The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.

com /research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 182

Received April 1998 Revised April 1999

The old, the new and the complicated

A trilogy of marketing relationships
Marilyn Healy
Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

Kathleen Hastings
Department of Commerce, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, and

Les Brown and Michael Gardiner

Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
Keywords Relationship marketing, Networking, Marketing Mix, Marketing management Abstract The boundaries of relationship marketing have been discussed since relationship marketing was first investigated in the 1970s. Investigating these boundaries, this paper reviews the links between relationship marketing and network theory. Three main themes of marketing relationships are identified: relationship marketing, neo-relationship marketing and network theory. A framework is developed to allow for the positioning of these three themes of marketing relationships. While this framework has been developed in terms of a table, the intent is not to box theorists into neat positions but rather to develop an overall position statement for the three types of marketing relationships. Theorists can discuss marketing relationships depending on their position within the framework. Consequently, the framework allows for further development of relationship and neorelationship marketing by offering better applications for the practitioner, and enhances understanding of network theory. Suggestions are offered for the integration of marketing relationships into the marketing curriculum and further implications for marketing research are discussed.

Introduction Concerns regarding the marketing mix management model 4Ps are well documented in the marketing literature and include the dysfunctionalism of unilateral exchange (Hunt, 1983); the questioning of the validity of marketings quadriga of product, price, promotion and place (Van Waterschoot and Van den Bulte, 1992; Gronroos, 1994); and the questioning of its applicability in an increasingly global, complex and volatile market (Kirchmajer, 1995; Ballantyne, 1996). To address these concerns, some academics have tended to turn their attention to marketing relationship models (Dwyer et al., 1987; Sheth, 1993; Gronroos, 1996; Lehtinen, 1996). The concept of relationship marketing has been developing since the 1970s. (Lehtinen, 1996; Wilson, D., personal communication[1]; Hakansson, H.,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1/2, 2001, pp. 182-193. # MCB University Press, 0309-0566

The authors would like to thank Fiona Bowring-Greer for her contribution to early versions of this paper. Warm thanks are also extended to Associate Professor Chad Perry for his advice and guidance in the revision process.

personal communication[2]; Gummesson et al., 1997). Nevertheless, relationship The old, the new marketings nature is not established ``there is an unfortunate mix-up between and the the term RM and the understanding of the actual phenomenon, a mix-up which complicated should be avoided. Scholars are expected to look at the whole iceberg (the phenomenon), not just at its tip (the term), RM is a new term, but it represents an old phenomenon (Gummesson et al., 1997, p. 11). 183 Indeed, relationship marketing has expanded its boundaries and definitions to include related concepts such as network theory (for example, Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Coviello et al., 1997). Currently theorists from the areas of relationship marketing and network theory disagree as to the boundaries and definitions of relationship marketing and network theory. Additionally the boundaries and definitions of relationship marketing and network theory are not internally consistent or homogenous (Mattsson, 1997). Furthermore, this ambiguity has led to the development of narrow and convenient definitions designed to suit individual researchers needs (Coviello et al., 1997). Some theorists have tried to clarify understanding of marketing relationship, for example, comparing relationship marketing and network theory (Mattsson, 1997) and developing a contemporary marketing classification scheme (Coviello et al., 1997). These two papers have major strengths. Mattsson (1997) investigated the commonalities and similarities between network theory and relationship marketing, determining there is overlap subject to the broadness of the definition used for relationship marketing. Coviello et al. (1997) developed a framework to discuss, research and understand different marketing practices through the classification of differing marketing types. However, there is still a gap in the literature about the identification of boundaries for the different aspects of relationship marketing and the overlap with network theory. Thus the aim of this paper is to develop a framework to identify different aspects of relationship marketing and boundaries between relationship marketing and related concepts like network theory. To develop the framework it is first necessary to identify the themes of marketing relationships. We suggest three themes, relationship marketing, neo-relationship marketing (a term created by the authors), and network theory and then we suggest a framework for differentiating them. The common denominator of these three themes is that marketing management needs to be built on interdependent relationships rather than on one-off transactions. Each of these three themes will be discussed in turn, but first, consideration of the evolution of relationship marketing and an explanation of the derivatives of relationship marketing will be provided to set the scene. Evolution and current views of marketing relationships An emphasis on marketing relationships emerged in the marketing literature in the late 1970s and the 1980s. Simultaneously but independently, researchers in the USA (for example, Wilson, 1976; Bonoma et al., 1977; Bund Jackson, 1985) and Europe (Ford, 1980; Hakansson, 1982; Johanson and Mattsson, 1984; Gummesson, 1987) started to look beyond the simple dyadic transaction. The

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 184

first large scale study into dyadic relationships was conducted by a predominantly Swedish group, the Industrial/international Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Group (Hakansson, 1982; Brennan and Turnbull, 1998; Cheung and Turnbull, 1998). Thus both Nordic and US early research was the foundation for the emergence and development of relationship marketing. Subsequent work, normally associated with the IMP Group, extends the buyer-seller marketing relationship dyad to structures of complex nets involving three or more actors (Johanson and Mattsson, 1984; Thorelli, 1986; Hakansson and Snehota, 1995; Araujo and Easton, 1996). Other more recent seminal work extends the buyer-seller marketing relationship dyad concept to incorporate numerous relational exchanges radiating between the focal firm and other partnerships such as internal partnerships, supplier partnerships, lateral partnerships and buyer partnerships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gronroos, 1997). Other writers placed relationships within a broader perspective. For example, Webster (1992) viewed marketing relationships as a component of a strategic marketing continuum beginning with one-off transactions and ending with vertical integration. Moreover Gronroos (1994) developed a new marketing strategy continuum focusing on steps from transaction cost marketing to relationship marketing. Development of the framework Given these ongoing developments, confusion surrounds the term ``relationship marketing. However, given the need to continue the study of the relationship marketing phenomenon, we have developed a framework that addresses the differences and commonalities with the three themes of a marketing relationship. Two characteristics of the relationship were selected as key dimensions for the framework. Specifically, marketing relationships are addressed using the dimensions of ``context of the relationship and ``the number of participants in the exchange process (see Table I). The framework in Table I is based on two axes. The vertical axis, context of the relationship, identifies the categories of non-business relationships, horizontal networks, buyer-seller and other non-distributor chain relationships, and only buyer-seller relationships. Similarly, the horizontal axis, number of participants, ranges from a simple dyad, through strings of related dyads, on to triads which are not strings of directly related dyads within a channel of distribution, to finally three or more actors. From these axes a grid has been developed which cross-references the number of participants to the marketing relationship, with the context of the relationship. These grid cells allow us to identify authors descriptions and understanding of marketing relationships. In this way, the authors have been grouped according to their explanation of marketing relationships. It is apparent that the relationship marketing phenomenon can be considered under three strands, which we have named relationship marketing,

The old, the new and the complicated 185

Table I. Theory developments from relationship marketing to neorelationship marketing and network theory

neo-relationship marketing and network theory. Based on Table I, the three strands can be characterised as: (1) Relationship marketing: a dyadic buyer-seller relationship that tends to ignore the role of other elements in the distribution channel and the role of other stakeholders. (2) Relationship marketing plus stakeholders (neo-relationship marketing): the marketing relationship is still dyadic but goes beyond the buyerseller relationship to include all marketing activities directed towards establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 186

exchanges. We have called this strand neo-relationship marketing to differentiate it from simple dyadic relationships. (3) Network theory: a more complex structure of networks involving three or more actors. The intent of Table I is not to box theorists into neat positions but rather to investigate the trends and evolution of relationship marketing, thereby ensuring theorists are discussing and comparing their arguments of relationship marketing on the same premises. An outcome of this intent is the development of the two directional arrows emanating from the lower left corner of the table where the origins of relationship marketing are depicted. These arrows demonstrate the evolution and development of marketing relationship theory and also recognise the increasing complexities of the relationship phenomena in marketing environments, from relationship marketing of the 1970s to neo-relationship marketing (the more vertical arrow) and network theory (the more horizontal arrow) of today. The arrows also show the divergence between neo-relationship marketing and network theory (see Table I). The marketing relationship trilogy Having delineated the three themes of relationship marketing, we will now address each one in greater detail. Relationship marketing Bund Jackson is recorded as having used the term ``relationship marketing as early as the 1970s in the field of industrial marketing (Gummesson et al., 1997). In turn, Berry (1983, p. 25) used the term relationship marketing in the USA to explain how multi-service industries were enhancing the development and continuity of customer relations. That is, ``relationship marketing is attracting, maintaining and enhancing customer relationships. This definition was later confirmed when a specific definition relating to services marketing was developed. That is, ``relationship marketing concerns attracting, developing, and retaining customer relationships (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991, p. 133). Relationship marketing focuses almost entirely on the buyer-seller relationship which has been likened to a marriage (Dwyer et al., 1987; Levitt, 1993) (see cell I, bottom left cell of Table I). This focus tends to ignore the role of other elements within distribution channels and the part that other stakeholders play in the building and management of long-term customer relationships. Nevertheless, this view of relationship marketing has laid the groundwork for research into other areas of marketing theory such as channel relationships (Perrien et al. 1993). Authors such as Heide (1994), Weitz and Jap (1995), Nevin (1995), Gassenheimer et al., (1996) and Pelton et al. (1997) are providing the linkages between relationship marketing and distribution channels. In Table I, this channel relationship group of authors is

listed in the adjoining cell (cell J). These authors are distinguished from the The old, the new group in cell I because they recognise any of the strings of dyadic buyer-seller and the exchanges in the channel of distribution. complicated Neo-relationship marketing The interest in buyer-seller relationships marketing in relationship marketing has been extended to other relationships (Mattsson, 1997). We call this extended approach to relationship marketing ``neo-relationship marketing as it refers to a body of literature which goes beyond a simple buyer-seller dyadic relationship to include other stakeholders involved in marketing activities. For example, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 4: emphasis added) concluded that ``relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges. Further still, Gronroos (1996) expanded the concept to include ``other stakeholders. His definition states ``relationship marketing is to identify and establish, maintain and enhance relationships with customers and other stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties involved are met. This is achieved through mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises (Gronroos, 1996, p. 11). Thus neo-relationship marketings key distinction from relationship marketing is that although the unit of analysis is still dyadic, the dyad can be other than one buyer-seller relationship. Furthermore, more than one dyad can be involved in any given exchange situation. This distinguishing characteristic of neo-relationship marketing has been identified by numerous authors (for example, Turnbull, 1987; Christopher et al., 1991; Gummesson, 1993; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Styles and Ambler, 1994; Moini, 1995; and Gronroos, 1997). Referring to Table I, these authors are located in the two cells (see cells E and F) on the left-hand side in the middle row. The difference between these two cells is that the extreme left-hand cell (cell E) includes the extended dyadic view of marketing relationships. The adjoining cell (cell F) also refers to the extended view of marketing relationships but relates to strings of related dyads. Thus both of these cells are incorporated under the common heading of neo-marketing relationship marketing. Network theory Although numerous fields of network research exist (for instance, social and entrepreneurial networks), in this paper we have confined the discussion to include only what are commonly referred to as industrial networks, as marketing is the primary disciplinary background for them (Araujo and Easton, 1996). Industrial network theory emanates from early work in which the idea of the discrete transaction was questioned and dyadic relationships were first considered (for example, Bonoma et al., 1977; Hakansson, 1985). From this relationship marketing background, network theory evolved when researchers started looking beyond simple dyadic relationships and began to concentrate their research efforts on the more complex structures of networks

187

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 188

or nets, which involve three or more actors. Accordingly, papers by authors discussing network theory are listed in Table I in the middle row on the right hand side (see cell H). A substantial stream of literature has followed this school of thought, making networking a ``fashionable topic (Jarillo, 1988, p. 32) (for example, Ford, 1990; Hakansson and Snehota, 1990; Axelsson and Easton, 1992; Blankenburg-Holm et al., 1996; and Lehtinen, 1996). More recently, network theory has been based on the actors-activitiesresources model which suggests that networks are dynamic entities exhibiting interdependence and connectedness between actor bonds, activity links and resource ties (Hakansson and Johanson, 1992; Hakansson and Snehota, 1995). Although the evolution of network theory has been strongly influenced by the IMP Group, network theory has been utilised by US, Australian and UK authors to explain interfirm relations and the current understanding of strategic management of firms, (for example, Christopher et al., 1991; Young and Wilkinson, 1992; Wilkinson and Mattsson, 1993; Wilkinson and Young, 1994; Perry and Pyatt, 1995; Ford et al., 1995; Wilson and Moller, 1995; Gummesson et al., 1997). Discussion and implications As can be seen from the preceding review, the use of the discriminating factors of ``context of the relationship and ``number of participants in the exchange relationship, distinguishes between different theoretical positions. From our perspective, the development of these theoretical positions (relationship marketing, neo-relationship marketing and network theory) has implications for marketing education and marketing research. The contributions to these two areas will be discussed next, together with suggestions for future research. Implications for marketing education The practicality of what is taught by marketing educators must be in step with changes in theory or models. In the early 1990s US educational institutions were questioning the gap between marketing practice and marketing curriculum content and a MBA program which focused on the theory and practice of relationship marketing was developed (Cannon and Sheth, 1994). In turn, we propose that the inclusion of marketing relationships should commence in the foundation marketing unit and progressively extend through all units, culminating in the capstone marketing unit, as shown in Figure 1. For example, simple dyadic relationships should be considered in introductory marketing. Neo-relationship marketing should be incorporated into units such as channels/distribution; consumer behaviour; promotions management and services marketing so other stakeholders can be considered along with the dyadic relationship. Networks, where three or more actors are involved in the marketing process should be included in units such as international marketing, franchising and strategic marketing.

The old, the new and the complicated 189

Figure 1. Suggested integration of marketing relationship strands with a marketing education curriculum

Implications for research This paper contributes to research by giving clear definitions of the units of analysis. That is, we found relationship marketing to be concerned with simple, dyadic, long-term relationships between the buyer and seller. The unit of analysis of neo-relationship marketing is also dyadic but is influenced by interactions with other stakeholders. Finally, network theory involves three or more actors and is concerned with examining more complex structures with the unit of analysis being a single actor, a group of actors or even the whole organisation. On this foundation, a meta-analysis of empirical findings for each of the cells in Table I could be done in the future. Conclusion This paper has shown that differences exist in the trilogy of marketing relationships. In particular it has shown the need to discuss the trilogy of marketing relationships in terms of the two-dimensional parameters of number of participants and the context of the relationship. Further, we have offered a framework for the integration of marketing relationships into the marketing curriculum and suggest areas for further research. Finally, it is not the authors intention to box theorists into structured dimensions but rather to identify general themes emerging from scholarly work and suggest how this work can be incorporated into marketing practice.

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 190

Notes 1. Wilson, D., personal communication, 24 June 1997. 2. Hakansson, H., personal communication, 21 July 1997. References Alba, R.D. (1982), ``Taking stock of network analysis; a decades results, Research in Sociology of Organisations, Vol. 1, pp. 39-74. Aruajo, L. and Easton, G. (1996), ``Networks in socio-economic systems: a critical review, in Iacobucci, D. (Ed.), Networks in Marketing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (1992), Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality, Routledge, London. Ballantyne, D. (1996), ``Getting your way in business, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-6. Berry, L.L. (1983), ``Relationship marketing, in Berry, L., Shostack, G.L. and Upah, G.D. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. pp. 25-8. Berry, L.L. (1995), ``Relationship marketing of services growing interest, emerging perspectives, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-45. Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services, The Free Press, New York, NY. Blankenburg-Holm, D., Eriksson, K. and Johanson, J. (1996), ``Business networks and co-operation in international business relationships, Journal of International Business Studies, special issue, pp. 1033-53. Bonoma, T.V., Zaltman, G. and Johnston, W.J. (1977) ``Industrial buying behaviour, Marketing Science Institute, pp. 77-117. Brennan, R. and Turnbull, P.W. (1998), ``Adaptations in buyer-seller relationships, in Naude, P. and Turnbull, P.W. (Eds), Network Dynamics in International Marketing, Elsevier, Oxford. Bund Jackson, B. (1985), ``Build customer relationships that last, Harvard Business Review, November-December,pp. 120-8. Burt, R.S. (1988), ``Distinguishing relational content, in Burt, R.S. and Minor, M.J. (Eds), Applied Network Analysis, pp. 35-74, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Cannon, J.P. and Sheth, J.N. (1994), ``Developing a curriculum to enhance teaching of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing Education, Summer, pp. 3-14. Carson, D. and McGowan, P. (1993), International Marketing Development An Alternative Approach, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Summer, pp. 160-6. Cheung, M.Y.S. and Turnbull, P.W. (1998), ``A review of the nature and development of interorganisational relationships: a network perspective, in Naude. P. and Turnbull, P.W. (Eds), Network Dynamics in International Marketing, Elsevier, Oxford. Christopher, M., Payne, M. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Cook, K.S. and Emerson, R.M. (1978), ``Power equity, commitment in exchange networks, American Sociological Review, Vol. 43, October, pp. 721-38. Coviello, N., Brodie, R. and Munro, H. (1997), ``Understanding contemporary marketing development of a classification scheme, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 501-22. Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), ``Developing buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.

Ford, D. (1980), ``The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 339-54. Ford, D. (Ed.) (1990), Understanding Business Networks: Interaction, Relationships, Networks, Academic Press, London. Ford, I.D., McDowell, R. and Tomkins, C.R. (1995), ``Relationship strategy: decisions on valuing and managing network options, in Turnbull, P., Yorke, D. and Naude, P. (Eds), Interaction, Relationships and Networks, Proceedings of the 11th IMP Conference, Manchester, pp. 392-418. Gassenheimer, J.B., Sterling, J.U. and Robicheaux, R.A. (1996), ``Long-term channel member relationships, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 94-117. Gronroos, C. (1994), ``From marketing mix to relationship marketing: toward a paradigm shift in marketing, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 9-29. Gronroos, C. (1996), ``Relationship marketing logic, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 7-18. Gronroos, C. (1997), ``Channel management from a relationship marketing perspective: an overview of strategic and tactical issues in marketing channels, in Pelton, L., Strutton, D. and Lumpkin, J., Marketing Channels: a Relationship Marketing Approach, Irwin, Boston, MA, pp. 116-21. Gummesson, E. (1987), ``The new marketing-developing long term interactive relationships, Long Range Planning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 10-20. Gummesson, E. (1993), ``From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 9-29. Gummesson, E., Lehtinen, U. and Gronroos, C. (1997), ``Comment on Nordic perspectives on relationship marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 10-16. Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Hakansson, H. (1985), ``The Swedish approach to Europe, in Turnbull, P.W. and Valla, J-P. (Eds), Strategies for International Industrial Marketing, Croom Helm, London. Hakansson, H. (1989), Corporate Technological Behaviour: Cooperation and Networks, Routledge, London. Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1992), ``A model of industrial networks, in Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (Eds), Industrial Networks: a New View of Reality, pp. 28-34, Routledge, London. Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1990), ``No business is an island, in Ford, I.D. (Ed.), Understanding Business Networks, Academic Press, London. Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (Eds) (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge, London. Havila, V. (1997), ``From business-relationship dyads to business-relationship triads, Proceedings of the IMP-OZ Conference, 13-16 February, Sydney. Healy, M. (1994), ``Classical international marketing theory versus network theory in the Australian manufacturing jewellery industry, Honours thesis, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Heide, J.B. (1994), ``Interorganisational governance in marketing channels, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, January, pp. 71-85. Hogarth-Scott, S. and Dapiran, G.P. (1997), ``Shifting category management relationships in the food distribution channels in the UK and Australia, Management Decisions, March-April, Vol. 35 No. 3-4, pp. 310-19.

The old, the new and the complicated 191

European Journal of Marketing 35,1/2 192

Hunt, S. (1983), ``General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 9-17. IMP Group (1982), ``An interaction approach, in Hakansson, H. (Ed.), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Jarillo, J.C. (1988), ``On strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 31-41. Johanson, J. and Mattsson, L-G. (1984), ``Marketing investments and market investments in industrial networks, paper presented at the International Research Seminar on Industrial Marketing, Stockholm School of Economics, cited in Axelsson, B. (1995), The Development of Network Research Question of Mobilization and Perseverance, in Moller, K. and Wilson, D. (Eds), Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. Kirchmajer, L. (1995), doctoral workshop presentation on Relationship Marketing, ANZAM Doctoral Colloquium, Townsville. Lehtinen, U. (1996), ``Our present state of ignorance in relationship marketing, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 43- 51. Levitt, T. (1993), The Marketing Imagination, The Free Press, New York, NY. Mattsson, J. (1986), ``Initial penetration of European continental markets by small and medium sized firms, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 93-114. Mattsson, L-G. (1997), ``Relationship marketing and the markets-as-networks approach a comparative analysis of two evolving streams of research, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 447-61. Moini, A.H. (1995), ``An inquiry into successful exporting: An empirical investigation using a three-stage model, Journal of Small Business Management, July, pp. 9-24. Morgan, R.N. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), ``The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. Nevin, J.R. (1995), ``Relationship marketing and distribution channels: exploring fundamental issues, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 2327-34. Pelton, L., Strutton, D. and Lumpkin, J. (1997), Marketing Channels: a Relationship Management Approach, Irwin, Boston, MA. Perry, C. and Pyatt, R. (1994), ``Networks: new wine in old bottles, working paper, University of Queensland, St Lucia. Perry, C. and Pyatt, R. (1995), ``Network theorys contribution to the development of marketing research, in Grant, K. and Walker, I. (Eds), Proceedings of the 7th Biannual World Marketing Congress, Academy of Marketing Science, Monash, 6-10 July, pp. 13.107-13.115. Perrien, J., Filiantrault, P. and Richard, L. (1993), ``Implementation of relationship marketing in commercial banking, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-8. Sheth, J.N. (1993), ``Emerging marketing strategies in a changing macro environment: a commentary, International Marketing Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 57-63. Styles, C. and Ambler, T. (1994), ``Successful export practice: the UK experience, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 23-47. Thorelli, H.B. (1986), ``Networks: between markets and hierarchies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 37-51. Turnbull, P.W. (1987) ``Interaction and international marketing: an investment process, International Marketing Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 5-22. Van Waterschoot, W. and Van den Bulte, C. (1992), ``The 4P classification of the marketing mix revisited, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 49-64.

Webster, F.R. Jr (1992), ``The changing role of marketing in the corporation, Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 1-17. Weitz, B. and Jap, S. (1995), ``Relationship marketing and distribution channels, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 305-20. Wellman, B. and Berokowitz, S.D. (Eds) (1988), Social Structures: A Network Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wilkinson, I. and Mattsson, L-G. (1993), Trade Promotion Policy from a Network Perspective: the Case of Australia, working paper 1/193, Department of Marketing in conjunction with Centre for International Management and Commerce, University of Western Sydney, Nepean. Wilkinson, I.F. and Young, L.C. (1994), The Space Between: the Nature and Role of Interfirm Relations in Business, working paper 1/(1994), Department of Marketing in conjunction with Centre for International Management and Commerce, University of Western Sydney, Nepean. Wilson, D.T. (1976), ``Dyadic interaction: an exchange process, in Anderson, B.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, pp. 394-7. Wilson, D.T. and Moller, K.K. (Eds), (1995), Business Marketing: an Interaction and Network Perspective, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA. Wren, B.M. and Simpson, J.T. (1996), ``A dyadic model of relationships in organizational buying: a synthesis of research results, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 63-80. Young, L.C. and Wilkinson, I.F. (1992), ``Towards a typology of interfirm relations in marketing systems, 8th IMP Conference, Lyon, September.

The old, the new and the complicated 193