Many firms rely on external organizations to acquire knowledge that is useful for developing creative new products and reducing the time needed to bring these products to market. Cluster theory suggests that this knowledge is often obtained from organizations located in close geographic proximity. Specifically, proximity is assumed to foster heightened face-to-face communication, strengthened relational ties, increased knowledge acquisition, and enhanced new product outcomes. The authors identify the limitations of these assumptions and offer an enriched model of the influence of geographic proximity on new product development, which they test using both a cross-sectional survey of 155 firms in the U.S. optics industry and a longitudinal follow-up survey of 73 of these firms. They find that firms located in close proximity engage in increased face-to-face communication, but this communication has little effect on the acquisition of the types of knowledge that lead to enhanced new product outcomes. In contrast, they find that e-mail communication leads to both enhanced new product creativity and development speed. In addition, they find that relational ties moderate rather than mediate the path connecting geographic proximity and new product outcomes. These findings imply that the new product development outcomes typically ascribed to close geographic proximity may actually be attributed to strong relational ties.

Marketing academics and practitioners frequently employ cross-sectional surveys. In recent years, editors, reviewers, and authors have expressed increasing concern about the validity of this approach. These validity concerns center on reducing common method variance bias and enhancing causal inferences. Longitudinal data collection is commonly offered as a solution to these problems. In this article, the authors conceptually examine the role of longitudinal surveys in addressing these validity concerns. Then, they provide an illustrative comparison of the validity of cross-sectional versus longitudinal surveys using two data sets and a Monte Carlo simulation. The conceptualization and findings suggest that under certain conditions, the results from cross-sectional data exhibit validity comparable to the results obtained from longitudinal data. This article concludes by offering a set of guidelines to assist researchers in deciding whether to employ a longitudinal survey approach.

The last decade has seen the emergence of the sharing economy as well as the rise of a diverse array of research on this topic both inside and outside the marketing discipline. However, the sharing economy’s implications for marketing thought and practice remain unclear. This article defines the sharing economy as a technologically enabled socioeconomic system with five key characteristics (i.e., temporary access, transfer of economic value, platform mediation, expanded consumer role, and crowdsourced supply). It also examines the sharing economy’s impact on marketing’s traditional beliefs and practices in terms of how it challenges three key foundations of marketing: institutions (e.g., consumers, firms and channels, regulators), processes (e.g., innovation, branding, customer experience, value appropriation), and value creation (e.g., value for consumers, value for firms, value for society) and offers future research directions designed to push the boundaries of marketing thought. The article concludes with a set of forward-looking guideposts that highlight the implications of the sharing economy’s paradoxes, maturation, and technological development for marketing research. Collectively, this article aims to help marketing scholars not only keep pace with the sharing economy but also shape its future direction.