Bài 4_Thảo luận về chiến lược tiếp thị quốc tế

Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research International marketing strategies in industrial clusters: Insights from the Southern Hemisphere Christian Felzensztein Freeman c a b c a, ⁎, Christina Stringer b, Maureen Benson-Rea b, Susan School of Business, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Av Diagonal Las Torres 2700, Peñalolen, Santiago, Chile Department of Management and International Business, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand International Business, Business School, University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia a r t i c l e in f o Available online 27 July 2013 Keywords: Industry clusters International marketing strategies Wine industry Southern Hemisphere Latin America Australia New Zealand Chile Argentina abstract This paper examines co-operative marketing strategies among clustered-based firms in the most important wine producing and exporting countries in the ‘new world’ The research examines the development of active inter-firm marketing co-operation undertaken by firms to achieve competitive positioning in international markets The results of a survey of managers located in Argentina, Australia, Chile and New Zealand are presented The empirical contribution comes from the unique comparative data from regional clusters in four countries which are seen internationally as innovative producers and marketers, all strongly export-oriented, but at different stages of economic development and positioning in the global marketplace In addition, this study makes a significant contribution to agglomeration theory by confirming the importance of sharing marketing knowledge to build sustainable competitive advantage in international markets The theoretical contribution builds under- standing of international marketing strategies within the Southern Hemisphere group of emerging countries and offers new insights on international marketing practices for emerging firms from both the developed economies in the Pacific Ocean region and Latin American emerging economies © 2013 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved Introduction The role of industrial clusters and networks in the growth of entrepreneurial firms, industries and economies is an important area of research (Blundel, 2006; Johanson & Mattsson, 1988; Piore & Sabel, 1984; Vasilchenko & Morrish, 2011) While much prior re- search focuses either on economic development policies to induce or stimulate co-operation in clusters, or on the benefits or critical success factors of clusters, less attention has been paid to analyzing relations among actors within and across clusters (Sugden, Wei, & Wilson, 2006) Therefore, research on how firms within regions develop (or not) co-operative relationships with firms in their regions and the nature of those activities is warranted This study explores co-operative marketing strategies among cluster-based firms in some of the most important wine producing and exporting countries in the Southern Hemisphere: Argentina, Australia, Chile and New Zealand In particular, the paper examines the development of inter-firm marketing co-operation, a specific type of active marketing externality (Brown, McNaughton, & Bell, 2010), by firms aiming to achieve competitive positioning in international markets ⁎ Corresponding author E-mail addresses: c.felzensztein@uai.cl (C Felzensztein), c.stringer@auckland.ac.nz (C Stringer), m.benson-rea@auckland.ac.nz (M Benson-Rea), susan.freeman@adelaide.edu.au (S Freeman) This paper brings new theoretical perspectives from a global industry into the under-researched Southern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean region, and advances knowledge about the role of inter-firm relations in international marketing and competitive advantage The four countries in the study operate at different stages of economic and cluster development In light of a lack of strong international comparative evidence between developed and emerging economies relating to the benefits of interfirm co-operation in marketing and co-location (Felzensztein, Gimmon, & Aqueveque, 2012), further research is needed There have been calls for more comparative studies including the under-researched geographical area of Latin America (Fastoso & Whitelock, 2011; Fastoso & Whitelock, 2012) This region demonstrates increasing strategic connections with other emerging markets and the developed world as a whole, underlining the research importance of further comparative understanding of Latin American firm strategies The study addresses these gaps in the literature and aims to better understand the marketing practices of clustered firms from the Southern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean region Two key research questions inform the study: firstly, how and to what extent does geographical co-location (close proximity of firms) influences inter-firm marketing cooperation to achieve better competitive advantage in international markets? Secondly, what are the differences, if any, in marketing practices among clustered firms in emerging versus developed economies to achieve their international marketing strategies? To answer these research questions, the results of a 2010 survey of general and marketing 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.002 838 C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 managers of wine firms in some of the most important wine producing economies of the Southern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean are presented The empirical contribution comes from the uniqueness of the com- parative data from regional clusters in four countries which are seen internationally as innovative producers and marketers, strongly export-oriented but at different stages of economic development and positioning in the global marketplace The paper's theoretical contribution builds understanding of international marketing strategies within emerging countries and offers new insights on international marketing practice for emerging firms in both developed and emerging economies This study provides a substantial contribution to agglomeration theory by confirming the importance of sharing marketing knowledge to build sustainable competitive advantage in international markets The paper is structured as follows Section identifies concepts relating to regional clusters and inter-firm co-operation in marketing and develops the hypotheses which informed the data analysis Section is a brief overview of the industry context in each of the four Southern Hemisphere economies under study Section describes the methodology Section 5's discussion sets out the key findings and conclusions on whether and how inter-firm co-operation within regional clusters can enhance a firm's international marketing competitiveness Theoretical background 2.1 Benefits of industrial clusters Many business scholars have built on Marshall's (1920) early theories of agglomeration economies (Parr, Hewings, Sohn, & Nazaral, 2002) The concepts of co-partnerships, social elements of proximity, marketing and co-operation among industries are highly inter-related, as external economies or externalities – the economies of scale benefits derived from industrial location (Marshall, 1920) – are not internal to the firm These are beyond the firm's control but strongly influence its internal production or performance (Brown & McNaughton, 2002, chap 1) Marshall's (1920) ideas about marketing in industrial clusters1center on “mutual discovery” as a key advantage of co-location but it remains unclear how and why the process of industrial localization starts in certain places and not in others, or exactly what “local” means (Martin & Sunley, 2002) Researchers have no single definition of a cluster Porter's (1998) explanation involves horizontally and vertically-related industries with multiple interaction types leading to higher productivity levels Although clusters form at any geographical scale (Porter, 1990, 1998), they are primarily localized related organizations (Perry, 2007) The initial catalyst for a cluster may be an “accident of history” (Brown & McNaughton, 2002) or the result of intentional initiatives (Sugden et al., 2006) Once established, new firms join the initial cluster to benefit from the increasing returns and positive externalities, possibly follow- ing a “lead firm”, and the network develops (Martin, 1999) Transaction cost views of industry clusters largely overlook technology, information and social aspects of interdependence, which can enable market-based externalities (Brown et al., 2010) which are the external economies accruing from the firms' decisions which bring down the average costs of industries and enable firms to compete (Krugman, 1991) Con- sistent with the literature on clusters, this study defines a regional cluster as a group of firms related to the same industry that shares geographic proximity within an administratively-defined region in a country, which exhibits commonalities and complementarities Thus, clusters transcend the national and take on regional or sub-local identities A distinguishing feature of geographically clustered firms is that they simultaneously co-operate while competing (Lundberg & Johanson, 2011; Mesquita, 2007) Examining the internal dynamics of co-located groups of firms and focusing on inter-firm interaction can build understanding of the distinctive features of clusters, especially the benefits of co-operative strategies among firms (Häkansson, Ford, & Snehota, 2006; Welch & Wilkinson, 2005) 2.2 Marketing externalities Few available studies investigate active marketing externalities and their influence on the international competitive strategy of firms (Brown et al., 2010; Guercini & Runfola, 2011), to show how firms use marketing externalities in clusters to achieve local and international competitiveness Geographical clustering is a potential source of compet- itive advantage for networked firms, particularly small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) since local firms can provide access to important networks and resources for co-located firms Co-location fosters passive and active externalities (Brown et al., 2010) Passive externalities emerge from firms being co-located near similar firms, requiring little or no effort on the part of the firm For example, firms may locate in close proximity to other firms to access skilled labor or to exchange intermediate products with other firms or to access better specialized suppliers Active externalities arise from a firm's actions and willingness to “make something happen” (Brown et al., 2010, p 174) as opposed to passive benefits that accrue simply from co-location Active externali- ties emerge when firms work together to identify benefits, and such cooperation occurs as a result of trust that develops through passive externalities Firms can pursue joint sales to foreign markets, joint distribution strategies, trade activities, marketing delegations for foreign markets, and share market information and co-branding, among others Clusters provide general benefits to firms, relating to value chain inputs or aspects of production processes, such as collective learning and resource leverage (Malmberg, Solvell, & Zander, 1996) While natural resource endowments are critical for regional development, the ability to add value within clusters in ways that produce superior re- sults in international markets is even more so (Perez-Aleman, 2005) Consequently natural resource-based industries increasingly seek constructed advantage over comparative advantage, so that advantage is created using knowledge and innovation rather than via resource endowments (Cooke & Leydesdorff, 2006) H1 Co-located firms increase competitiveness through cooperative marketing activities 2.3 Clusters and networks In addition to resource endowments, social interactions and networks are important within clusters since local knowledge transfer may be em- bedded in co-located social interactions (Lundberg & Johanson, 2011) The communication preferences of individual firms (increasingly using email) and business relationship atmosphere strongly influence interactions and communication in regional clusters (Andresen, Bergman, & Hallén, 2011, chap 6) Newer marketing approaches within clusters include co-operative retail strategies and branding (especially relevant for fast moving consumer goods) More complex processes, including specialization in marketing roles (Guercini & Runfola, 2011), and internet use in international business-to-business marketing, positively impact the accumulation of new market knowledge and the international performance of SMEs (Moen, Madsen, & Aspelund, 2008) Local clustering can pro- vide particular benefits for firms in emerging economies to over- come growth constraints, intensify learning and innovation, and gain access to distant markets (Nadvi, 1999), and “ecpreoastitive exter- nalities which help managerial and technical learning” (Altenburg & MeyerStamer, 1999, p 1693) In emerging economies like Argentina and Chile (compared with developed economies such as Australia and New Zealand), face- to face communication, for example, remains important in marketing practices (Pels, Brodie, & Johnston, 2004) In globalized markets, entry C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 is achieved through building and strengthening network positions (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009) Collective market knowledge (Keen & Wu, 2011), extant knowledge, and new knowledge development increasingly occur among partners in vertical and horizontal relationships and networks (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009) often through social ties (Keen & Wu, 2011) “Active socialization among knowledge holders are [sic] effective ways for firms to fully disperse and capitalize on their generic knowl- edge” (Keen & Wu, 2011, p 329) H2 Emerging economy firms are more likely to use interpersonal networks to accelerate market development 2.4 Accelerated market learning The internationalization of Southern Hemisphere wine industries is of increasing interest to researchers (Bianchi & Wickramasekera, 2013; Duarte Alonso, 2010; Wickramasekera & Oczkowski, 2004) be- cause their active and innovative strategies encapsulate contemporary issues in international business and marketing, namely: rapidly changing markets, increased competition among and within regions, the increasing need to develop new products, and the importance of learning to make use of e-commerce (Buckley, 2002) Moreover, firms face international competition in their domestic markets, regardless of the firm or industry's own forays into internationalization (Keen & Wu, 2011) Market learning is central to knowledge-based commitment in internationalization but, since extant theory sees market knowledge as acquired through experimental learning (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009), that is by doing or by observing others, this does not account for new types of knowledge, accelerated learning or new ways of acquir- ing knowledge (Keen & Wu, 2011) Networks of social ties in accelerated international learning – in emerging economy firms or in rapidly catching-up industries – are increasingly used for: legitimacy (Bangara, Freeman, & Schroder, 2012), learning and developing knowledge of new techniques and technologies, building expertise and capabilities, to leverage resources and, crucially, to leverage externalities against larger and more established competitors in international markets (Keen & Wu, 2011) Though focusing on multinational corporations Li (2010) argues that a learning-based approach draws research attention to latecomers, especially their accelerated learning trajectories and use of alliances to build “co-specialization and shared trust” (p 56) This sup- ports Freeman, Hutchings, Lazaris, and Zyngier's (2010) view of accelerat- ed SME internationalization and the need to explore the knowledge processes of expansion in co-operative clusters, since market learning and development processes are accelerated in networked approaches (Johanson & Kao, 2010; Keen & Wu, 2011) While differences will exist among exporting firms depending on their degree of international en- gagement, whether experimental, active or committed (Cavusgil, 1984), as the firm becomes more internationalized international market re- search becomes equally important as domestic research, and is more formalized Crucially, emerging economy firms, and by extension other late catching-up firms, not have time to accumulate resources and knowledge and must “learn by association instead of firsthand experi- ence” (Keen & Wu, 2011, p 334) The key marketing activities identified for new entrant firms into international markets include market development initiatives such as joint trade fair participation, international marketing delegations, market research and distribution strategies (Root, 1998, chap 2) They may also include value chain activities such as building close relation- ships in marketing channels with individual customers, joint distribu- tion activities, promotion, communication (especially database and 839 internet marketing) and ongoing network ties which facilitate any or all of these activities (Johanson & Kao, 2010), which are enabled by co-location with partners in local clusters (Tallman, Jenkins, Henry, & Pinch, 2004) H3 Clustered versus singular firms engaging in a catch-up strategy are more likely to use channel management initiatives Southern HeThisphere wine clusters We now address our context—the wine sector in the Southern Hemisphere In 2009, global wine production was approximately 266 million hectoliters, with over 70% in European economies, mainly France, Italy, and Spain—the so-called ‘old world’ producers In the ‘new world’, the US, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, Chile and New Zealand are the key wine producing economies In the Southern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean region, Argentina, Australia, Chile, and New Zealand are the most important wine producing and exporting economies, competing for similar international markets in the Northern Hemisphere The wine industry in the Southern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean is an important research context as few studies comparing developed versus emerging new world economies have been conducted in this part of the world This section first describes the industry background and the marketing and exporting profiles of four national wine industries in the region: two developed economies, Australia and New Zealand, (“affluent forerunners”) and two emerging economies, Argentina and Chile (“less developed but rapidly growing latecomers”) (Cusmano, Morrison, & Rabellotti, 2010, p 1588) South Africa is increasingly important in wine exporting from the Southern Hemisphere but is excluded since the research context is the Pacific region Selecting these four countries allows us to benchmark two developed ‘new world’ wine exporting economies with two ‘new world’ emerging economies to highlight similarities and differences in their marketing profiles (see Table for key wine industry statistics for the four economies) 3.1 Argentina Argentina is an emerging economy with a new wine industry in terms of international markets Argentina's wine industry is character- ized by low export intensity and slow growth: 2004 to 2009 saw a 3% increase in exports (Wines of Argentina, 2011) The industry has consistently increased plantings of red varietals, which have increased by 150% in 18 years and are mainly located along the country's western flank, extending for over 1000 km Argentina competes with a group of economies that enjoy similar climates and soils, some of which have years of experience and advantages over Argentina in the international commercialization and marketing of wines 3.2 Australia The Australian wine industry has been growing steadily in the last few decades as evidenced by hectares planted and therefore wine production, and greater export volumes Since the 1980s, the Australian wine industry has moved away from little more than a “domestic- oriented, cottage-style industry” (Aylward, 2006, p 1) to one with “a reputation for approachable, yet high quality, characterful wines of every possible style” (Clarke, 2002, p 286) Industry organizations active- ly promote a national R&D agenda with a ‘Brand Australia’ (Aylward, 2006) However, recent global pressures are pushing industry participants for greater differentiation and higher priced products, with firms calling for a more effective distribution of R&D at a regional or local level, rather than at a national level While the industry became dominant in the popular-premium price points in both the UK and US markets, this picture has changed considerably A recent industry shake-out resulted in greater concentration through merger and acquisition activity requiring new strategies to market Australian wines in the face of increasing globalization of the industry C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 840 Table Key wine industry statistics 2009 Annual production liters Production % change 2006– 2009 Principal varietals Acreage Acreage % change 2006– 2009 Primary export markets Canada, Percentage exported Global ranking (production volume) Argentina Australia Chile New Zealand 1.2 billion liters 1.17 billion liters 987 million liters 206 million 21.41% 11.62% 16.83% 54.05% Malbec, Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah Chardonnay 560,000 (226,624 ha) Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot Chardonnay 402,639 (162,942 ha) Sauvignon Blanc, Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Riesling, Carmenère 449,722 (181,996 ha) Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay 1.6% 3.1% 1.1% 37.3% USA, UK, UK, USA UK, USA, Germany, Canada Australia, UK, USA Brazil 25% 64% 75% 40% 5th 6th 7th 20th 76,928 (31,132 ha) Source: Compiled from http://www.nzwine.com, Trade Data Analysis (TDA) based on UN FOA and Eurostat, 2006–2009 3.3 Chile Though an emerging economy, Chile is the largest wine producer in Latin America, exporting more than 75% of its wine production, and is the world's most export-dependent wine industry Domestic sales have decreased over recent years, prompting efforts towards new emerging markets like China and Brazil Chilean wines have average prices lower than those of its competitors, and, together with low profitability levels, the industry urgently needs to raise its positioning and average prices in international markets to achieve a more sustainable long-term future The Chilean wine industry benefits from tacit knowledge transfers from foreign firms in joint ventures for the production and commercialization of high-priced wines (who control 30% of this segment) The arrival of foreign firms has increased exports of high-priced Chilean wine, enabled access to distribution channels and improved the image of Chilean wine: such co-operation with foreign wineries also benefits Chilean wineries through knowledge to upgrade viticulture, winemaking and marketing (Kunc, 2007) 3.4 New Zealand The New Zealand wine industry has undergone rapid growth since the 1980s, though remaining very small on a global scale, with less than 1% of both global output and exports As a very small producer with high cost structures, the industry faces challenges to its premium positioning in international markets (Benson-Rea, Woodfield, Brodie, & Lewis, 2011) The peak industry body, New Zealand Winegrowers (NZW), promotes the New Zealand wine brand through a generic mar- keting strategy based on developing its international marketing reputa- tion as a major producer of highly distinctive premium-quality wines The current industry context is one of proactive export marketing, building new markets while securing existing ones, and meeting international competition at home and internationally (NZW, 2010) Methodology The study used a web survey method to investigate the influence of co-location on marketing externalities which enhance the competitive- ness of wine firms in local and international markets The questionnaire was designed in English and Spanish and pre-tested with ten academic experts and eight managing directors/practitioners The perceived bene- fits of co-location were measured both generally and as they relate to co-operation in marketing activities Researchers in each country sent a web link to all wine firms in their main wine regions, in Argentina (n = 180), Australia (n = 523), Chile (n = 110) and New Zealand (n = 318) The questionnaire recipients were general managers or marketing managers who would have a sound understanding of their firms' operating conditions (Kahn & McDonough, 1997) After approximately three months a standard follow-up process was follow- ed Overall, 141 responses were received, representing a 10.5% response rate from Argentina (n = 19), 48% from Chile (n = 53), 6.5% from Australia (n = 35) and 10.5% (n = 34) from New Zealand However, not all respondents answered all questions and some questions had a lower response rate 4.1 Variables Existing measures and constructs on inter-firm collaboration in marketing from previous studies were adapted (Brown & Bell, 2001; Brown et al., 2010; Felzensztein, Gimmon, & Huemer, 2010; Felzensztein et al., 2012; Felzensztein & Deans, 2013) The question- naire measured managers' perceptions of the usefulness of location for enabling specific activities with other firms, such as access to specialized suppliers as well as the opportunity for greater innovation and new product development and inter-cluster referrals (Brown & Bell, 2001; Brown et al., 2010) The questions were rated on a 5-point likert scale where = not at all useful and = extremely useful Perceived benefits of collaboration were captured through three factors First, active externalities (five item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.86), which reflect initiatives undertaken by firms (Brown et al., 2010) The second factor, future opportunities (six item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.90), measures the benefits managers perceive from future co-operation (Felzensztein et al., 2010, 2012) Finally, the third factor, passive externalities (three item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.71) refers to benefits that emerge from co-location with little or no effort by the firm (Brown et al., 2010) We used nine items to capture co-operative marketing activities These loaded into two factors, namely market development (five item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) capturing the extent to which managers used networking to explore new markets, for example undertaking joint trade fair participation and joint trade missions to new markets The second factor, channel management (four item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.93), captures how co-location benefits can increase sales through joint sales and distribution strategies to local and foreign markets (Felzensztein et al., 2010) The collaborative intent construct was measured through six items that resulted into two factors: in- creased sales (four item scale, Cronbach's alpha = 0.96) and value chain management (two items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) For the relational context (social networks: “joint personal relationships with customers” and “developing network relationships” H2, Table 3), our study used the adapted measures (Coviello, Brodie, Danaher, & Johnston, 2002; Felzensztein et al., 2012) of the relative value of personalized contact with business on a single item using a 5-point Likert-type scale where = no importance and = crucial We also controlled for firm size with a binary variable indicating whether the business is engaged in a catch-up strategy (less than C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 841 The data were analyzed using SPSS to identify the most important variables, aspects, or features in the inter-firm collaboration dimen- sions used in the study (see Appendix A) specialized services (M = 3.3) (see Table 2) all of which are pas- sive externalities While managers from all four economies ranked enhanced reputation as the top benefit, some notable differences between the developed and emerging economies exist Argentinean managers, for example, ranked innovation and new product develop- ment, and inter-cluster referrals as equally important This was in contrast to Chilean managers, who saw these as less important and in- stead emphasized creating greater international marketing demand Australian managers ranked greater local market demand as their second most important benefit followed by access to services, whereas New Zealand ranked access to skilled labor as second in importance Results of the Mann–Whitney U non-parametric test for means comparisons revealed significant differences between the developed and emerging economies on co-location benefits, such as finding new customers, greater market and marketing information/knowledge 5.1 Firm characteristics 5.3 Benefits arising for marketing co-operation Firm ownership differed significantly between the developed and emerging wine economies of the Southern Hemisphere The sources of capital in Australia and New Zealand were predominately regional (81.8% and 52.9% respectively) whereas in Argentina and Chile the main source of capital was national (36.8% and 66.0% respectively) (χ = 55.181; p = 000) The majority of firms were not foreign- owned, with no significant differences between individual economies or level of development The sample comprised locally embedded firms, suggesting that the local industry context is important for co-operation, regardless of loca- tion The length of time the firms had been established differed signifi- cantly In both Australia and Chile the majority of firms had been established for 11 years or more (57.2% and 79.2% respectively) By con- trast in Argentina the majority of firms had been in operation for be- tween and 10 years (9 firms; 47.4%) and in New Zealand equally between and 10 years and 11 to 30 years (14 firms (41.2%) in each category) (χ2 = 20.9; p = 013) As for firm size, the sample comprised mostly SMEs but with some distinct differences between developed and emerging economies The majority of the respondent firms in Australia and New Zealand were SMEs with fewer than 10 employees (71.4% and 67.6% respectively), in contrast to respondents in Argentina and Chile, which predominately employed between 11 and 50 em2 ployees (56.3% and 35.8% respectively) (χ = 59.1; p = 000) Respondents found co-location in a specific region useful in facilitating a number of marketing benefits They identified active marketing initiatives such as joint trade fair participation (M = 3.3), joint marketing delegations (M = 3.2) and joint trade missions and joint market information research (M = 3.0) as the four most important benefits This shows the tendency of firms to cooperate in opening and developing new international markets and to build and benefit from active externalities Regarding individual countries, managers from Argentina, Australia and New Zealand ranked joint trade fair participation as the highest benefit whereas for Chilean managers joint marketing delegations was most important Argentinean managers viewed joint distribution strategies as equally important as joint market- ing delegations and joint market information research, showing the weight Argentinean firms give to working together to identify and open markets Results of the Mann–Whitney U non-parametric test for means comparisons revealed significant differences between the developed and emerging economies for joint trade fair participation, joint market and information research The majority of firms were undertaking some inter-firm cooperation in marketing activities though differences appeared between de- veloped and emerging economies In Argentina and Chile, inter-firm co-operation was undertaken mainly with buyers (Argentina M = 4.0 and Chile M = 3.5), whereas these were fourth in importance for Australian and New Zealand respondents New Zealand managers, in comparison, ranked co-operation undertaken with trade associa- tions as the most important (M = 4.1), whereas Australian man- agers mainly co-operated with competitors (M = 3.9) Within all countries respondents ranked co-operation mainly with local producers eleven employees) (Bangara et al., 2012; Li, 2010) and a dummy for whether the business is a developed market business to increase the comparability of the models (Keen & Wu, 2011; Li, 2010) In line with previous work on the role of collaboration in SMEs, we con- trolled for whether the firm was a subsidiary We also included a binary variable to control for firm age since previous research suggest that young businesses might be somewhat more reliant on networks in building international markets (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994) Results 5.2 Regional clusters and location benefits Respondents reported the most important benefits of co-location as enhanced reputation or credibility of companies and products (M = 3.8), access to skilled labor (M = 3.6) and access to better Table a Being located in a regional cluster provides the following benefits Most important variables Argentina cases Valid Mean S.D Australia Valid cases Mean S.D Chile Valid cases Mean S.D New Zealand Valid cases Enhanced reputation and credibility 11 4.0 1.67 28 3.8 1.24 40 3.5 1.22 28 Access Access to to skilled better labor specialized services 12 11 3.8 3.6 1.60 1.63 28 28 3.6 3.3 1.50 1.35 41 40 3.2 3.2 1.14 1.28 30 29 Innovation and new product development 11 4.0 1.10 28 3.3 1.27 40 2.7 1.29 28 Intercluster referrals to other firms 11 4.0 1.25 28 3.3 1.38 41 3.0 1.21 29 Greater local market demand 11 3.3 1.56 28 3.8 1.28 40 2.7 1.32 28 New Greater customers international market demand 11 11 3.7 3.9 1.10 1.22 28 28 3.8 2.7 1.32 1.44 40 40 2.7 3.3 1.24 1.36 29 29 Greater market and marketing information 11 2.9 1.97 28 3.6 1.29 40 2.7 1.37 29 Total cases a Mean S.D Valid Mean S.D 4.0 86 107 3.8 1.20 3.8 1.02 111 3.6 1.27 1: Strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree 3.3 1.29 108 3.3 1.33 3.4 91 107 3.2 1.23 3.4 95 108 3.3 1.22 3.3 1.21 107 3.2 1.36 3.3 1.26 108 3.2 1.31 3.4 1.40 108 3.2 1.41 3.7 1.10 108 3.2 1.42 C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 842 as second most important, highlighting the significance of clusters to these firms Those firms which had developed or expected to engage in joint marketing activities perceived that resources (such as people, time and money) should be invested in activities related to joint promotion strategy (M = 3.7), developing network relationships (M = 3.4) as well as building joint personal relationships with customers (M = 3.2) (see Table 3), though significant differences exist between the developed and emerging economies Australia and New Zealand mirrored the above means whereas Chile ranked joint technology to improve communication as second most important (M = 3.4) followed by personal relationships with individual customers (M = 3.3) In contrast, Argentinean respondents viewed investment of resources into joint distribution activities and developing network relationships (M = 2.50) equally While the mean for Argentina is much lower than for the other countries, this is still the highest mean across the categories, suggesting that Argentinean respondents did not rank this question as highly as respondents from other countries Results of the Mann– Whitney U non-parametric test for means comparisons revealed significant differences between the developed and emerging economies for invest- ment of resources in developing network relationships The principal reasons respondents gave for engaging or expecting to engage in inter- firm co-operation was to attract new customers (M = 4.1) and increase sales in the long term (M = 4.1) 5.4 Cluster analysis A cluster analysis, based on firms' age and number of employees, was undertaken to identify commonalities in ways firms across all four econ- omies engaged in inter-firm co-operation and marketing The first cluster comprised larger more established firms and the second, smaller more recently-established firms A t-test for Equality of Means was undertaken to test for statistically significant differences in the two group means (p = 0.05) For most variables no significant differences in the mean responses for the two exist However, two questions on perceived infor- mation benefits showed significantly different mean responses between the two clusters The cluster of smaller, more recently-established firms found being co-located in a regional cluster of some importance for finding new customers for their firm (M = 3.4) in contrast to the larger, more established firms who found this less important (M = 2.8) (p = 0.04) Smaller, more recently-established firms also reported region- al clustering as important for access to greater innovation and new product development (M = 3.3 compared to M = 2.7; p = 0.028) In terms of cooperative marketing benefits, only one question differed significantly The smaller, more recently-established firms identified regional clusters as only somewhat important in facilitating bene- fits for co-operation in marketing with trade associations on joint brand- ing initiatives, while the larger firms identified this as not particularly important (M = 2.8 compared to M = 2.1; p = 0.018) The final question that displayed a significant difference between the two clusters con- sidered firms which had developed inter-firm co-operation in marketing activities The smaller, more recently-established firms had developed marketing cooperation mainly with one or more local producers (M = 3.6 compared with M = 2.9 for the larger firms; p = 0.040) However, the response rate from respondents from Chile was low for this question, with no significant differences for all remaining questions For the question on why firms undertake joint marketing activities, both clusters displayed very high means regarding their engagement in activities to attract new customers (M = 4.3 larger and 4.1 smaller firms), increase sales in the long term (M = 4.4 larger and M = 4.0 smaller) and retain existing customers (M = 4.0 larger and M = 3.7 smaller) When participating in inter-firm co-operation in marketing, both clusters also reported higher means for engagement with a trade association (M = 4.0 larger and M = 3.7 smaller) as opposed to sup- pliers (M = 2.5 larger and M = 3.0 smaller) or buyers (M = 3.3 larger and M = 3.6 smaller) Both clusters reported similar, very low, means about discussing marketing activities with people from other firms (M = 1.7 larger and M = 1.8 smaller) 5.5 Regression analysis The results of the regressions are shown in Tables 4, and In Table 5, models 1–3 show that both factors pertaining to co-operative marketing activities load positively on all three factors of the perceived benefits con- struct Market development and management, therefore have a significant, positive effect on the benefits managers currently perceive Only the channel management fails in fostering potential active marketing externalities Overall, the findings support H1 In Table 6, models 4–7 test H2, whether the relationship between collaborative intent and market development or channel management is influenced by the devel- opmental stage of the economy We find partial support for this hypoth- esis since only the integration terms between value chain management and developed market become significant Similarly, there is also some evidence suggesting that the relationship between collaborative intent and co-operative marketing activities differs for firms engaged in a catch-up strategy (Models 8–11), suggesting some support for H3 H1 receives support Co-located firms that can increase competitive- ness through active marketing externalities, are thus supported The result for H2 is somewhat the opposite result than expected Value Table a Joint marketing activities: resources and objectives Country Argentina Mean Valid cases S.D Australia Mean Valid cases S.D Chile Mean Valid cases S.D New Zealand Mean Valid cases Resources are invested in Objectives of joint marketing activities Joint personal relationships with customers Joint distribution activities Joint promotion strategy Joint technology to improve communication 2.1 14 2.24 3.6 19 1.12 3.3 28 1.35 3.7 17 2.5 14 2.38 3.2 18 93 3.2 28 1.52 3.4 17 2.3 14 2.20 4.1 19 74 3.8 28 1.44 4.2 17 2.1 14 2.09 3.4 18 1.04 3.4 27 1.37 3.1 17 Developing network relationship s 2.5 14 2.38 3.9 17 70 3.1 28 1.37 4.0 17 Attract new custome rs 2.4 14 2.53 4.4 19 50 4.7 27 67 4.4 16 Increase sales in short term Increase sales in long term 1.6 14 2.06 4.2 19 63 4.3 28 95 4.0 16 2.4 14 2.47 4.3 19 73 4.8 27 51 4.4 16 Retain existing custome rs 2.2 14 2.36 3.9 17 83 4.5 26 95 4.1 16 Total a S.D Mean Valid cases S.D 1.21 3.2 78 1.55 1: Strongly disagree; Strongly agree 1.54 3.1 77 1.60 67 3.7 78 1.50 1.35 3.1 76 1.51 87 3.4 76 1.50 50 4.1 76 1.44 82 3.8 77 1.51 51 4.1 76 1.45 89 3.8 73 1.52 C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 Table Pearso correlation n Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Active externalities Future opportunities Passive externalities Young business Subsidiary Catch-up Developed Market development Channel management Increased sales Value chain management a Correlation is significant at the (1) (2) 0.0445 0.1324 0.1362 0.1331 0.0984 −0.3179 0.2215 0.2334 a 0.4985 a 0.3530 a −0.3403 −0.0823 a (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) a −0.2112 0.0469 a 0.2872 a 0.3925 a 0.3332 −0.2678 −0.1878 a −0.3151 0.1077 a 0.5312 a 0.4000 −0.1406 0.0878 −0.3199 −0.0495 a 0.0338 a 0.3890 0.0045 −0.2175 0.2146 −0.0107 −0.1322 −0.0352 −0.1424 a −0.4099 −0.1491 0.1785 −0.1696 a 0.5561 0.0863 −0.0053 0.1458 0.1395 a 0.4356 0.061 0.0166 a 0.2573 0.2018 a −0.3336 0.0114 a −0.3842 −0.0478 0.1052 p b 0.05 level (2-tailed), number of observations = 95 and 58 respectively chain management was significant for developed market firms, with the use of social ties important for all, regardless of level of development We find no difference between the two in terms of increased sales, both find these important benefits, but we find no support for value chain management in catch up (H3), only increasing sales So both find social ties im- portant, but more advanced players focus on channel management Discussion (5) 843 to facilitate international market learning through joint promotion and distribution initiatives Importantly, they use resources to develop formal co-operation as opposed to informal co-operation initiatives The results reveal insights into the importance of market develop- ment initiatives established through formal channels, such as joint trade missions and trade fair participations Managers from Argentina, Australia and New Zealand ranked joint trade fair participation as their highest per- ceived colocation benefit Chile, in contrast, ranked joint market delegations highest among other opportunities for co-operation in marketing (see Table 3) Chilean managers placed strong emphasis on inter-firm col- laboration to create greater international market demand, in contrast to Australia, which ranked greater local market demand as the second most important benefit of co-location This could be explained by the Chilean industry's lower domestic sales and the increasing importance of developing international market opportunities New Zealand firms en- gaged the most with trade associations, whereas emerging economy firms are more likely to engage in co-operation with buyers, and Austra- lian firms with direct competitors, both suggesting the importance of value chain activities New Zealand firms may simply value, or use more, the formal networks associated with regional clustering The re- gression analysis only partially supported H3 Inter-organizational collaboration and interpersonal networks in in- dustrial clusters are crucial components of the international growth of SMEs (Johanson & Mattsson, 1988) Whereas much previous research has examined clusters (Eisingerich, Bell, & Tracey, 2010; Steiner & Ploder, 2008), a limited amount of research has explored specific mar- keting interactions The current study identified unique elements of intra-cluster dynamics, such as interfirm collaboration in marketing, in an under-researched cluster context, showing that active marketing externalities can and influence the international competitive strate- gy of firms (Guercini & Runfola, 2011) While co-located firms compet- ed strongly, respondents recognized the importance of co-location in a regional cluster to increase their international competitive advantage Managers in all four economies particularly ranked enhanced reputa- tion or credibility, access to Table skilled labor and specialized suppliers as key benefits For Perceived benefits of co-location firms in Argentina, the least export-intensive in the study, co-location also provided opportunities for innovation and Dependent Active inter-cluster referrals Thus firms perceive greater benefits variables externaliti es from passive over active externalities Managers also Model viewed clusters as important for value chain inputs, Constant 0.0962 supporting previous research which identified the (0.227) importance of production benefits for clustered firms (van Young business 0.143 Dennerg, Braun, & van Winden, 2001) (0.169) As regards why firms engage in inter-firm co-operation, Subsidiary −0.112 managers from Chile and New Zealand ranked increasing (0.265) Catch-up sales in the long-term as highly important, followed by −0.313 strategy (0.188) attracting new customers In contrast managers in Developed 0.0577 Argentina and Australia ranked attracting new customers market (0.187) as a key reason for co-operation in marketing initiatives followed by increasing sales in the long term (see Table 3) H1 0.393⁎⁎⁎ Market development This relates to a focus on international markets and export (0.0905) orientation, instead of the local market The findings Channel management 0.175 support H1, that co-located firms can increase (0.0884) competitiveness through active marketing externalities 0.26 Adjusted R Geographical proximity can assist firms in developing Model F 6.38⁎⁎⁎ interpersonal networks which in turn can lead to strategic Sig F change 13.06⁎⁎⁎ statistic collaborative arrange- ments The analysis shows that resources invested in developing joint marketing activities are mainly for joint promotion strategies—the exception being Argentinean firms which invest resources for joint distribution activities as well as the development of network relation- Future opportunitie s Model Passive externaliti es Model −0.224 −0.175 (0.217) 0.144 (0.161) (0.188) −0.0388 (0.253) 0.189 (0.179) 0.0652 (0.179) −0.0135 (0.219) 0.283 (0.155) 0.0768 (0.155) 0.434⁎⁎⁎ 0.377⁎⁎⁎ (0.0862) 0.228 ⁎⁎ (0.0842) 0.29 7.23⁎⁎⁎ 18.98⁎⁎⁎ (0.0747) 0.276⁎⁎⁎ (0.0730) 0.35 9.34⁎⁎⁎ 23.46⁎⁎⁎ −0.0828 (0.140) ships H2 proposed that emerging economy firms are more likely to use interpersonal networks to accelerate international learning However, the results show that the respondents, regardless of whether they are in developed or emerging economies, actively use interpersonal networks Note: N = 95 for model 1–3 Standard errors in parentheses † p b 0.10 ⁎ p b 0.05 ⁎⁎ p b 0.01 ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001 C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 844 Table Co-operative marketing activities Dependent variables Co-operative marketing activities Market development Channel management Market development Channel management Model Model Model Model Model 10 Constant 0.184 (0.307) −0.103 −0.399 (0.301) Young business −0.275 (0.210) −0.186 (0.210) (0.385) 0.493 (0.262) Model −0.83 1* (0.382 −0.272 (0.210) Subsidiary −0.792** (0.278) −1.015* (0.280) ** 0.209 (0.238) 0.793** (0.231) −0.270 (0.348) 0.152 (0.302) 0.185 (0.293) )0.667* (0.267 )−0.40 Catch-up strategy Developed market Collaborative intent Main effects Increased sales −0.00565 (0.241) 0.649** (0.234) −0.329* (0.136) Value chain management Interaction effects Increased sales × Developed market (0.303 )0.298 (0.294 ) −0.364* (0.171) −0.265* (0.118) 0.0888 (0.286) Value chain manage × Developed market (0.356 ) 0.471 0.173 (0.312) −0.809** (0.278) 0.00160 (0.249) 0.658** (0.236) (0.294 )0.242 (0.289 ) (0.385) 0.506 (0.259) −0.151 (0.344) 0.0377 (0.307) 0.105 (0.291) Model 11 −0.005 71 (0.297) −0.235 (0.209) −0.736 (0.306) * 0.113 (0.235) 0.765** (0.232) −0.863** (0.318) 0.147 (0.179) −0.335 (0.358) 0.500* (0.248) 0.39 6.54*** 3.30* (0.382 ) 0.303 −0.278 0.555* (0.224 ) 0.850* * (0.315 ) 0.0337 (0.286) Value chain manage × Catch-up strategy Adjusted R Model F statistic Sig F change )0.583* (0.260 ) 0.111 −0.282 (0.258) −0.19 (0.149 ) Increased sales × Catch-up strategy Model −0.66 (0.370 0.39 6.99*** 3.34* 0.38 6.89*** 3.16† 0.16 2.76* 4.69* 0.13 2.37* 2.50 † −0.532 (0.353) 0.866* * (0.278 )0.16 2.86* 4.95* 0.39 6.96*** 3.30* 0.464* (0.223) 0.16 2.82* 4.85* Note: Standard errors in parentheses †p b 0.10, *p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001 Missing values for ‘collaborative intent’ reduced the number of observations to 58 for models 4–11 To check the robustness of the relationships we performed a range of multiple imputations both including and excluding the dependent variable The results of these analyses are fairly consistent with the regressions presented here and are available on request Conclusion and future research The study involves international comparative data on regional clusters in four wine industries, and offers empirical insights into the potential advantage and utility firms perceive from co-operative marketing activi- ties resulting from co-location The data are from a firm-level perspective, where business-to-business marketing activities are key for achieving marketing positioning and competitiveness in international markets, assisting the delocalization of their customers (Matthyssens, Kirca, & Pace, 2008) The findings suggest that inter-firm co-operation in market- ing is a given, not only for the development of an economy, but of the export markets on which firm and industry survival depend Interna- tional marketing managers from Chile and New Zealand can bene- fit from the findings in the development of new international marketing campaigns On the other hand, practitioners from Argentina and Chile could find it advantageous to learn from New Zealand and Australian firms to better understand the benefits of developing more trust to enhance inter-firm co-operation, though this may not be possible without strong support programs Managers from other Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Peru, that are beginning to develop wine clusters, as well as econo- mies that have strong agribusiness clusters like Costa Rica and Colombia, may directly benefit from these research findings, as they are especially relevant for growing emerging economies in Latin America The main contribution of this study is an empirical understanding of the specific marketing externalities of colocation that benefit clustered firms and how these can impact their international com- petitive marketing strategies The results suggest that co-operation is not an element that every organization seeks or considers strategi- cally advantageous However, this study makes a significant contribu- tion to agglomeration confirming the importance of sharing theory by marketing knowledge to build sustainable competitive advantage in international markets Thus, this study enables a more in-depth appreciation of the concept of “marketing factors” (Marshall, 1920) and “active marketing externali- ties” (Brown et al., 2010), by confirming that particular motivations and actions among firms in a regional cluster are needed to develop successful inter-firm marketing co-operation We also address some of the limitations of the study that include some nonresponses to questions and the exclusion of some important Southern Hemisphere wine produc- ing countries, such as South Africa and other emerging wine producing countries such as Brazil 7.1 Managerial implications and future research These results, which their generalizations should be taken with care and used only for the countries under study, provide some interesting insights for both managers and researchers on inter-firm co-operation as a means of enhancing international marketing, positioning and competitiveness From a management perspective, the results in Table highlight the importance of the industry/cluster lifecycle (Bergman, 2008) for attracting more competitors into the Argentinean industry which is still emerging and experiencing high growth compared with the Chilean industry, which is more established and led by larger firms Wine firms from Australia and New Zealand, with less opportunity for growth, could look to Argentina as a destination for foreign direct investment and/or joint ventures targeting new emerging markets, which offer considerable size, such as China, Brazil or Russia New trends relate to the finding of the ‘enhanced reputation or credibility of companies and products’ as the most important co-location benefit which firms perceived (see Table 3) This shows that country of origin effect and even more significant, the region of origin effect (Felzensztein, C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 845 References Hibbert, & Vong, 2004), is key for achieving international marketing suc- cess in this industry Future research could examine competition among destination brands to explore the necessity of re-defining the factors contributing to inter-firm co-operation when firms are internationally oriented from inception or rapidly engaging in internationalization thereafter Future research could consider non-agribusiness industries, particu- larly where location is less important than in the wine industry, such as manufacturing, high-technology and other knowledge-intensive indus- tries Other research could compare agribusiness and non-agribusiness clusters in other developed versus emerging Latin-American economies and examine active marketing externalities and international competi- tiveness in those economies This study articulates, ranks and measures managerial perceptions of cluster cooperation and the resultant shared success, which should lead to future valuable research on implementing local, regional and national programs AcknowledgThents We thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments throughout the review process We express our appreciation to Siah Hwee Ang, Ben Fath, Melanie Milicich, and Gareth Webb for their assistance This research was partially funded by the Conicyt Chile: Fondecyt 1120336 & “Research Center for Interna- tional Competitiveness” (Grant SOC 1105) and the University of Auckland Business School Appendix A Hypotheses, TheasureThent and key authors Hypothesis/ main concept Measurement/construct/tables authors Key H1: Marketing activities/ marketing externaliti es Tables 2, 3, & (active vs passive externalities) H1 relates to the importance given by firms to inter-firm marketing cooperation Regarding specific perceptions related to cooperative marketing activities, they study measured managers' perceptions of the usefulness of location for enabling specific activities with other firms Respondents made assessments using a 5-point Likert-type scale, where = not at all useful and = extremely useful Table 3: joint personal relationships & developing network relationships H2 relates to the relational context (social networks) The study measured the relative value of personalized contact with business on a single item using a 5-point Likert-type scale where = no importance and = crucial Tables 4, & 6: Cooperative marketing activities and catch-up strategy for emerging countries Brown and Bell (2001); Brown et al (2010) Used and adapted in Felzensztein, Gimmon and Huemer (2010); Felzensztein et al (2012); Felzensztein and Deans (2013) H2: Interperson al networks/ social networks H3: Catch-up strategy/ channel manageme nt initiatives Coviello et al (2002) Used and adapted in Felzensztein, Gimmon and Huemer (2010); Felzensztein et al (2012); Felzensztein and Deans (2013) We introduced the new concept of Altenburg, T., & Meyer-Stamer, J (1999) How to promote clusters: Policy experiences from Latin America World Development, 27(9), 1693–1713 Andresen, E., Bergman, A., & Hallén, L (2011) Email as a communication strategy in a regional strategic network In M Johanson, & H Lundberg (Eds.), Network strategies for regional growth (pp 100–125) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Aylward, D (2006) Innovation lock-in: Unlocking research and development path dependency in the Australian wine industry [Research paper] Australia: University of Wollongong Bangara, A., Freeman, S., & Schroder, B (2012) Legitimacy and accelerated internationisation: an Indian perspective Journal of World Business, 47(4), 623–634 Benson-Rea, M., Woodfield, P., Brodie, R., & Lewis, N (2011) Sustainability in strategy: Maintaining a premium position for New Zealand wine 6th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, 9–10 June, Bordeaux, France Bergman, E M (2008) Cluster life-cycles: An emerging synthesis In C Karlsson (Ed.), Handbook of research on cluster theory (pp 114–132) UK: Edward Elgar Bianchi, C., & Wickramasekera, R (2013) An exploratory study of the factors enhancing and inhibiting export growth in the Chilean wine industry Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 25(2), 85– 102 Blundel, R (2006) Little ships: The co-evolution of technological capabilities and industrial dynamics in competing innovation networks Industry and Innovation, 13(3), 313–334 Brown, P., & Bell, J (2001) Multinational in a new era In J Taggart, M Berry, & M McDermontt (Eds.), Industrial clusters and small firms' internationalization (pp 10–26) London: Macmillan Brown, P., & McNaughton, R (2002) Global competitiveness and local networks: A review of the literature In P McNaughton, & R Green (Eds.), Global competition and local networks (pp 3–37) Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Brown, P., McNaughton, R., & Bell, J (2010) Marketing externalities in industrial clusters: A literature review and evidence from the Christchurch New Zealand electronics cluster Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8, 168–181 Buckley, P (2002) International business versus international marketing International Marketing Review, 19(1), 16–20 Cavusgil, S T (1984) Differences among exporting firms based on their degree of interna- tionalization Journal of Business Research, 12, 195–208 Clarke, O (2002) Oz Clarke's new wine atlas: Wines and wine regions of the world Orlando, Florida: Webster's International Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L (2006) Regional development in the knowledgebased economy: The construction of advantage The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5–15 Coviello, N., Brodie, R., Danaher, P., & Johnston, D (2002) How firms relate to their markets: An empirical examination of contemporary marketing practices Journal of Marketing, 66, 33–46 Cusmano, L., Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R (2010) Catching up trajectories in the wine sector: A comparative study of Chile, Italy, and South Africa World Development, 38(11), 1588–1602 Duarte Alonso, A (2010) Internationalisation of small and medium New Zealand wineries: An exploratory study Small Enterprise Research, 17(1), 58–73 “catch-up strategy for emerging economies & developed market business”, previously used by: Li (2010); Keen and Wu (2011); Bangara et al (2012) Eisingerich, A B., Bell, S J., & Tracey, P (2010) How can clusters sustain perform ance? The role of network strengt h, network openne ss, and environ mental uncertai nty Research Policy, 39(March), 239– 253 Fastoso, F., & Whitelock, J (2011) Why is so little marketing research on Latin America published in high quality journals and what can we about it?: Lessons from a Delphi Study of authors who have succeeded International Marketing Review, 28(4), 435–449 Fastoso, F., & Whitelock, J (2012) Guest editorial International Marketing Review, 29(3), 226–227 Felzensztein, C., & Deans, K (2013) Marketing practices in wine clusters: Insights from Chile Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(4), 357– 367 Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E., & Aqueveque, C (2012) Clusters vs un-clustered industries: Where does inter-firm marketing cooperation really matter? The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 27(5), 392– 402 Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E., & Huemer, L (2010) The effects of colocation on marketing externalities in the salmon farming industry The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25(1), 73–82 Felzensztein, C., Hibbert, S., & Vong, G (2004) Is the country of origin the fifth element in the marketing mix of imported wine? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 10(4), 73–84 Freeman, S., Hutchings, K., Lazaris, M., & Zyngier, S (2010) A model of rapid knowledge development: The smaller born-global firm International Business Review, 19(1), 70–84 Guercini, S., & Runfola, A (2011) Marketing co-operation and public policy in Italian networks of fashion firms In M Johanson, & H Lundberg (Eds.), Network strategies for regional growth (pp 163–184) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Häkansson, H., Ford, D., & Snehota, I (2006) Editorial, about the IMP Journal IMP Jour- nal, 1(1), 1–3 Johanson, M., & Kao, P T (2010) Networks in internationalization In J PlaBarber, & J Alegre (Eds.), Reshaping the boundaries of the firm in an era of global interdependence Progress in International Business Research, (pp 119–142) Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L -G (1988) Internationalization in industrial systems — A network approach In N Hood, & J E Valhne (Eds.), Strategies in global competition (pp 287–314) New York: Croom Helm Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J -E (2009) The Uppsala internationization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1431 Kahn, K., & McDonough, E (1997) An empirical study of the relationships between co-location, integration, performance and satisfaction Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 161–178 846 C Felzensztein et al / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 837–846 Keen, C., & Wu, Y (2011) An ambidextrous learning model for the internationalization of firms from emerging economies Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 316–339 Krugman, P (1991) Geography and trade London: MIT Press Kunc, M (2007) A survey of managerial practices in small to medium Chilean wineries Journal of Wine Research, 18(2), 113–119 Li, P P (2010) Toward a learning-based view of internationalization: The accelerated trajectories of cross-border learning for latecomers Journal of International Management, 16(1), 43–59 Lundberg, H., & Johanson, M (2011) Network strategies for regional growth In M Johanson, & H Lundberg (Eds.), Network strategies for regional growth (pp 1–21) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Malmberg, A., Solvell, O., & Zander, I (1996) Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness Geografiska Annaler, 78(2), 85–97 Marshall, A (1920) Principles of economics London: Macmillan Martin, R (1999) The growth ‘geographical turn’ in economics: Some critical reflections Cambridge Journal of Economics , 23(1), 65–91 Martin, R., & Sunley, P (2002) Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Proceedings of the High Technology Small Firms One-Day Clusters Conference Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School Matthyssens, P., Kirca, A., & Pace, S (2008) Business-to-business marketing and globalization: Two of a kind International Marketing Review , 25(5), 481–486 Mesquita, L (2007) Starting over when the bickering never ends: Rebuilding aggregate trust among clustered firms through trust facilitators Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 72–91 Moen, Ø., Madsen, T K., & Aspelund, A (2008) The importance of the internet in international business-to-business markets International Marketing Review, 2458(75), – 503 the USA and New Zealand The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(6), 386–396 Perez-Aleman, P (2005) Cluster formation, institutions and learning: The emergence of clusters and development in Chile Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 651–677 Perry, M (2007) Business environments and cluster attractiveness to managers Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(1), 1–24 Piore, M J., & Sabel, C (1984) The second industrial divide New York: Basic Books Porter, M (1990) The competitive advantage of nations New York: The Free Press Porter, M (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90 Root, F R (1998) Designing entry strategies for international markets Entry strategies for international markets (pp 22–44) San Francisco: JosseyBass Steiner, M., & Ploder, M (2008) Structure and strategy within heterogeneity: Multiple dimensions of regional networking Regional Studies, 42(6), 793–815 Sugden, R., Wei, P., & Wilson, J R (2006) Clusters, governance and the development of local economies: A framework for case studies In C Pitelis, R Sugden, & J Wilson (Eds.), Clusters and globalization: The development of urban and regional economies (pp 61–96) UK: Edward Elgar Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S (2004) Knowledge, clusters and competitive advantage Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258– 272 van Dennerg, L., Braun, E., & van Winden, W (2001) Growth clusters in European cities: An integral approach Urban Studies, 38(1), 186–206 Vasilchenko, E., & Morrish, S (2011) The role of entrepreneurial networks in the exploration and exploitation of internationalization opportunities by information and communication technology firms Journal of International Marketing, 19(4), 88–105 Welch, C., & Wilkinson, I (2005) Network perspectives on interfirm conflict: Reassessing Nadvi, K (1999) Facing the new competition: Business associations in developing country industrial clusters [discussion paper 103] Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies Oviatt, B M., & McDougall, P P (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64 Parr, J., Hewings, G., Sohn, J., & Nazaral, S (2002) Agglomeration and trade: Some additional perspectives Regional Studies, 36(6), 675–684 Pels, J., Brodie, R., & Johnston, W (2004) Benchmarking business-tobusiness mar- keting practices in emerging and developed economies: Argentina compared to a critical case in international business Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 205–213 Wickramasekera, R., & Oczkowski, E (2004) Key determinants of the stage of internationalisation of Australian wineries Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4), 425–444 New Zealand Winegrowers (2010) New Zealand winegrowers annual report Auckland: NZ Wines of Argentina (2011) El País vitivinícola Retrieved from www.winesofargentina org (Accessed 15 December 2011)