See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/246926241

Factors Affecting the Use of Information in the Evaluation of Marketing

Communications Productivity

Article  in  Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · December 2001

DOI: 10.1177/0092070301291005

CITATIONS READS
124 1,855

2 authors:

George S. Low Jakki J. Mohr

Georgia Gwinnett College University of Montana
18 PUBLICATIONS   2,400 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   8,670 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Budgeting of Marketing Communications View project

Marketing Performance Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jakki J. Mohr on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY
Low, MohrOF
/ USE
MARKETING
OF MARKETING
SCIENCE
INFORMATION WINTER 2001
Factors Affecting the
Use of Information in the
Evaluation of Marketing
Communications Productivity
George S. Low
Texas Christian University
Jakki J. Mohr
University of Montana
Most prior research on the use of marketing information
has studied antecedents of the use of information in new
product strategy decisions. This study investigates factors
that are related to the use of marketing information in the
evaluation of marketing communications productivity. The
information used in this context originates from a wide
range of internal and external sources. On the basis of or-
ganizational theories of information processing, the au-
thors develop and test a conceptual framework explaining
the use of information to evaluate marketing communica-
tions productivity. Collected survey data indicate that in-
formation quality, organization formalization, task
complexity, market turbulence, rationality of decision
style, and group involvement are all positively related to
the use of information in assessing marketing communica-
tions productivity. Moderating relationships involving for-
malization, complexity, decision style, and the degree of
group involvement are also found. Implications for man-
aging market knowledge and future research in informa-
tion use are discussed.
The use of marketing information, knowledge, or intel-
ligence by marketing managers is receiving increased
research attention in the marketing literature (e.g., Dawes,
Lee, and Dowling 1998; Li and Calantone 1998; Maltz and
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 29, No. 1, pages 65-88.
Copyright © 2001 by Academy of Marketing Science.
Kohli 1996; Wierenga and van Bruggen 1997). Marketing
information use leads to organizational learning (Sinkula
1994), a greater degree of market orientation (Jaworski
and Kohli 1993), and enhanced organizational outcomes
(Moorman 1995; Slater and Narver 1997). The positive
relationship between information use and a firm’s perfor-
mance is also supported in the organizational literature
(e.g., Thomas, Clark, and Gioia 1993).
Research on information use has appeared with
increasing frequency as the topic has grown in importance.
Most of the work in this area has focused on factors that
predict a manager’s use of commissioned market research
reports (Deshpandé 1982; Deshpandé and Zaltman 1982,
1984; Moorman, Deshpandé, and Zaltman 1993; Zaltman
and Moorman 1989). Moreover, these studies tend to
focus on the use of information by individual deci-
sion-makers. An important finding of these studies is that
an organization’s structure and the trust between research
client and provider affect the use of primary research
reports.
There are at least three important issues to consider in
drawing conclusions from the published research on mar-
keting information use. First, marketing information con-
sists of much more than market research provided on a
customized basis by outside research suppliers
(Deshpandé and Zaltman 1987). Internal information
(such as sales volume, profitability, and promotional
expenditures) and external syndicated information (such
as market share and market growth rates) are a major
source of growth in the current information explosion.
66 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
However, with the exception of Avlonitis (1985) and
Perkins and Rao (1990), research on the factors that are
associated with the use of these important types of infor-
mation is largely absent from the marketing literature.
Moreover, the use of marketing information obtained from
internal and syndicated sources may differ from the use of
customized research reports. An extensive stream of
research in organizational decision-making and account-
ing shows that managers perceive and use information dif-
ferently depending on the information’s source (e.g.,
Anderson, Koonce, and Marchant 1994; O’Reilly 1982;
Reimers and Fennema 1999).
Differences in information source or type may also
affect the way marketing managers use information. For
example, existing research on the use of marketing infor-
mation shows mixed results for the effect of formalization
on use. Formalization appears to discourage the use of
commissioned market research reports (Deshpandé and
Zaltman 1982) yet encourage the use of internally gener-
ated marketing plans (John and Martin 1984). Maltz and
Kohli (1996) found a curvilinear (inverted U) relationship
between formality of information dissemination and per-
ceived quality of marketing intelligence (general market-
ing-related information), which is directly related to infor-
mation use. They concluded that both formality and
informality have their place in encouraging information
dissemination and use. This conclusion, however, does not
convincingly resolve the practical issues involved in
understanding the relationship between formalization and
information use, and suggests that further research is
needed to address this question.
Second, another complicating factor in understanding
the use of information (in addition to the type of informa-
tion used) is the type of decision being made. Information
used to evaluate the productivity of marketing strategies,
where the manager’s objective is to learn what succeeded
or failed in the past and why, is typically gathered from
internal sales and profit data as well as external syndicated
sources (Bonoma and Clark 1988; Saunders and Jones
1990). The use of internal and syndicated information to
evaluate past performance may be different than the use of
customized market research reports, which are typically
commissioned for market or product strategy decisions
meant to improve future performance (Deshpandé 1982).
Marketing productivity assessment is a critical issue for
managers today who are faced with rapidly increasing
marketing costs in a competitive, uncertain environment.
One of the most important components of an organiza-
tion’s marketing program, whose productivity is particu-
larly difficult to assess, is marketing communications
(defined as advertising, sales promotion, public relations,
direct mail, and other nonpersonal forms of communica-
tion—e.g., Schultz 1993; Shimp 1997). We conceptualize
productivity as a combination of the degree to which mar-
keting objectives are achieved (effectiveness) and the ratio
WINTER 2001
of marketing outputs to marketing inputs (efficiency). In
this context, we refer to productivity as the performance or
outcomes of marketing communications tools. Hence,
productivity measures marketing communications effec-
tiveness for a given level of efficient resource utilization
(cf. Bonoma and Clark 1988; Sheth and Sisodia 1995).
Consider the productivity challenge facing manufac-
turers of packaged goods, such as General Mills, who rely
on network television to achieve marketing objectives.
The share of prime television audiences held by the big
three networks in the United States has eroded from 95
percent to 50 percent in the past 20 years, yet network
advertising rates are predicted to increase 40 percent
during the next 5 years (Helliker 1997). Despite the
availability of information such as sales, market share,
and profit—the three most commonly used measures of
marketing communications productivity (Mullich
1996)—managers are frustrated by their inability to ade-
quately assess the productivity of these activities because
they are difficult to link to sales and profit results (cf.
Bucklin and Gupta 1998). As stated by Schultz and
Walters (1997), “The question being asked is ‘What are
we getting for our money?’ Unfortunately, many market-
ing and communication executives can’t answer that
question.”
Third, many organizational decisions are made in a
team setting. Although decisions made by groups (as
opposed to individuals) are quite different because of the
nature of group dynamics (i.e., Chandrashekaran, Walker,
Ward, and Reingen 1996; Ford 1996; Patton, Puto, and
King 1986; Wanous and Youtz 1986), the effect of such
dynamics on information use has not yet been explored.
For example, previous research conceptualized the user of
information discretely as either an individual (e.g.,
Deshpandé and Zaltman 1982) or an organization (e.g.,
Moorman 1995). The degree of group influence may
either place limits on or increase the amount of informa-
tion that is used in a judgment or decision task.
We therefore conclude that a greater understanding of
the factors that enhance marketing information use in the
following decision context is needed:
1. in the evaluation of marketing communications
productivity;
2. when the information used includes a broad
range of types of information, including internal
and external/syndicated sources; and
3. when the degree of group involvement varies.
We address these issues in this study by focusing on the
factors in organizations that may be associated with the
use of marketing information in the assessment of market-
ing communications productivity. The information used to
assess marketing communications productivity typically
includes a wide range of measures drawn primarily from

internal secondary data such as monthly sales and profit
figures and from external syndicated data such as weekly
Information Resources, Inc. (IRI) market share results (see
Bonoma and Clark 1988; Mullich 1996; Schultz and
Walters 1997). We also attempt to better understand the ef-
fects of group involvement in marketing information use,
examining possible main or moderating effects. Our ob-
jective is to address conceptual gaps in previous research
and to identify managerial implications that may include
ways to better manage this difficult assessment task. These
implications may include changes in an organization’s
structure, processes, and training that will enhance mar-
keting information use, in turn improving decision-mak-
ing and marketing productivity. We now discuss our
conceptual framework and hypotheses. This is followed
by a description of our research methodology, the presen-
tation of results, and a discussion of managerial and theo-
retical implications.
UNDERSTANDING THE USE
OF INFORMATION IN ASSESSING
PRODUCTIVITY
Use of Marketing Information
Information can be used in a conceptual or instrumental
way. Conceptual information use refers to the indirect use
of information that provides “general enlightenment” in
developing a manager’s knowledge base (Menon and
Varadarajan 1992:56). Instrumental information use
refers to its direct application to marketing strategy deci-
sions; such information can be used to make, to imple-
ment, or to evaluate marketing decisions (Moorman 1995).
When information is used instrumentally to evaluate mar-
keting decisions, one assesses whether the outcomes were
positive or negative, and the reasons for those outcomes
(Zaltman and Moorman 1989).
In this study, we focus on instrumental use of informa-
tion in the assessment of marketing communications pro-
ductivity. Using information to evaluate past performance
is a powerful learning tool for managers since it is based on
observed cause-effect relationships over time (Fiol and
Lyles 1985; Huber and Daft 1991). Consistent with previ-
ous research, we define marketing information use as the
extent to which managers rely on information in evaluat-
ing the productivity of marketing communications pro-
grams, and the impact that information has on their assess-
ments of productivity (cf. Deshpandé 1982). To extend
prior research on information use, we focus on the use of
internal or external secondary data, which are most com-
monly used in assessment of performance contexts. For
example, managers considering product performance typ-
ically rely on past sales volume, market share, profitabil-
ity, and proportion of company sales to make their decision
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 67
(Avlonitis 1985). Likewise, Perkins and Rao (1990) found
that managers use a wide range of information, including
sales results, Nielsen data, and diary panel data to evaluate
the productivity of consumer promotions.
Factors Related to
Information Use
We rely on the conceptual foundations laid by O’Reilly
(1983) and Menon and Varadarajan (1992) to develop our
model. O’Reilly (1983) conceptualized information use
by organizational decision-makers as a function of vari-
ables related to the (1) context, (2) information, and (3)
individual. Similarly, Menon and Varadarajan (1992)
examined the major factors that explain marketing
knowledge use by dividing context into five separate
areas. They identify (1) organizational, (2) task, (3) envi-
ronmental, (4) informational, and (5) individual predictors
of knowledge use. These five areas are also consistent with
the large body of research on organizational information
processing (O’Reilly, Chatman, and Anderson 1987) and
individual decision-making (Payne, Bettman, and Johnson
1992). We used these five areas in selecting a representa-
tive set of variables to study and to organize our model
shown in Figure 1.
We searched the marketing and organizational decision-
making literatures for key variables from these five areas
that would allow us to consider the similarities and differ-
ences between customized market research report use
(already widely studied) and the use of internal and syndi-
cated information. Our intent was to build a parsimonious
model based on prior conceptual and empirical work that
would have the potential to explain a significant amount of
the variance in information use in evaluating marketing
communications productivity. We also looked for vari-
ables that might be moderated by group decision dynamics
in the way they relate to information use. In addition, to
compare our results to past studies in this area, we felt it
was important to include as many similar variables that
have shown to be significantly related to marketing infor-
mation use as possible. For example, we selected informa-
tion use, formalization, and information quality based on
previous work by Deshpandé and Zaltman (1982), yet we
did not include other factors they studied such as surprise
or political acceptability of recommendations. We chose
not to include these because they were context-specific
variables related to the type of information studied—mar-
ket research reports that have a greater potential to contain
recommendations that might be perceived as surprising or
politically unacceptable.
Consequently, we posit that the use of marketing infor-
mation is a function of (1) the quality of marketing infor-
mation, (2) organizational formalization, (3) task com-
plexity, (4) market turbulence, (5) rationality of the
manager’s decision style, and (6) the degree to which a
68 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Framework
group is involved in the decision. We also propose that
some of these factors (i.e., formalization and complexity)
may have an interactive effect on information use. More-
over, we also found conceptual support to hypothesize that
the effects of two of these factors, complexity and decision
rationality, may be moderated by the degree of group
influence.
Informational Characteristics:
Information Quality
One of the most important characteristics determining
the degree to which information is used is its quality
(O’Reilly 1982). The quality of marketing information
refers to the relevance, accuracy, reliability, and timeliness
of marketing information provided in the organization (cf.
O’Reilly 1982). Relevance refers to the perceived useful-
ness or significance of the information for the decision or
purpose at hand. Accuracy and reliability are similar
dimensions of quality that capture the degree to which the
information corresponds to the truth, or the trustworthi-
ness of the information (Zmud 1978). Timeliness
describes the up-to-date dimension of information quality.
Information that is timely provides an accurate account of
conditions as they are now (see also Deshpandé and
Zaltman 1982; Maltz and Kohli 1996). In our research set-
ting, we refer to the overall quality of the information used
to assess marketing communications productivity,
WINTER 2001
including both internal secondary and syndicated data,
both of which may vary widely in perceived quality.
Previous research suggests a positive relationship be-
tween information quality and information use (Deshpandé
and Zaltman 1984; Maltz and Kohli 1996).1 We included
this variable to compare the relationship between quality
and information use in this context (the use of a wide range
of information including internal and syndicated informa-
tion to evaluate past performance) to previous findings
where market research reports were used to make product
strategy decisions. Quality of information is related to its
credibility, an important motivation for managers who
tend to use more credible information sources and weigh
them more heavily in decisions or judgments (Menon and
Varadarajan 1992). Similarly, managers are more likely to
trust information of high quality and hence are more likely
to rely on it in making decisions or evaluating performance
(Moorman et al. 1993). Perceived quality of information is
particularly important when assessing performance of
marketing communications programs since the link be-
tween actions (message, media, and spending) and out-
comes (attitudes, sales) is difficult to measure for most
companies (Drumwright 1996). Stated formally,
Hypothesis 1: The greater the perceived quality of mar-
keting information in the evaluation of marketing
communications productivity, the greater the use of
that information.
Organizational Characteristics:
Formalization
Organizational structures have a strong effect on deci-
sion makers, affecting the amount and type of information
used, as well as how the decision is made (Deshpandé
1982; John and Martin 1984; Zaltman 1986). On the basis
of our review of related research, we chose to focus on for-
malization, or the extent to which rules or procedures are
written and communicated in an organization (Miller
1987). One reason why we chose this factor is that concep-
tual predictions and empirical findings related to the
impact of formalization on information use have been
ambiguous. For example, Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
found that formalization had no significant effect on mar-
ket orientation, of which information use is an integral
dimension; Maltz and Kohli (1996) found a curvilinear
relationship between formality of information dissemina-
tion and perceived quality of information.
On one hand, formalization may restrict a decision-
maker’s flexibility, which may lead to lower information
use (Deshpandé 1982; Deshpandé and Zaltman 1982). Par-
ticularly when the information used is based on a custom-
ized market research report, exemplified by the decision
contexts studied in prior research, formalization may inhibit
 Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 69

the flexibility of managers, limiting their time in reading formation (Menon and Varadarajan 1992). Accordingly,
and creatively interpreting the report. Therefore, there may we predict the following:
be a negative effect of formalization on information use
based on this type of information (Hurley and Hult 1998). Hypothesis 3: The greater the complexity of the evalua-
tion of marketing communications productivity, the
On the other hand, formalization brings a degree of
greater the use of marketing information.
thoroughness or rigor to decision processes and is also an
important signal that information use is important in the
This relationship between task complexity and infor-
organization, both of which may lead to increased infor-
mation use may be moderated by the degree of formaliza-
mation use (Avlonitis 1985; John and Martin 1984; Maltz
tion. Organizations that lack rules and procedures (low
and Kohli 1996). This may be particularly true in the as-
formalization) would more freely allow the differences in
sessment of marketing communications productivity,
the number of decision cues to influence the use of market-
which can be based on a large amount of internal account-
ing information. Free of the limitations imposed in highly
ing data and external syndicated information. Information
formalized organizations, the greater number of cues that
use in these decisions may be higher because of the consis-
arise in complex tasks would tend to invite greater infor-
tency between the need to adequately evaluate perfor-
mation use than in simple tasks. For example, in an organi-
mance as required by the rules and procedures in a
zation with an entrepreneurial spirit and lack of
formalized organization and the relevance of performance
formalization, the use of information would most likely be
data to the evaluation task.2 Similarly, in a more formalized
high for complex tasks (assessment of the productivity of,
organization, the information sources that are to be used in
say, multiple media, types of promotions, and corporate
evaluating marketing communications productivity are
sponsorships) and low for simple tasks (assessment of the
more likely to be specified and more extensive in scope
performance of a single activity such as a coupon mailing).
than in a less formalized organization, also leading to
Since there is no set procedure that prescribes the decision
greater information use. In addition, formalization high-
cues to be used in the assessment, managers are free to use
lights the importance to senior management of the process
the appropriate amount of information to deal with the
of assessment and information use to the rest of the organi-
level of complexity.
zation (John and Martin 1984). This would be particularly
On the other hand, organizations that specify rules and
true for the assessment of productivity, where top manage-
procedures in assessing productivity (high formalization)
ment’s commitment to the assessment process, communi-
may prescribe the type and amount of decision cues to be
cated via the degree of formalization, may encourage
used in assessing productivity (Avlonitis 1985). In a sim-
managers to use more information to carefully document
ple task, where fewer decision cues are available—and are
positive (or negative) firm outcomes (March and Feldman
less likely to be used—than in a complex task, the rules
1981). Hence, in decisions involving the evaluation of per-
and procedures of a formal assessment may specify, or
formance, we predict that formalization is positively re-
even encourage, the use of more of the information than
lated to information use:
might otherwise be used (i.e., the formalization dampens
the relationship between complexity and information use).
Hypothesis 2: The greater the degree of formalization in
the organization, the greater the use of marketing in- Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
formation in the evaluation of marketing communi-
cations productivity. Hypothesis 4a: When formalization is low, the relation-
ship between task complexity and the use of market-
ing information will be strong and positive.
Task Characteristics: Complexity Hypothesis 4b:When formalization is high, the relation-
ship between task complexity and the use of market-
We define task complexity in terms of the difficulty, am- ing information will be weak and positive.
biguity, and lack of clarity involved in the decision-making
task (Huber and Daft 1987). Task complexity is increased Environmental Characteristics:
by the number of decision cues, trade-offs, or relationships Market Turbulence
to consider, and the degree of uncertainty. The assessment
of marketing communications productivity is becoming Environmental instability affects a manager’s need for,
increasingly complex as more firms implement inte- and use of, information (Menon and Varadarajan 1992).
grated marketing communications programs (Schultz, The more unstable the environment, the greater the infor-
Tannenbaum, and Lauterborn 1993). A complex task mation processing that is required to cope with the insta-
places high cognitive demands on decision-makers bility (Tushman and Nadler 1978).3 Market turbulence
(Campbell 1988). To reduce the uncertainty inherent in refers to the rate of change and degree of volatility in an
complex assessments, managers are more likely to use in- industry. Turbulence can arise from changes in technology
70 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
and in customer preferences (Jaworski and Kohli 1993).
Both dimensions are important in our study. Technology
has a direct impact on information use and availability in
organizations, and changing customer tastes are common
even in mature markets (Kahn and McAlister 1997).
In evaluating performance, managers competing in in-
dustries with high market turbulence are more likely to use
information than managers competing in industries with
low market turbulence. Because information can become
dated quickly in volatile markets (Glazer and Weiss 1993),
managers in these markets update their information more
frequently to stay current with changing market conditions
and to increase the likelihood that their decisions will lead
to desired results. In markets with low turbulence, manag-
ers can rely on past experience and will need less informa-
tion to judge performance and draw conclusions regarding
marketing actions and results. As a substitute for gathering
information, managers might base decisions on past expe-
rience. However, such experience would more quickly be-
come obsolete in a turbulent environment. Therefore,
managers in turbulent markets will tend to use more infor-
mation in evaluating marketing productivity than manag-
ers in markets that are less turbulent. Formally stated,
Hypothesis 5: The greater the market turbulence, the
greater the use of marketing information in evaluat-
ing marketing communications productivity.
Individual Characteristics:
Rationality of Decision Style
Decision style refers to a manager’s personal deci-
sion-making approach (Nutt 1990). Rationality of deci-
sion style is the degree to which a manager relies on
deliberation and calculation in making decisions (Simon
1987). Hart (1992) proposed that rational decision-mak-
ing tends to be positively related to information process-
ing—collecting and analyzing information. Hence, more
rational decision makers would be expected to use more
marketing information in evaluating performance than
less rational decision makers, ceteris paribus (Zmud
1979). This is because rational managers make decisions
using an organized, controlled approach that is conducive
to gathering and interpreting information, particularly in-
formation used in evaluating marketing communications
productivity (such as internal performance results and
facts generated from syndicated sources). Managers who
are less rational in their decision style tend to rely on their
own feelings and intuition and therefore may not see the
need to use as much of this type of information. This pre-
diction is similar to that of DeSanctis (1982), who hypoth-
esized that managers exhibiting an analytical cognitive
style are more likely to use decision support systems (see
also Taggart and Valenzi 1990). Hence, in the evaluation of
WINTER 2001
marketing communications productivity, we predict that
greater rationality (versus lower) in a manager’s decision
style is likely to be associated with higher information use.
Hypothesis 6: The greater the rationality of a manager’s
decision style, the greater the use of marketing infor-
mation in the evaluation of marketing communica-
tions productivity.
The Main and Moderating
Effects of Group Involvement
in the Assessment Process
Companies are increasingly organizing groups or
teams of managers to make important marketing decisions
(Wheelwright and Clark 1992). Yet, on the basis of our
extensive review of the literature, we were not able to find
any studies in marketing that have investigated the rela-
tionship between the degree of group involvement in judg-
ments or decision-making and the use of marketing infor-
mation. We define the degree of group involvement in the
evaluation of performance as the extent to which the judg-
ment of performance is a group decision compared with an
individual decision. Although many decisions are made by
either groups or individuals, in some companies, decisions
may be made by a combination of individual judgment and
group discussion (Argote, Seabright, and Dyer 1986). For
example, one individual may be a team leader who is
responsible for the final decision or judgment, but the deci-
sion is made with the extensive involvement of, and input
from, group members. Hence, we conceptualize group
involvement as a continuum from individual decision to
group decision.
Prior research in organizational decision theory sug-
gests that, because groups are able to recall and recognize
relevant information better than individuals, information
use is higher in decisions made by groups compared with
decisions made by individuals (e.g., Vollrath, Sheppard,
Hinsz, and Davis 1989). Furthermore, because groups are
made up of individuals with varying skills, interests, and
backgrounds (Ford 1996), a wider variety of information
tends to be introduced in decisions involving groups com-
pared with individuals. For example, Walsh (1988) found
that managers with a marketing background asked for
more external information than did those with a back-
ground in human resources. Differences across group
members can also lead to conflict, which can result in
healthy debate and an increase in the use of information by
the group as a whole (Cosier and Schwenk 1990). Hence,
we predict an overall positive main effect of group versus
individual involvement in the evaluation of marketing
communications productivity:

Hypothesis 7: The greater the degree of group involve-
ment in the evaluation of marketing communica-
tions productivity, the greater the use of marketing
information.
Given the dynamics of group decision-making involv-
ing polarization and conflict (Isenberg 1986), disagree-
ment (Cosier and Schwenk 1990), or evaluation
apprehension (Gallupe et al. 1992), information in group
decisions may not only be used to a greater extent but may
also be used in a different way than in individual decisions.
For example, groups pool information and correct their
own errors when making decisions (Hill 1982). Indeed, the
influence of group members in meetings and other group
settings may be strong enough to offset the effect of other
variables on information use. Accordingly, we develop
here two hypotheses describing a possible moderating ef-
fect of group influence on the relationship between com-
plexity and information use and the relationship between
rationality of decision style and information use.
With respect to complexity, Nonaka and Johansson
(1985) concluded that information sharing in groups is
likely to occur regardless of the level of complexity. They
suggest that, because of the increased learning through
information dissemination, group influence increases
learning. Groups, in essence, train their members and
widen their cognitive capabilities by receiving informa-
tion from one another. Hence, if a group is responsible for a
low-complexity task, the high level of group involvement
may ensure that a wide range of information will be used,
despite the nature of the simple evaluation task. In addi-
tion, individual group members share and rely on different
information sources, depending on their background
(Walsh 1988), thereby overriding the lower information
use more commonly found in low-complexity tasks when
the decision is handled by only one individual. Therefore,
we predict that when groups are involved in evaluating
marketing communications productivity, more informa-
tion will be used, regardless of the level of task complexity
(i.e., the level of task complexity has a weak effect on
information use). On the other hand, when an individual
does the evaluation, the level of task complexity will have
a strong positive effect on information use (with less infor-
mation being used for less complex tasks and vice versa).
The relationship between decision style and informa-
tion use may similarly be offset by group involvement. The
tendency of managers with a less rational decision style to
use less information may be overpowered by group
dynamics. Cosier and Schwenk (1990) concluded that
debate in group settings leads to higher information use
because of the tendency of group members to use informa-
tion they judge to be relevant to justify their individual
positions. Even less-rational decision makers, who tend to
rely more on their own intuition and less on outside
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 71
information than rational decision makers, would be
exposed to more information in a group setting and poten-
tially justify their positions with more information than in
nongroup settings.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, we predict a
moderating effect of group involvement for complexity
4
and decision rationality, stated formally as Hypotheses
8a-b.
Hypothesis 8a-b: When the degree of group involvement
in the evaluation of marketing communications pro-
ductivity is high, the effects of (a) complexity and
(b) rationality of decision style on the use of market-
ing information will be weaker than when the degree
of group involvement is low.
METHOD
Development of the
Measurement Instrument
We used a survey approach to collect data for our study.
Managers make decisions based on their perceptions of
reality (O’Reilly et al. 1987). Hence, a survey method
allowed us to assess the impact of these perceptions of
organizational reality on managers’ use of information.
Scale items were adapted from existing measures in the
marketing and organizational decision-making literatures,
based on the conceptual definitions of the variables in the
model. For example, to be consistent with prior research in
this area, we used the scale developed by Deshpandé and
Zaltman (1982) to measure information use.
We conducted two pretests in the course of developing
the questionnaire: 15 personal interviews with marketing
managers and a mail survey. The primary objective of the
first pretest was to involve marketing managers in the
development of the survey instrument, while the second
pretest was designed to test the psychometric properties of
scale items. An additional objective of the two pretests was
to check our assumption that the type of information used
in the assessment of marketing communications produc-
tivity was based primarily on internal or syndicated data.
This was confirmed in the interviews with managers, who
repeatedly mentioned the importance of company sales
results and market share data in assessing the productivity
of their marketing communications program. Similarly, in
the second pretest, 84.1 percent of respondents indicated
that they used dollar sales to evaluate the productivity of
their communications program, the most frequently used
source of information, followed closely by profitability
(82.1%). In contrast, focus group results were used by only
47.8 percent of respondents. These pretest results support
our claim that the assessment of productivity is a different
72 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
decision context and leads managers to use different types
of information than previous research in this area.
Scale items and references appear in the appendix.
Although most of the items/scales are self-explanatory, we
provide additional detail here on the focal construct in our
study, information use, on the market turbulence measure,
and on the inclusion of a critical covariate, size of the mar-
keting communications budget.
To be able to compare our results with previously pub-
lished studies, we chose to use the Deshpandé and Zaltman
(1982) measure of information use. However, the wording
of the scale items was modified slightly to reflect the deci-
sion context in our research: the assessment of marketing
communications productivity. Deshpandé and Zaltman
asked respondents to focus on the most recent market
research project conducted by an external research agency
with which they had been involved. The items they used to
measure information use referred to “research informa-
tion” and “research information from this project.” We
modified these to be more inclusive of all information
types and used the terms marketing information and mar-
keting research. To confirm the pretest result, described
above, that the managers who responded relied primarily
on information such as sales, profitability, and market
share, we also asked managers in the main sample to
describe the specific information they used. The results of
this construct validity check confirmed the findings of the
pretest and support our position that the type of informa-
tion used in evaluations of past marketing performance
includes a wider range of information than that studied
previously in new product planning decisions. Informa-
tion used in assessing marketing communications produc-
tivity is broader in scope and heavily weighted toward
internally generated sales and profit figures, and syndi-
cated performance data.
Measures for environmental uncertainty/market turbu-
lence have shown the construct to be multidimensional. As
discussed in the conceptual development of our model, we
included both technological and customer turbulence
(Jaworski and Kohli 1993) in our measures because of the
direct impact of technology on information use and avail-
ability in organizations and because changing customer
tastes are common even in mature markets (Kahn and
McAlister 1997). Technological turbulence refers to the
degree to which technology changes over time within the
industry and the degree to which such changes affect the
industry. Customer turbulence refers to the degree to
which customer preferences change over time, which can
result in new target segments emerging that were previ-
ously unknown.
The size of the firm’s marketing communications bud-
get could be a confounding factor in our model if it were
not controlled for. Firms with larger marketing communi-
cations budgets are likely larger firms that are more
sophisticated than firms with smaller budgets. Larger
WINTER 2001
firms may have more complex marketing communications
programs, higher degrees of formalization, and access to
more marketing information. Moreover, when marketing
communications budgets are large, signaling their impor-
tant role in the firm, managers may use more information
to evaluate their performance. Such use might occur
because larger expenditures warrant greater scrutiny and
more thorough evaluation. Because of these possibilities,
we believed this was a critical covariate to include in our
study.5
Context and Sample
A sample of 1,400 marketing executives was randomly
selected by computer from Dun & Bradstreet’s database of
9 million companies in the United States. A stratified ran-
dom sample was drawn, based on company size
(Lehmann, Gupta, and Steckel 1998). This was done for
two reasons. First, the moderating relationships proposed
in the conceptual model are difficult to detect when based
on survey data because of low variability. Hence, to
improve the power of the moderated regression analysis,
we wanted to ensure the variance of key model variables
(McClelland and Judd 1993).
The second reason for using a stratified sample was to
ensure the generalizability of the findings. It was clear
from our 15 personal interviews with marketing managers
that companies of all sizes were engaged in some type of
marketing communications program, and all struggled
with assessing the productivity of these programs. There-
fore, to address these concerns, one third of the sample was
drawn from companies with an annual sales volume of less
than $100,000, one third from companies with sales of
$100,000 to $999,000, and one third from companies with
sales of more than $1 million. These three groups made up
27.51 percent, 58.15 percent, and 14.34 percent, respec-
tively, of the nearly 7 million firms with size information in
the Dun & Bradstreet database. (The Dun & Bradstreet
database, which includes 11 company-size categories,
could not be evenly spit into thirds because of the large
number of firms in some categories; this stratification was
the closest approximation.) Although this method resulted
in a sample more heavily weighted to large companies
(which comprised only 14.34% of the Dun & Bradstreet
sampling frame, but 33% of our stratified sample), we
believed that large firms would more likely be concerned
with marketing communications productivity issues than
smaller firms. As stated previously, we also control for
company size in our analysis by including size of the mar-
keting communications budget as a covariate.
Titles of those sampled were restricted to Marketing
Vice President, Marketing Director, and Marketing Man-
ager. In addition, for companies with sales of less than
$100,000 per year, the titles of President and Owner/
Co-owner were also included. Each senior marketing
 Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 73

manager (one per company) was asked on the cover page TABLE 1
of the survey to answer the questions based on his or her Respondent Profile
perceptions of the most recent marketing communications Characteristic M SD
campaign he or she had evaluated for a single brand, prod-
9-point scale measures
uct, or service. To ensure that all respondents understood Annual sales
a
5.3 2.2
the focus and purpose of the questions, the cover page also Businesses (vs. consumers) targeted
b
5.7 3.1
explained our definition of marketing communications as Ratio scale measures
consisting of communications tools such as advertising, Years with the company 8.6 7.9
consumer or customer promotions, and trade or intermedi- Years in career 18.6 9.9
ary promotions. In addition, on the cover page, respon- Percentage
dents were provided with a more specific definition of pro-
Categorical measures
ductivity. Consistent with our definition of productivity,
Industry (Standard Industrial Classifications
respondents were reminded that “productivity refers to [SIC] code)
effectiveness (extent to which objectives are achieved), Agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and
efficiency (results compared with resources expended), construction (1-19) 7.2
and performance in general.” To enhance our response Manufacturing (20-39) 24.9
Transportation, communications, and utilities (40-49) 8.9
rate, we followed the techniques advocated by Dillman
Wholesale trade and retail trade (50-59) 15.6
(1978). A new $2 bill was sent with each of the 1,400 sur- Finance, insurance, and real estate (60-69) 8.9
veys to further encourage the senior marketing executives Services and public administration (70-97) 29.7
c
in our sample to participate. Ten days after the surveys Company size
were mailed, a reminder postcard was sent to all Large (sales > $1 million) 49.2
Medium (sales $100,000-$999,999) 32.1
respondents.
Small (sales < $100,000) 18.8

Sample Characteristics
Of the 1,400 surveys mailed, 131 were returned by the
postal service as not deliverable to the addressee. An addi-
tional 107 were returned by the addressee or other
employee in the organization with a note that the addressee
had left the company, was deceased, was no longer in a
marketing-related position, or that the company was no
longer operating. This left a base total of 1,162 potential
respondents. Of that total, 421 usable surveys were
returned, for a response rate of 36 percent.
Table 1 provides a profile of the respondents. Managers
who responded to the survey were highly qualified to
respond to questions concerning the evaluation of market-
ing communications performance for their companies’
products or services—the average responsibility score was
8 on a 9-point scale. In addition, respondents were asked to
indicate the activities they considered as part of their mar-
keting communications program to ensure that their activi-
ties were consistent with our definition of marketing com-
munications for the purposes of our survey. The traditional
promotion-mix elements that were consistently mentioned
were advertising, sales promotion, public relations, and
direct mail. This consistency was borne out in our first pre-
test of interviews with senior marketing managers.
Respondents also identified trade shows, product litera-
ture, catalogs, and related promotional material, and spe-
cial-event sponsorships as part of their marketing commu-
nications efforts. The respondents were very experienced
in their positions, averaging 8.6 years in their current orga-
nization and 18.6 years in their career. This is not
a. Anchored with 1 = less than $10,000 and 9 = $100 million or more (the
heading read, “The annual dollar sales for my company are approxi-
mately:”).
b. Anchored with 1 = consumers and 9 = businesses (the heading read,
“My company is best classified as marketing to:”).
c. Size based on Dun & Bradstreet classification.
surprising based on the marketing executive titles used for
the sample selection. The Standard Industrial Classifica-
tions (SIC) codes indicated by respondents show that a
wide range of industries is represented in the sample.
Executives at large companies were more likely to respond
to the survey. Nearly one half (49.2%) of all respondents
were employed by organizations with sales of more than
$1 million per year, whereas only one third of the sample
consisted of companies in this category. This is not sur-
prising, given the greater levels of marketing communica-
tions spending and the importance of assessing productiv-
ity in large firms.
Analysis of Nonresponse Error
The potential for nonresponse error was estimated by
comparing early and late respondents on the basis of key
company characteristics (size, industry, years of experi-
ence) and all the variables from the conceptual model. The
results of this analysis show that there are no significant
differences between early and late respondent groups in
our study, evidence that nonresponse error is not a problem
(Armstrong and Overton 1977).
Reliability and Discriminant
Validity Checks
74 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE WINTER 2001

TABLE 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Multiple-Item Measures (λs)
Quality of Formalization Complexity Market Market Rationality Use of
Marketing of the of the Turbulence Turbulence of Manager’s Marketing
Scale Item Information Organization Assessment (technology) (customers) Decision Style Information
Quality 1 .821
Quality 2 .352
Quality 3 .891
Quality 4 .789
Formalization 1 .591
Formalization 2 .883
Formalization 3 .851
Formalization 4 .508
Complexity 1 .860
Complexity 2 .871
Complexity 3 .849
Complexity 4 .805
Technology Turbulence 1 .829
Technology Turbulence 2 .813
Technology Turbulence 3 .539
Technology Turbulence 4 .799
Technology Turbulence 5 .735
Customer Turbulence 1 .796
Customer Turbulence 2 .678
Customer Turbulence 3 .609
Style 1 .628
Style 2 .653
Style 3 .575
Style 4 .830
Style 5 .614
Use 1 .631
Use 2 .603
Use 3 .722
Use 4 .889

All t-values > 7.07

Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = .88
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .85
Root mean square residual (RMSR) = .054
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .92
Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .87
2
χ = 808.58 df = 356 p = .000

Reliability and validity of the multi-item scales of the
main study’s data were analyzed using confirmatory fac-
tor analysis. LISREL VII was used to estimate a measure-
ment model for all seven multi-item scales to assess the
hypothesized unidimensionality of the measures, their
reliability, and their discriminant validity. The LISREL
model was specified so that the items loaded on only
their corresponding latent construct; the results appear
in Table 2. The adjusted goodness-of-fit indices (AGFIs),
degrees of freedom (dfs), and chi-squares for this model
indicate that the data fit the hypothesized measure-
ment structure quite well (AGFI = .85, Normed Fit
Index [NFI] = .87, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .92,
χ2 = 808.58, p = .00, df = 356, root mean square residual
[RMSR] = .05).
The lambdas (λ) show that the scale items load accept-
ably on their respective latent constructs (evidence of uni-
dimensionality) and exhibit good reliability (composite reli-
ability and variance extracted). The lambdas are .35 or
higher, the composite reliabilities are greater than .70, and
the variances extracted are greater than .50. In all cases, the
phi correlations among the latent variables are signifi-
cantly less than 1.00 (Bagozzi and Phillips 1982), provid-
ing evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the phi
correlations squared are less than the variance extracted
for each construct, a more rigorous test of discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
 Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 75

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations
Number Standard Coefficient
Measure of Items Mean Deviation Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Quality of marketing
information 4 20.32 6.76 .79 1.00
2. Formalization 4 19.57 7.46 .80 .20** 1.00
(394)
3. Complexity 4 19.05 7.97 .91 –.42** –.49** 1.00
(379) (379)
4. Market turbulence–technology 5 27.93 9.51 .86 .01 –.08 .10* .1.00
(399) (401) (383)
5. Market turbulence–customers 3 13.76 5.91 .73 –.02 .01 .11* .33** 1.00
(397) (404) (383) (406)
6. Rationality of decision style 5 30.72 7.61 .79 .17** .17** –.17** .02 .09 1.00
(397) (403) (383) (405) (407)
7. Individual versus group process 1 4.47 2.61 .19** .18** –.08 .09 .01 .03 1.00
(391) (393) (381) (396) (397) (395)
8. Use of marketing information 4 20.75 7.03 .81 .42** .20** –.07 .16** .02 .13** .24** 1.00
(397) (389) (376) (394) (392) (392) (388)
9. Size of budget 1 2.48 1.66 .17** .09 .10 .09 .04 –.08 .23** .29** 1.00
(392) (397) (377) (400) (401) (399) (392) (387)

NOTE: All items measured with 9-point scales. ns appear in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

TABLE 4
Coefficient alphas for the variables in the model, as Regression Results:
well as descriptive statistics and correlations, appear in Factors Affecting the Use
Table 3.6 The coefficient alphas for the multi-item scales in of Marketing Information
the main study are good (.73 or greater), indicating accept-
Beta Coefficient t-Statistic
able reliability.
Covariate
Size of marketing communications
RESULTS budget .18 3.90***
Main effects
Quality of marketing information .38 7.57***
The data were analyzed by estimating a moderated Formalization in the organization .11 2.49*
multiple regression equation. Use of marketing informa- Complexity of the assessment process .11 2.05*
tion was the dependent variable, while the main effects and Market turbulence–technology .13 2.81**
the interaction terms representing the hypothesized mod- Market turbulence–customers –.05 –1.04
erator effects of group involvement, and complexity by Rationality of manager’s decision style .11 2.30*
Individual versus group assessment .11 2.42*
formalization, were the independent variables (Sharma, Interactions
Durand, and Gur-Arie 1981). All variables were standard- Complexity × Formalization –.10 –2.16*
ized prior to running the regression to minimize Complexity × Group Process –.11 –2.33*
multicollinearity and to assist in comparing beta coeffi- Rationality × Group Process –.11 –2.31*
cients (Cronbach 1987). Size of marketing communica-
tions budget was included as a covariate in the regression Total Model
2
Adjusted R = .32
analysis. (Dummy variables were initially included for the df = 11, 350
five industry groups as covariates as well, but these were F = 16.37***
not significant and accordingly were dropped from the
analysis.) All variables were entered simultaneously. The *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
results of the multiple regression analysis appear in Table 4.
Overall, the regression results explain 32 percent of the Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between
variance in marketing information use in evaluating mar- the quality of marketing information and marketing infor-
keting communications productivity (adjusted R2 = .32, F = mation use. This hypothesis was supported by the data (β1 =
16.37, p < .001).7 .38, t = 7.57, p < .001).
76 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between
formalization and marketing information use. This
hypothesis was also supported (β2 = .11, t = 2.49, p < .05).
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between
complexity of the task and marketing information use.
The parameter estimate is positive and statistically signif-
icant; thus, this hypothesis is also supported (β3 = .11, t =
2.05, p < .05).
Hypothesis 4a and 4b predicted a significant interaction
between formalization and task complexity. These
hypotheses were also supported by our results (β4 = –.10,
t = 2.16, p < .05). To understand the nature of this signifi-
cant interaction, simple slope analysis (Cronbach 1987),
based on representative (75th and 25th percentile) high
and low levels of formalization, was performed.8 The
results of this analysis appear in Figure 2. High levels of
formalization offset the impact of complexity on the use of
information. When formalization is low, the positive rela-
tionship between task complexity and information use is
strong; however, when formalization is high, the positive
relationship between task complexity and information use
is weakened. We discuss the implications of this interac-
tion subsequently.
Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive effect of market tur-
bulence on the use of marketing information. The parame-
ter estimate for technology turbulence in the regression
results is positive and statistically significant (β5a = .13, t =
2.81, p < .01); however, the parameter estimate for cus-
tomer turbulence is not significant. Hence, Hypothesis 5 is
only partially supported.
Hypothesis 6 states that the relationship between ratio-
nality of a manager’s decision style and use of marketing
information is positive. The results indicate that the
parameter estimate for decision style rationality is positive
and statistically significant (β6 = .11, t = 2.30, p < .05).
Therefore, the results support Hypothesis 6.
Hypothesis 7 predicted a positive relationship between
the degree of group involvement in the evaluation of mar-
keting communications performance and the use of mar-
keting information. The parameter estimate for group
involvement is positive and statistically significant (β7 =
.11, t = 2.42, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 7 is supported.
The Moderating Effects of
Group Involvement on
Marketing Information Use
Hypothesis 8a and 8b predicted that the degree of group
involvement would moderate the effects of complexity
and decision style on information use. Both of these inter-
action terms are statistically significant. The results indi-
cate that group involvement does moderate the effects of
complexity (β8a = –.11, t = –2.33, p < .05) and rationality of
decision style (β8b = –.11, t = –2.31, p < .05) on the use of
WINTER 2001
marketing information. Thus, Hypotheses 8a and 8b are
supported by the moderated regression results.
Further analysis of the nature of the interactions (sim-
ple slope analysis—see Figure 2) supports the hypothe-
sized moderating effects. When marketing communica-
tions productivity is evaluated primarily on an individual
basis, the expected positive relationships between task
complexity and information use, and between rationality
of decision style and information use, are strong. However,
when group involvement is high, the strong positive rela-
tionships between task complexity and rationality of deci-
sion style and information use are neutralized. Information
use tends to be high when group involvement is high,
largely unaffected by task complexity or decision style.
We will discuss the managerial and theoretical implica-
tions of these and the other significant findings in the next
section.
DISCUSSION
One of the major objectives of this study was to identify
factors that explain marketing information use in the eval-
uation of marketing communications productivity.
Because information use is essential for both organiza-
tional learning and competitive advantage (Huber 1991),
an understanding of the factors that affect such use is vital.
Moreover, because evaluation of past performance pro-
vides the basis for strategy adjustments in the future,
knowledge of what affects information use in this context
is particularly important. Whereas previous research on
marketing information use focused primarily on informa-
tion provided by an outside research supplier with respect
to product strategy decisions, our research, in contrast,
focuses on factors related to the use of internal and syndi-
cated information in managers’ assessments of marketing
communications productivity. In addition, we build on
prior work by examining the moderating influence of
group involvement on two factors (complexity and deci-
sion style) related to the use of information, as well as an
interaction effect between formalization in the organiza-
tion and decision complexity on information use. In this
section, we analyze the results of the study, discuss rele-
vant managerial and theoretical implications, suggest
areas for future research, and point out the study’s key
limitations.
Managerial and
Theoretical Implications
Our findings address an important question for manag-
ers and researchers alike: What factors affect the use of
information in the evaluation of marketing communica-
tions productivity? The results indicate that many

FIGURE 2
Significant Interaction Effects
managers, faced with an abundance of data, look at infor-
mation quality to determine whether that information will
be used. This raises the question of what can be done to
improve the quality of information. When information is
perceived as relevant to their needs, reliable in terms of
accuracy and content, and useful to the purpose at hand
(cf. Menon and Varadarajan 1992), managers are more
likely to use it in their evaluations of marketing com-
munications productivity. This positive relationship
between quality and use extends the findings of prior
research (Deshpandé and Zaltman 1982; Maltz and Kohli
1996) to a new decision context and suggests that quality is
an important variable for correctly specified models of
information use.
Our results also show that an organization’s formaliza-
tion enhances the use of information in the evaluation of
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 77
marketing communications productivity. This finding
suggests that, rather than restricting decision-makers’
flexibility in using information, as asserted in previous
research on the use of market research reports (e.g.,
Deshpandé and Zaltman 1984), formalization stimulates
the use of internal and syndicated information in the evalu-
ation of marketing communications. This presents a
dilemma for management: How should organizations be
designed to enhance the use of marketing knowledge gen-
erally in the firm? We address this question shortly, as it is
related to other findings as well.
In addition, our study found that task complexity is pos-
itively associated with information use. Managers cope
with complex marketing communications program evalu-
ations by using more information, possibly to reduce the
uncertainty inherent in such evaluations. However, the
effect of task complexity on information use depends on
the level of formalization. Under conditions of low formal-
ization, complexity has a strong positive relationship with
information use. Possibly, organizations with low formal-
ization do not specify the information to be used in assess-
ments of marketing communications performance. How-
ever, under conditions of high formalization, the effect of
task complexity on information use is neutralized. In
highly formalized organizations, the information used for
the assessment of productivity (sales increases, market
share, profitability, brand attitude tracking, etc.) may be
specified and extensive, regardless of the level of task
complexity. Based on this result, it is especially important
for management in less-formalized organizations to pro-
vide adequate resources to acquire marketing information
so that judgments concerning marketing communications
productivity can be made effectively, regardless of the
level of task complexity.
Interestingly, whereas technological turbulence was
positively related to the use of marketing information, cus-
tomer turbulence was not significantly related to use.
Although there is some mild multicollinearity between the
two dimensions (r = .33), which could be affecting the
results, other explanations are plausible. It is likely that in
today’s economy, which is increasingly driven by techno-
logical advances, technology changes are simply more
profound than customer changes. At least in terms of rate
of change, our respondents perceived technological turbu-
lence to be higher than customer turbulence. Hence, the
greater unpredictability of the technological environment
affects the use of information more strongly than customer
turbulence. Alternatively, it could be that technological
changes allow managers the opportunity to collect and use
information that was not available previously, as illus-
trated in the retail grocery industry during the past two
decades (Kahn and McAlister 1997). Such information
may be very timely and helpful in evaluating the
78 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
performance of marketing actions. Information on cus-
tomer changes may simply not be as accessible or timely,
and hence, not used to the same degree. Finally, this cus-
tomer turbulence dimension of market turbulence may
simply not be relevant to evaluations of marketing com-
munications productivity. Changes in customer needs may
affect the effectiveness of marketing communications less
than changes in technologies, which might affect not only
the products in the market but also distribution channels,
marketing communications strategies, and the use of
information itself.
In addition, our study found that managers who have a
more rational decision style tend to use more information
to evaluate marketing communications performance than
those who have a less rational style. In other words, an
orderly, logical decision-making style in the evaluation of
marketing programs is related to higher levels of informa-
tion use. Decision-makers who use a more fluid, intuitive,
or even emotional approach may not use as much of the
wide array of data that can prove effective in evaluating
marketing communications productivity; instead, they
may rely on intuition or gut reaction to a greater extent and
less on hard data. Our results suggest that to maximize the
use of information in the evaluation of marketing perfor-
mance, managers with a more rational decision style
should be assigned to the evaluation task.
Our findings related to formalization and rationality
offer different results than related research on the use of
market research reports. We believe that the source of the
information and the nature or context of the decision might
explain these discrepancies. Research by Deshpandé and
Zaltman (1982) investigating the use of market research in
product strategy decisions by brand managers found that
managers in less-formalized organizations use more infor-
mation. Research on marketing creativity and innovation
by Andrews and Smith (1996) and Hurley and Hult (1998)
suggests that less rational, more intuitive decision styles
are more likely to enhance product and firm performance.
However, our research suggests that to effectively evaluate
marketing communications productivity, more rational
styles and more formalized processes and procedures are
positively related to information use. Apparently, the use
of a broad range of information types is different from the
use of market research reports. More research is needed to
identify the underlying issues that may explain these dif-
ferences. For example, market research reports may be
perceived with more skepticism because of the “external
consultant” image associated with them compared with
internally generated performance data and external,
“industry standard” syndicated data that may be perceived
as more objective or credible.
Reconciling these apparently conflicting implications
of levels of formalization and rationality might be a chal-
lenge, as they indicate that a “one size fits all” approach (to
designing organizations to enhance the use of
WINTER 2001
information) may not work. Many managers may be more
comfortable with either a formalized decision-making
environment or one that is less structured. Based on our
results, organizations should consider implementing more
formalized policies concerning the use of internal “hard
data” yet maintain a freeform approach for the use of mar-
ket research reports provided by outside suppliers.
In addition, our findings, combined with previous stud-
ies on marketing information use, suggest that effective
marketing managers need to be ambidextrous, with an
ability to be creative and free-flowing in using some types
of information, while being more rational when it comes to
the use of other types of information. We do not suggest,
and prior research does not contend, that rational and intu-
itive decision styles are mutually exclusive. Rather, man-
agers need to stress the appropriate decision-making style
depending on the nature of the information to be used.
Alternatively, and supported by another of our findings,
creative and rational individuals should be assigned to
work together in multidisciplinary groups for better mar-
keting decision-making.9
Our results contribute to research on information use by
suggesting that information type and decision context are
important determinants of information use—which ulti-
mately should lead to organizational learning. We suggest
a formalized, rational approach to manage marketing
knowledge when using a broad array of information to
evaluate performance and a less-formalized, intuitive
approach when using customized market research reports.
Future research could directly address these differences by
combining different sources of information and key
dependent variables such as information use within the
same study.
Managing the evaluation process as an individual or
group decision is another important issue that our findings
directly address. We present evidence that group involve-
ment is positively related to information use. Because
groups are made up of individuals with varying interests,
backgrounds, perspectives, and preferences, they may
bring a wider variety of information to the assessment pro-
cess. In addition, group involvement moderates the posi-
tive relationships between task complexity and rationality
of decision style, and information use. Clearly, the main
effect of group involvement on information use is
strong—in all cases, groups tend to use more information
than individuals. When groups evaluate performance, task
complexity and rationality of decision style are not signifi-
cantly related to information use (see Figure 2), whereas
for individual decisions, complexity and rationality are
strongly positively related to information use. More
research is needed in understanding the nature of group
dynamics in information use and other marketing deci-
sions, and the relative effectiveness of varying degrees of
group involvement in judgment and decision-making
tasks in marketing.

Limitations and Conclusions
The implications from our study should be considered
in light of its main limitations. An implicit, underlying
assumption is that using more information is associated
with improved decisions. Such an assumption is strongly
supported by past research demonstrating the positive
effects of information use on improved organizational out-
comes (Thomas, Clark, and Gioia 1993). However, it is an
untested assumption in our research. Does increased use of
information, when used to evaluate past performance,
actually lead to better decisions about future strategies?
When information use is encouraged by a formalized envi-
ronment, is it merely used in a rote manner, or does such
use have a real impact on assessments and future deci-
sions? By directly incorporating organizational learning
theories with studies of information use, such issues may
be addressed. For example, Huber and Daft (1991) suggest
that two critical elements of organizational learning are (1)
learning from past experience and (2) searching for infor-
mation about an organization’s performance. Evaluation
of past performance is essential to successful adaptation to
changing environments and hence is a critical component
of organizational learning (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Huber and
Daft 1991). The degree to which greater use of information
is associated with improved judgments of past perfor-
mance, future strategies, and hence, enhanced perfor-
mance, must be more specifically addressed in future
research.
A second limitation is our use of perceptual, paper-and-
pencil measures. We chose the survey method to tap into
the real-world decision environment facing senior market-
ing managers; however, the results could be affected by
common methods variance. We also chose to use a key
informant methodology to measure organizational vari-
ables and the degree of group influence in evaluating pro-
ductivity. Although this method is the most frequently
used technique in leading marketing journals to measure
managerial decision-making and organizational variables
simultaneously (e.g., Kohli, Shervani, and Challagalla
1998), it nevertheless raises concerns about the respon-
dents’ ability to accurately answer questions. We carefully
selected senior marketing managers for our mailing list
and measured respondents’ level of responsibility for
assessing marketing communications productivity, their
years of experience, and job title to make sure that they
were qualified to respond. To address the measurement
limitations addressed here—which are common criticisms
of survey research in general—future research could add
to our understanding of the complex organizational forces
that affect managers’ use of information by relying on
qualitative research or experimental methods to
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 79
complement these results. For example, experimental
methods would allow for greater variance in independent
variables such as formalization and complexity, which
may exhibit a curvilinear relationship with information
use, increasing the likelihood of empirically identifying
these subtle, yet meaningful, relationships.
Third, we chose in this study to focus on the use of mar-
keting information in the evaluation of marketing commu-
nications productivity. Although we selected this decision
context because of its importance and timeliness to man-
agers, it would be useful to extend this research by investi-
gating information use in other evaluation and control set-
tings in marketing, such as sales force management
control or the evaluation of pricing decisions. Similarly,
we relied on a measure of marketing information use from
prior research to build on these early studies and to com-
pare our results to them; however, this measure addresses
only the amount of information used and its impact. An
interesting area for future study would be to measure how
managers select various types of information appropriate
to their decision task.
Our objective was to gain a better understanding of the
use of information in the assessment of marketing commu-
nications productivity. To do so, we relied on theories of
organizational decision-making to build and test a concep-
tual model incorporating degree of group involvement in
the decision. However, other variables may also affect
information use in evaluation situations, variables that
would extend this research into new, productive areas. For
example, to what extent would a manager’s personal bias
affect the amount and type of information used in evaluat-
ing performance? Research on the escalation of commit-
ment to a particular course of action (cf. Brockner 1992)
would offer new and interesting insights to this question if
applied to marketing issues. Similarly, how do managers
weigh information in making judgments concerning per-
formance, and what factors are related to their weighting
schema? Is there an optimal level of marketing informa-
tion use? What characteristics of information are germane
to managers’ use of it? For example, the relative credibility
of the source of internal information or syndicated data
may differ from the source credibility of customized
research reports, and the cost of internal information and
syndicated reports are often fixed (and hence, less visible
in the ongoing operations of the business unit) rather than
variable (as are customized research reports). Do these
underlying differences affect a manager’s decision to use
the information? Addressing these research questions
would also benefit managers by helping them to make
better judgments of productivity.
To summarize, we conceptualized a model of the factors
associated with marketing information use in an important
80 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Scale
Quality of Marketing Information
(9-point Likert-type scale)
(O’Reilly 1982)
Formalization in the Organization
(9-point Likert-type scale)
(Barclay 1991)
Complexity
(9-point, semantic differential)
(Campbell 1988)
Market Turbulence
(technological change)
(9-point Likert-type scale)
(Jaworski and Kohli 1993)
Market Turbulence
(customer change)
(9-point Likert-type scale)
(Jaworski and Kohli 1993)
Rationality of Manager’s Decision Style
(9-point Likert-type scale)
(Taggart and Valenzi 1990)
Individual versus Group Assessment
(9-point, semantic differential)
(Deshpandé and Zaltman 1982)
Use of Marketing Information
(9-point Likert-type scale)
Covariate: Size of Marketing
Communications Budget (9-point
Likert-type scale, less than $10,000/
$100 million or more anchors)
NOTE: (R) indicates the item was reverse coded in the analysis.
decision context that has not been previously studied—the
assessment of marketing communications productivity. In
addition, we presented evidence that differs from prior
research regarding the impact of these factors on marketing
WINTER 2001
APPENDIX
Scale Items
1. In general, the information available to me for assessing marketing communications productivity is very
reliable.
2. The available marketing information is not relevant to my needs in assessing marketing communications
productivity. (R)
3. The information available is very useful in making an assessment of marketing communications
productivity for my product/service.
4. The information available is just what I need to make an evaluation.
1. How things are done around here is left up to the person doing the work. (R)
2. People here are allowed to do almost as they please. (R)
3. Most people here make their own rules on the job. (R)
4. In my company, we rely on formal policies to guide us in making decisions.
In your judgment, the assessment of marketing communications productivity for your product/service is:
1. difficult-easy (R)
2. ambiguous-clear (R)
3. ill-structured–straightforward (R)
4. complicated-simple (R)
1. The technology in my industry is changing rapidly.
2. Technological changes provide big opportunities in my industry.
3. It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in my industry will be in the next 2 to 3 years.
4. A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in
my industry.
5. Research and development activity has increased in my industry this year.
1. In my product or service’s market, customers’ product preferences change quite a bit each year.
2. Target marketing in my industry is like trying to hit a moving target.
3. My customers tend to look for new products all the time.
1. I feel that a prescribed, step-by-step method is best for solving problems.
2. It is important for me to have a place for everything and everything in its place.
3. I prefer specific details more than general ideas.
4. When I have a special job to do, I like to organize it carefully from the start.
5. I make a priority list of what needs to be done, and I generally stick to it.
The assessment of marketing communications programs in this firm tends to be a(n) individual
decision−group decision.
1. Most of the marketing information available to assess the productivity of marketing communications
was used.
2. I relied heavily on marketing information in assessing the productivity of my marketing communications
program.
3. I would not have been able to assess the productivity of my marketing communications program without
marketing research.
4. Without the use of marketing information, the assessment of marketing communications would have
been very different.
1. The annual marketing communications budget for my product/service is approximately . . .
managers’ use of information. Finally, we found that the
degree of group involvement in the assessment decision
enhances information use. On the basis of these findings,
we detailed a number of managerial and theoretical

implications related to the assessment of marketing com-
munications productivity and information use.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Linda Price, Bernie Jaworski, Chris-
tine Moorman, John Mullins, Dave Cravens, and Dan
Smith for their useful comments on earlier versions of this
article. The suggestions of the three anonymous reviewers
and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science edi-
tor are also appreciated. This study was supported by
grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, the University of Colorado Graduate
School, and the Charles Tandy American Enterprise Cen-
ter at Texas Christian University. This article is based on
the first author’s doctoral dissertation at the University of
Colorado Graduate School of Business.
NOTES
1. It is possible that information quality, rather than acting as a direct
antecedent to information use, may act as a mediator between other ante-
cedents in our model and information use. We explore this competing ex-
planation later in the article.
2. On the other hand, one might suspect that very high levels of for-
malization may too narrowly define appropriate information, such that
managers are actually more constrained. This possibility of a curvilinear
effect of formalization was explored but was not significant. Due to space
constraints, this discussion was omitted from the article.
3. Although research on market turbulence has examined its moderat-
ing effects between organizational characteristics and outcomes
(Jaworski and Kohli 1993), the focus on such research is on the “fit” be-
tween a firm and its environment. The strongest test of such contingency
models includes outcome variables; in this case, the degree to which us-
ing more information in more turbulent environments actually leads to
improved decisions and/or performance. Rather than being prescriptive
in nature, the focus of this research was on describing the conditions un-
der which more information is likely to be used.
4. We do not predict a moderating effect of group influence on the for-
malization, information quality, or the market turbulence−information
use relationships. There was not sufficient evidence in related literature to
support a moderating effect of group influence on these factors.
5. We also investigated the possibility of including competitive inten-
sity as a covariate, but the results of our multiple regression analysis in-
cluding competitive intensity show that it is not significant (b = .03, t =
0.60). Based on our results, competition does not appear to be signifi-
cantly related to information use in assessing productivity. This may ex-
plain why previous studies of information use (e.g., Desphandé and
Zaltman 1982; Maltz and Kohli 1996) did not include competition as a
main effect or as a covariate.
6. In our analysis of the data provided by the 421 respondents, miss-
ing values were not a significant problem. This could be attributed to the
anonymity of responses, the incentive offered, and the scale items used.
For example, size of the marketing communications budget, included as a
covariate in the analysis, had only 16 missing values. Missing values
were excluded pairwise from the correlation analysis and excluded
listwise from the regression analysis. This resulted in 361 respondents for
the regression analysis (see Table 4). Cell sizes ranged from 376 to 407
for the correlations (see Table 3).
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 81
7. Some might argue that many of the organizational antecedents in
our model may affect information use indirectly, through information
quality (which would act as a mediator). We explored this possibility by
analyzing our results as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test for
a mediating effect of information quality. To satisfy the conditions for a
mediating effect, the relationship between the other independent vari-
ables (excluding information quality) and the dependent variable (infor-
mation use) should be (1) stronger when the mediator is not included in
the equation and (2) weaker when it is included. Perfect mediation would
hold when the other independent variables’ effects disappear completely
when the mediator is included in the model. This analysis did not show
evidence of information quality functioning as a mediator. Information
use was regressed on the independent variables (except information qual-
ity). Then, a second regression analysis was performed with information
quality added to the model. Rather than functioning as a mediator (which
would have required that the effects of the other variables decreased in
magnitude and significance when information quality was added to the
model), their effects remained strong and in some cases were even stron-
ger with information quality included.
8. Alternatively, a Chow statistic (Chow 1960) could have been com-
puted. Such an analysis yields comparable results.
9. Our thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this alternative.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Urton L., Lisa Koonce, and Garry Marchant. 1994. “The Ef-
fects of Source-Competence Information and Its Timing on Audi-
tors’ Performance of Analytical Problems.” Auditing: A Journal of
Practice and Theory 13 (1): 137-148.
Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith. 1996. “In Search of the Marketing
Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs
for Mature Products.” Journal of Marketing Research 33 (May):
174-187.
Argote, Linda, Mark A. Seabright, and Linda Dyer. 1986. “Individual
Versus Group Use of Base-Rate and Individuating Information.” Or-
ganizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 38 (August):
65-75.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Research
14 (August): 396-402.
Avlonitis, George J. 1985. “Product Elimination Decision Making: Does
Formality Matter?” Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter): 41-52.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips. 1982. “Representing and
Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal.” Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 27 (September): 459-489.
Barclay, Donald W. 1991. “Interdepartmental Conflict in Organizational
Buying: The Impact of the Organizational Context.” Journal of Mar-
keting Research 28 (May): 145-159.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator
Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual,
Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173-1182.
Bonoma, Thomas V. and Bruce H. Clark. 1988. Marketing Performance
Assessment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Brockner, Joel. 1992. “The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing
Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress.” Academy of Man-
agement Review 17 (January): 39-61.
Bucklin, Randolph E. and Sunil Gupta. 1998. “Commercial Adoption of
Advances in the Analysis of Scanner Data.” Report No. 98-103. Mar-
keting Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Campbell, Donald J. 1988. “Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis.”
Academy of Management Review 13 (January): 40-52.
Chandrashekaran, Murali, Beth A. Walker, James C. Ward, and Peter H.
Reingen. 1996. “Modeling Individual Preference Evolution and
Choice in a Dynamic Group Setting.” Journal of Marketing Research
38 (May): 211-223.
Chow, Gregory C. 1960. “Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients
in Two Linear Regressions.” Econometrica 28:591-605.
82 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Cosier, Richard A. and Charles R. Schwenk. 1990. “Agreement and
Thinking Alike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions.” Academy of Man-
agement Executive 4 (February): 69-74.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1987. “Statistical Tests for Moderator Variables: Flaws
in Analyses Recently Proposed.” Psychological Bulletin 102 (3):
414-417.
Dawes, Philip L., Don Y. Lee, and Grahame R. Dowling. 1998. “Informa-
tion Control and Influence in Emergent Buying Centers.” Journal of
Marketing 62 (July): 55-68.
DeSanctis, Gerardine. 1982. “An Examination of an Expectancy Theory
Model of Decision Support System Use.” In Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Information Systems. Eds. Michael
Ginzberg and Catherine A. Ross. Baltimore: Association for Com-
puting Machinery.
Deshpandé, Rohit. 1982. “The Organizational Context of Market Re-
search Use.” Journal of Marketing 46 (Fall): 91-101.
 and Gerald Zaltman. 1982. “Factors Affecting the Use of Market
Research Information: A Path Analysis.” Journal of Marketing Re-
search 19 (February): 14-31.
 and . 1984. “A Comparison of Factors Affecting Re-
searcher and Manager Perceptions of Market Research Use.” Journal
of Marketing Research 21 (February): 32-38.
 and . 1987. “A Comparison of Factors Affecting Use of
Market Information in Consumer and Industrial Firms.” Journal of
Marketing Research 24 (February): 114-118.
Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: John Wiley.
Drumwright, Minette E. 1996. “Company Advertising With a Social Di-
mension.” Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 71-87.
Fiol, C. Marlene and Marjorie A. Lyles. 1985. “Organizational
Learning.” Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 803-813.
Ford, Cameron M. (1996). “A Theory of Individual Creative Action in
Multiple Social Domains.” Academy of Management Review 21 (4):
1112-1142.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equa-
tion Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”
Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 39-50.
Gallupe, R. Brent, Alan R. Dennis, William H. Cooper, Joseph S.
Valacich, Lana M. Bastianutti, and Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. 1992.
“Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size.” Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 35 (June): 350-369.
Glazer, Rashi and Allen M. Weiss. 1993. “Marketing in Turbulent Envi-
ronments: Decision Processes and the Time-Sensitivity of Informa-
tion.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (November): 509-521.
Hart, Stuart L. 1992. “An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making
Processes.” Academy of Management Review 17 (2): 327-351.
Helliker, Kevin. 1997. “A New Mix: Old-Fashioned PR Gives General
Mills Advertising Bargains.” Wall Street Journal, March 20, pp. A1,
A6.
Hill, Gayle W. 1982. “Group Versus Individual Performance: Are N + 1
Heads Better Than One?” Psychological Bulletin 91 (3): 517-539.
Huber, George P. and Richard L. Daft. 1987. “The Information Environ-
ments of Organizations.” In Handbook of Organizational Communi-
cation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Fredric M. Jablin,
Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W. Porter.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 130-164.
 and . 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing
Processes and the Literatures.” Organization Science 2 (February):
88-115.
Hurley, Robert F. and G. Tomas M. Hult. 1998. “Innovation, Market Ori-
entation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical
Examination.” Journal of Marketing 62 (July): 42-54.
Isenberg, Daniel J. 1986. “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and
Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
50:1141-1151.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. “Market Orientation: An-
tecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Marketing 57 (July): 53-70.
John, George and John Martin. 1984. “Effects of Organizational Struc-
ture of Marketing Planning on Credibility and Utilization of Plan
Output.” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May): 170-183.
Kahn, Barbara E. and Leigh McAlister. 1997. Grocery Revolution: The
New Focus on the Consumer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
WINTER 2001
Kohli, Ajay K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Goutam N. Challagalla. 1998.
“Learning and Performance Orientation of Salespeople: The Role of
Supervisors.” Journal of Marketing Research 35 (May): 263-274.
Lehmann, Donald R., Sunil Gupta, and Joel H. Steckel. 1998. Marketing
Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Li, Tiger and Roger Calantone. 1998. “The Impact of Market Knowledge
Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and
Empirical Examination.” Journal of Marketing 62 (October): 13-29.
Maltz, Elliot and Ajay K. Kohli. 1996. “Market Intelligence Dissemina-
tion Across Functional Boundaries.” Journal of Marketing Research
33 (February): 47-61.
March, James G. and Martha S. Feldman. 1981. “Information in Organi-
zations as Symbol and Signal.” Administrative Science Quarterly
26:171-186.
McClelland, Gary H. and Charles M. Judd. 1993. “Statistical Difficulties
of Detecting Interactions and Moderator Effects.” Psychological
Bulletin 114 (2): 376-390.
Menon, Anil and P. Rajan Varadarajan. 1992. “A Model of Marketing
Knowledge Use Within Firms.” Journal of Marketing 56 (October):
53-71.
Miller, Danny. 1987. “Strategy Making and Structure.” Academy of Man-
agement Journal 30 (March): 7-32.
Moorman, Christine. 1995. “Organizational Market Information Pro-
cesses: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes.” Journal
of Marketing Research 32 (August): 318-335.
, Rohit Despandé, and Gerald Zaltman. 1993. “Factors Affecting
Trust in Market Research Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 57
(January): 81-101.
Mullich, Joe. 1996. “Marketers Pressured to Demonstrate Results: Sales
Impact Remains Management’s Bottom-Line Gauge.” Advertising
Age 67 (June 10): S14.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Johny K. Johansson. 1985. “Japanese Management:
What About the ‘Hard’ Skills?” Academy of Management Review 10
(2): 181-191.
Nutt, Paul C. 1990. “Strategic Decisions Made by Top Executives and
Middle Managers With Data and Process Dominant Styles.” Journal
of Management Studies 27 (March): 173-194.
O’Reilly, Charles A. 1982. “Variations in Decision Makers’ Use of Infor-
mation Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Informa-
tion.” Academy of Management Journal 25 (4): 756-771.
. 1983. “The Use of Information in Organizational Decision
Making: A Model and Some Propositions.” Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior 5:103-139.
, Jennifer A. Chatman, and John C. Anderson. 1987. “Message
Flow and Decision Making.” In Handbook of Organizational Com-
munication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Fredric M. Jablin,
Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, and Lyman W. Porter.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 600-623.
Patton, W. E. III, Christopher P. Puto, and Ronald H. King. 1986. “Which
Buying Decisions Are Made by Individuals and Not by Groups?” In-
dustrial Marketing Management 15 (May): 129-138.
Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1992. “Behav-
ioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective.”
Annual Review of Psychology 43:87-131.
Perkins, Steven W. and Ram C. Rao. 1990. “The Role of Experience in
Information Use and Decision Making by Marketing Managers.”
Journal of Marketing Research 27 (February): 1-10.
Reimers, Jane L. and M. G. Fennema. 1999. “The Audit Review Process
and Sensitivity to Information Source Objectivity.” Auditing: A Jour-
nal of Practice and Theory 18 (1): 117-123.
Saunders, Carol and Jack William Jones. 1990. “Temporal Sequences in
Information Acquisition for Decision Making: A Focus on Source
and Medium.” Academy of Management Review 15 (1): 29-46.
Schultz, Don E. 1993. “Integrated Marketing Communications: Maybe Def-
inition Is in the Point of View.” Marketing News 27 (January 18): 17.
, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, and Robert F. Lauterborn. 1993. Inte-
grated Marketing Communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Busi-
ness Books.
 and Jeffrey S. Walters. 1997. “Why the Heat Is on Today’s Mar-
keting Exec: A New Book Examines Measuring a Budget’s Value.”
Advertising Age, October 20, p. 36.

Sharma, Shubhash, Richard M. Durand, and Oded Gur-Arie. 1981.
“Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables.” Journal of
Marketing Research 18 (August): 291-300.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Rajendra S. Sisodia. 1995. “Feeling the
Heat—More Than Ever Before, Marketing Is Under Fire to Account
for What It Spends.” Marketing Management 4 (Fall): 9-23.
Shimp, Terence A. 1997. Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental As-
pects of Integrated Marketing Communications. 4th ed. Fort Worth,
TX: Dryden.
Simon, Herbert A. 1987. “Making Management Decisions: The Role of
Intuition and Emotion.” Academy of Management Executive 1 (Feb-
ruary): 57-64.
Sinkula, James M. 1994. “Market Information Processing and Organiza-
tional Learning.” Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 35-45.
Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver. 1997. “Information Search Style
and Business Performance in Dynamic and Stable Environments: An
Exploratory Study.” Report No. 97-104. Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Taggart, William and Enzo Valenzi. 1990. “Assessing Rational and Intu-
itive Styles: A Human Information Processing Metaphor.” Journal of
Management Studies 27 (March): 149-172.
Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia. 1993. “Strate-
gic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages Among
Scanning, Interpretation, Action, and Outcomes.” Academy of Man-
agement Journal 36 (April): 239-270.
Tushman, Michael and David Nadler. 1978. “Information Processing as
an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design.” Academy of Man-
agement Review 3 (July): 613-624.
Vollrath, David A., Blair H. Sheppard, Verlin B. Hinsz, and James H. Da-
vis. 1989. “Memory Performance by Decision-Making Groups and
Individuals.” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Pro-
cesses 43 (June): 289-300.
Walsh, James P. 1988. “Selectivity and Selective Perception: An Investi-
gation of Managers’ Belief Structures and Information Processing.”
Academy of Management Journal 31 (December): 873-896.
Wanous, John P. and Margaret A. Youtz. 1986. “Solution Diversity and
the Quality of Group Decisions.” Academy of Management Journal
29 (March): 149-159.
Wheelwright, Steven C. and Kim B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing Prod-
uct Development. New York: Free Press.
Wierenga, Berend and Gerrit H. van Bruggen. 1997. “The Integration of
Marketing Problem-Solving Modes and Marketing Management
Support Systems.” Journal of Marketing 61 (July): 21-37.
Zaltman, Gerald. 1986. “Knowledge Utilization as Planned Social
Change.” In Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization. Eds.
G. Beal, W. Dissanayake, and S. Konoshima. Boulder, CO:
Westview, 433-462.
 and C. Moorman. 1989. “The Management and Use of Advertis-
ing Research.” Journal of Advertising Research 28 (December/Janu-
ary): 11-18.
View publication stats
Low, Mohr / USE OF MARKETING INFORMATION 83
Zmud, Robert W. 1978. “An Empirical Investigation of the
Dimensionality of the Concept of Information.” Decision Sciences 9
(April): 187-195.
. 1979. “Individual Differences and MIS Success: A Review of
the Empirical Literature.” Management Science 25 (October):
966-979.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
George S. Low is an associate professor in the Marketing De-
partment of the M. J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Chris-
tian University in Fort Worth, Texas. His Ph.D. in marketing is
from the University of Colorado–Boulder. He also received an
M.B.A. from the Ivey School of Business, University of Western
Ontario, and a B.A. in advertising from Brigham Young Univer-
sity. He spent 4 years as a media planner with MacLaren McCann
Advertising (Canada). His research focuses on integrated mar-
keting communications and brand management, and has been
published in the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of
Retailing, the Journal of Advertising Research, the European
Journal of Marketing, and the Journal of Product and Brand
Management, among others. He is the recipient of four research
grants from the Marketing Science Institute.
Jakki J. Mohr is an associate professor of marketing and the
Ron and Judy Paige faculty fellow at the University of Montana.
She received her B.B.A. from Boise State University, her M.S. in
marketing from Colorado State University, and her Ph.D. in mar-
keting from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Before be-
ginning her academic career, she worked in Silicon Valley in the
advertising area for both Hewlett Packard’s Personal Computer
Group and TeleVideo Systems. Her research has been published
in the Journal of Marketing, the Strategic Management Journal,
the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, the Journal of Re-
tailing, the Journal of High Technology Management Research,
Marketing Management, and Computer Reseller News. She has
recently authored a book, Marketing of High-Technology Prod-
ucts and Innovations. Her research interests lie primarily in the
area of marketing of high-technology products and services.