significant
literature on market shaping and market strategy by providing a novel disruption that reflects a breakaway from the market-shaping process of
framework based on a synthesis of extant literature. Furthermore, we an existing market (Diaz Ruiz & Makkar, 2021; Kjellberg & Olson,
address critiques of the current lack of practical relevance in industrial 2017), we will use the term “market disruption” (Baker et al., 2019;
marketing management and strategic management (Jaworski & Kohli, Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015; Regany et al., 2021) to refer to
2017; Möller et al., 2020; Nenonen, Brodie, Storbacka, & Peters, 2017) the disruption of an on-going market-shaping process.
by offering a managerially applicable framework. Finally, our frame These market-shaping outcomes highlight the plastic character of
work provides one of the first conceptualizations focusing on a strategic markets. Reviewing the descriptions above, it is clear that market out
application of market-shaping. comes are results of the interplay between efforts to stabilize a market,
In the following Section 2 we present the theoretical foundation that resulting in market maintenance, and efforts to destabilize a market,
underlies our conceptual framework. Then, in Section 3, we present our potentially leading to a market disruption (Fligstein, 1996; Kjellberg
conceptual framework and the four generic market-shaping strategies, et al., 2015).
which we illustrate with case examples. In Section 4 we discuss the Fig. 2 visualizes the process of enacting a market-shaping strategy.
interplay of the four strategies and conclude by describing the practical
significance and research implications of our conceptualization, as well
as offering potentially promising avenues for future research.
Table 1
2. Market change and market configurations Key constructs underlying the conceptual framework.
Construct Definition
With ‘market change’ being a central concept in the market-shaping Market The constellation of different market actors interconnected
literature (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2016; Kjellberg et al., 2015; Nenonen configuration through their activities that, in sum, materialize the market
et al., 2014), it becomes important to provide a clear definition. In its Market vision An envisioned market configuration
Market change The by-product of the interplay between stabilization and
most abstract form, market change is considered to be perturbances of
destabilization processes affecting a market configuration
market-shaping processes by external forces (Kjellberg et al., 2015; Mele Market outcome The market configuration that results from the execution of a
et al., 2015; Nenonen et al., 2014), which relates to the notion of market market-shaping strategy
turbulence (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). In its most concrete form, market
change has been operationalized as a construct consisting of changes in a
market configuration (Nenonen, Storbacka, & Frethey-Bentham, 2019).
As markets are configurations of market actors and their related activ
ities (Antone, Canning, Franklin-Johnson, & Spencer, 2017; Hietanen & 1
A glossary encompassing the extant terminology used in this article, can be
Rokka, 2015; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a), changes in market actors or found in Table 6 in the Appendix.
255
example, by reinforcing the established vision that market actors have

previously rallied around (Palmer, Simmons, Robinson, & Fearne, 2015;
Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006), reinforcing extant customer preferences
(Jaworski et al., 2020), or realigning the available actors in the market
(Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006).
While market-shaping can indeed result in a more radical trans
formation of a market, it can also be used to modify a current market
configuration only slightly. In this, the intention of the market-shaper is
not to disrupt the market, but to “increase the size of the value pie”
(Tantalo & Priem, 2014) by widening the market to encompass more
market actors and market activities, which ultimately improves the
market's value-creation and value-capturing potential (Gulati & Wang,
2003; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019; Tantalo & Priem, 2014).
In market configurations perceived as unstable, shaping strategies
could aim to decouple the various interlinked market actors and activ
ities in order to enable a reconfiguration and thus reshape the market
(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Pontikes & Rindova, 2020; Storbacka &
Fig. 1. Visualization of market-shaping outcomes.
Nenonen, 2011b). Here, a market-shaping strategy can focus on a
disruption of the market, thereby creating a new market, or on a
transformation of the existing market (Baker et al., 2019; Kjellberg et al.,
2.1. Stable and unstable market configurations
2015; O'Connor & Rice, 2013). The former refers to market-disruption
strategies, which create significant differences relative to the existing
Markets are always changing, as they are constantly shaped and
market configuration, with more substantial consequences for market
reshaped through the ongoing activities of market actors (Araujo, 2007;
incumbents. Examples of this include the extensive reconfiguration of
Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2006). Thus, markets are “continuously in the
networks or the introduction of completely new value propositions that
making” (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2016). From a strategic perspective, this
can potentially shape a market significantly (Jaworski et al., 2000; Kim
can imply constant stabilization efforts by market actors to maintain a
& Mauborgne, 1999; Nenonen et al., 2020). The latter transformational
desired market configuration, or destabilization efforts by other market
strategy focuses on leveraging significantly destabilized market config
actors aiming to steer the market-shaping process in a direction that
urations by employing market-shaping strategies that involve activities
favors them (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2016; Nenonen, Storbacka, &
such as erecting barriers to entry (Jaworski et al., 2000; Santos &
Windahl, 2019; Pontikes & Rindova, 2020; Storbacka & Nenonen,
Eisenhardt, 2009), acquiring other market actors (Santos & Eisenhardt,
2011a). Other market actors will take notice of these stabilization and
2009), or delegitimizing exogenous market-shaping forces (Regany
destabilization efforts to different degrees depending on their own po
et al., 2021). In so doing, specific market actors and market behaviors
sition and role in the market configuration. For example, a beneficiary of
are excluded through the stabilization of certain market changes,
a market disruption process will experience instability in the market
resulting in a reduction of the market compared to its previous config
configuration differently than an entrenched incumbent with an ad
uration (cf. Regany et al., 2021).
vantageous existing position. Consequently, a focal market actor will
perceive different levels of stability in different market configurations,
and will employ different market-shaping strategies depending on the 2.2. Strategic intention of market-shaping strategies
degree of stability that they perceive (cf. Desarbo, Di Benedetto, Song, &
Sinha, 2005; Miles, Snow, Meyer, & Coleman, 1978). Depending on their competitive position, their perceived stability of
In perceived stable market configurations, market-shaping strategies the market configuration, and their market-shaping goal, firms will
can be employed either to mitigate the entry of destabilizing actors or pursue different strategic intentions with their market-shaping strate
activities, or to incrementally modify an existing market configuration gies (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011; Hawa et al., 2020). We use the term
(Fligstein, 1996; Kjellberg et al., 2015). The former focus actively on strategic intention to refer to the future-oriented and purposeful
counteracting the destabilizing market-shaping attempts of other mar “conscious orchestration of plans and deliberate involvement in ‘pur
ket actors by attempting to prevent emerging market changes—for poseful strategic activities’ to achieve a desired outcome” (Hawa et al.,
2020, p. 48). Here, depending on the strategic intention, a focal actor
Fig. 2. Visualization of a market-shaping strategy.
256
might guide these strategic activities offensively—for example, by perceived stability of a market configuration and market-shaping
aiming for the “displacement of the status quo” (Hawa et al., 2020, p. intention of the focal market-shaping firm (see Fig. 3).
48)—or defensively; for example, in order to protect the market in its
current form (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011; Hawa et al., 2020). In other
words, defensive firms will primarily aim to protect their market from 3.1. Offensive market-shaping strategies
undesired market change that might become a threat to their value-
capturing potential, while more offensive market actors will employ 3.1.1. Market widening
market-shaping strategies in an attempt to assert their own market A market-widening strategy aims primarily to modify and expand the
configuration and claim the market. Thus, depending on the circum current market to improve its value-creation and value-capture potential
stances of the respective firm and its specific intention, market-shaping (Gulati & Wang, 2003; Tantalo & Priem, 2014). Market actors that use a
strategies can be employed either offensively or defensively (cf. Beckert, market-widening strategy are not necessarily attempting to change the
2010; Porter, 2008; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). underlying market vision, but rather to pursue modifications of the
market that are beneficial to them. These modifications focus on shaping
2.2.1. Offensive market-shaping intentions the market in a way that enables additional market actors and activities
An offensive market-shaping intention aims to induce market change to enter the market, and develop it in directions that favor the market-
with the specific purpose of reshaping a market in a favorable direction widening firm (see Table 2). In many cases, market-widening activ
for the focal firm (Kachouie et al., 2018; Kindström et al., 2018; Porter, ities remove barriers to entry through means such as developing market
2008). These offensive strategic undertakings can originate from infrastructure (Burr, 2014; Kjellberg, Hagberg, & Cochoy, 2019; Lee,
aspiring market champions (Johne, 1999), unaligned market actors Struben, & Bingham, 2018), reducing price points (Kumar et al., 2000;
(Adner, 2017), or new market entrants (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009) Nenonen, Storbacka, & Frethey-Bentham, 2019), or pursuing deregu
questioning the market's status quo—that is, the existing market lation (Edelman & Geradin, 2016; Kjellberg & Olson, 2017).
configuration (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a). Here, market-shaping We use the case of Tesla to illustrate the market-widening strategy.
actors must articulate a significantly more attractive future vision of Initially, the automaker faced the gargantuan task of selling an electric
the market with sufficient incentives in the form of system-level goals vehicle despite an almost total lack of charging infrastructure. Thus, it
and value networks in order to rally market actors around their vision became clear that, in order to widen the market, Tesla would have to
for the market (Gawer & Phillips, 2013; Gulati, Puranam, & Tushman, develop its own charging infrastructure in order to attract customers and
2012; Jaworski et al., 2020; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b). Offensive additional firms to support Tesla's vision. Simultaneously, Tesla was
market-shapers will employ different market-shaping strategies, fighting for the deregulation of vehicle sales laws, which were impeding
depending on their desired outcome and the perceived stability of the manufacturers from selling directly to customers (Koopman, 2014) and
market configuration. In cases of more stable market configurations, a restricting Tesla's market growth due to a dependency on local car
market-widening strategy enables an offensive market-shaper to modify dealerships. Finally, Tesla's price cuts of its Model S throughout 2020
a market configuration to a certain extent, whereas in cases of perceived (Bellon & Nivedita, 2020) widened the market by making the car more
instability, a market-shaper might aim to dispose of the current market affordable and allowing a wider customer base to become part of the
configuration with a market-disruption strategy, attempting to establish electric vehicle market.
a more favorable market configuration (Burr, 2014; Kim & Mauborgne, Additionally, market-shaping actors can press for standardization
1999; Kjellberg et al., 2015; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). (Hagel et al., 2008; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019; Ulkuniemi
et al., 2015), influence the perception of the exchange object (Azimont &
2.2.2. Defensive market-shaping intentions Araujo, 2007; Humphreys, 2010; Rosa, Porac, Runser-Spanjol, & Saxon,
In contrast to an offensive market-shaping intention, a defensive 1999), or provide more value to customers and stakeholders (Tantalo &
market-shaping intention aims to maintain and defend a specific market Priem, 2014) to widen the market. Tesla made its patents freely avail
configuration. This type of intention is usually displayed by current able in 2014 in an attempt to coordinate a standardization effort of the
market leaders (Palmer et al., 2015; Porter, 2008; Santos & Eisenhardt, electric vehicle market, expecting that market actors would join the
2009), actors who depend on the market system (Adner, 2017; Beninger market as they recognized opportunities to achieve economies of scale
& Francis, 2021), or institutional actors (Nguyen & Özçaglar-Toulouse, and upstream sales (Bessen, 2014; Netessine & Girotra, 2014; String
2021), as all these established actors typically benefit significantly from ham, Miller, & Clark, 2015). Relatedly, this standardization creates
the status quo. With a defensive market-shaping intention, market actors more value for customers and stakeholders (Nenonen, Storbacka, &
will actively focus on neutralizing threats by upholding and strength Windahl, 2019). By using economies of scale, Tesla can drive down
ening barriers to entry or, in cases of newly entered market shapers, by battery production costs—not only for itself, but also for other market
excluding and absorbing other market actors, resulting in a reduction of actors that adopt its battery standard. Thereby, Tesla creates value for
the market (Cova, Ivens, & Spencer, 2020; Jaworski et al., 2000; Regany the customer by lowering the price of electric vehicles, and for other
et al., 2021; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). However, when market-
shaping processes do not induce high levels of change, firms may
perceive a market to be stable. In those cases, market champions can
focus on maintaining the market by establishing self-reinforcing pro
cesses and actively reinforcing the interlinked market configuration
(Hawa et al., 2020; Regany et al., 2021).
3. Four generic market-shaping strategies
Based on the previous discussion on the different market-shaping

outcomes and the definition of market-shaping strategy as a set of pur
poseful activities to achieve a certain market-shaping objective (Hamel
& Prahalad, 1989; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019; Varadarajan,
2015), we develop four generic market-shaping strategies and their
associated activities.
Subsequently, we present these four strategies according to the Fig. 3. Conceptual framework of market-shaping strategies.
257
Table 2
Activities and illustrative examples of a market-widening strategy.
Market- Key activities References Case examples
shaping
strategy
Market Introducing standardization Hagel et al. (2008); Ulkuniemi et al. “Firm J created standardized exercise-to-music classes, which eliminated the need
widening (2015); Nenonen, Storbacka, and for individual instructors to have in-depth knowledge of choreography and
Windahl (2019) physiology. Since the growth of this market was capped by the limited number of
suitable instructors, unblocking that supply bottleneck acted as a market widening
move” (Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019).
Developing market Burr (2014); Lee et al. (2018); Kjellberg Once Gasum began to develop the market infrastructure of the Swedish market for
infrastructure et al. (2019); Mellet and Beauvisage liquefied natural gas, market actors began joining the market and adopting
(2020) liquefied natural gas, thereby widening the market (Ottosson, Magnusson, &
Andersson, 2020).
Reducing price Kumar et al. (2000); Nenonen, Storbacka, By undercutting incumbent taxi companies, Uber rallied many customers, and
and Frethey-Bentham (2019) consequently taxi drivers, around its own offering, thereby widening the ride-
hailing market (Christensen et al., 2015).
Cognitive reframing of Rosa et al. (1999); Azimont and Araujo Casinos, hotels, and media reframed casino gambling as an entertainment and
exchange object (2007); Humphreys (2010) business activity to dissociate it from criminal behavior. By reframing gambling,
the driving actors behind the reframing “found extended business opportunities,
broadened the scope of the market, and bridged activities with other market
actors.” (Branstad & Solem, 2020; Humphreys, 2010)
Creating more value for Tantalo and Priem (2014) described how Zara widened the market by satisfying
customers and stakeholders customers and suppliers simultaneously. On one hand, Zara satisfies customers'
desire for fast fashion through its local just-in-time production. On the other hand,
it trains local suppliers, providing them with utility benefits, resulting in a win-win-
win situation (Tantalo & Priem, 2014).
Pursuing deregulation Edelman and Geradin (2016); Kjellberg Market actors lobbied for the deregulation of medical cannabis, thereby enabling
and Olson (2017) the entry of a multitude of new market actors and activities, which widened the
market (Kjellberg & Olson, 2017).
carmakers by reducing their production costs. Consequently, the market vague formulation that might have deterred market actors from using
is widened, as more carmakers might join the market to benefit from the Tesla's patents for fear of legal repercussions.
reduced production costs, and more customers join the market due to Finally, the proclamation that Tesla's Model S is a “sophisticated
increased affordability. However, Tesla released the patents under the computer on wheels” (Hirsch, 2015) illustrates Tesla's attempts to
condition that they were to be used “in good faith” (Musk, 2014)—a reframe the perception of electric cars. These attempts have induced
Table 3
Activities and illustrative examples of a market-disruption strategy.
shaping
strategy
Market Reconfiguration of networks Storbacka and Nenonen (2011a); Mele and Mele and Russo-Spena (2015) showed how companies use “innomediaries” as
disruption Russo-Spena (2015); Nenonen, Storbacka, and intermediaries to connect market actors in new ways and thereby innovate a
Windahl (2019) market by reconfiguring the current market configuration.
Introducing radical “market- Markides (2006); Darroch and Miles (2011); Nintendo's introduction of the Wii created a new market for casual video
creating” innovation O'Connor and Rice (2013) gaming by radically innovating the meaning and experience of gaming
consoles. By leveraging inexpensive sensors for acceleration and infra-red
imagining, Nintendo video games were no longer passively consumed, but
required active physical engagement, thereby targeting customers who did not
consider themselves “gamers” (Norman & Verganti, 2014).
Introducing a new value Kim and Mauborgne (1999, 2009); Tuominen With iTunes, Apple provided a new and attractive value proposition for
proposition et al. (2004); Nenonen et al. (2020) consumers and record labels alike, providing a new way for consumers to
download high-quality music at reasonable prices. Thereby, Apple managed
what other companies such as Napster had failed to do: create a new market for
digital music (Kim & Mauborgne, 2009).
Lobbying for new Mason and Spring (2011); Diaz Ruiz et al. When the Chinese government introduced new standards for paper and plastic,
regulations and standards (2020) the Australian recycling export market was significantly affected, forcing
Australian recyclers to create a new market (Diaz Ruiz et al., 2020).
Triggering institutional Hargrave and Van de Ven (2006); Rao and iTunes triggered an institutional change in the music industry, as it was
change Giorgi (2006); Ghaffari, Jafari, and Sandikci defending its incumbent practices of downloading against actors such as
(2019) Napster, whereas there was a strong parallel macrotrend of people
downloading music illegally. Apple leveraged the changing macrotrend of
media consumption and, with iTunes, provided a platform that allowed users
to download music legally, enabling labels and buyers to benefit (Kim &
Mauborgne, 2009).
Innovating the business Christensen et al. (2015); Foss and Saebi “The iPhone's subsequent growth is better explained by disruption – not of
model (2016) other smartphones but of the laptop as the primary access point to the internet.
This was achieved not merely through product improvements but also through
the introduction of a new business model. By building a facilitated network
connecting application developers with phone users, Apple changed the game.
The iPhone created a new market for internet access and eventually was able to
challenge laptops as mainstream users' device of choice for going online.” (
Christensen et al., 2015)
258
high levels of ambiguity regarding the meaning of a car, as evidenced in the iPhone's aesthetics, ease of use, and access to multimedia enter
the media's discordant classifications of Tesla as a “software company” tainment, instead of focusing on functionality and communication as
(Shipley, 2020), a “battery company” (Finley, 2015), and an “energy industry incumbents did (Gavetti et al., 2017). Thus, Apple disrupted the
company” (Duggan, 2017). Discord within certain knowledge struc market effectively by forcing the incumbents to adapt to the new market
tures, such as the meaning of a car, implies a destabilization of the vision or be left behind—as Nokia and Motorola were (Gavetti et al.,
market configuration and illustrate the cognitive disarray induced 2017). Finally, by reframing the phone primarily as a device for
through market-shaping activities (Rosa et al., 1999; Rosa & Spanjol, accessing the internet and entertainment, Apple leveraged the changing
2005). Thus, Tesla has successfully managed to steer the market-shaping macrotrend of media consumption (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019) and, with the
process, expanding the boundaries of its own market by reframing the iPhone, triggered an institutional change, forcing many incumbents to
meaning of a car and widening the market by enabling market actors either digitalize their offerings or perish.
from the software, energy, and battery markets to recognize an oppor In conclusion, a market-disruption strategy can result in the creation
tunity to capture value in Tesla's market—and, conversely, to augment of new markets as the market-shaping firm introduces a new market
Tesla's own possibilities for value creation and capture. vision and market configurations with significant differences in relation
Finally, as evidenced in this description of Tesla's market-widening to existing practices and the configuration of the disrupted market.
strategy, this strategy can result in market growth due to its focus on
expanding the market configuration and thereby increasing the value 3.2. Defensive market-shaping strategies
network and potential of a market.
3.2.1. Market maintenance
3.1.2. Market disruption A market-maintenance strategy (see Table 4) aims to stabilize the
Market disruption (see Table 3) occurs when market actors perceive preferred market vision and market configuration of a market-shaping
initial signs of market instability, and induce such a level of market actor to such an extent that the market becomes resilient to external
change that current market-shaping processes are disrupted. This results influences (Beninger & Francis, 2021). Thus, market-shapers focus pri
in either a market bifurcation, or the creation of a completely new marily on reinforcement and coercion activities within the established
market (Christensen et al., 2015; Diaz Ruiz & Makkar, 2021; Kjellberg market, while neutralizing threats to its stability. These market actors
et al., 2015). Market disruption often occurs when contrasting market often possess high levels of market clout—that is, influence—either
visions clash in an incumbent market, with the new vision being so through their status (Beverland, Napoli, & Farrelly, 2010; Humphreys &
radically different that it cannot be reconciled with the old one (Baker Carpenter, 2018) or their network position (Palmer et al., 2015; Rinallo
et al., 2019; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). This is often seen with market & Golfetto, 2006; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b). This allows them to
actors that introduce radical innovations (Ardito, Ernst, & Messeni exert their influence to encourage or coerce other market actors to
Petruzzelli, 2020; Markides, 2006; O'Connor & Rice, 2013), new value replicate and reinforce their market vision and market configuration, as
propositions (Kim & Mauborgne, 1999; Nenonen et al., 2020; Tuominen, nonconformity is discouraged through exclusion from the value net (cf.
Rajala, & Möller, 2004), or new business models (Christensen et al., Baker & Nenonen, 2020; Palmer et al., 2015; Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006).
2015; Foss & Saebi, 2016) and usually results in market creation (Kim & If new market champions threaten the status quo, established market-
Mauborgne, 2009; O'Connor & Rice, 2013). However, market actors can shaping actors often acquire the competitor in order to remove the
also disrupt the market not by introducing new market configurations, destabilizing force from their stabilized market (Santos & Eisenhardt,
but rather by transforming the existing one. For example, they can 2009; Stigler, 1964).
reconfigure the underlying market network by, for example, connecting To illustrate the market-maintenance strategy, we will analyze the
new market actors with each other, thereby creating new value net case of Google. With Google being the most visited website in the world
works and substituting incumbent market actors until the incumbents (Alexa.com, 2020), the genericization of “to Google” as a verb (Krantz,
can no longer maintain the status quo of the market (Jaworski et al., 2006), and Google being the fourth-most valuable brand in the world
2020; Mele & Russo-Spena, 2015; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a). (Interbrand, 2020), the level of influence and status it has attained gives
Moreover, market actors can lobby for new or modified regulations and it the necessary prerequisites to maintain a market through the activities
standards, which can disrupt a market if, for example, the new regula previously identified. By becoming the de facto portal to the internet in
tions only benefit the lobbying party (Doganova & Karnøe, 2015), the Western world, Google basically dictates the practices, expectations,
thereby potentially excluding all incumbent market actors at once (Diaz and rules of the entire market. As Google has conditioned market actors
Ruiz, Baker, Mason, & Tierney, 2020). Relatedly, market actors can to expect to find everything through its search engine, a market actor's
trigger institutional change to disrupt markets (Baker et al., 2019; ability to capture value in Google's market is dependent on adhering to
Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Regany et al., 2021). This can be ach Google's search algorithm. Thus, through its quantifiable influence in
ieved by such means as leveraging changes in macro-level trends that the form of directed web traffic, Google coerces market actors to repli
call established practices into question, and providing alternative cate the set rules and practices in terms of search engine optimization in
practices that align with macro-level trends (Baker et al., 2019; Law order to conform to Google's rules or lose out on potential value.
rence & Suddaby, 2006). Ultimately, Google's search algorithm exerts pressures towards
We illustrate the disruption strategy with Apple's introduction of the conformity and impedes competition, as its algorithm excludes websites
iPhone and its ecosystem. Arguably, the iPhone itself was not a radical that perform similar functions to Google (Duhigg, 2018), thereby vastly
innovation. However, Apple's positioning of the phone as a primary reducing their chances of being found. Being primarily a data aggre
device for internet access, together with the introduction of the App gator, Google further maintains its market by enhancing its data ag
Store, was truly radical, as it provided a platform that reconfigured gregation capabilities and neutralizing any competitor that could
networks by connecting developers to users, and locking both into Ap acquire and aggregate valuable data that could destabilize Google's
ple's own ecosystem around a new value proposition that provided value market. In the last two decades, Google has acquired 171 competitors
for every actor involved (Christensen et al., 2015; Kim & Mauborgne, (Wu & Thompson, 2019) at a rate of nearly one per month, illustrating
2009). This business-model innovation made Apple less dependent on the stabilization focus of Google's market-shaping strategy.
hardware sales, as it disrupted the market and locked the reconfigured Overall, as illustrated by Google's case, a market-maintenance
actor constellation into an ecosystem that provided Apple with multiple strategy can render a market resilient to change (Beninger & Francis,
revenue streams from iTunes, the App Store, and the Apple Developer 2021) and reduce the level of market-shaping activity that an incumbent
Program (Christensen et al., 2015). Simultaneously, the iPhone set new must engage in, since the maintained market is so stable and features so
standards for customers' expectations of a phone, as Apple emphasized many reinforcing elements.
259
Table 4
Activities and illustrative examples of a market-maintenance strategy.
Market-shaping Key activities References Case examples
strategy
Market Reinforcing and encouraging the Maguire and Hardy (2009); Yngfalk Yngfalk (2019) described how supermarkets in Sweden maintain their
maintenance replication of routinized practices, (2019); Hawa et al. (2020) market by encouraging and reinforcing unsustainable practices and the
expectations, and/or rules expectation of choosing immaculate fresh produce, while trivializing their
responsibilities in terms of food waste.
Creating and maintaining longstanding McKague, Zietsma, and Oliver In Beninger and Francis's (2021) case of Myanmar's food industry,
relationships over time (2015); Beninger and Francis (2021) mutually reinforcing relationships provided market stability in times of
market upheaval and maintained the market.
Exerting power through status Beverland et al. (2010); Dolbec and Humphreys and Carpenter (2018) showed how high-status wine
Fischer (2015); Humphreys and companies maintain the wine market by exerting power through the status
Carpenter (2018) of their brand. Thus, maintaining status equates to maintaining the
market.
Acquisitions of competitors Stigler (1964); Santos and Eisenhardt “A year later, an entrepreneurial rival appeared with an alternative market
(2009) conception based on a novel business model. When this firm began to
grow, Haven executives decided to make an acquisition to eliminate a
competing model, a model that would be particularly threatening if
acquired by a powerful player. […] After the acquisition, Haven
executives added some aspects of that business model to their main
offering and so enhanced their resistance to similar threats.” (Santos &
Eisenhardt, 2009)
Exerting normative pressures towards Rinallo and Golfetto (2006); Palmer “These workshops have a ritual nature, encouraging solidarity among
conformity et al. (2015) participants, and similarly to the rituals studied by anthropologists, they
reinforce social ties among network members and communitas, e.g. the
sense of belonging to the same community of innovating companies.” (
Rinallo & Golfetto, 2006, p. 865)
Coercing other market actors through Storbacka and Nenonen (2011b); In Baker and Nenonen's (2020) study of New Zealand's wine market,
clout Baker and Nenonen (2020) wineries promoted and enforced the newly introduced screwcap closure
by threatening to withhold supply, thereby coercing other market actors to
accept the status quo of the market.
3.2.2. Market reduction or activity that would hinder the achievement of the market-shaping
Market-reduction strategies are often employed by market actors actor's intended market vision (see Table 5).
that are attempting to consolidate and increase their power over a For example, market shapers can acquire any significant market-
market to improve their performance outcomes. Such strategies focus on shaping rivals in order to bolster their own market-shaping power and
stabilizing the market around a focal actor's market vision by leveraging further consolidate the market towards their market-shaping vision
the exclusionary effects of a market-shaping strategy (Cova et al., 2020). (Kachouie et al., 2018; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). Similarly, they can
Market-reduction strategies aim to exclude and absorb any market actor establish alliances in order to prevent the entry of market actors that
Table 5
Activities and illustrative examples of a market-reduction strategy.
shaping
strategy
Market Acquisitions of market actors Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009; Kachouie et al. “First, they increased coverage of the market by acquiring several small rivals
reduction (2018) in different geographic locations. This acquisition spurt enhanced Midway's
market coverage and greatly reduced the possibility of viable rivals emerging
in these locations.’ (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009)
Increasing price point Kumar et al. (2000); Nenonen & Storbacka, “While the trend is towards higher performance at lower price points, there
2018; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Frethey- are market driving firms who have established elevated price points that are
Bentham, 2019 higher than typical in an industry. CNN, Starbucks, and FedEx set prices
considerably above what customers had been paying. Inducing the buyer to
pay these higher prices requires that these market driving firms have a value
proposition that is significantly more compelling than the available
alternatives” (Kumar et al., 2000).
Patenting Lawlor & Kavanagh, 2015; Geiger & Finch, In Lawlor and Kavanagh's (2015) case study of the coronary stent market,
2016 they illustrate how different market actors try to narrow down the market to
their benefit through the possession of patents and corresponding lawsuits to
stop any possible market entry.
Influencing regulations Doganova & Karnøe, 2015; Mason et al. Doganova and Karnøe (2015) demonstrated that influencing the content of a
(2017); Nguyen & Özçaglar-Toulouse, 2021 new regulation forced other companies to adapt to the regulation or cease
operating, as well as demarcating the market according to the lobbying
company's desired market vision.
Forming alliances Jaworski et al. (2000); Santos & Eisenhardt, “For example, a year later, Saturn executives deepened their alliances with
2009; Baker & Nenonen, 2020 several partners via revenue-sharing agreements. These were distribution ties
that legally obligated the partners to stay out of Saturn's market and promote
Saturn's products. In return, these partners gained a share of the products'
revenues” (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009).
Building distinctions/ boundaries Chimenti, 2019; Diaz Ruiz & Makkar, 2021 In Diaz Ruiz and Makkar's (2021) study of different board sport markets, they
against well-established practices illustrate how boardsport enthusiasts distinguish the different boardsports
based on salient features and labels, thereby demarcating their boardsport
market and narrowing it down from the general boardsport market.
260
could disturb the market champion's market-shaping process (Baker & and reduce the eyewear market (Knight, 2018).
Nenonen, 2020; Jaworski et al., 2000; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009). These strategies resulted in Essilor and Luxottica becoming the two
Furthermore, market-shaping actors that employ a market reduction largest companies in the eyewear sector, with Essilor owning 45% of the
strategy can actively influence regulations (e.g. Diaz Ruiz et al., 2020; prescription lens market and Luxottica owning 25% of the frames
Doganova & Karnøe, 2015; Mason, Friesl, & Ford, 2017) or patent their market (Bray & Paton, 2017). Finally, in 2018, the two market leaders
intellectual properties (Geiger & Finch, 2016; Lawlor & Kavanagh, united their market-reducing activities and entered an alliance. The
2015) with the aim of excluding a wide range of market actors and merged entity, EssilorLuxottica, commanded a 25% market share of the
substantially reducing the market in their own favor. Furthermore, global eyewear market—a testament to the success of the two brands'
market-reduction activities involve the concept of boundary work market-reduction activities (Euromonitor International, 2021). How
(Chimenti, 2019; Ellis, Jack, Hopkinson, & O'Reilly, 2010), where a ever, EssilorLuxottica is still pursuing a market-reduction strategy with
market shaper attempts to demarcate its market by building distinct its planned acquisition of GrandVision, Europe's largest chain of opti
boundaries around the established market proposition. Market shapers cians, thereby reducing the number of market actors and consolidating
that engage in boundary work often operate in overlapping market the market still further (White, 2021).
s—such as ridesharing, which overlaps with taxi providers (see Chi In sum, a market-reduction strategy focuses on eliminating,
menti, 2019)—and will attempt to establish market boundaries to absorbing, and excluding market actors and activities in order to
demarcate and reduce their own market from the overlapping, often consolidate the market-shaping firm's market configuration and expand
incumbent, market (Duffy, Reid, & Finch, 2020). Lastly, market shapers its market power. Thus, a market-reduction strategy can effectively
can reduce the market by increasing prices (Kumar et al., 2000; Nenonen result in the monopolization of a market—as evidenced by EU regula
& Storbacka, 2018; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Frethey-Bentham, 2019), tors' antitrust concerns regarding EssilorLuxottica's attempted takeover
excluding price-sensitive market actors but enabling further consolida of GrandVision (White, 2021).
tion of the market around market actors that are firmly aligned to their Our proposed conceptualization of market-shaping strategies (see
own vision, thereby increasing the stability of the market-shaping Fig. 4) highlights several key aspects of the strategic application of
process. market-shaping processes. Firstly, market-shaping firms must consider
The strategy pursued by EssilorLuxottica over the past decades can that markets are not static, pre-existing entities, but continuous, ever-
be clearly categorized as one of market reduction. Before the merger of evolving processes of change, in which specific strategies and activ
Essilor and Luxottica to become the world's largest supplier of eyewear, ities do not solely impact the acting firm, but all elements of a market,
the respective companies both employed market-reduction strategies such as market structure and market behavior, as well as market actors.
focusing on different elements of the market. Luxottica focused on Secondly, market-shaping strategies differ based on their market-
vertically integrating its business by acquiring frame-makers, eyewear shaping intention. Whereas previous market-strategy conceptualiza
brands, and retailers, often leveraging its network of retail stores to tions typically emphasize the firm-level outcomes of such strategies,
acquire frame suppliers, or exclude them from the market, by selling market-shaping strategies focus on market outcomes that encompass a
solely Luxottica-made frames (Lazarus, 2019). For example, when more comprehensive understanding of the impact that a firm's strategic
frame-maker Oakley refused Luxottica's demand to cut prices, Luxottica actions have on a market. This provides a better overview of the more
stopped stocking Oakley in its stores. This caused Oakley's stock price to far-reaching consequences, which traditional market strategies tend to
drop significantly (Gornstein, 2001), at which point Luxottica acquired omit.
it, further reducing the number of market actors in the eyewear market Thirdly, while concepts such as niche market strategies (Dalgic &
(Knight, 2018). Essilor, meanwhile, focused on research and develop Leeuw, 1994; Miller, 1986; Ottosson & Kindström, 2016) or blue ocean
ment and the acquisition of lens manufacturers, instrument-makers, and strategies (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004) have introduced proactive market
prescription labs (Knight, 2018). Essilor's R&D activities brought it over approaches challenging the traditional neoclassical notion of static
8000 patents, which it can strategically leverage to claim, demarcate, markets, the view of markets as continuous processes of stability and
Fig. 4. Market-shaping strategy framework.
261
instability that can be steered by market-shaping actors (Kjellberg et al., 1954; Machlup, 1937). In practice, this case is virtually nonexistent, as
2015) is gaining increased attention. This is in sharp contrast to market markets are continuously shaped by a range of market-shaping strategies
strategies derived from a market view, in which markets are static and and activities. However, as markets display different degrees of stability
clearly delineated arenas of competition, with firms guiding their own through time (Mele et al., 2015; Nenonen et al., 2014), their momentary
strategic activity by reacting to the market (cf. Santoro, Messeni Pet susceptibility to shaping efforts becomes a critical aspect of market-
ruzzelli, & Del Giudice, 2020; Savino, Messeni Petruzzelli, & Albino, shaping strategies. This emphasizes the potential importance of timing
2017). A completely stable market would have no destabilizing forces as a decisive factor when employing a market-shaping strategy.
and represent a near perfect monopoly (Arrow & Debreu, 1954; Finally, market-shaping strategies rarely occur in isolation, as pre
Machlup, 1937). In practice, this case is virtually nonexistent, as markets sented in our conceptual framework. Instead, they usually occur
are continuously shaped by a range of market-shaping strategies and simultaneously and dynamically, as different market actors will have
activities. However, as markets display different degrees of stability different market-shaping intentions and market visions. A market actor
through time (Mele et al., 2015; Nenonen et al., 2014), their momentary attempting to disrupt a market will encounter firms pursuing strategies
susceptibility to shaping efforts becomes a critical aspect of market- of market maintenance or market reduction. Similarly, a market dis
shaping strategies. This emphasizes the potential importance of timing ruptor will shift towards market reduction once it has fulfilled its
as a decisive factor when employing a market-shaping strategy. intended market configuration, perhaps triggering a market-widening
Finally, market-shaping strategies rarely occur in isolation, as pre strategy by previously market-maintaining actors. If different market-
sented in our conceptual framework. Instead, they usually occur shaping strategies in a market are interdependent, it may lead to sys
simultaneously and dynamically, as different market actors will have tems of shaping strategies, in which case balancing these various means
different market-shaping intentions and market visions. A market actor to shape the market could be a precondition for success (cf. Geiger &
attempting to disrupt a market will encounter firms pursuing strategies Kjellberg, 2020). A similar challenge might arise if the firm needs to
of market maintenance or market reduction. Similarly, a market dis engage in destabilized markets, while concurrently safeguarding its
ruptor will shift towards market reduction once it has fulfilled its survival in existing, stable ones. This notion parallels the challenges
intended market configuration, perhaps triggering a market-widening related to balancing different business models (Markides & Charitou,
strategy by previously market-maintaining actors. If different market- 2004; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b) or being strategically agile
shaping strategies in a market are interdependent, it may lead to sys (Debellis et al., 2020). This challenge adds further complexity to any
tems of shaping strategies, in which case balancing these various means market-shaping process and reinforces the importance of choosing the
to shape the market could be a precondition for success (cf. Geiger & appropriate strategies for the context.
Kjellberg, 2020). A similar challenge might arise if the firm needs to
engage in destabilized markets, while concurrently safeguarding its 4.1. Theoretical implications
survival in existing, stable ones. This notion parallels the challenges
related to balancing different business models (Markides & Charitou, Our conceptual framework offers a number of theoretical, as well as
2004; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b) or being strategically agile managerial, implications contributing to marketing theory and, specif
(Debellis, De Massis, Messeni Petruzzelli, Del Giudice, & Frattini, 2020). ically, to market-shaping. First, it expands the emerging research per
This challenge adds further complexity to any market-shaping process taining to market-shaping. There is a clear need for conceptual research
and reinforces the importance of choosing the appropriate strategies for into this relatively new perspective on market strategy, especially with
the context. regard to related strategic choices and opportunities (Jaworski & Kohli,
2017; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019). Whereas market-shaping
4. Discussion and implications research has increased in recent years, strategic considerations of
market-shaping-oriented approaches continue to be peripheral (Jawor
Our proposed conceptualization of market-shaping strategies (see ski et al., 2020). Thus, the main focus has been on the different activities
Fig. 4) highlights several key aspects of the strategic application of and practices that have resulted in some form of market shaping,
market-shaping processes. Firstly, market-shaping firms must consider without specifying or indicating a possible generalization of the market-
that markets are not static, pre-existing entities, but continuous, ever- shaping phenomenon being investigated. In the present study, we have
evolving processes of change, in which specific strategies and activ leveraged the results of previous market-shaping research by clustering
ities do not solely impact the acting firm, but all elements of a market, the various isolated activities that have been identified into four distinct
such as market structure and market behavior, as well as market actors. market-shaping strategies that result in specific market outcomes. With
Secondly, market-shaping strategies differ based on their market- this conceptualization, we aim to advance knowledge about the market-
shaping intention. Whereas previous market-strategy conceptualiza shaping concept and its manifestations within firms in the form of
tions typically emphasize the firm-level outcomes of such strategies, different market strategies.
market-shaping strategies focus on market outcomes that encompass a Furthermore, our proposed framework attempts to bridge the more
more comprehensive understanding of the impact that a firm's strategic neoclassically oriented view of markets with the new systemic market
actions have on a market. This provides a better overview of the more view by connecting firm-level strategies with market outcomes (cf.
far-reaching consequences, which traditional market strategies tend to Hillebrand, Driessen, & Koll, 2015), thereby contributing a conceptual
omit. operationalization of the market-shaping phenomenon. By offering new
Thirdly, while concepts such as niche market strategies (Dalgic & perspectives on the effective implementation of various market strate
Leeuw, 1994; Miller, 1986; Ottosson & Kindström, 2016) or blue ocean gies, this acknowledges the broader interest in how different market
strategies (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004) have introduced proactive market strategies, including market shaping, may appear in practice. Third, our
approaches challenging the traditional neoclassical notion of static conceptual framework contributes to the narrowing of the theor
markets, the view of markets as continuous processes of stability and y–practice gap (Möller et al., 2020). By providing a managerially
instability that can be steered by market-shaping actors (Kjellberg et al., applicable framework that integrates the complexity of ever-changing
2015) is gaining increased attention. This is in sharp contrast to market markets, our study addresses current managerial problems in indus
strategies derived from a market view, in which markets are static and trial marketing management and strategic management (Jaworski &
clearly delineated arenas of competition, with firms guiding their own Kohli, 2017; Möller et al., 2020; Nenonen et al., 2017). We further in
strategic activity by reacting to the market (cf. Santoro et al., 2020; crease the practical relevance of our work by outlining the specific ac
Savino et al., 2017). A completely stable market would have no desta tivities required to achieve certain outcomes and providing illustrative
bilizing forces and represent a near perfect monopoly (Arrow & Debreu, cases demonstrating the respective market-shaping strategy in practice.
262
4.2. Managerial implications market-shaping strategies with their own, such as market maintenance,
in an attempt to retain their advantageous position. However, the fact
From a managerial perspective, managers should endeavor to see that continuous reshaping might have a adverse effect on firms' own
markets not as static arenas where value is just waiting to be captured if performance (Gavetti et al., 2017) raises the question of whether
only they can outcompete their competitors. Markets are instead con market-shaping strategies should be employed in moderation in order to
figurations of market actors and activities that are constantly shaping safeguard potential performance rewards. Further research is needed to
the structure, behavior, representations, and exchanges of a market. establish the long-term effects of continuous shaping on markets.
Consequently, firms choosing market strategies cannot focus solely on Secondly, as suggested by the notion of market stability, there will be
outcomes that enhance their own performance, and disregard the certain moments in time where a market becomes more susceptible to
overall influence of their activities on a market. In other words, the market-shaping initiatives. In cases of instability, an offensive market-
market influences the firm as much as the firm influences the market shaping strategy can strongly destabilize the market and enable mar
(Teece, 2011). This emphasizes the importance of strategies that do not ket reconfiguration in favor of the market shaper themselves. However,
solely influence firm-level performance (Narver, Slater, & MacLachlan, it remains unclear how market-shaping firms can identify the right
2004), but also encompass the impact on a market. Our four distinct shaping situations in order to exploit them to their benefit. Here,
market-shaping strategies provide managers with guidance regarding Nenonen, Storbacka and Frethey-Bentham's (Nenonen, Storbacka, and
the impact of their strategic activity on a market. Thus, managers can Frethey-Bentham, 2019) market-change index can serve as a starting
utilize our proposed strategies as an overarching market strategy that point upon which to base further research into the strategic timing of
guides their actions, providing managers with strategic awareness of the market-shaping strategies.
possible consequences and changes that their strategy might cause. Finally, and relatedly, the perception of market configurations might
Simultaneously, our conceptual framework provides managers with differ between market actors. Consequently, market actors might
an analytical tool to understand their competitors' actions and the rea employ different market-shaping strategies corresponding to their own
sons for certain market developments. For example, knowing that a perception of the current market configuration. While previous research
competitor is employing a market-reduction strategy allows the focal has shown that market perceptions across different market actors are
firm to counteract with a market-widening or market-maintenance relatively homogenous (Sutcliffe & Huber, 1998), differences in
strategy, providing the focal firm with a strategic advantage over mar perception might result in favorable shaping opportunities for an
ket actors that rely on an antiquated market view. aspiring market champion. For example, a market incumbent perceiving
the market as stable and deciding to engage in a market-widening
4.3. Future research directions strategy might risk losing its status to a market actor that perceives
the market as unstable and employs a strategy of market disruption. This
Our conceptualization of four distinct market-shaping strategies, highlights the importance of market actors being aware of their com
separated by a firm's market-shaping intent and the perceived stability petitors' market-shaping intent (Hawa et al., 2020), and also the po
of a market configuration, opens up several potentially promising ave tential need for firms to employ different market-shaping strategies
nues for future research. Firstly, the main assumption that underlies simultaneously. Further research could investigate how market-shaping
market-shaping research, and this conceptual framework, is that mar actors could exploit, or protect themselves against, heterogenous
kets are always being shaped by the different conscious and unconscious perceptions.
activities of market actors. However, strategy research has indicated
that markets can be “over-shaped,” and that the more a focal firm or Declaration of interest
other market actors shape the market, the higher the instability of the
performance outcomes for all market actors (Gavetti et al., 2017). This None.
emphasizes the need for an underlying market vision that market actors
can rally around, but at the same time, it restricts the possibilities for the Funding
leading market-shaper to shape the market endlessly. In other words,
considering the potential performance rewards for a focal market- Funding for this research has been provided by Riksbankens Jubi
shaping firm, any aspiring market actor will attempt to shape a mar leumsfond grant number P18-0588:1.
ket to its benefit. Simultaneously, incumbents will aim to counter these
Appendix
Table 6
Glossary of introduced market-related concepts.
Term Authors Description
Market-shaping Nenonen, Storbacka, and Windahl “Market-shaping implies purposive actions by a focal firm to change market characteristics by re-designing the content
(2019) of exchange, and/or re-configuring the network of stakeholders involved, and/or re-forming the institutions that govern
all stakeholders' behaviors in the market.”
Market driving Jaworski et al. (2000) “[…] influencing the structure of the market and/or the behavior(s) of market players in a direction that enhances the
competitive position of the business” (p. 45)
Market scripting Storbacka and Nenonen (2011b) “[…] the conscious activities conducted by a market actor in order to alter the current market configuration in its favor”
(p. 259)
Market widening Burr (2014) “shap[ing] use-environments to increase market demand” (p. 20)
Market innovation Kjellberg et al. (2015) “[…] comprises the successful change of existing market structure, the introduction of new market devices, the
alteration of market behavior, and the reconstitution of market agents” (p. 6)
Market creation Humphreys (2010) “[…] the creation of new markets as a political and social process, one affected by the environment that exists outside the
firm or industry” (p. 1)
Market Beninger and Francis (2021) “[…] maintenance of functions and structures in the face of disturbances” (p. 293)
maintenance
Market disruption Regany et al. (2021) “Market disruption corresponds to a dynamic through which institutions are weakened or disappear.” (p. 438)
(continued on next page)
263
Table 6 (continued )
Term Authors Description
Market champion Johne (1999) “[…] market champions fight for consideration of new potential markets, and new ways for serving existing and new
markets (Johne, Reibstein, 1997). Operationally, market champions are the makers and shapers of markets. […] It is the
task of the market champion to question current market practices.” (p. 9).
Market change Nenonen, Storbacka, and Frethey- A composite index of market change operationalized as a construct consisting of changes in six different market
index Bentham (2019) elements, being products & price, customers & use, channels, supply-side network, representations, and norms
Market Kjellberg et al. (2019) “[…] a materially heterogeneous arrangement that silently supports and structures the consummation of market
infrastructure exchanges” (p. 209)
References Doganova, L., & Karnøe, P. (2015). Building markets for clean technologies:
Controversies, environmental concerns and economic worth. Industrial Marketing
Management, 44, 22–31.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Dolbec, P.-Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and
Management, 43(1), 39–58.
institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447–1468.
Alexa.com. (2020). Google.com. Retrieved from Alexa website: https://www.alexa.com/
Duffy, K., Reid, E., & Finch, J. (2020). Sold out? Reconfiguring consumer demand
siteinfo/google.com.
through the secondary digital ticket market. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 23(2),
Antone, S. D., Canning, L., Franklin-Johnson, E., & Spencer, R. (2017). Concerned
174–194.
innovation: The ebb and flow between market and society. Industrial Marketing
Duggan, W. (2017). Tesla is an energy company, not a car company. Retrieved from U.S.
Management, 64, 66–78.
News website https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/articles/20
Araujo, L. (2007). Markets, market-making and marketing. Marketing Theory, 7(3),
17-09-20/tesla-is-an-energy-company-not-a-car-company.
211–226.
Duhigg, C. (2018). The case against Google. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com
Ardito, L., Ernst, H., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2020). The interplay between technology
/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html.
characteristics, R&D internationalisation, and new product introduction: Empirical
Edelman, B., & Geradin, D. (2016). Spontaneous deregulation. Harvard Business Review,
evidence from the energy conservation sector. Technovation (In Press).
94(4), 80–87 (April).
Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive
Ellis, N., Jack, G., Hopkinson, G., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Boundary work and identity
economy. Econometrica, 22(3), 265–290.
construction in market exchanges. Marketing Theory, 10(3), 227–236.
Azimont, F., & Araujo, L. (2007). Category reviews as market-shaping events. Industrial
Euromonitor International. (2021). Eyewear: Euromonitor from trade sources/national
Marketing Management, 36, 849–860.
statistics.
Baker, J. J., & Nenonen, S. (2020). Collaborating to shape markets: Emergent collective
Finley, K. (2015). Tesla isn't an automaker. It's a battery company. Retrieved from Wired
market work. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 240–253.
website https://www.wired.com/2015/04/tesla-isnt-car-company-battery-compa
Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing, changing markets:
ny/.
Institutional work as market shaping. Marketing Theory, 19(3), 301–328.
Fligstein, N. (1996). Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market
Beckert, J. (2010). How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks,
institutions. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 656–673.
and cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605–627.
Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bellon, T., & Nivedita, C. (2020). Tesla's back-to-back price cuts bring sticker on U.S.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields.
Model S below $70,000. Retrieved from Reuters website: https://www.reuters.co
Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.
m/article/uk-tesla-model-s/teslas-back-to-back-price-cuts-bring-sticker-on-u-s-mode
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2016). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation:
l-s-below-70000-idUKKBN26Z2XX.
How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1),
Beninger, S., & Francis, J. N. P. (2021). Collective market shaping by competitors and its
200–227.
contribution to market resilience. Journal of Business Research, 122, 293–303.
Gavetti, G., Helfat, C. E., & Marengo, L. (2017). Searching, shaping, and the quest for
Bessen, J. (2014). History backs up Tesla’s patent sharing. Harvard Business Review.
superior performance. Strategy Science, 2(3), 194–209.
Beverland, M. B., Napoli, J., & Farrelly, F. (2010). Can all brands innovate in the same
Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s
way? A typology of brand position and innovation effort. Journal of Product
transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1035–1071.
Innovation Management, 27(1), 33–48.
Geiger, S., & Finch, J. (2016). Promissories and pharmaceutical patents: Agencing
Branstad, A., & Solem, B. A. (2020). Emerging theories of consumer-driven market
markets through public narratives. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 19(1), 71–91.
innovation, adoption, and diffusion: A selective review of consumer-oriented studies.
Geiger, S., & Kjellberg, H. (2020). Market mash ups: The process of combinatorial market
Journal of Business Research, 116, 561–571.
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 124, 445–457.
Bray, C., & Paton, E. (2017). Luxottica, owner of Ray-Ban, in $49 billion merger with
Ghaffari, M., Jafari, A., & Sandikci, O. (2019). The role of mundane and subtle
Essilor. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/business/de
institutional work in market dynamics: A case of fashion clothing market. Journal of
albook/luxottica-essilor-merger.html.
Business Research, 105, 434–442.
Brege, H., & Kindström, D. (2020). Exploring proactive market strategies. Industrial
Gornstein, L. (2001). Eyewear maker Oakley’s stock drops. Retrieved from Associated Press
Marketing Management, 84, 75–88.
website. https://apnews.com/article/d2c508ee5e4d67a51adb639761cc3c6e.
Burr, T. C. (2014). Market-widening: Shaping total market demand for French and
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking
American bicycles circa 1890. Marketing Theory, 14(1), 19–34.
design in interorganizational and community context. Strategic Management Journal,
Chimenti, G. (2019). Conceptual controversies at the boundaries between markets: The
33, 571–586.
case of ridesharing. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 3866, 1–24.
Gulati, R., & Wang, L. O. (2003). Size of the pie and share of the pie: Implications of
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2003). The Innovator’s solution. Boston: Harvard
network embeddedness and business relatedness for value creation and value
Business Review Press.
appropriation in joint ventures. In V. Buskens, W. Raub, & C. Snijders (Eds.), vol. 20.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation?
The governance of relations in markets and organizations (research in the sociology of
Harvard Business Review, 45, 44–53.
organizations) (pp. 209–242). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cova, B., Ivens, B. S., & Spencer, R. (2020). The ins and outs of market shaping: Exclusion
Hagel, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2008). Shaping in a world of constant disruption.
as a darkside? Journal of Business Research, 124, 483–493.
Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 1–11.
Dalgic, T., & Leeuw, M. (1994). Niche marketing revisited: Concept, applications, and
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67, 63–78.
some European cases. European Journal of Marketing, 28(4), 39–55.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional
Darroch, J., & Miles, M. P. (2011). A research note on market creation in the
innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864–888.
pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 723–727.
Harrison, D., & Kjellberg, H. (2016). How users shape markets. Marketing Theory, 16(4),
Debellis, F., De Massis, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Del Giudice, M., & Frattini, F. (2020).
445–468.
Strategic agility and international joint ventures: The willingness-ability paradox of
Hawa, J., Baker, J., & Plewa, C. (2020). Composing markets: A framework of
family firms. Journal of International Management, 27(1).
intentionality in market-shaping. Journal of Business Research, 121, 47–57.
Desarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C. A., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the miles and
Hietanen, J., & Rokka, J. (2015). Market practices in countercultural market emergence.
snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types,
European Journal of Marketing, 49(9/10), 1563–1588.
capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management
Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P. H., & Koll, O. (2015). Stakeholder marketing: Theoretical
Journal, 26(1), 47–74.
foundations and required capabilities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Diaz Ruiz, C. A., Baker, J. J., Mason, K., & Tierney, K. (2020). Market-scanning and
43, 411–428.
market-shaping: Why are firms blindsided by market-shaping acts? Journal of
Hirsch, J. (2015). Elon Musk: Model S not a car but a ‘sophisticated computer on wheels’.
Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(9), 1389–1401.
Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-musk-comput
Diaz Ruiz, C. A., & Makkar, M. (2021). Market bifurcations in board sports: How
er-on-wheels-20150319-story.html.
consumers shape markets through boundary work. Journal of Business Research, 122,
Humphreys, A. (2010). Megamarketing: The creation of markets as a social process.
38–50.
Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 1–19.
264
Humphreys, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2018). Status games: Market driving through social Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York,
influence in the U.S. wine industry. Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 141–159. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Interbrand. (2020). Best global brands 2020 ranking. Retrieved from https://www. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy,
interbrand.com/best-brands/. structure, and process. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (2017). Conducting field-based, discovery-oriented Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic
research: Lessons from our market orientation research experience. AMS Review, 7 Management Journal, 7, 233–249.
(1–2), 4–12. Möller, K., Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2020). Networks, ecosystems, fields, market
Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. systems? Making sense of the business environment. Industrial Marketing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45–54. Management, 90, 380–399.
Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., & Sarin, S. (2020). Driving markets: A typology and a seven- Mollinger-Sahba, A., Flatau, P., Schepis, D., & Purchase, S. (2020). Micro-processes of
step approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 142–151. public good social innovation in the Australian social impact investment market.
Johne, A. (1999). Successful market innovation. European Journal of Innovation Industrial Marketing Management, 1–18. In Press.
Management, 2(1), 6–11. Musk, E. (2014). All our patent are belong to you. Retrieved from Tesla website https://
Kachouie, R., Mavondo, F., & Sands, S. (2018). Dynamic marketing capabilities view on www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you.
creating market change. European Journal of Marketing, 52(5/6), 1007–1036. Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Creating new market space. Harvard Business orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21
Review, 77(1), 83–93. (5), 334–347.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review, Nenonen, S., Brodie, R. J., Storbacka, K., & Peters, L. D. (2017). Theorizing with
76–84. managers: How to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance? European
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2009). How strategy shapes structure. Harvard Business Journal of Marketing, 51(7/8), 1130–1152.
Review, 87(9), 73–80. Nenonen, S., Kjellberg, H., Pels, J., Cheung, L., Lindeman, S., Mele, C., … Storbacka, K.
Kindström, D., Ottosson, M., & Carlborg, P. (2018). Unraveling firm-level activities for (2014). A new perspective on market dynamics: Market plasticity and the stability-
shaping markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 36–45. fluidity dialectics. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 269–289.
Kjellberg, H., Azimont, F., & Reid, E. (2015). Market innovation processes: Balancing Nenonen, S., & Storbacka, K. (2018). SMASH – Using market shaping to design new
stability and change. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 4–12. strategies for innovation, value creation and growth (1.). Bingley: Emerald Publishing
Kjellberg, H., Hagberg, J., & Cochoy, F. (2019). Thinking market infrastructure: Barcode Limited.
scanning in the US Grocery Retail Sector, 1967–2010. In M. Kornberger, G. Bowker, Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., & Frethey-Bentham, C. (2019). Is your industrial marketing
J. Elyachar, A. Mennicken, P. Miller, J. Nucho, & N. Pollock (Eds.), vol. 62. Thinking work working? Developing a composite index of market change. Industrial Marketing
infrastructures research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 207–232). Emerald Management, 80, 251–265.
Publishing Limited. Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., Sklyar, A., Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2020). Value propositions
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and as market-shaping devices: A qualitative comparative analysis. Industrial Marketing
performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 839–855. Management, 87, 276–290.
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. F. (2007). On the nature of markets and their practices. Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., & Windahl, C. (2019). Capabilities for market-shaping:
Marketing Theory, 7(2), 137–162. Triggering and facilitating increased value creation. Journal of the Academy of
Kjellberg, H., & Olson, D. (2017). Joint markets: How adjacent markets influence the Marketing Science, 47, 617–639.
formation of regulated markets. Marketing Theory, 17(1), 95–123. Netessine, S., & Girotra, K. (2014). Tesla goes big, not home. Retrieved from Harvard
Knight, S. (2018). The spectacular power of Big Lens. The Guardian. https://www.the Business Review website https://hbr.org/2014/06/tesla-goes-big-not-home.
guardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the-invisible-power-of-big-glasses-eyewear-i Nguyen, A., & Özçaglar-Toulouse, N. (2021). Nation branding as a market-shaping
ndustry-essilor-luxottica. strategy: A study on South Korean products in Vietnam. Journal of Business Research,
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research 122, 131–144.
propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design
Koopman, C. (2014). Tesla: Free market antihero. Retrieved from U.S. News website htt research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96.
ps://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/06/30/teslas-fight O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2013). New market creation for breakthrough
-against-regulations-makes-it-a-free-market-antihero. innovations: Enabling and constraining mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation
Krantz, M. (2006). Do you “Google?”. Retrieved from Google website https://googleblog. Management, 30(2), 209–227.
blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html. Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019). The rise of social media. Retrieved from Our World in Data
Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From market driven to driving the market. website https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media.
European Management Journal, 18(2), 129–142. Ottosson, M., & Kindström, D. (2016). Exploring proactive niche market strategies in the
Lawlor, J., & Kavanagh, D. (2015). Infighting and fitting in: Following innovation in the steel industry: Activities and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 55,
stent actor – Network. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 32–41. 119–130.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, Ottosson, M., Magnusson, T., & Andersson, H. (2020). Shaping sustainable markets—A
C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd conceptual framework illustrated by the case of biogas in Sweden. Environmental
ed.) London. Innovation and Societal Transitions, 36, 303–320.
Lazarus, D. (2019). Column: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former Palmer, M., Simmons, G., Robinson, P. K., & Fearne, A. (2015). Institutional maintenance
industry execs tell all. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus work and power preservation in business exchanges: Insights from industrial
/la-fi-lazarus-glasses-lenscrafters-luxottica-monopoly-20190305-story.html. supplier workshops. Industrial Marketing Management, 48, 214–225.
Lee, B. H., Struben, J., & Bingham, C. B. (2018). Collective action and market formation: Pontikes, E. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2020). Shaping markets through temporal,
An integrative framework. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 242–266. constructive, and interactive agency shaping. Strategy Science, 5(3), 149–159.
Lovas, B., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Journal, 21, 875–896. Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business
Machlup, F. (1937). Monopoly and competition: A classification of market positions. The Review, 86(1), 78–93.
American Economic Review, 27(3), 445–451. Rao, H., & Giorgi, S. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to
Maciel, A. F., & Fischer, E. (2020). Collaborative market driving: How peer firms can generate institutional change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 269–304.
develop markets through collective action. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 41–59. Regany, F., Benmecheddal, A., Belkhir, M., & Djelassi, S. (2021). Conflicting coexistence
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of of legitimation and delegitimation logics in a revived market: The case of a
DDT. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. traditional clothing market. Journal of Business Research, 123, 438–449.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Reibstein, D. J., Day, G., & Wind, J. (2009). Guest editorial: Is marketing academia losing
Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25. its way? Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 1–3.
Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A Rinallo, D., & Golfetto, F. (2006). Representing markets: The shaping of fashion trends by
contingency approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22–36. French and Italian fabric companies. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7),
Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2014). Consumption-driven market emergence. Journal 856–869.
of Consumer Research, 40(5), 855–870. Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive
Mason, K., Friesl, M., & Ford, C. J. (2017). Managing to make markets: Marketization and dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63, 64–77.
the conceptualization work of strategic nets in the life science sector. Industrial Rosa, J. A., & Spanjol, J. (2005). Micro-level product-market dynamics: Shared
Marketing Management, 67, 52–69. knowledge and its relationship to market development. Journal of the Academy of
Mason, K., & Spring, M. (2011). The sites and practices of business models. Industrial Marketing Science, 33(2), 197–216.
Marketing Management, 40(6), 1032–1041. Rui, H., & Yip, G. S. (2008). Foreign acquisitions by Chinese firms: A strategic intent
McKague, K., Zietsma, C., & Oliver, C. (2015). Building the social structure of a market. perspective. Journal of World Business, 43, 213–226.
Organization Studies, 36(8), 1063–1093. Santoro, G., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2021). Searching for resilience:
Mele, C., Pels, J., & Storbacka, K. (2015). A holistic market conceptualization. Journal of The impact of employee-level and entrepreneur-level resilience on firm performance
the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 100–114. in small firms. Small Business Economics, 57, 455–471.
Mele, C., & Russo-Spena, T. (2015). Innomediary agency and practices in shaping market Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:
innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 42–53. Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4),
Mellet, K., & Beauvisage, T. (2020). Cookie monsters. Anatomy of a digital market 643–671.
infrastructure. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 23(2), 110–129.
265
Savino, T., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Albino, V. (2017). Search and recombination Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
process to innovate: A review of the empirical evidence and a research agenda. of (sustainable) enterprise. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 54–75. Teece, D. J. (2011). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management: Organizing for
Shipley, L. (2020). How tesla sets itself apart. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review innovation and growth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
website https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-tesla-sets-itself-apart. Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., & Möller, K. (2004). Market-driving versus market-driven:
Sprong, N., Driessen, P. H., Hillebrand, B., & Molner, S. (2021). Market innovation: A Divergent roles of market orientation in business relationships. Industrial Marketing
literature review and new research directions. Journal of Business Research, 123, Management, 33(3), 207–217.
450–462. Ulkuniemi, P., Araujo, L., & Tähtinen, J. (2015). Purchasing as market-shaping: The case
Stigler, G. J. (1964). A theory of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 72(1), 44–61. of component-based software engineering. Industrial Marketing Management, 44,
Storbacka, K. (2019). Actor engagement, value creation and market innovation. Industrial 54–62.
Marketing Management, 80(May), 4–10. Varadarajan, R. (2015). Strategic marketing, marketing strategy and market strategy.
Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011a). Markets as configurations. European Journal of AMS Review, 5(3–4), 78–90.
Marketing, 45(1), 241–258. White, A. (2021). EssilorLuxottica's EU offer kick-starts GrandVision review. Retrieved
Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011b). Scripting markets: From value propositions to from Bloomberg website https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-
market propositions. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 255–266. 09/essilorluxottica-s-eu-offer-restarts-stalled-grandvision-review.
Stringham, E. P., Miller, J. K., & Clark, J. R. (2015). Overcoming barriers to entry in an Wu, T., & Thompson, S. M. (2019). The roots of big tech run disturbingly deep. New York
established industry: Tesla motors. California Management Review, 57(4), 85–103. Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/07/opinion/google-faceboo
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Huber, G. P. (1998). Firm and industry as determinants of executive k-mergers-acquisitions-antitrust.html.
perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 793–807. Yngfalk, C. (2019). Subverting sustainability: Market maintenance work and the
Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2014). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic reproduction of corporate irresponsibility. Journal of Marketing Management, 35
Management Journal, 37, 314–329. (17–18), 1563–1583.
266

Flaig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flaig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flaig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Marketing Management 96 (2021) 254–266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Market-shaping strategies: A conceptual framework for generating

1. Introduction strategic intentions, as they attempt to achieve favorable market out

example, by reinforcing the established vision that market actors have

Fig. 2. Visualization of a market-shaping strategy.

3. Four generic market-shaping strategies

Based on the previous discussion on the different market-shaping

Fig. 4. Market-shaping strategy framework.

Term Authors Description

You might also like

Flaig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flaig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flaig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Marketing Management 96 (2021) 254–266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Market-shaping strategies: A conceptual framework for generating

1. Introduction strategic intentions, as they attempt to achieve favorable market out­

example, by reinforcing the established vision that market actors have

Fig. 2. Visualization of a market-shaping strategy.

3. Four generic market-shaping strategies

Based on the previous discussion on the different market-shaping

Fig. 4. Market-shaping strategy framework.

Term Authors Description

You might also like

1. Introduction strategic intentions, as they attempt to achieve favorable market out