Export Promotion Strategy and

Performance: The Role of

International Experience
Magnus Hultman, Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Matthew J. Robson

ABSTRACT
This study examines how international experience shapes managerial judgment in the formation of effective export pro-
motion strategies. Drawing from contingency theory and the organizational learning perspective, the authors develop
and test a model of the effects of different forms of international experience—duration, scope, and intensity—on the
performance outcomes of promotion adaptation. Using data from 336 export ventures, the authors find that promo-
tion adaptation relates positively to performance when duration is short and intensity is low, but there is a nonsignifi-
cant moderating effect for scope. However, the subsequent analysis suggests that scope, together with sociocultural dis-
tance and promotion adaptation, exerts a complex three-way effect on export performance, highlighting the need for
more research attention in this area.

Keywords: promotion adaptation, export marketing, performance, contingency theory, organizational learning

E
xporting is a viable way for firms to shift from
potentially stuttering in domestic sales to growing
overseas markets, while maintaining flexibility and
minimizing costs and risk compared with other foreign
expansion modes (Lee and Makhija 2009). Inter-
national marketing managers play a key role in their
firms’ export development because they are the decision
makers ultimately responsible for export initiation, sus-
tenance, and performance (Sousa, Ruzo, and Losada
2010). Managers make decisions that shape the funda-
mental features of their firms’ exporting organizations
in terms of duration of exporting, export market selec-
tion, and degree of export dependence; they are also the
deciding factor in the design and execution of inter-
national marketing strategy (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and
Piercy 1998). Although evidence suggests that each of
Magnus Hultman is Lecturer in Marketing (e-mail:
m.hultman@leeds.ac.uk), Constantine S. Katsikeas is
Arnold Ziff Research Chair in Marketing and Inter-
national Management (e-mail: buscsk@leeds.ac.uk),
and Matthew J. Robson is Professor of Marketing (e-
mail: mjro@lubs.leeds.ac.uk), Leeds University Business
School, University of Leeds.
these managerial decisions directly or indirectly con-
tributes to firms’ business performance in overseas mar-
kets, marketing strategy decisions have been repeatedly
singled out as essential in the pursuit of superior export
performance (Katsikeas, Leonidou, and Morgan 2000).
Specifically, the decision of whether to standardize or
adapt international promotional programs has received a
great deal of research attention. This standardization/
adaptation decision is particularly relevant to exporting
because the deployment of apposite promotion strategies
is widely perceived as beneficial for export performance
(Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993). Yet the issue remains
contentious and largely unresolved in the literature. Some
exporting studies (e.g., Shoham 1999) report a positive
link between promotion adaptation and performance,
others (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008) find no asso-
ciation between the two, and still others (e.g., Cavusgil
and Zou 1994) reveal a negative relationship.
Journal of International Marketing
©2011, American Marketing Association
Vol. 19, No. 4, 2011, pp. 17–39
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 17

Despite calls for research to shed light on inconsistent
findings, the performance effects of export promotion
strategy remain unclear. Furthermore, there is a general
lack of theoretical grounding in prior studies (see Mor-
gan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004), with many adopting
inappropriate conceptualizations of the unit of analysis
or key constructs, such as performance and promotion
adaptation (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Leonidou, Kat-
sikeas, and Samiee 2002). However, recent theoretical
developments have abandoned the traditional dichoto-
mous view of promotion adaptation and standardization
in favor of a more continuous view of these occupying
two ends of a scale (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou
2006). According to contingency reasoning, optimal
strategy, which may draw on the advantages of adapta-
tion and/or standardization, is subject to a set of organi-
zational and environmental conditions (Albaum and Tse
2001). The contingency approach contends that certain
firm attributes (e.g., strategic orientations) can be tested
for fit against relevant boundary conditions (e.g., inter-
national experience, environmental differences). Given
the academic and practitioner interest in this contentious
issue, our study aims to shed light on contingent mecha-
nisms born from previous managerial decisions regard-
ing export duration, scope, and intensity that determine
the circumstances under which promotion strategy adap-
tation connects with export performance.
The study makes three contributions to the literature.
First, in response to the cited inconsistency in prior
research, the study expands from a theoretical founda-
tion in contingency theory and the concept of strategy fit
using insights from the organizational learning perspec-
tive (Delios and Henisz 2003). Research investigating the
impact of strategic fit on performance is not new; how-
ever, few studies have empirically examined fit in the
context of international marketing strategy (e.g., Kat-
sikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006; Xu, Cavusgil, and
White 2006). While contingency theory studies are per-
suasive in arguing that there is a more complex relation-
ship than a direct effect linkage, a long-standing criticism
is that this is only a theory in the broadest sense
(Schoonhoven 1981). Greater theoretical justification is
required in applications of contingency theory in inter-
national marketing. Our integrative theoretical framing
offers a substantive explanation of the connection
between export promotion strategy fit and performance.
Second, the study is novel in arguing that the decisions
managers make at earlier stages in the export develop-
ment process can influence the effectiveness of their cur-
rent export promotion strategy. We provide evidence
18 Journal of International Marketing
that previous managerial decisions determining how
long a firm has been involved in exporting, the number
of chosen export markets, and the firm’s export depend-
ence generate different types of organizational learning
and different abilities to leverage knowledge through
more effective export promotion strategies. We extend
previous exporting studies that have aggregated across
forms of international experience (e.g., Cavusgil and
Zou 1994; Chung 2003) by targeting the pressing need
to explore how various aspects of the experiential learn-
ing mechanism shape managerial judgment (Chetty,
Eriksson, and Lindbergh 2006; Delios and Henisz
2003). The study enhances understanding of the links
between different components of international experi-
ence (i.e., duration, scope, and intensity) and knowledge
development in exporting firms. Such knowledge con-
nections enable managers to make sound export promo-
tion strategy decisions.
Third, by focusing on managerial decisions pertaining to
the promotional element of the export marketing pro-
gram rather than using a global or higher-order concep-
tualization of overall strategy adaptation (Katsikeas,
Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006; Xu, Cavusgil, and White
2006), our study produces more directly interpretable
and actionable results. Studying overall export market-
ing program effects may mask the distinctive perform-
ance outcomes of individual program components. Prior
research has shown different export performance effects
of adaptation/standardization across marketing-mix ele-
ments (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Lages, Jap, and Griffith
2008). The contingent factors in play can differ from
one export marketing strategy component to another.
Thus, analysis at the component level better incorpo-
rates the theoretical complexity of the environment
(Griffith 2010).
In the remainder of the article, we first discuss the
exporting literature, theoretical ideas underpinning the
current study, and the study hypotheses. We then pres-
ent our methodology, followed by the analysis and
results. Finally, we discuss the results and draw implica-
tions for theory building and management.
PERTINENT LITERATURE
Similar to decisions about export initiation and develop-
ment, the decision of whether to adapt a firm’s promotion
strategy for foreign market customers ultimately resides
with one or more managers (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and
Piercy 1998). Promotion strategy adaptation is the extent
to which the firm’s domestic promotional program
(including advertising message, creative presentation,
media strategy, personal selling, and sales promotion) is
customized to the export market (Lages, Abrantes, and
Lages 2008).1 Although the current adaptation/
standardization debate has spread from its origins of
only promotional elements to the entire marketing pro-
gram (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008), promotion
remains at the epicenter of the debate and continues to
receive heightened research attention. In view of the vast
research on drivers of promotion adaptation, there is a
relative dearth of work on the link between promotion
adaptation and performance. Scrutiny of the literature
reveals just 17 studies that have examined the relation-
ship between promotion adaptation/standardization
and performance in international settings (see Table 1).
Analysis of previous studies shows two major concep-
tual issues. First, while some studies have adopted a
contingency perspective (e.g., Albaum and Tse 2001;
Cavusgil and Zou 1994), the vast majority have hypoth-
esized a direct link between promotion strategy adapta-
tion or standardization and performance. Indeed, the
dominant descriptive approach to contingency theory
specifies the existence of relationships among a set of
theoretically related variables without any explicit fit
linkage to performance (Venkatraman 1990). Katsikeas,
Samiee, and Theodosiou (2006, p. 870) note that “con-
ceptualization and testing of direct relationships
between strategy and performance assumes that a par-
ticular strategy (adaptation or standardization) enhances
performance, while the other inhibits it”; however, this
seems theoretically and pragmatically inappropriate.
Only two studies, one conducted with multinational cor-
porations (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006)
and the other with different types of international firms
(Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009), have adopted the
normative model of contingency reasoning by examining
how fit between the firm’s international promotion
strategy and its context relates to performance. Further-
more, although Cavusgil and Zou (1994) call for export
researchers to adopt a fine-tuned solution to the
dilemma of judging the level of promotion adaptation,
no exporting studies have concentrated on the promo-
tion adaptation–performance fit linkage. Our research
responds to this call.
Second, although most studies assess performance
using multiple indicators, researchers have commonly
conceptualized performance as unidimensional or
global. Only three studies (i.e., Katsikeas, Samiee, and
Theodosiou 2006; Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008;
Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009) conceptualize
performance as a multidimensional construct. How-
ever, there is agreement in the management and market-
ing literatures that performance is a complex phenome-
non involving organizational inputs and outputs
variously viewed by firms (e.g., Richard et al. 2009).
The position taken in the current study is that export
performance is a multidimensional construct (Kat-
sikeas, Leonidou, and Morgan 2000).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Because the focus of our study is on investigating explic-
itly the export performance implications of managers’
international promotion decisions, we theorize a clear
link between fit and performance (Venkatraman 1990).
Using insights from the management literature, propo-
nents of the normative contingency school assert that
managers can boost their firms’ performance by shifting
the marketing strategy to improve the congruity of con-
textual complexities (Vorhies and Morgan 2003). From
an operational standpoint, however, the issue of how to
specify fit among an organization’s strategy, its environ-
ment, and its performance has been subject to debate
and criticism (Venkatraman 1990). The prevailing
approaches in international marketing research are fit as
matching (e.g., Hultman, Robson, and Katsikeas 2009;
Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006) and fit as
moderation (e.g., Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009;
Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006).
Underutilization of the normative model of contingency
theory may be linked to limitations of the theoretical
framing. Schoonhoven’s (1981) critique suggests that con-
tingency theory is not a theory at all in the conventional
sense of a theory as a well-developed set of interrelated
propositions. Thus, although contingency theory can
reveal how a marketing strategy phenomenon should be
conceptualized, other theory should be employed to ori-
ent and add precision to theoretical statements. Fit as
matching suggests that adaptation/standardization–
performance links are dependent on the nature and mani-
festation of various relevant contextual variables. The
conceptual scope afforded by fit as matching has prag-
matic benefits (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006).
Arguably more important, however, is that fit as modera-
tion enables explicit recognition of the performance rele-
vance of contingency relations as interactions and greater
theoretical precision (Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006).
The current study employs the organizational learning
perspective together with moderation contingent logic.
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 19
 Table 1. Empirical Studies on Promotion Strategy Adaptation/Standardization and Performancea

Unit of Promotion Strategy Performance

Study (Year) Context Analysis Operationalization Operationalization Major Findings

Seifert and Ford (1989)b Exporters Corporate Budget allocation for export Satisfaction with overall export Firms that spend more on
promotion compared with domes- performance export promotion were more
tic promotion (personal selling, satisfied with their export
advertising, publicity, sales promo- performance.
tion, total promotion)
Szymanski, Bharadwaj, MNCs Business Standardization of resource alloca- Business performance (relative mar- Standardized resource alloca-
and Varadarajan (PIMS data) unit tion (advertising, promotion, sales ket share, return on investment) tion is conducive to superior
(1993)b force) business performance.
Cavusgil and Zou Exporters Product- Promotion adaptation Export marketing performance (ini- Promotion adaptation is nega-

20 Journal of International Marketing

(1994)b market (packaging/labeling, positioning, tial strategic goal fulfillment, annual tively associated with export
venture promotional approach) average growth of export sales, over- performance.
all profitability of export venture,
management’s perceived success of
export venture)
Sriram and Manu Exporters Product- Standardization of advertising/ Market share for the largest export Standardized advertising/
(1995)b market promotion market promotion is positively linked
venture to market share when the
export market is developed; not
in developing export markets.
Shoham (1996a) Television Soft-drink Three commercials selected on the Advertising effectiveness (aided Partially supports that adapted
viewers commercials basis of their level of recognition, aided recall, believa- commercials are positively asso-
standardization bility, postexposure purchase ciated with greater effective-
increase) ness; no association with post-
exposure purchase.
Shoham (1996b)b Exporters Corporate Standardization of promotion Export performance (sales, sales Adaptation of sales force man-
(advertising/promotion budgets, growth, profitability, change in agement and promotion con-
advertising/promotion contents, profits) tents is positively linked to per-
sales force management) formance; adaptation of
promotion budgets is negatively
linked to performance.
Zou, Andrus, and Exporters Corporate Standardized promotion (media Export intensity No significant relationship
Norvell (1997)b channels, basic advertising theme, between promotion standardi-
emphasis on publicity, free sample zation and export intensity.
technique)
 Table 1. Continued

Unit of Promotion Strategy Performance

Study (Year) Context Analysis Operationalization Operationalization Major Findings

Shoham (1999)b Exporters Corporate Promotion standardization (adver-
tising and promotion budget size,
advertising and promotion budget
setting process, media allocation,
advertising and promotion
content)
Albaum and Tse (2001)b Exporters Corporate Positioning adaptation (brand
name, advertising/promotion)
Waheeduzzaman and MNCs Product- Promotion standardization
Dube (2002)b market (packaging/design, advertising
venture theme, advertising copy/layout,
media allocation, sales promotion,
public relations)
Solberg (2002) Exporters Corporate Standardization of marketing com-
munication (information about
product features, creation of asso-
ciations with product, selling argu-
ments, idea behind campaign, text)
Lee and Griffith (2004)b Exporters Corporate Export promotional strategy (expen-
diture for overseas advertising,
extent of overseas trade promotion)
Katsikeas, Samiee, and MNCs Product- Promotion standardization (adver-
Theodosiou (2006)b market tising message, creative presentation,
venture media strategy, sales promotion,
publicity/public relations activities,
personal selling techniques)
Okazaki, Taylor, and MNCs Corporate Multidimensional measure of
Zou (2006) advertising standardization (uni-
form advertising strategy, uniform
advertising execution)
Short-term performance (satis-
faction with export to total
sales, absolute export sales,
profit margins); long-term per-
formance (changes in these
items over five years)
Firm performance (market
share relative to competitors
and expectations, profit rela-
tive to competitors and
expectations)
Firm performance (return on
sales, sales growth)
Export performance (perceived
success, financial results, mar-
ket share, sales growth)
Export performance (degree of
current satisfaction with
export performance, assess-
ment of export performance in
the near future)
Multidimensional measure of
subsidiary performance (sales
performance, financial perform-
ance, customer performance)
Perceived advertising effective-
ness, financial performance,
strategic performance
Promotion standardization is nega-
tively related to short- and long-term
performance.
No significant associations between
positioning adaptation and the per-
formance measures.
Promotion standardization is posi-
tively linked to sales growth; the rela-
tionship to return on sales is
nonsignificant.
Standardization of marketing com-
munication is positively linked to
export performance.
Expenditure for oversees advertising
is not linked to export performance;
extent of overseas trade promotion is
positively linked to performance.
Superior performance results from
promotion standardization only to
the extent that there is fit between
the firm’s environmental context and
its strategy choice.
Advertising standardization is posi-
tively linked to advertising effective-
ness; advertising effectiveness is posi-
tively linked to performance.

Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 21

 Table 1. Continued

Unit of Promotion Strategy Performance

Study (Year) Context Analysis Operationalization Operationalization Major Findings
Lages, Jap, Griffith Exporters Product- Promotion adaptation (advertising Multidimensional measure of No significant relationship between

22 Journal of International Marketing

(2008)b market theme, media channels for advertis- export performance (perfor- promotion adaptation and export
venture ing, promotion objectives, budget mance achievement improve- performance.
for promotion, direct marketing) ment, export intensity
improvement, satisfaction with
performance improvement)
Schilke, Reimann, and Inter- Business Promotion standardization (execu- Multidimensional measure of Promotion standardization is posi-
Thomas (2009)b national unit tion of advertising, techniques for business unit performance tively linked to performance; this link
firms sales promotion) (customer satisfaction, market is positively moderated by cost lead-
effectiveness, profitability) ership strategy, degree of marketing
coordination, degree of global market
participation, homogeneity of prod-
ucts, and size.
Sousa and Lengler Exporters Product- Promotion adaptation (budget Export performance (export Promotion adaptation is positively
(2009)b market size, content, sales promotion intensity, export market share, linked to performance.
venture tools, advertising themes/messages) meeting expectations)

aEmpirical studies treating marketing strategy standardization/adaptation as a single composite construct (e.g., Aulakh, Kotabe, and Teegen 2000; Shoham and Albaum 1994; Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006) and not dis-
tinguishing promotional aspects were excluded from review. Studies in which the promotional elements of the marketing program could be isolated are included with those concentrating solely on promotional aspects.
bThe authors originally studied more than the promotional elements of the international marketing program, but for our purposes only the elements related to promotion strategy are included in this review.
Notes: MNCs = multinational corporations.
Organizational learning theory implies managerial
understanding of causal linkages between actions and
organizational outcomes within the environment in
which the firm operates (Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008).
Our study captures organizational learning processes
through the international experience a firm has gained
as a result of prior managerial decisions with regard to
the timing of export initiation (duration), selection of
markets (scope), and dependence on foreign markets
(intensity). We posit that this international experience
shapes managerial judgment when it comes to promo-
tion adaptation decisions.
Recent research has found that the understanding of
opportunities becomes more realistic when based on
experiential learning (Chetty, Eriksson, and Lindbergh
2006). Through interactive processes of trial and error,
managers come to recognize firm-level behaviors associ- !
ated with favorable and unfavorable outcomes (Cyert
and March 1963). Although the increased understand-
ing might initially occur at an individual level, it spreads
through various formal and informal reporting mecha-
nisms to become the collective knowledge of the team
and firm. Exposure to and direct involvement with cus-
tomers in international markets are important means of
learning by doing (Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt 2000).
Thus, the bases of an exporting firm’s development of
new strategies typically gravitate around its history and
accumulated experience (Cyert and March 1963).
Knowledge development is a cumulative experience,
insofar as prior experiences with various institutional
conditions generate knowledge that is applied as man-
agers make decisions about current and new overseas
ventures. Furthermore, the learning gained through
exporting is generally viewed as low-risk, exploitation-
type learning, which involves managers devising incre-
mental strategies typically characterized by gradual
adjustments to prevailing conditions and moderate but
certain returns (Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008; Özsomer
and Gençtürk 2003).
The contradictory findings in extant research (Table 1)
imply that the relationship between international pro-
motion adaptation and performance defies easy
generalizations and universal solutions. By relying on a
standardized approach, the exporting firm runs the risk
of alienating its target audience by delivering a promo-
tional message designed to suit all markets and thus
becoming indistinct (Douglas and Wind 1987). Con-
versely, regardless of the sensitivity of promotional
understanding to cultural nuances, a significant degree
of promotion adaptation is not always prudent, because
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
International Experience
• Duration
• Scope
• Intensity
H1–H3
Promotion Strategy
Adaptation Export Performance
it might involve higher costs and a deteriorated inter-
national brand (Okazaki, Taylor, and Zou 2006). Our
thesis is that the promotion adaptation–performance
relationship is contingent on the firm’s use of experien-
tial learning. We propose that aspects of international
experience are particularly relevant to the development
of effective export promotion adaptation strategies (see
Figure 1).
HYPOTHESES
The strategic choice perspective explains how managers
have the power to influence the structures of their
organizations through the decisions they make (Child
1972). Exporting organizations need to decide when to
initiate exporting and to which markets, as well as the
direction of travel of their export involvement
(Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy 1998; Sousa, Ruzo,
and Losada 2010). These decisions spawn exporting
organizations with varying degrees of international
experience.
Our review of the literature (e.g., Chetty, Eriksson, and
Lindbergh 2006; Erramilli 1991), supported by the
fieldwork interviews, revealed that international experi-
ence is a multidimensional concept. Three forms of
international experience are of particular relevance to
this study: duration of exporting, scope of exporting,
and export intensity. Duration is a result of previous
management decisions about when to initiate exporting;
it refers to the number of years the firm has engaged in
exporting activities (Brouthers, O’Donnel, and Hadji-
marcou 2005; Davis, Desai, and Francis 2000). Scope is
a consequence of the number of markets in which the
export managers want to be present; it taps geographic
spread and international diversity by taking the number
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 23
of active export markets into account (Cavusgil, Zou,
and Naidu 1993; Qian and Delios 2008). Intensity,
based on the ratio of export sales to total sales, pertains
to managers’ active involvement in foreign markets and
willingness to rely on foreign revenues; it is also an indi-
cator of firms’ international experience (Aulakh and
Gençtürk 2008; Brouthers et al. 2009).
Although we expect the three experience dimensions to
interact with promotion adaptation and performance in
a similar mode, it is important to consider them
individually because they represent distinct parts of the
exporter’s international experience profile (Erramilli
1991; Qian and Delios 2008). By viewing experience
through multiple lenses, we gain richer insights into the
construct’s relationship to export performance, while
avoiding the misleading interpretations that could fol-
low from relying on a single component. For example, a
reliance on duration alone does not capture the variety
of markets and cultures that the firm might have expe-
rienced, and a shortcoming of both duration and scope
is that they ignore the exporter’s effort to actually
develop its foreign markets (Brouthers et al. 2009). The
fieldwork interviews confirmed that intensity con-
tributes to capturing the deeper experience exporting
firms gain from actively pursuing export revenue and
working closely with international markets as opposed
to passively receiving unsolicited orders from foreign
customers.
We propose that export performance is contingent on
the fit between the degree of promotion adaptation and
the amount of international experience generated within
the exporting firm. Specifically, in cases in which inter-
national experience is limited, promotion adaptation is
positively related to export performance, and vice versa.
The moderating role of international experience seems
to be a function of processes of mimetic isomorphism
and organizational learning. Organizations initially
strive to fit their external environments and conform to
these in response to institutional pressures when faced
with ambiguous and uncertain situations (Davis, Desai,
and Francis 2000), and thereafter they alter their initial
strategies to maintain and improve performance as they
gradually accumulate more knowledge about export
markets (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993).
The initial conforming process is signified by imitative
behaviors in which inexperienced firms mimic the con-
duct of existing institutions in the same market, espe-
cially in the face of high uncertainty (DiMaggio and
Powell 1983; Lu 2002). Mimetic isomorphism logic
24 Journal of International Marketing
holds that when environments are complex and decision
makers need to deal with large amounts of ambiguous
information, they use cognitive simplification processes
to manage uncertainty; that is, they create categories of
organizations with relevant similarities (e.g., competi-
tors) and identify their own strategic actions in relation
to the identified categories (Barreto and Baden-Fuller
2006).2 Mimicking behaviors are likely to be prominent
in cases in which the firm is following an exploitation-
type learning strategy (exporting) and gradually adapts
to foreign market conditions (Özsomer and Gençtürk
2003). Inexperienced firms thus can reduce the liability
of foreignness and economize on decision-making costs
by mimicking procedures prevailing in the new foreign
environment (Haveman 1993). This use of simple and
effective short-term responses to cues—from peer insti-
tutions and external legitimacy providers—should result
in superior outcomes to simply extending existing cor-
porate practices when entering new environments
(Brouthers, O’Donnel, and Hadjimarcou 2005; Davis,
Desai, and Francis 2000).
Evidence suggests that promotion adaptation is an evo-
lutionary process, and the factors influencing the adapta-
tion decision on international entry might change when
the exporting firm accumulates knowledge about foreign
markets (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993). Indeed,
increased international experience is likely to transform
the initial adaptation–performance link. Organizational
learning theory proposes that new market knowledge is
the result of firms taking past (positive and negative)
experiences and turning them into actionable behavior
(Cyert and March 1963; Lages, Jap, and Griffith 2008).
More experienced and knowledgeable exporters perceive
less uncertainty and become more confident in their
ability to correctly estimate risks and returns, which
should reflect on how they manage their continued inter-
national operations (Erramilli 1991; Gençtürk and
Aulakh 1995). As the experienced exporter obtains an
increasing amount of firsthand knowledge about foreign
market conditions, it can more confidently switch from
the mimicking strategy to a longer-term strategy that
takes more parameters into consideration but maintains
satisfactory performance levels.
Along with increasing foreign market commitment
come the costs of managing local diversity and the
added transaction and coordination expenditure
(Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009). These additional
costs will eventually reach a point at which they out-
weigh the initial benefits of adapting to the idiosyn-
crasies of each individual market. Thus, experienced
exporters are likely to be more prone toward and adept
at exploiting communalities between home and foreign
markets through promotion standardization. The
described pattern also makes sense from an exploita-
tion-type learning perspective in which a firm that has
been dependent on and exposed to an increasing multi-
tude of markets for an extended period will have a
deeper and broader repertoire of experiences to replicate
and efficiently exploit (Barkema and Vermeulen 1998;
Özsomer and Gençtürk 2003).
Therefore, by taking inspiration from peer institutions
in the foreign market, exporters with limited experience
in terms of duration, scope, and intensity should benefit
more from adapting their promotional strategies in
accordance with the prevailing standards in their export
markets than they would by following a standardized
approach. In contrast, exporters with substantial inter-
national experience are likely to be able to capitalize on
their enhanced international knowledge and find oppor-
tunities for standardized promotional strategy con-
ducive to enhanced performance. Thus:
H1: The relationship between promotion adapta-
tion and export performance is positive when
duration of exporting is short and negative
when duration of exporting is long.
H2: The relationship between promotion adapta-
tion and export performance is positive when
scope of exporting is narrow and negative
when scope of exporting is wide.
H3: The relationship between promotion adapta-
tion and export performance is positive when
export intensity is low and negative when
export intensity is high.
METHOD
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
The unit of analysis in the study is the export venture,
which pertains to a specific product or line exported to a
particular foreign market (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). The
population comprises Swedish exporting manufacturers.
Sweden is an important empirical setting because of its
heavy reliance on exporting as the engine of its economy.
Recent figures show that approximately 70% of Swe-
den’s total goods production is exported, and export
revenues account for more than half the country’s gross
domestic product (Swedish Trade Council 2008).
We used a multi-industry sample that focuses on firms
active in Sweden’s three largest export sectors: machinery
and transport equipment, chemicals and rubber products,
and wood and paper products. These sectors represent
nearly three-quarters of total Swedish exports and more
than half the global export trade (World Trade Organiza-
tion 2010). Firms with less than 20 employees or an
annual export turnover below €1 million were excluded.
Prestudy interviews indicated that particularly small-sized
exporters with limited exporting activities often had no
export promotional budgets. Our systematic selection of
the sample increases observed variance in the dependent
and independent variables and generalizability of the
findings, and it provides control over potential confound-
ing factors in cross-national studies. These research
design boundaries also facilitate the development of
grounded measures meaningful for all study participants.
We obtained our sampling frame from the business reg-
ister service of Statistics Sweden. We generated a list of
all Swedish manufacturing exporters that matched our
criteria for export turnover, firm size, and industry
affiliation—a total of 1016 firms. Each firm was con-
tacted by telephone to ensure that it met the study eligi-
bility criteria; to prenotify the execution, purpose, and
significance of the research; and to identify an appropri-
ate (key) informant. This procedure led to the elimina-
tion of 455 firms from the list. Reasons for deletion
included that the firm was part of a multinational com-
pany that had moved beyond exporting (43% of the
deleted firms), had a corporate policy restricting partici-
pation (24%), engaged only in sporadic export opera-
tions (15%), and had incorrect contact details (18%).
A questionnaire and a self-addressed prepaid envelope
were sent to the key informants in the 561 firms targeted.
To enhance variation in responses, we asked one-third of
potential respondents to focus on one of their more suc-
cessful export ventures, another one-third to focus on an
averagely successful venture, and the remaining one-
third to focus on a less successful venture (e.g., Morgan,
Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004). We offered respondents a
summary of the results to encourage participation. A
wave of reminder/thank-you postcards and one follow-
up mailing yielded 401 responses. From these, 42 ques-
tionnaires were dropped because of missing data, and
another 23 were dropped for failing our post hoc inform-
ant quality test. Specifically, we used four questions at
the end of the questionnaire to assess the respondent’s
degree of (1) responsibility for, (2) involvement in, and
(3) knowledge of the focal product-market venture and
(4) confidence in answering the questions. We employed
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 25
a seven-point scale anchored by “very low” (1) and
“very high” (7). Questionnaires with a rating of four or
lower on at least one item were excluded from analysis.
The mean composite rating (after exclusion) of 6.01 pro-
vides confidence in our key informant data.
The usable responses numbered 336 (out of 561), pro-
viding a response rate of 60%. Of these exporters, 210
(62%) were machinery and transport equipment manu-
facturers, 63 (19%) were chemical and rubber goods
manufacturers, and the remaining 63 (19%) were wood
and paper products manufacturers. Half the export ven-
tures targeted the European Union, 25% targeted
non–European Union countries, 13% targeted North
America, and the remainder (12%) targeted Asia. On
average, the sample firms employ 436 people and have
an annual turnover of approximately €80 million.
Respondents reported an average of 12 years’ working
experience at their firms and were top-level directors
(e.g., chief executive officer, commercial, export, sales)
(83% of respondents) or managers in relevant fields
(e.g., business area, product) (17%).
Nonresponse Bias
We assessed nonresponse bias in two ways. First, we
compared early and late respondent groups on the study
constructs. Using a series of t-tests under the assump-
tions of both equal and unequal group variances, we
detected no significant mean differences between the
two groups. Second, we compared the responding firms
with a random group of 128 nonresponding firms in
terms of number of employees, years exporting, and
annual sales turnover. Again, no significant differences
occurred. Therefore, nonresponse bias does not seem to
be an issue of concern in this study.
Survey Instrument Development
We developed our research instrument by first sourcing
relevant scales in the literature and then refining them to
the study context through interviews and pretests. We
paid particular attention to ensuring the content and
face validity of our measures. Six academicians with
extensive knowledge of questionnaire construction and
research in international marketing served as expert
judges and scrutinized the initial questionnaire and
measures. Next, the revised questionnaire was pretested
and refined through in-depth interviews with executives
actively involved in and responsible for their firms’
export activities. In this way, we ensured that managers
had no problems with measurement, wording, and
26 Journal of International Marketing
structure of the survey instrument. We also confirmed
that Swedish export managers felt comfortable that the
questionnaire was designed in English. Keeping the
questionnaire in its original language eliminated poten-
tial problems associated with translation, such as dis-
torted meanings and loss of nuances in language.
Measures
We used multi-item measurement scales for the export
performance dimensions and promotion strategy adapta-
tion and objective indicators for the different components
of international experience. In accordance with theoreti-
cal developments regarding the multidimensional assess-
ment of business performance (e.g., Morgan, Kaleka, and
Katsikeas 2004), we view performance of the export ven-
ture as a higher-order construct. Consequently, from our
fieldwork and recent adaptation/standardization studies,
we treat export performance as a second-order construct
comprising (1) market performance, based on a three-
item scale adapted from O’Donnell and Jeong (2000) and
Sriram and Manu (1995); (2) financial performance, con-
taining four indicators adapted from Cavusgil and Zou
(1994) and Sousa and Bradley (2008); and (3) customer
performance, using a three-item scale modified from Kat-
sikeas, Leonidou, and Morgan (2000) and Katsikeas,
Samiee, and Theodosiou (2006). In consonance with rec-
ommendations in the marketing literature (e.g., Day and
Nedungadi 1994), we use a competitor-centered approach
to export performance assessment.
We operationalized promotion strategy adaptation
using five items that tap the degree of adaptation in
advertising (message, creative presentation, and media),
personal selling techniques, and sales promotion. These
promotion mix elements appear frequently in the litera-
ture (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006; Seifert
and Ford 1989; Shoham 1996b) and were pertinent in
the field interviews. We captured duration of exporting
as the logarithmic transformation of the total number of
years the firm has been involved in exporting activities
(Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Davis, Desai, and
Francis 2000). We measured scope of exporting on the
basis of the natural logarithm of the firm’s current num-
ber of active export markets (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu
1993). We tapped export intensity—that is, export sales
over total sales—using secondary objective data from
the national business register.
Finally, we included three other variables in the study:
firm size (natural logarithm of the number of employ-
ees), to control for potential scale economies; firm age
(natural logarithm), to control for extra resources and
capabilities that older firms might possess; and indi-
vidual export manager experience (natural logarithm of
the number of years the person in charge of the firm’s
exporting operations had been working in an inter-
national capacity), to control for any individual learning
effects (e.g., Sichtmann, Von Selasinsky, and Diaman-
topoulos 2011). All items appear in the Appendix, along
with response formats and Cronbach’s alpha scores,
which range from .85 to .93.
estimation (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The chi-
square for the model is significant (2(164 d.f.) = 253.73,
p < .01), which is expected because of this test’s sensi-
tivity to large sample sizes. The normed fit index (NFI)
of .98, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) of .99, comparative
fit index (CFI) of .99, root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA) of .04, and average off-diagonal stan-
dardized residual (AOSR) of .03 all meet recommended
thresholds, suggesting good model fit. The results of the
measurement model appear in Table 2.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Measure Validation
We assessed construct validity through confirmatory fac-
tor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation
procedure. Specifically, each item in the model was
restricted to load on its preassigned factor, while the
latent factors were set to correlate freely (Gerbing and
Anderson 1988). The single-item constructs were
assumed to have an error of .10 for purposes of model
Convergent validity is evidenced by the high and signifi-
cant standardized factor loading for each item on its
predetermined construct; the lowest loading in the
measurement model is .68. We assessed the constructs’
discriminant capacities following the procedure of For-
nell and Larcker (1981). Specifically, discriminant
validity exists when the variance shared between two
latent constructs (i.e., the square of their intercorrela-
tion) is inferior to the average variance extracted of the

Table 2. Measurement Model Results

First-Order Factors Second-Order Factor

Factors and Items Standardized Loadingsa Factors and Items Standardized Loadings

Promotion Adaptation First-Order Factors

Promo 1 .89 (20.53) Market Performance
Promo 2 .93 (22.08) Markperf 1b .75
Promo 3 .90 (20.96) Markperf 2 .76 (13.16)
Promo 4 .80 (17.41) Markperf 3 .86 (14.35)
Promo 5 .83 (18.48)
Financial Performance
Duration Finperf 1b .86
Durat 1 .88 (19.93) Finperf 2 .88 (20.88)
Scope Finperf 3 .88 (20.95)
Scope 1 .94 (22.71) Finperf 4 .80 (17.80)
Intensity Customer Performance
Intens 1 .98 (24.71) Custperf 1b .86
Export Manager Experience Custperf 2 .85 (16.42)
Manexp 1 .85 (18.18) Custperf 3 .68 (12.96)

Firm Size Second-Order Factor

Size 1 .79 (11.22) Export Performance
Firm Age Market Performance .77 (10.76)
Age 1 .90 (20.76) Financial Performance .83 (12.88)
Customer Performance .73 (11.32)

at-values are reported in parentheses.

bFixed parameter.

Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 27

items forming the constructs. The correlation matrix in
Table 3 shows that the average variance extracted for
each construct is larger than its shared variance with
any other construct in the model, implying discrimi-
nant validity. We also tested discriminant validity
through a series of chi-square difference tests between
all pairs of constructs in which the latent factor corre-
lation was first unrestricted and then fixed at one.
Every unrestricted model exhibited a significantly bet-
ter fit than the restricted one, and thus we conclude
that there are no particular problems with discrimi-
nant validity.
Common Method Bias
Because data for both dependent and independent
variables were collected from the same respondent,
common method bias (CMB) might be present, which
can inflate or deflate the focal relationships. We put spe-
cial emphasis on CMB effects. First, during the ques-
tionnaire design phase, we employed procedures for
minimizing CMB. We used anonymized written ques-
tionnaires, assured respondents that there were no right
or wrong answers, adopted different scale formats, and
counterbalanced the order of criterion and predictor
variables. Second, we obtained objective data for one of
the key moderating variables (i.e., export intensity) from
secondary sources. Third, our model involves compli-
cated specifications of how the constructs relate to each
other (i.e., multiple moderating effects), which rules out
easy prediction by respondents of how the variables
might be interrelated.
In addition to procedural remedies, we applied two ex
post statistical remedies for detecting possible CMB.
First, we conducted a single-factor test in which we esti-
mated a single superordinate construct reflected by all
the study’s manifest variables using confirmatory factor
analysis (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The model fit statistics
show poor fit to the data (2(323 d.f.) = 3874.81, p < .01;
NFI = .32; NNFI = .27; CFI = .34; RMSEA = .19; and
AOSR = .13), suggesting that CMB is not a major issue.
The second approach was the more stringent marker
variable test (Lindell and Whitney 2001), which

Table 3. Measurement Statistics and Interconstruct Correlationsa

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD

1. Promotion
adaptation 1 3.83 1.52
2. Durationb .05 1 3.31 .66
3. Scopeb –.07 .24 1 2.82 .91
4. Intensity –.02 –.04 –.04 1 .41 .28
5. Market
performance –.01 .08 .08 –.10 1 4.50 1.10
6. Financial
performance –.06 .06 .06 –.04 .55 1 4.38 1.13
7. Customer
performance .02 .02 .02 .03 .51 .56 1 4.56 1.02
8. Export manager
experienceb .08 .20 .07 –.10 .01 .04 .04 1 2.05 1.00
9. Firm sizeb –.04 .30 .27 –.57 .05 –.01 –.06 .11 1 4.48 1.36
10. Firm ageb .07 .58 .18 –.23 .04 .06 .01 .10 .29 1 3.81 .70

Composite
reliability .89 — — — .76 .85 .76 — — —
Average variance
extracted .61 — — — .52 .59 .52 — — —

aCorrelations greater than or equal to ±.11 are significant at the .05 level.
bNatural logarithm.

28 Journal of International Marketing

employed a theoretically unrelated measure of the
respondent’s tenure at the firm as a marker variable
(Schilke, Reimann, and Thomas 2009). We then used
the average correlation for this marker variable with
the other model variables of .02 to compute the
CMB-adjusted correlations between all the study
variables using the following equation:
rA = (ru – rM)/(1 – rM),
where rA is the CMB-adjusted correlation, ru is the orig-
inal correlation, and rM is the marker variable.
The results showed small differences between the origi-
nal and the CMB-adjusted correlations (r £ .03) and
that the pattern of significant and nonsignificant zero-
order correlations with export performance stayed the
same after adjustment. We extended this method by
using the CMB-adjusted correlations to reestimate the
path coefficients in our model and compare these with
those obtained from the unadjusted correlation matrix.
This procedure yielded comparable results between the
original and the adjusted path coefficients (b £ .03)
without significant deterioration in overall model fit
(2 = 3.04). These tests enhance confidence that CMB
has not distorted the results.
Hypothesis Testing Results
We ran a single full-information structural model to test
our hypothesized relationships using the maximum like-
lihood approach. The single-item constructs were
assumed to have a reliability of .90 for estimation pur-
poses (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). For the interaction
terms, we mean-centered the scales before the cross-
product calculations. We calculated the loading and
error of the interaction terms using Ping’s (1995) equa-
tions. The results imply a close-fitting structural model
(2(234 d.f.) = 348.41, p < .01; NFI = .99; NNFI = .99;
CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; and AOSR = .04). Table 4
shows the standardized parameter estimates and the
directional significance levels for the investigated struc-
tural paths.
The results show that the interaction terms for promo-
tion adaptation ¥ duration (b = –.36, p < .01) and pro-
motion adaptation ¥ intensity (b = –.33, p < .01) are
significantly related to export performance. The
negative directions of these effects suggest that the
adaptation–performance relationship becomes weaker
when duration and intensity increase, as per H1 and
H3, respectively. The results reveal, however, that pro-
motion adaptation ¥ scope is not related to export per-
formance (b = .03, p > .05), providing no support for H2.

Table 4. Structural Model Results

Path b t

Promotion adaptation ¥ duration Æ performance –.36 –4.32*

Promotion adaptation ¥ scope Æ performance .03 .45
Promotion adaptation ¥ intensity Æ performance –.33 –5.24*

Control Links

Duration Æ promotion adaptation .08 1.23

Scope Æ promotion adaptation –.10 –1.56
Intensity Æ promotion adaptation –.03 –.50
Promotion adaptation Æ performance –.03 –.52
Duration Æ performance .08 .56
Scope Æ performance .01 .02
Intensity Æ performance –.11 –1.25
Export manager experience Æ performance –.02 –.23
Firm size Æ performance –.08 –.97
Firm age Æ performance .02 .12

*p < .01.

Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 29

Figure 2. Interaction of Promotion Strategy Adaptation and International Experience with Export Performance

A: Duration
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
Export Performance

4.7
Short duration
4.5
Long duration
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
Low promotion
Promotion High promotion
Promotion
Adaptation
adaptation Adaptation
adaptation

B: Scope

5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
Export Performance

4.7
Narrow scope
4.5
Wide
Wide scope
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
Low Low Promotion
promotion adaptation HighHigh Promotion
promotion adaptation
Adaptation Adaptation

C: Intensity
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.9
Export Performance

4.7
Low intensity
4.5
High intensity
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
Low Low Promotion
promotion adaptation HighHigh Promotion
promotion adaptation
Adaptation Adaptation

30 Journal of International Marketing

Figure 2 visualizes the relationship between promotion
adaptation and performance for high and low experience
levels. As suggested in H1 and H3 and by the negative
interaction coefficients, the relationship between promo-
tion adaptation and export performance becomes nega-
tive in cases of long duration and high intensity and posi-
tive in cases of short duration and low intensity. Figure 2
also effectively displays the nonsignificant moderating
effect for scope.
We conducted post hoc interviews with a random selec-
tion of survey participants to explore the reasons for the
unsupported hypothesis. These discussions suggested
that there is a more complex underlying relationship
between promotion adaptation and scope of exporting
than initially anticipated, which may involve sociocultu-
ral differences between markets. The interviewees
revealed that the sheer complexity of foreign sociocultu-
ral structures creates substantial learning barriers for
export managers seeking to harness the extensive knowl-
edge their firms have gained through multiple market
exposure. Complicated barriers of this kind are consid-
ered threshold concepts in learning theory (Meyer and
Land 2005). The main characteristics of such barriers to
learning are that (1) they involve notions that are initially
unfamiliar to the learning party; (2) they are integrative,
denoting that new patterns and connections are revealed
when the threshold is crossed; and (3) the new knowl-
edge leads to a change in understanding that is irre-
versible (Meyer and Land 2005). Foreign sociocultural
environments correspond well with the notion of thresh-
old concepts because of their numerous social and cul-
tural nuances that require direct experiential knowledge
to be truly understood (Giles and Middleton 1999).
Although experienced exporters might be adept at
exploiting communalities between home and foreign
markets through standardization (as per H2), leveraging
experiences gained through a wide scope of exporting to
standardize promotion in the export market remains
risky when high sociocultural distance imposes a learn-
ing barrier that makes it difficult to specify how knowl-
edge can be deployed in each setting. The learning
process that applies scope of exporting to specific
exporting operations to build on the commonalities of
standardization across an exporter’s operations is likely
impeded by a lack of understanding of idiosyncratic pat-
terns and associations among sociocultural aspects in
the export markets (Dimov and De Holan 2010). Gen-
eral experiences of learning by doing are difficult to use
unless integrated into the particular operation (Delios
and Henisz 2003), and sociocultural distance slows this
integration. We thus expect that the link between pro-
motion adaptation ¥ scope and performance is condi-
tioned by the learning barrier posed by large sociocultu-
ral distances between home and export markets.
We tested for this additional conditioning effect by
adding a three-way interaction to our structural model
that included sociocultural distance (a four-item meas-
ure [b = .85] adapted from Chung [2003] and Katsikeas,
Samiee, and Theodosiou [2006]) together with promo-
tion adaptation and scope. We calculated the three-way
interaction term using Ping’s (1995) equations and fol-
lowed the same procedure as for the original structural
model with regard to mean centering.3 The model dis-
played good fit (2(357 d.f.) = 576.98, p < .01; NFI = .99;
NNFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; and AOSR = .04)
and a positive link between promotion adaptation ¥
scope ¥ sociocultural distance (b = .15, p < .05) and
export performance. Furthermore, the control links of
sociocultural distance with promotion adaptation (b =
.06, p > .05) and export performance (b = .08, p > .05)
were nonsignificant, and the original structural paths
remained stable across the two models. To visualize the
three-way interaction, we plotted (see Figure 3) the rela-
tionship between promotion adaptation and perform-
ance for wide and narrow scope levels at low and high
degrees of sociocultural distance.
Figure 3, Panel B, illustrates that high promotion adap-
tation relates positively to export performance in cases
when scope is wide but not narrow, but only when socio-
cultural distance is high rather than low. This significant
three-way moderation effect is attributable to the change
in slope in the wide scope group between the low and
high sociocultural distance plots, while the slope in the
narrow scope group stays unaltered across the two plots.
The revised structural model accounts for 29% of the
variance in export performance.
Additional Analyses
To investigate assumptions underlying this research and
enhance confidence in our results, we conducted addi-
tional model analyses. First, in response to findings in
the general promotion literature suggesting that the pro-
motion strategy–outcomes relationship is nonlinear
(e.g., Tellis 1988), we estimated an alternative model
that included the squared and cubic terms of promotion
adaptation. Although this alternative model exhibited
acceptable fit to the data (2(414 d.f.) = 1152.27, p < .01;
NFI = .98; NNFI = .98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .08; and
AOSR = .05), the nonlinear terms were not related to
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 31
Figure 3. Interaction of Promotion Strategy Adaptation and Scope of Exporting with Export Performance in High
and Low Sociocultural Distance

A: Low Sociocultural Distance

5.5
5.3
5.1
Export Performance

4.9 Wide
ide scope,
Wide
W scope, low
Low
sociocultural distance
sociocultural distance
4.7
Narrow scope,
Narrow scope, Low
low
4.5 sociocultural distance
sociocultural distance
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
LowLow Promotion
promotion adaptation HighHigh Promotion
promotion adaptation
Adaptation Adaptation

B: High Sociocultural Distance

5.5
5.3
5.1
Export Performance

4.9
Wide
W
Wide scope, High
ide scope, high
4.7 sociocultural distance
sociocultural distance
4.5
Narrow scope, High
high
4.3 sociocultural distance
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
Low Low Promotion
promotion adaptation HighHigh Promotion
promotion adaptation
Adaptation Adaptation

export performance (b = –.02, p > .05 and b = .05, p >
.05 for the quadratic and cubic terms, respectively). We
also found that the performance relevance of the non-
linear forms was not activated by the international
experience facets. Thus, our assumption of a linear
association between promotion adaptation and export
performance appears safe.
In addition, although the results imply that different
forms of experience affect the adaptation–performance
relationship independently, we performed some addi-
tional tests to ascertain the dimensions’ mutual exclu-
sivity. We examined a series of alternative models that
included interaction terms for all possible pairs of experi-
ence dimensions with promotion adaptation, and we ana-
lyzed them against export performance (the first model
included promotion adaptation ¥ duration ¥ scope, the
second model included promotion adaptation ¥ dura-
tion ¥ intensity, and so forth). These analyses indicated
that none of the interaction terms had a significant path
coefficient to performance (b £ .14, p > .05) and that the
three international experience dimensions affected the
adaptation–performance relationship separately.
We deemed the moderation approach suitable in our
study because of the method’s greater precision than that

32 Journal of International Marketing

of other approaches to estimating fit. Nevertheless,
scholars recommend the use of complementary fit
approaches because they allow for a wider range of
insights and better explanatory power (Xu, Cavusgil,
and White 2006). We therefore expanded our examina-
tion of the promotion adaptation–performance relation-
ship using fit-as-matching estimation. Specifically, we
adopted Naman and Slevin’s (1993) deviation score
method, which produced an absolute measure of misfit
between degree of promotion adaptation and the three
experience dimensions. This misfit measure was subse-
quently regressed on performance. Our results show that
misfit relates negatively to export performance (b = –.17,
p < .01), suggesting that the mismatch between duration,
scope, and intensity on the one hand and promotion
adaptation on the other hand reduces performance. This
analysis supports our contingency reasoning that optimal
international marketing strategy is subject to experiential
conditions rather than the adoption of adaptation or
standardization in itself (Albaum and Tse 2001; Kat-
sikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006).4
DISCUSSION
This study addresses the long-standing debate about the
superiority of standardized versus adapted promotional
programs in international marketing. It does so by inves-
tigating how previous decisions about when to initiate
exporting, the scope of export market activities, and the
level of export dependence shape managerial judgment in
the formation of effective export promotion strategies.
Our study contributes to knowledge in several ways.
First, although previous work has accepted the contin-
gent view of adaptation and standardization occupying
two ends of a scale, the field has been slow to embrace
the concept of strategic fit. The majority of contingency
theory studies (e.g., Özsomer and Simonin 2004; Sousa
and Bradley 2008) have purely described the associations
among environmental structure, international marketing
strategy conduct, and performance. In search of greater
consistency in studies on the topic, exporting research
should move beyond simply hypothesizing direct positive
or negative associations between the degree of adapta-
tion or standardization and performance. Nonetheless, a
failing of strategic fit studies has been their shortfall in
offering detailed theoretical explanations of effects. Our
study is novel not only in examining the performance
relevance of exporter promotion strategy fit but also in
drawing from organizational learning theory to isolate
and robustly argue fit mechanisms.
Second, recent research (e.g., Lages, Jap, and Griffith
2008) has shown that the performance effects of adapta-
tion and standardization differ among the various com-
ponents of export marketing strategy. Instead of covering
overall marketing program practices, we contribute to the
literature (e.g., Aulakh, Kotabe, and Teegen 2000; Xu,
Cavusgil, and White 2006) by offering detailed insights
into the performance implications of export promotional
strategy fit. Our findings therefore are more easily inter-
pretable and directly actionable from the standpoint of
international management (Griffith 2010).
Third, this study is novel in theorizing how the manage-
ment decisions leading to various types of international
experience are intertwined with the decisions about pro-
motion adaptation in explaining promotion adaptation
effectiveness. The significant interactions unveiled in the
study support the organizational learning perspective
that new market knowledge is the result of organiza-
tions taking previous experiences and turning them into
actionable behavior. However, the results also reveal
that the type of international experience shapes the way
this mechanism operates. Within the adaptation/
standardization and performance literature, the thrust
of studies has employed either unidimensional (Schilke,
Reimann, and Thomas 2009) or global (Cavusgil and
Zou 1994) conceptualizations of international experi-
ence. Building on nascent research on the roles of spe-
cific types of international experience in the develop-
ment of institutional knowledge (Chetty, Eriksson, and
Lindbergh 2006), we show instead that managerial deci-
sions about export duration, scope, and intensity pro-
vide exporting firms with fine-grained experience pro-
files that lead to different levels of learning about
foreign markets and performance.
Our results specifically show that promotion adaptation
relates positively to performance in cases when experi-
ence is low rather than high, but only when experience
is captured through duration and intensity. Extensive
duration indicates long-lasting exporting relationships,
which should furnish the export managers with height-
ened insights into local customer needs and improved
judgment about aspects of the promotional program
that can be standardized to create efficiencies for the
firm. Because exporting firms with lengthy foreign mar-
ket experience accumulate a deep knowledge base and
informed export managers (Erramilli 1991; Gençtürk
and Aulakh 1995), they are able to make more confi-
dent promotion standardization decisions and are less
reliant on the risk-minimizing, imitative behaviors that
might signify less experienced exporters.
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 33
Similarly, export intensity conveys reliance on export
market operations and depth of exporting knowledge.
According to the international business literature
(Dimov and De Holan 2010), intensity helps a firm
safely implement the internationalization process.
Rather than allowing the firm to access specific knowledge
needed for adaptation, it encourages formalization through
the development of more effective standardization oppor-
tunities. The learning process that applies intensity to spe-
cific exporting operations to build on the commonalities of
standardization across an exporter’s operations is impeded
when the firm is less dependent on exports.
Contrary to our hypothesis, scope of exporting does not
moderate the relationship between promotion adapta-
tion and performance. Instead, our post hoc test for the
three-way interaction with sociocultural distance sug-
gests that high promotion adaptation relates positively
to export performance in cases when scope is wide but
not narrow, but only when sociocultural distance is high
rather than low. To explore the reasons for this unex-
pected and somewhat counterintuitive relationship, we
conducted a review of the literature and additional
interviews with export managers. We found that firms
with extensive scope tended to have diversity and
breadth of experiences to draw on in formulating inter-
national strategies (Barkema and Vermeulen 1998;
Dimov and De Holan 2010). Exporters with wide scope
were also likely to have specific experiences with an
array of cultures. Even when foreign customers are dif-
ferent from those at home, the experienced exporter can
likely leverage specific knowledge gained in a similar
market situation. Accordingly, the scope of an exporting
firm’s experience should furnish the management with
specific experiences of and familiarity with the prefer-
ences of customers that differ culturally from those of
the home market. In contrast with the formulization
push of export intensity, the matching process of scope
provides the exporter with enough agility to benefit
from promotion adaptation when sociocultural distance
is high rather than low. Conversely, leveraging wide
export scope is unnecessary when small sociocultural
distance exists between the home and export markets.
The issue of how exactly exporters pick and choose
from their broad experiences to identify fruitful adapta-
tion opportunities is an intriguing direction for future
research.
Managerial Implications
The findings provide international management with
important insights into the role of promotion strategy in
34 Journal of International Marketing
exporting operations. The literature suggests that man-
agement decisions regarding international promotion
strategies have profound implications for the market
performance of the affected companies because sizable
expenditures are involved (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu
1993). Export ventures develop managerial experiences
that can frame greater opportunities for tailoring pro-
motions to local customer requirements (Albaum and
Tse 2001). Our results caution managers that even
though promotion strategy is sensitive to cross-border
variables, unbridled adaptation may be associated with
poor managerial judgment. Instead, we suggest that
adaptation and standardization can both be powerful
strategies in this era of globalization, but it is important
that the promotion strategy decisions are aligned with
relevant experiential contexts.
The study indicates that managers would derive benefit
from moving beyond using broad-brush conceptualiza-
tions of international experience that obscure the per-
formance relevance of the concept. Our findings imply
that firms have fine-grained experience profiles that may
lead to different levels of learning about markets and
export performance. For example, an international new
venture firm that has wide scope of exporting, low dura-
tion of exporting, and relatively high export intensity (if
domiciled in a small national market) might derive con-
siderable advantage (see the relevant plots in Figures 2
and 3) from adapting promotion strategy in cases when
sociocultural distance is high, and vice versa. However,
because this conclusion might be specific to promotion
strategy, it would be enlightening to discover whether
such an approach is beneficial for other marketing pro-
gram elements as well.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The findings should be interpreted in light of several
limitations inherent in this research. First, despite our
emphasis on locating and targeting appropriate inform-
ants and ensuring their competency, the possibility of
methods bias remains. Recruiting additional informants
willing and able to answer the questionnaire was a dif-
ficult task, given the usual limitation in size of the
exporting function of firms and the significant inter-
national travel commitments of export executives. Sec-
ond, the cross-sectional nature of the study restricts our
ability to make causal inferences from the data.
Research involving phenomena such as the dynamic
nature and performance consequences of fit between the
export marketing strategy and venture context is best
approached using a longitudinal research design.
Third, although the benefits of studying a single ele-
ment of a firm’s export marketing program as opposed
to using a global or higher-order conceptualization of
overall strategy are clear (see Griffith 2010), our focus
on the promotional dimension alone only tells part of
the story of how international experience shapes mana-
gerial decision making. Therefore, further research
could incorporate additional aspects of export market-
ing strategy, such as product-, pricing-, or distribution-
related decisions, and investigate how these interact
with experience and link to performance. Fourth, the
basic proposition of the strategic fit concept is that the
degree of congruency between marketing strategy and
its context has significant performance implications.
This study included a focused assessment of experien-
tial elements and argued that strategy must fit with
these conditions. Our logic was that previous studies
have supported the notion that managers consider only
a limited number of key variables in adaptation/
standardization decisions (Shoham 1999). Still, the
study is silent on a host of macro-, micro-, and internal
characteristics that could influence promotion strategy
implementation. For example, a potential means of
improving further the explanatory power and perform-
ance relevance of our model might involve emphasizing
promotion strategy–context coalignment and, thus, the
internal factors pertaining to firms’ capabilities, struc-
tures, processes, and decision-making orientations that
are interrelated, dynamic, and compliant (Rugman and
Verbeke 2008; Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006).
Finally, although the study reveals the profiling benefits
of using a set of experience forms, it focuses solely on
how firm-level exporting experience affects manage-
ment decisions. The inclusion of venture-specific meas-
ures in experience conceptualizations might reveal addi-
tional insights into the role of experiential learning in
export marketing strategy.
NOTES
1. One view of the literature is that home and export
market comparisons are concerned with the transfer
of marketing activities. Thus, adaptation and stan-
dardization are important when exploring what is
done across multiple markets. Consistent with devel-
opments in the exporting literature (e.g., Lages, Jap,
and Griffith 2008), however, we investigate promo-
tion adaptation at the product-venture level. There-
fore, the study compares the extent of adaptation
between the home market and a specific export mar-
ket. In view of the complexity of export operations,
an accurate assessment of adaptation would not be
feasible if the unit of analysis were the entire com-
pany. Use of the product-market level is advanta-
geous because it avoids confounding effects of multi-
ple markets and/or products (see Cavusgil, Zou, and
Naidu 1993). Our study of exporters residing in the
national market expansion phase of operating thus
treats adaptation as synonymous with extensions of
domestic activities to the foreign market.
2. Categories of organizations to mimic can be selected
by a manager using criteria such as size, perceived
performance, and reputation (Haveman 1993), but
mimicking might also be based on the opinions of
external legitimacy providers, such as regulators and
the media (Barreto and Baden-Fuller 2006). The lat-
ter form of legitimacy-driven isomorphism is moti-
vated primarily by social justification rather than eco-
nomic rationality; it favors improving the likelihood
of survival at the expense of optimal economic per-
formance (Barreto and Baden-Fuller 2006). The
nature of exporting as an entry mode used for both
gaining a foothold in foreign markets and increasing
overall profits (e.g., Lee and Makhija 2009) implies
that the exporters in this study are likely to have both
legitimacy-driven and economic motives for their
mimetic behavior. Thus, the mimicking behaviors of
inexperienced exporters should be based on highly
performing local competitors but subject to local
legitimacy providers.
3. The set of equations for the three-way interaction
came from Robert Ping.
4. We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising these
salient issues.
APPENDIX. MEASURES
Promotion Strategy Adaptation ( = .93)
(Seven-point scale, anchored by 1 = “highly standard-
ized,” and 7 = “highly adapted”)
• Advertising message
• Advertising creative presentation
• Advertising media strategy
• Personal selling techniques
• Sales promotion tools
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 35
International Experience REFERENCES
Duration Albaum, Gerald and David K. Tse (2001), “Adaptation of Inter-
national Marketing Strategy Components, Competitive
• Number of years the firm has been exporting Advantage, and Firm Performance: A Study of Hong Kong
Exporters,” Journal of International Marketing, 9 (4), 59–81.
Scope
• Number of markets in which the firm has regu- Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural
lar exporting operations Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.
Intensity
Aulakh, Preet S. and F. Esra Gençtürk (2008), “Contract For-
• The ratio of export sales to total sales (calculated malization and Governance of Exporter-Importer Relation-
with objective data) ships,” Journal of Management Studies, 45 (3), 457–79.

Export Performance ———, Masaaki Kotabe, and Hildy Teegen (2000), “Export
Strategies and Performance of Firms from Emerging
(Seven-point scale, anchored by 1 = “much worse,” and Economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico,”
7 = “much better” [than main competitors in the export Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 342–61.
venture market])
Barkema, Harry G. and Freek Vermeulen (1998), “International
Market Performance ( = .86)
Expansion Through Start Up or Acquisition: A Learning Per-
• Sales volume spective,” The Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1),
7–26.
• Sales growth
Barreto, Ilídio and Charles Baden-Fuller (2006), “To Conform
• Market share
or to Perform? Mimetic Behaviour, Legitimacy-Based Groups
Financial Performance ( = .92) and Performance Consequences,” Journal of Management
Studies, 43 (7), 1559–81.
• Profitability as a percentage of sales
Brouthers, Lance Eliot, George Nakos, John Hadjimarcou, and
• Return on investment
Keith D. Brouthers (2009), “Key Factors for Successful Export
• Profit margin Performance for Small Firms,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 17 (3), 21–38.
• Profit growth
———, Edward O’Donnel, and John Hadjimarcou (2005),
Customer Performance ( = .88)
“Generic Product Strategies for Emerging Market Exports
• Customer satisfaction into Triad Nation Markets: A Mimetic Isomorphism
Approach,” Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1), 225–45.
• Customer retention
Cavusgil, S. Tamer and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing
• Customer referral
Strategy-Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the
• New customer generation (omitted during scale Empirical Link in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Mar-
purification) keting, 58 (January), 1–21.

———, ———, and G.M. Naidu (1993), “Product and Promo-

Export Manager Experience tion Adaptation in Export Ventures: An Empirical Investiga-
Number of years the person in charge of the firm’s tion,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (3),
export operations has been working in an international 479–506.
capacity
Chetty, Sylvie, Kent Eriksson, and Jessica Lindbergh (2006),
“The Effect of Specificity of Experience on a Firm’s Perceived
Firm Size Importance of Institutional Knowledge in an Ongoing Busi-
ness,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (5),
Number of full-time employees (objective data) 699–712.

Child, John (1972), “Organizational Structure, Environment

Firm Age and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice,” Sociology, 6
Number of years the firm has existed (objective data) (1), 1–22.

36 Journal of International Marketing

Chung, Henry F.L. (2003), “International Standardization
Strategies: The Experiences of Australian and New Zealand
Firms Operating in the Greater China Markets,” Journal of
International Marketing, 11 (3), 48–82.
Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March (1963), A Behavioral
Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, Peter S., Ashay B. Desai, and John D. Francis (2000),
“Mode of International Entry: An Isomorphism Perspective,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (2), 239–58.
Day, George S. and Prakash Nedungadi (1994), “Managerial
Representations of Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 58 (April), 31–44.
Delios, Andrew and Witold J. Henisz (2003), “Political Haz-
ards, Experience, and Sequential Entry Strategies: The Inter-
national Expansion of Japanese Firms, 1980-1998,” Strategic
Management Journal, 24 (11), 1153–64.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron
Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological
Review, 48 (2), 147–60.
Dimov, Dimo and Pablo Martin de Holan (2010), “Firm
Experience and Market Entry by Venture Capital Firms
(1962-2004),” Journal of Management Studies, 47 (1),
130–61.
Douglas, Susan P. and Yoram Wind (1987), “The Myth of
Globalization,” Colombia Journal of World Business, 22 (4),
19–29.
Erramilli, M. Krishna (1991), “The Experience Factor in For-
eign Market Entry Behavior of Service Firms,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 22 (3), 479–501.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-
tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(February), 39–50.
Gençtürk, Esra F. and Preet S. Aulakh (1995), “The Use of
Process and Output Controls in Foreign Markets,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 26 (4), 755–86.
Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An
Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Uni-
dimensionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 25 (May), 186–92.
Giles, Judy and Timothy Middleton (1999), Studying Culture: A
Practical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Griffith, David A. (2010), “Understanding Multi-Level Institu-
tional Convergence Effects on International Market Segments
and Global Marketing Strategy,” Journal of World Business,
45 (1), 59–67.
Haveman, Heather A. (1993), “Follow the Leader: Mimetic Iso-
morphism and Entry into New Markets,” Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 38 (4), 593–627.
Hultman, Magnus, Matthew J. Robson, and Constantine S.
Katsikeas (2009), “Export Product Strategy Fit and Perform-
ance: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of International
Marketing, 17 (4), 1–23.
Katsikeas, Constantine S., Leonidas C. Leonidou, and Neil A.
Morgan (2000), “Firm-Level Export Performance Assess-
ment: Review, Evaluation, and Development,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (4), 493–511.
———, Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theodosiou (2006),
“Strategy Fit and Performance Consequences of International
Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Management Journal,
27 (9), 867–90.
Lages, Luis Filipe, José Luis Abrantes, and Cristiana Raquel
Lages (2008), “The Stratadapt Scale: A Measure of Marketing
Strategy Adaptation to International Business Markets,”
International Marketing Review, 25 (5), 584–600.
———, Sandy D. Jap, and David A. Griffith (2008), “The Role
of Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-Term Reac-
tive Approach,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39
(2), 304–325.
Lee, Chol and David A. Griffith (2004), “The Marketing
Strategy-Performance Relationship in an Export-Driven
Developing Economy: A Korean Illustration,” International
Marketing Review, 21 (3), 321–34.
——— and Mona Makhija (2009), “Flexibility in Internation-
alization: Is It Valuable During an Economic Crisis?” Strate-
gic Management Journal, 30 (5), 537–55.
Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Nigel F.
Piercy (1998), “Identifying Managerial Influences on Export-
ing: Past Research and Future Directions,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 6 (2), 74–102.
———, ———, and Saeed Saimee (2002), “Marketing Strategy
Determinants of Export Performance: A Meta-Analysis”
Journal of Business Research, 55 (1), 51–67.
Lindell, Michael K. and David J. Whitney (2001), “Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–21.
Lu, Jane W. (2002), “Intra- and Inter-Organizational Imitative
Behavior: Institutional Influences on Japanese Firms’ Entry
Mode Choice,” Journal of International Business Studies, 33
(1), 19–37.
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 37
Meyer, Jan H.F. and Ray Land (2005), “Threshold Concepts
and Troublesome Knowledge (2): Epistemological Considera-
tions and a Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learn-
ing,” Higher Education, 49 (3), 373–88.
Morgan, Neil A., Anna Kaleka, and Constantine S. Katsikeas
(2004), “Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: A
Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment,” Journal of
Marketing, 68 (January), 90–108.
Naman, John L. and Dennis P. Slevin (1993), “Entrepreneurship
and the Concept of Fit: A Model and Empirical Tests,” Strate-
gic Management Journal, 14 (2), 137–53.
O’Donnell, Sharon and Insik Jeong (2000), “Marketing Stan-
dardization Within Global Industries: An Empirical Study of
Performance Implications,” International Marketing Review,
17 (1), 19–33.
Okazaki, Shintaro, Charles R. Taylor, and Shaoming Zou
(2006), “Advertising Standardization’s Positive Impact on the
Bottom Line,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 17–33.
Özsomer, Aysegul and Esra F. Gençtürk (2003), “A Resource-
Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The Capa-
bilities of Exploration and Exploitation,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 11 (3), 1–29.
——— and Bernard L. Simonin (2004), “Marketing Program
Standardization: A Cross-Country Exploration,” Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (4), 397–419.
Ping, Robert A. (1995), “A Parsimonious Estimating Technique
for Interaction and Quadratic Latent Variables,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 32 (August), 336–47.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879–903.
Qian, Lihong and Andrew Delios (2008), “Internalization and
Experience: Japanese Banks International Expansion, 1980-
1998,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2),
231–48.
Richard, Pierre J., Timothy M. Devinney, George S. Yip, and
Gerry Johnson (2009), “Measuring Organizational Perform-
ance: Towards Methodological Best Practice,” Journal of
Management, 35 (3), 718–804.
Rugman, Alan M. and Alain Verbeke (2008), “A New Perspec-
tive on the Regional and Global Strategies of Multinational
Services Firms,” Management International Review, 48 (4),
397–411.
Schilke, Oliver, Martin Reimann, and Jacquelyn S. Thomas
(2009), “When Does International Marketing Standardization
38 Journal of International Marketing
Matter to Firm Performance?” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 14 (4), 24–46.
Schoonhoven, Claudia Bird (1981), “Problems with Contin-
gency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Lan-
guage of Contingency ‘Theory,’” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26 (3), 349–77.
Seifert, Bruce and John Ford (1989), “Are Exporting Firms
Modifying Their Product, Pricing and Promotion Policies?”
International Marketing Review, 6 (6), 53–68.
Shoham, Aviv (1996a), “Effectiveness of Standardized and
Adapted Television Advertising: An International Field Study
Approach,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9
(1), 5–23.
——— (1996b), “Marketing Mix Standardization: Determi-
nants of Export Performance,” Journal of Global Marketing,
10 (2), 53–73.
——— (1999), “Bounded Rationality, Planning, Standardiza-
tion of International Strategy and Export Performance: A
Structural Model Examination,” Journal of International
Marketing, 7 (2), 24–50.
——— and Gerald Albaum (1994), “The Effects of Transfer of
Marketing Methods on Export Performance: An Empirical
Examination,” International Business Review, 3 (3), 219–41.
Sichtmann, Christina, Maren von Selasinsky, and Adamantios
Diamantopoulos (2011), “Service Quality and Export Per-
formance of Business-to-Business Service Providers: The Role
of Service Employee- and Customer-Oriented Quality Control
Initiatives,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (1), 1–22.
Solberg, Carl Arthur (2002), “The Perennial Issue of Adapta-
tion or Standardization of International Marketing Commu-
nication: Organizational Contingencies and Performance,”
Journal of International Marketing, 10 (3), 1–21.
Sousa, Carlos M.P. and Frank Bradley (2008), “Antecedents of
International Pricing Adaptation and Export Performance,”
Journal of World Business, 43 (3), 307–320.
——— and Jorge Lengler (2009), “Psychic Distance, Marketing
Strategy and Performance in Export Ventures of Brazilian
Firms,” Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (5–6),
591–610.
———, Emilio Ruzo, and Fernando Losada (2010), “The Key
Role of Managers’ Values in Exporting: Influence on Cus-
tomer Responsiveness and Export Performance,” Journal of
International Marketing, 18 (2), 1–19.
Sriram, Ven and Franklin A Manu (1995), “Country-of-
Destination and Export Marketing Strategy: A Study of U.S.
Exporters,” Journal of Global Marketing, 8 (3–4), 171–90.
Swedish Trade Council (2008), Exportstatistik. Stockholm:
Swedish Trade Council.
Szymanski, David M., Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and P. Rajan
Varadarajan (1993), “Standardization Versus Adaptation of
International Marketing Strategy: An Empirical Investiga-
tion,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 1–17.
Tellis, Gerard J. (1988), “Advertising Exposure, Loyalty, and
Brand Purchase: A Two-Stage Model of Choice,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 25 (May), 134–44.
Venkatraman, N. (1990), “Performance Implications of Strate-
gic Coalignment: A Methodological Perspective,” Journal of
Management Studies, 27 (1), 19–41.
Vorhies, Douglas W. and Neil A. Morgan (2003), “A Configu-
ration Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization Fit with
Business Strategy and Its Relationship with Marketing Per-
formance,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 100–115.
Waheeduzzaman, A.N.M. and Leon F. Dube (2002), “Elements
of Standardization, Firm Performance and Selected Marketing
Variables: A General Linear Relationship Framework,” Jour-
nal of Global Marketing, 16 (1–2), 187–205.
World Trade Organization (2010), International Trade Statistics
2010. Geneva: WTO Publications.
Xu, Shichun, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and J. Chris White (2006),
“The Impact of Strategic Fit among Strategy, Structure, and
Processes on Multinational Corporation Performance: A Mul-
timethod Assessment,” Journal of International Marketing,
14 (2), 1–31.
Zahra, Shaker A., R. Duane Ireland, and Michael A. Hitt
(2000), “International Expansion by New Venture Firms:
International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological
Learning, and Performance,” The Academy of Management
Journal, 43 (5), 925–50.
Zou, Shaoming, David M. Andrus, and D. Wayne Norvell
(1997), “Standardization of International Marketing Strategy
by Firms from a Developing Country,” International Market-
ing Review, 14 (2), 107–123.
THE AUTHORS
Magnus Hultman is Lecturer in Marketing at Leeds Uni-
versity Business School, University of Leeds. He holds a
doctorate in industrial marketing from Luleå University
of Technology, Sweden. His main research interests
revolve around various aspects of international market-
ing strategy and performance, but he has published on a
range of topics, including supply chain management,
tourism, marketing communications, and branding. His
work has appeared in Journal of International Market-
ing, International Marketing Review, Tourism Manage-
ment, and other journals.
Constantine S. Katsikeas is Arnold Ziff Research Chair
in Marketing and International Management and Direc-
tor of the Strategic and Global Marketing Research
Center at Leeds University Business School, University
of Leeds. His main research interests focus on global
marketing and export management, interfirm partner-
ships, and competitive strategy. He has published in
Journal of Marketing, Strategic Management Journal,
Organization Science, Journal of International Business
Studies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Decision Sciences, Journal of International Marketing,
and other journals. He is the recipient of the 2006 Hans
B. Thorelli 5-Year Research Award by the American
Marketing Association Foundation and the 1999 S.
Tamer Cavusgil Award for the best Journal of Inter-
national Marketing article. He has taught in several
executive MBA programs and has delivered executive
seminars for major organizations around the world.
Matthew J. Robson is Professor of Marketing at Leeds
University Business School, University of Leeds. He
earned his doctorate at Cardiff University and served
there as a member of faculty before moving to the Univer-
sity of Leeds. His research interests focus on cross-border
interfirm collaborative strategies, distribution channel
relationships, exporting strategies, and social and struc-
tural relationship governance and maintenance mecha-
nisms. His research has been published in British Journal
of Management, Industrial Marketing Management,
International Marketing Review, Journal of International
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of World Busi-
ness, Management International Review, Organization
Science, and other journals. He is also an associate editor
for marketing at British Journal of Management.
Export Promotion Strategy and Performance 39