Kenneth A. Hunt

A conceptual approach to classifying sports fans

Develops a classification or typology of the sports fan. Specifically, contends that five different types of sports fans exist: temporary, local, devoted, fanatical, and dysfunctional. The need exists to identify the different types of fans due to the inadequacies of past theories to explain the totality of fan behavior. The usefulness of the typology is demonstrated by offering specific segmentation strategies for each classification. Finally, directions for future research are presented.

Using Buyer’s Information Processing to Formulate Selling Strategies

Abstract This article introduces information processing theory to the sales literature. Specifically, this article presents piecemeal and category-based information processing as the two possible methods a buyer may use to process information during a sales presentation. Schema is introduced as containing all processed information within the buyer’s category. The article develops different strategies to be used by the salesperson based on whether the buyer’s schema is positive, negative, or neutral. Finally, the article illustrates the importance of determining the target of the buyer’s schema. Specifically, a discussion is presented concerning the impact on the buying strategy if the buyer’s schema targets the seller’s product, company, or the salesperson themselves.

A New Classification of Sales Resistance

Abstract The authors extend the definition of sales resistance to include both objections and counterarguments. A counterargument differs from an objection in that the buyer counterargues to defend a previously established schema about the salesperson, selling company, or product being sold. In addition, a previously established schema may exist about the competitor’s salesperson, company, or product. These previously established schemata may be positive, negative, or neutral. This study introduces nine different selling situations that a salesperson may encounter based on the buyer’s previously established schema. Each selling situation is explained by the amount of sales resistance a salesperson should expect, and the probability that the resistance would take the form of an objection or counterargument. Distraction is introduced as a possible method of reducing counterargumentation.

An integrated model of channel conflict

Conflict in channels of distribution has been a fruitful area of academic investigation for over thirty years (Stem and Gorman 1969). In addition, it has long been recognized that conflict in a channel of distribution can be either functional or dysfunctional (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Brown and Day, 1981; Brown, Lusch and Muehling, 1983; Hunt 1995; Reve and Stem 1979; Robbins, Speh and Mayer, 1982; Schul Pride and Little, 1983; Walters, 1974. Hunt (1995) argued that a disproportionate amount of time and academic effort has been spent on dysfunctional conflict while the functional nature of conflict has been systematically ignored.

On Recontextualising Sales Resistance: A Defense of Information Processing-Based Classifications

Abstract The authors defend their previously developed information processing-based, two-dimensional classification of sales resistance (objections and counterarguments). This classification of sales resistance was developed in two articles 1 , 2 appearing in a previous issue of Industrial Marketing Management. In the sales resistance article, the authors developed selling strategies for dealing with objections and counterarguments. One selling strategy presented for a counterargument was distraction. In “Recontextualising Sales Resistance: A Response to Hunt and Bashaw,” Clark and Pinch [3] argue the classification of sales resistance developed by Hunt and Bashaw [2] “may not always have analytical salience or be prescriptively useful.” In this article, the authors carefully scrutinize both perspectives so that the verisimilitude of each perspective may be determined. Specifically, this article closely examines some of the assertions made by Clark and Pinch [3] and presents the strengths and weaknesses of their conclusions.

A Pedagogical Perspective for Creating Value Via a Better Understanding of Behavioral Demand–Abstract

This paper presents the argument that classical economic theory of demand is useful, but incomplete as the primary pedagogical method of instruction when developing the notion of demand. In addition, it offers an overview of some of the topics that could/should be presented when discussing the concept of demand. It is not the intention of this paper to offer a complete description of all the topics that should be presented for a thorough understudying of demand. Rather, this paper offers a sample of some of the topics that could be presented to augment economic theory of demand with a generally accepted marketing perspective of demand. What is needed is for these perspectives to be better integrated and presented in principles of marketing textbooks so that both the students and professors have a more complete understanding of the construct demand.

Who Owns the Customer Relationship

Relational marketing has enjoyed a rich literature stream since Dwyer, Schurr, Oh (1987) wrote one of the disciplines seminal articles. As reported by Gruen, Summers, and Acito (2000), most of the research studies on relationships in marketing have centered on relationships between members of a marketing channel (c.f., Brown, Lusch, and Nicholson 1995; Kumar, Scheer, and Steenkamp 1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994). In the relationship marketing literature, it appears as if most researchers assume that the relationship exists between organizations. Specifically, it is assumed that the relationship exists between the selling organization and the buying organization. For a positive relationship to develop between two entities, it is logical to assume that the relationship evolved due to a series of positive outcomes. Looking at relationship marketing from the buyers perspective, the buyer must have experienced positive outcomes with some combination of the sellers product(s), the sellers boundary personnel (salesperson/people) or the selling organization as a whole. The question becomes “ to whom does the buyer attribute the positive outcomes. In addition, the buyer has two levels at which the relationship can lie, the individual buyer, or the entire buying organization. Therefore, the possible permutations of relationships in this scenario are: