Relevance and its epistemic underpinnings in B2B marketing research: four axioms and nine relevance types

2.1 Epistemes in business-to-business marketing

There are several examples of strong research strands within B2B marketing. These strands have shaped our understanding of what is generally accepted as the scientific interpretation of various phenomena under the B2B marketing umbrella. To understand how these strands emerged and shaped scholarly and practitioner thinking, we need to review the history of B2B marketing briefly. The extant literature has approached the history of B2B marketing from at least two perspectives:

1. research areas and theories evident in journals publishing B2B marketing research; and

2. historical stages and geographical differences in the spread of B2B marketing thinking.

Starting with the research areas evident in B2B marketing, there are a few literature reviews available synthesizing the B2B corpus. In their literature review of B2B marketing research, Reid and Plank (2000) found seven research areas: strategy, organizational buying and purchasing, marketing sciences, product, pricing, channels and promotion. In a similar vein, LaPlaca and Katrichis (2009) identified six broad B2B marketing research areas: buyer behavior, sales management, marketing relationships, innovation and new product development, marketing strategy and channels of distribution. In their bibliometric research of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Valenzuela-Fernandez et al. (2019) identified the most frequently used keywords in the journal between 1992 and 2016. The ten most used keywords were business marketing, industrial marketing, business-to-business marketing, trust, relationship marketing (RM), satisfaction, education, relationships, commitment and dependence (Valenzuela-Fernandez et al., 2019, p. 88). Möller (1994, p. 353) identified four metatheoretical research approaches to interorganizational marketing exchange: transaction cost, political economy, interaction and network. He viewed these research approaches as partly independent and partly overlapping. For example, the interaction approach included scholars deriving their constructs either from social exchange theory or from the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP Group)-related theories. These research areas, keywords and metatheories seem arbitrary in relation to the epistemes in B2B marketing. However, as we will illustrate in the following, when combined with their historical prevalence, these research areas, keywords and metatheories become eloquent.

The first signs of B2B marketing date back to the 1890s and to the writings of Ely (1884) and Wanamaker (1899), while noteworthy contributions have been made primarily from the 1980s onward (Hadjikhani and LaPlaca, 2013). There are different interpretations of the historical development stages of B2B marketing. Hadjikhani and LaPlaca (2013) synthesize the history of B2B marketing into three stages: little theoretical development (prior to the 1950s), economic theory dominance (until the 1980s) and behavioral theory dominance (1990s onwards). Vieira and Brito (2015) offer a more fine-grained analysis by identifying four stages in the development of B2B marketing research: genesis (1956–1984), early development (1985–1995), consolidation (1996–2003) and maturity (2004 onwards). What most researchers seem to agree is that the criticism toward the economic perspective favoring lowest costs, homogenous products and rational decision-making led to the emergence of B2B marketing as its own field in the 1970s (Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017). At this point, B2B marketing in Europe and North America started to drift apart, both creating their own preferred scientific approaches and identity (Hadjikhani and LaPlaca, 2013; Möller and Halinen, 2022).

According to Möller and Halinen (2022), mainstream North American B2B marketing thinking developed into four streams:

1. the managerial marketing stream;

2. the marketing science stream;

3. the channel research stream; and

4. the RM stream.

Most of the B2B research areas, keywords and metatheories discussed earlier stem from mainstream North American thinking (LaPlaca and Katrichis, 2009). Furthermore, Tanner (2021) identifies three historical and partly overlapping eras in the development of North American B2B marketing thinking:

1. research focusing on organizational buying (from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s);

2. research focusing on RM (from the late 1980s to the late 1990s); and

3. research focusing on service-dominant logic (from the early 2000s onwards).

In Europe, the divergence from mainstream North American B2B marketing thinking occurred in the 1980s following the so-called interaction approach developed by the IMP Group simultaneously in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, especially Scandinavia (Kleinaltenkamp and Jacob, 2002). According to Möller (2013), the interaction approach, or industrial network approach as it is also known, resulted from disciplinary amalgamation between resource dependency theory, social exchange theory and transaction cost economics. Meanwhile, B2B marketing scholars in Germany developed IMP thinking by morphing network thinking, social exchange theory and new institutional economics (Kleinaltenkamp and Jacob, 2002). Over time, two different streams of IMP research emerged:

1. 1.

   the interaction approach; and

2. 2.

   the network approach (Möller and Halinen, 2022).

Looking into the development of B2B marketing in North America and Europe, we can see epistemes developing and morphing inside epistemes. In North America, the science-based research approach with quantitative methods has remained mainstream, but there are signs that qualitative methods are slowly becoming more acceptable (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010). In Europe, different research traditions and research groups started emerging under the IMP Group, such as the International Network for Project Marketing and Systems Selling (Skaates et al., 2002). It has also become evident that IMP scholars have diverging ontological and epistemological assumptions influencing the interpretation of the key B2B marketing phenomena and the way research is conducted. Some IMP scholars view business relationships as changing largely due to external pressure from the surrounding structures, while others consider internal processes and individuals pivotal in driving change in business relationships (Ojansivu et al., 2020). Similarly, some IMP scholars consider networks as emergent structures, while others stress their active management (Ojansivu et al., 2020). These epistemes within epistemes make it difficult to speak about an overarching B2B marketing field. As Hadjikhani and LaPlaca (2013, p. 295) point out, the development of B2B marketing as a discipline has been an evolutionary process, including “turbulent transitions with emphasis shifting from on one theoretical base to another”. Similarly, Möller and Halinen (2022, p. 292) identify deeply rooted cultural and paradigmatic differences between the North American mainstream (NAM) approach and the European IMP approach, leading to “almost diametric research interests, worldviews, and attitudes to knowledge construction”. Given the fragmentation of the field and its diverse epistemic perspectives, is there a shared understanding of what defines the relevance of B2B marketing research? We argue that to answer this question, we need to examine the role of performativity in defining the relevance of B2B marketing research.

3.1 Unique characteristics of business-to-business marketing

According to Tanner (2021) and LaPlaca and Katrichis (2009), organizational buying behavior was the original inflection point that differentiated B2B marketing from consumer marketing. Indeed, the involvement of a buying center or decision-making unit makes the buying decision process exceptional in B2B marketing (Johnston and Bonoma, 1981). In organizational buying, a single sale can reach billions of dollars, which is a very different scenario compared to an impulsive purchase of chewing gum or other fast-moving consumer goods (Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017). This makes buyer–seller relationships in B2B settings much more complex and longer-term than those in B2C settings (Håkansson and Shenota, 1995). Furthermore, business relationships are embedded in organizational histories, institutionalized norms and industry rules, which require sensemaking skills and an ability to foresee the future in light of the past (Abrahamsen et al., 2023; Granovetter, 1985; Medlin, 2004). Therefore, companies use highly educated and trained professionals to negotiate sales (Anderson et al., 2008; Johnston and Bonoma, 1981), which can take years to materialize (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2001). Consumer marketing settings are more likely to involve emotional decision-making than B2B marketing settings (LaPlaca and Katrichis, 2009). It is also typical that in a B2B setting, especially in project business, there are only a handful of companies capable of bidding for a multibillion contract (Tikkanen et al., 2007), leading to a market where buyers and sellers know each other well and some by their first names. This takes us to the second inflection point distinguishing B2B marketing by Tanner (2021), i.e. customer relationship management.

The relationship that marketers have with their end customers is very different in B2B and B2C settings. In the B2B market, companies have a limited number of potential customers, and each customer relationship can contribute significantly to company turnover and continue for decades, making their maintenance and care critical (Hadjikhani, 1996). In contrast, a company selling chewing gum operates within a “faceless” market where each consumer is merely a drop in the bucket (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2000). While there are other distinguishing characteristics of B2B marketing (Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1997; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017; Tanner, 2021), we believe that two of the most significant characteristics that need to be accounted for when discussing relevance in B2B marketing research are organizational buying behavior and temporally and socially embedded business relationships.

Next, we develop a set of axioms that define the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research with the aim of bridging the theory-practice divide (as outlined in Table 1) based on our previous discussions. Importantly, our intention is to apply axioms akin to their use in philosophy, where they refer to a “proposition laid down as one from which we may begin” (Blackburn, 1996, p. 47). In this sense, axioms can be defined as a “statement or proposition that can be accepted without proof or evidence and that may therefore occur as a premise but not the conclusion of an argument” (Colman, 2003, p. 95). Our work is future-oriented and intentionally open-ended, with the aim of sparking ideas, fostering discussion, and even provoking controversy regarding the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research. In fact, our axioms can serve as suggestions or a “playbook” for envisioning relevance in B2B marketing research.

4.1 Axiom one: relevance of business-to-business marketing research is practice oriented

Assuming the performative-phenomenal standpoint means that B2B marketing is inherently related to solving customer problems; B2B marketing should strive for the “connection of the firm with its customers and other stakeholders” (Reibstein et al., 2009, p. 1). Without an understanding of this practice-driven problem space, B2B marketing loses its raison d'être. In the B2B context, practitioners are highly skilled and educated professionals who will not take marketing concepts and theories at face value (Anderson et al., 2008). Therefore, research in B2B marketing needs to incorporate both scholars and practitioners (Kumar, 2017; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017; Nenonen et al., 2017). As Dewey (1938, p. 499) writes, “Any problem of scientific inquiry that does not grow out of actual (or “practical”) social conditions is factitious.” To that end, B2B marketing scholars should not isolate themselves from practitioners when setting in motion new research projects and developing new theories. Organizational purchasing and business relationships happen in organizations ingrained in organizational histories and routines (Håkansson and Shenota, 1995). Therefore, scholars should seek new innovative ways to interact with practitioners, collect data on site and validate that their research is applicable to business reality. Buying large data sets from distant countries, then analyzing these data sets and finally publishing results without setting foot in the organizations and meeting the managers that the research scrutinizes should be avoided, as it is against the very ethos of solving customer problems (Reibstein et al., 2009). Furthermore, conducting research from the distance of the university “ivory towers” distances scholars from business practice and diminishes their credibility among business practitioners. As LaPlaca and Katrichis (2009, p. 17) observe, a typical reaction to theory among B2B marketing practitioners is: “that may be true in theory, but you don’t know my business.” Clearly, B2B marketing scholars need to “know business” and stay close to managers. Practitioners can be considered “sounding boards” with a capacity to alert scholars should their ideas become too abstract and far removed from practice. Sometimes, however, academics write papers that are more geared toward academics than practitioners. There are, of course, papers that deal more with academic than practical challenges, such as systematic literature reviews, method papers and conceptual work. However, even the most abstract conceptual work targeting scholars primarily benefits from dialog with practitioners (Guercini and Medlin, 2020).

4.2 Axiom two: relevance of business-to-business marketing research is perishable

The correspondence between the theory and the real world is momentary at best and requires constant updating (Blumer, 1954; Chomsky, 1995; Moorman et al., 2019). The B2B marketing environment is under continuous change, and therefore, the relevance of B2B marketing research is perishable. The explanatory power of B2B theory is not absolute but relative to the predominant circumstances. As time passes, these circumstances might change in such a way that the theory no longer captures the phenomenon. In B2B marketing, these circumstances are in constant flux as new technologies and business models disrupt the market. For example, for years, “stuck in a middle” (Porter, 1980) was considered the least unfavorable market positioning. However, companies such as Ikea have proven that with new technologies, it is possible to differentiate and price 20–30% below the competition (Hambrick and Fredrickson, 2005). Consequently, various B2B marketing stakeholders need to work together to make sense of these changes and to revise the theory (Naudé and Sutton-Brady, 2019). For example, the war in Ukraine and the European Union and US-led sanctions against Russia have had a widespread influence on the global economy (Åslund and Snegovaya, 2021). Sheffi (2022) points out that bottlenecks created by raw material and semiconductor shortages in global supply chains are the new normal and that companies are increasing inventories rather than applying lean practices. What kind of influence will this new normal have on organizational purchasing and business relationships? Will businesses favor more transactional relationships than long-term partnerships during a period of instability? These questions point to the need for scholars to stay close to their phenomena (Ployhart and Bartunek, 2019). A deeply ingrained episteme can, however, distract scholars from detecting changing circumstances (Foucault, 1980). A healthy dose of self-critique (Chomsky, 1995), metatheoretical reflection and constructive feedback from various B2B marketing stakeholders, including managers, economic and government thinkers, policymakers, educators and students, can help scholars to renew their thinking.

4.3 Axiom three: relevance of business-to-business marketing research is relative

B2B marketing research needs to be valuable and useful to educators and students, scholars, managers, economic and government thinkers, policymakers and society at large (Lilien, 2016; Möller, 2017). Consequently, the relevance of the research is relative to the needs and perspectives of these stakeholders. These stakeholders expect to learn and gain unique insights from marketing knowledge. These needs may relate to state-of-the-art knowledge, practical everyday guidance or emotional inspiration (Bloom et al., 1971). The need to fulfill the needs of a broad B2B audience necessitates that scholars convey subspecialized knowledge in a lucid and digestible form. Indeed, according to Mora Cortez and Johnston (2017), merely 2.31% of practitioners consume more than one marketing journal article per year. In essence, scholars need to ask what various B2B marketing stakeholders can learn from a subspecialized phenomenon such as network pictures (Henneberg et al., 2006) or sleeping relationships (Hadjikhani, 1996) associated with the IMP research strand. What does this then mean for publishing? We suggest that scholars use a wider variety of outlets to reach specific stakeholders. While conceptual work in B2B marketing could (and perhaps should) primarily target scholars through academic journals (Möller, 2017; Yadav, 2010), bridge journals (Birkinshaw et al., 2016) could be used to reach specific practitioners with more lucid and digestible content.

4.4 Axiom four: relevance of business-to-business marketing research is scattered

Despite efforts to build a general theory of marketing (Hunt, 2010), most of the marketing corpus reflects mid-range theories (Brodie, 2017; Nicholson et al., 2014; Peters et al., 2013). B2B marketing comprises numerous research strands and subspecialties, as discussed earlier (LaPlaca and Katrichis, 2009; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017; Reid and Plank, 2000; Tanner, 2021; Vieira and Brito, 2015). In this sense, B2B marketing research is scattered among these strands. Various strands may offer complementary (or contradictory) insights into similar phenomena, and therefore, knowledge exchange and cross-fertilization between them is useful (Möller and Parvinen, 2015). Project marketing scholarship, an offshoot of the IMP Group, offers an interesting example of knowledge exchange: project management and project marketing scholars have successfully cross-fertilized their findings in the past (Cova and Salle, 2005; Skaates and Tikkanen, 2003). Another successful story can be found in the cross-fertilization of ideas between the IMP Group and international business strands that have both adopted the “relationship atmosphere” concept and applied it to their specific contexts (see, e.g. Håkansson, 1982; Hallén and Sandström, 1991). The scattered nature of B2B marketing knowledge challenges scholars to think about how their work extends B2B marketing knowledge beyond their subspecialty. Asking these broader questions is beneficial, as it forces B2B marketers to step out of the comfort of their subspecialty and reach out to a wider audience to see how relevant their insights are. As pointed out by Alvesson and Sandberg (2014), practitioners and the public are seldom interested in marginal contributions to subspecialized areas. Therefore, being able to articulate the value of the research to the other research strands of B2B marketing (discussed earlier in this study) is a litmus test for the relevance of the research.

5.1 Learning and temporal dimensions of relevance

There have been several attempts to seize the different dimensions of relevance in marketing from the point of view of managers, scholars or other stakeholders (Jaworski, 2011; Reibstein et al., 2009; Varadarajan, 2003). In this study, we focus on relevance from the perspective of B2B marketing research, building on its unique characteristics (see Section 3.1). B2B marketing professionals are highly educated and trained (Anderson et al., 2008; Johnston and Bonoma, 1981). However, the embeddedness of business relationships (Granovetter, 1985; Ring and Van De Ven, 1994) means that emotions and knowledge entwine intricately with social action and interorganizational histories. Therefore, in the following, we seek to morph the four axioms into an action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research comprising learning and temporal dimensions (see Figure 1). The learning dimension of relevance relates to performativity and how easily the theories and tools of B2B marketing can be put to work. To reify performativity in the B2B marketing context, we link it to the different aspects of learning (Bloom et al., 1971). Thus, B2B marketing research should be performative, bringing about cognitive (thinking), behavioral (acting) or emotional (feeling) effects in the target audience, including educators, students, scholars, managers, economic and government thinkers, policymakers and society at large (axioms one and three).

The temporal dimension of relevance corresponds to the perishable and scattered nature of B2B research within the changing marketing environment (axioms two and four). We propose three temporalities of relevance: past, present and future (Medlin, 2004). As discussed previously, B2B marketing professionals operate in complex interorganizational settings where knowledge is embedded deeply in organizational histories and cultures and is being interpreted and reinterpreted constantly (Granovetter, 1985). Therefore, managers need an ability to move mentally backward and forward in time to foresee the future in light of the present and past (Abrahamsen et al., 2023). As a combination of these two dimensions, nine types of relevance appear (see Figure 1). Consequently, when a strand of B2B marketing enhances or diminishes its usefulness, it can be traced to these nine relevance types.

5.2 Nine different relevance types

The relevance types 1–3 (thinking) relate to and opportunities to understand important facts and concepts about the B2B marketing phenomenon. Ideally, new conceptualizations enable more accurate and meaningful interpretations of the real world (i.e. type 2) and reinterpretations of the past (i.e. type 1). Conceptual innovations enable scholars and practitioners to rethink their underlying assumptions of B2B marketing (Yadav, 2010) and envision new types of B2B marketing phenomena (i.e. type 3). The relevance types 4–6 (acting) refer to practical skills and learning how to do something in practice. For B2B marketing research to be useful, it should help the various users of this knowledge learn new ways to interpret and enact B2B marketing activities (i.e. type 5). Even more so, this knowledge should enable them to reinterpret their own and others’ past decisions and behavior (i.e. type 4) and also help them to look forward and reinvigorate B2B marketing’s role in organizations and society (i.e. type 6). Relevance types 7–9 (feeling) have to do with emotions and their entwinement with social action in B2B marketing. From a broader perspective, B2B marketing research can be considered relevant when it positively impacts a person’s values and interests. This means that B2B marketing research needs to inspire people and strengthen their identity as marketing scholars, students or practitioners (i.e. type 8). Mason, Kjellberg and Hagberg (2015) talk about “agential effects”, referring to the capacity of theories to empower practitioners. Indeed, people should be able to look back and not only reinterpret various events and actions but also feel capable of change with the help of B2B marketing research (i.e. type 7). Indeed, when industry practices change at a rapid pace, theories and concepts need to keep up and help people make sense of the new reality, reinforcing their confidence in B2B marketing (i.e. type 9). When knowledge stagnates, critical thinking and reflection are necessary to keep the strand on a favorable trajectory (Alvesson and Spicer, 2019).

5.3 Maintaining relevance through reflection and dialog

As we have learned from the previous examples, an episteme can create a subspecialized “bubble” that distracts scholars from detecting changing circumstances. Individual reflection provides a way to “burst the bubble” from the inside, whereas dialog with various B2B marketing stakeholders is a way to surface any discrepancy between theory and practice from the outside. Indeed, there is a constant tension between “breaking in to and breaking out from a research community” (Ojansivu et al., 2022, p. 49). This tension plays out in the knowledge development between the various B2B marketing stakeholders. Klag and Langley (2013) note that knowledge development requires a continuous interplay between empirical data and theory. They refer to this dialog as the process of “conceptual leaping” involving two intertwined steps, i.e. “seeing” and “articulating.” According to these authors, seeing is associated with making sense of the existing social world, whereas articulating involves conveying this emerging understanding to the broader public to obtain “meaning and relevance beyond the specific context of their development” (Klag and Langley, 2013, p. 150). While it is possible to make “conceptual leaps” in silos, scientific impact and innovative ideas are more likely to occur through teamwork and pairing atypical knowledge with conventional knowledge (Uzzi et al., 2013). We insist that it is possible to maintain relevance and to keep reinventing theories, concepts and industry best practices; however, this requires constructive dialog between B2B marketing scholars and the various marketing practitioners. Whether relevance can be maintained without a backlash against the core underlying beliefs of an episteme is a difficult question that will be discussed in the following.

6.1 A performative-phenomenal standpoint

This conceptual study aimed to explore the importance of relevance and its epistemic underpinnings in B2B marketing research. Consequently, the following two questions were proposed:

(1) What characteristics contribute to the definition of relevance in B2B marketing research?

(2) How/why do different strands of B2B marketing maintain or lose their relevance?

To answer these questions, this study adopted a performative-phenomenal standpoint (Ployhart and Bartunek, 2019; Spicer et al., 2009), meaning that B2B marketing research should first and foremost be anchored to empirical phenomena with potential insights for both scholars and practitioners. The challenge for B2B marketers is to keep up with the changing marketing environment. As Ployhart and Bartunek (2019, p. 495) point out, “Many organizational problems and phenomena are not new, but they have changed as a result of cultural, societal, technological, and economic changes.” Thus, when business practices evolve, concepts must be adapted, new concepts must be created or old forgotten concepts, more insightfully explaining the phenomenon, must be brought back. According to Gummesson (2001, p. 46):

When we find a gap between our perceived reality and the reality suggested by received theory […] We should propose that theory be changed and challenge the mainstream paradigm in a constructive way.

What was once a breakthrough idea could turn into dead weight and inertia after a while.

It is nonetheless acknowledged that the performative-phenomenal standpoint is not embraced by all scholars. Some advocates of performativity (see, e.g. Jacobi et al., 2015) would point out that the value of theories is not in their capacity to truthfully capture business practice but to be used by practitioners for whatever reasons. In that sense, a concept retains its value as long as it creates action, no matter how far it is removed from the original phenomenon. From the performative-phenomenal standpoint, this appears to be rather carefree laissez-faire thinking. The approach taken in this study has been to advocate B2B marketing research and theory development as a dialog between its various stakeholders. Practitioners are “sounding boards” for scholars, and vice versa. As postulated by Kant, “Practice without theory is blind; theory without practice is empty” (Becker, 1954, p. 387).

6.2 Theoretical contributions

This study makes three main contributions to B2B marketing research. First, this study contributes to the literature grappling with the theory-praxis gap (Brodie, 2017; Möller, 2017; Möller and Parvinen, 2015; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017; Nenonen et al., 2017; Varadarajan, 2003) by suggesting four axioms that define the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research (Table 1). These axioms were then morphed into an action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research comprising learning and temporal dimensions, resulting in nine different relevance types (Figure 1). B2B marketing research should be performative and help various stakeholders reinterpret (past), enact (present) and envision (future) B2B marketing phenomena. When value is created neither for practitioners nor scholars in terms of benefiting their thinking, practical skills or emotions, research has lost its relevance.

Second, this study elucidates the demerits of silo thinking in B2B marketing, referring to each strand protecting its own territory and downplaying other overlapping strands to maintain favorable positioning (Becher, 1989; Moorman et al., 2019; Tett, 2015). Silos prevent scholars from seeing beyond their subspecialty. This outlook results in marginal contributions that are hardly interesting and not understandable to stakeholders outside the subspecialty. The focus should be on articulating the emerging understanding to a broader B2B marketing audience beyond the original context (axiom four). Indeed, the argument made in this article is that silos are the main reason why different strands of B2B marketing lose their relevance. Scholars adjust their own thinking rather than call into question fundamental beliefs of an episteme (Alvesson and Spicer, 2019). However, this kind of thinking is hardly constructive. Theories and concepts are expected to capture often dynamic empirical phenomena and will endure to have historical value when they no longer yield explanatory power (Grönroos, 1997; van Waterschoot and Van den Bulte, 1992). Replacing current concepts with new ones, bringing back old concepts or borrowing concepts from other fields are not easy tasks. These processes are very messy (Abbott, 2010). As Gieryn (1983, p. 781) insightfully notes, “Science is no single thing; its boundaries are drawn and redrawn in flexible, historically changing and sometimes ambiguous ways.” It is the unconscious nature of episteme (Foucault, 1980) that renders it highly pervasive. B2B marketers need to outsmart the episteme in which they are deeply ingrained.

Third, this study points to the need for B2B marketers to theorize about the theory itself and to envision future theories, i.e. to immerse themselves in metatheoretical reflection (axiom two). This is now more important than ever, as “the practice of marketing is changing faster than the research published in marketing journals” (Moorman et al., 2019, p. 2). Scholars need to be willing to treat their own work critically and revisit their old ideas as time passes and circumstances change. Indeed, Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most esteemed social scientist of our times, entirely reorganized and repositioned his work after years of metatheoretical reflection (Chomsky, 1995). Furthermore, the boundaries of various strands of B2B marketing may become entangled in unprecedented ways, leading some strands to lose and others to maintain or increase their relevance (see Section 2.1). As such, the dichotomy between theory and practice is ever-changing and dependent on the predominant circumstances. Scholars should have awareness beyond their subspecialty and acknowledge how the business environment and the various strands of B2B marketing congruently shape B2B marketing relevance. This broader awareness and dialog among the various marketing stakeholders (axioms one and three) provides the catalyst to revitalize B2B marketing research. Indeed, the central argument put forward in this study is that our understanding of relevance is contingent on the epistemic beliefs and assumptions of the research strands with which we affiliate ourselves (see Section 2.1).

6.3 Practical contributions

As mentioned above, B2B marketing thrives on customer problems, making it one of the most managerially applicable business disciplines (Drucker, 1954). However, practitioners and academics are continuing to diverge (Brown, 2005; Jaworski, 2011; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017). The following implications are raised to bring B2B marketing academics and practitioners closer together. First, practitioners should reach out more to B2B marketing scholars for their expertise. In many countries, there is a large “invisible” boundary between universities and businesses, causing the latter to prefer to work with marketing consulting companies rather than with universities. According to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data, only 3.5% of large firms in Australia collaborate with universities, similar to the values of 31.3% in the UK, 34.9% in France, 43.2% in Germany and 70% in Finland (Guthrie et al., 2017). Clearly, there is more room for B2B marketing scholars and practitioners to work together.

Second, practitioners should aspire to have a more active role in B2B marketing research. Concepts and theories should be developed interactively and iteratively between marketing scholars and practitioners through the steps of “seeing” and “articulating” (Klag and Langley, 2013). Continuous dialog enhances the correspondence between the theory and the real world. It also ensures that the marketing phenomenon under scrutiny is relevant and rigorously investigated. Practitioners should also challenge scholars to keep up with the rapidly changing marketing environment. Scholars may be unaware of these changes or too comfortable in their subspecialized epistemic “bubble” to challenge the status quo. Practitioners can provide a voice of reason should the knowledge appear too arcane and impractical (Brown, 2005; Kumar, 2017; Nenonen et al., 2017).

Third, the action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research presented in Figure 1 can help B2B marketing practitioners and scholars develop concepts together. It is typical that the concepts and narratives that are currently trending and accepted within the marketplace do not necessarily correspond with those adopted in academia. Buzzwords such as XP (customer experience) or SoLoMo (social, local and mobile) appear “fluffy” to most scholars. Placing these concepts in Figure 1 elucidates how much they can stimulate thinking, acting and feeling. For example, would the Buzzword XP help B2B marketing scholars discover and envision new types of B2B marketing phenomena (i.e. type 3), or would the concept of a network picture (Kragh and Andersen, 2009; Ramos et al., 2012) allow B2B marketing practitioners to reinterpret their past decisions and behavior (i.e. type 4)? Furthermore, it helps to determine whether these concepts are likely to stand the test of time by enabling temporal analysis. Concepts should help B2B marketing scholars focus on essential, practically meaningful, theoretically deep and strategically timeless solutions to customer problems. To that end, old concepts are not necessarily bad. For example, the concept of “marketing myopia” (Levitt, 1960) is now more pertinent than ever, as it is during market disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic and war in Ukraine that the significance of customer orientation and B2B marketing’s broader role in organizations becomes obvious.

6.4 Directions for future research

This study identifies four opportunities for future research. First, future research could conduct systematic literature reviews on various strands of B2B marketing (LaPlaca and Katrichis, 2009; Möller and Parvinen, 2015; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2017; Reid and Plank, 2000; Vieira and Brito, 2015) and their epistemes (see Section 2.1) to unearth the unconscious and taken-for-granted nature of relevance and to compare and contrast their viewpoints. It would be especially valuable to learn from successful dialog between academics and practitioners.

Second, an interesting future research avenue has to do with identifying and reinvigorating B2B research strands at risk of becoming obsolete. Marketing is a great example of a discipline that has witnessed several research strands with strong epistemes that have spoken to a specific period in marketing, but over time, the research has become saturated and has lost its innovativeness and relevance. For example, RM (Payne and Frow, 2017; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995) has had an unparalleled impact on mainstream marketing beyond its original roots in B2B and services marketing (Grönroos, 1997). However, recently, the volume of RM articles has stagnated, even though relationships are now as pertinent as ever (Brodie, 2017). Similarly, service-dominant (S-D) logic is tapping into institutional theory (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Vargo and Lusch, 2016) to keep the strand trending. The conceptual framework of relevance in B2B marketing research (Figure 1) could be used as a “protocol” or “playbook”, indicating how the academy goes about reinvestigating B2B research strands, their epistemic underpinnings and relevance. This approach could make scholars and practitioners alike more aware of the pervasiveness of an episteme (Foucault, 1980).

Third, an avenue for future research relates to the collaboration between scholars and practitioners to stimulate more relevant B2B marketing research. Recently, authors such as Nenonen et al. (2017), Brodie (2017) and Möller (2017) have called for more attention to the collaborative theorizing processes between scholars and practitioners, and this article fully supports this future research avenue. The B2B marketing environment is continuously evolving, creating possibilities for developing new insights and strengthening the correspondence between the theory and the real world. Indeed, scholars should “constantly seek to understand and document emerging phenomena” (Naudé and Sutton-Brady, 2019, p. 34). Practitioners are at the forefront of the changing business and therefore in a perfect position to inspire new perspectives on old problems or to discover new marketing phenomena. Gummesson (2014) encourages the use of more case study research to bring research closer to business practice and to address the complexity of B2B marketing phenomena. Other qualitative methods, such as action research and self-ethnography (Eriksson, 2010), could be used to paint a more accurate in situ picture of what is actually happening in marketing practice.

Fourth, it is quite axiomatic that marketing practitioners do not have the time or patience to cowrite colossal journal articles with academics. Therefore, future research could investigate “hybrid” forms of collaboration between academics and practitioners, such as copublishing research findings and elaborating on their practical value in webcasts and podcasts. As an example, Marketing Week has its “Marketing Week Meets” podcast that features both academics and marketing executives. In a similar manner, one of the world’s leading enterprise resource planning software suppliers, SAP, has its podcast series, “SAP Partner Podcast,” connecting its technology experts with its customers to discuss their changing needs and potential future solutions. Given the recent developments in B2B marketing practice, education and job listings toward digital solutions, it seems logical to have more novel theorizing processes between academics and practitioners and new outlets for these insights.