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.

1. 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),
(C. Stringer), (M.
Benson-Rea), (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.
/>

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 2 identifies concepts
relating to regional clusters and inter-firm co-operation in
marketing and develops the hypotheses which informed
the data analysis. Section 3 is a brief overview of the
industry context in each of the four Southern Hemisphere
economies under study. Section 4 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.

2. 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, do 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.
3. 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 1 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 1
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 , 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).
4. 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 1 = not at all useful and 5 = 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 1 = no importance and 5 =
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%
2
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 6 and 10 years
(9 firms; 47.4%) and in New Zealand equally
between 6 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).
5. 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 2
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, 5 and
6. 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 3
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; 5. 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 4
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.
6. 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 do 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 5
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 1
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.
2
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 2

Passive
externaliti
es
Model 3

−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 6
Co-operative marketing activities.
Dependent variables

Co-operative marketing activities
Market development

Channel management

Market development

Channel management

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

Model 8

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
7
−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
7
)
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
7
)

Increased sales × Catch-up strategy

2

Model

9
−0.66
4
(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.

7. 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 2 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, 5 & 6
(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 1 = not at all useful
and 5 = 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 1 = no importance
and 5 = crucial.
Tables 4, 5 & 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 do 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, 5. (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).