MICROBUSINESS MARKETING WITH NO TIME, NO MONEY, AND …€¦ · improving marketing results for microbusinesses iii we, the undersigned members of the committee, have approved this

Running head: IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES

MICROBUSINESS MARKETING WITH NO TIME, NO MONEY, AND NO EXPERTISE—

RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS

FOR MICROBUSINESSES

by

George B. Krueger

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctorate of Business Administration

William Howard Taft University

January 2019

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES ii

© George B. Krueger, 2019

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES iii

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,

HAVE APPROVED THIS DISSERTATION

MICROBUSINESS MARKETING WITH NO TIME, NO MONEY, AND NO EXPERTISE—

RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS

FOR MICROBUSINESSES

by

George B. Krueger

January 2019

ACCEPTED AND APPROVED ON BEHALF

OF WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT UNIVERSITY

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Jillian Skelton, Ed.D. Chair

Larry Ellis, Ph.D.

Michael Jones, Ph.D.

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES iv

Abstract

Microbusinesses are a specific type of small business that employ 9 or fewer people, including

the owner. Microbusinesses are a major factor in the national, regional, and local economies.

Microbusiness operators face the issues of limited time, money, and marketing expertise when

conducting daily operations. The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to

describe the amount of time and money that microbusiness owners perceived to spend on

marketing. Time and money along with the perception of marketing expertise were then related

to the microbusiness sales performance. In this study, the respondents perceived that they did not

spend enough time on marketing because of daily challenges of running the business, but the

amount of time spent on marketing did not appear to be associated with sales performance.

Microbusiness operators perceived that they spent an adequate amount of money on marketing to

achieve their sales performance goals. In this study there appeared to be no association between

the money spent on marketing and sales performance. The microbusiness operators perceived

their marketing expertise to be adequate and higher levels of marketing expertise did appear to

have a positive association with sales performance. Improving the marketing budgeting process,

improving measurement of return-on-investment on the marketing spend, improving digital

marketing skills, and utilizing time-efficient marketing tools were key themes to increase

marketing effectiveness. The microbusiness marketing tools of personal selling, digital

marketing, relationship marketing, word of mouth, networking, and branding were found to

provide opportunities to improve sales performance by leveraging limited time, money, and

marketing expertise. The results of this study provide direction for microbusiness operators on

profitable time, money, and marketing expertise strategies to improve microbusiness sales

performance.

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES v

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Christine, Aksel, Sam, Joe, and Jacob for their support along this journey.

Thanks to my colleagues and administration at University of Wisconsin-Platteville for the

support. Thanks to my committee and Dr. Skelton for their direction and support. It has been a

fulfilling journey to achieve a life goal of a doctorate degree.

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES vi

Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 5

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 6

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7

Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7

Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 8

Research Design.................................................................................................................. 9

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................................... 11

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 13

Literature Search ............................................................................................................... 19

Unique Aspects of Microbusiness Marketing ................................................................... 19

Marketing Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 21

Entrepreneurial and Small-Business Marketing ............................................................... 25

Limited Time for Microbusiness Marketing ..................................................................... 32

Limited Money for Microbusiness Marketing .................................................................. 37

Limited Expertise for Microbusiness Marketing .............................................................. 41

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 45

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 46

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES vii

Table of Contents (Cont.)

Page

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 48

Background ....................................................................................................................... 49

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 53

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 54

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 55

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ......................................................................... 56

Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 58

Ethical Procedures ............................................................................................................ 59

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 60

Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 61

Findings............................................................................................................................. 63

Descriptive analysis of respondents ...................................................................... 63

Questionnaire and interview findings ................................................................... 64

Time spent on marketing ...................................................................................... 66

Money spent on marketing.................................................................................... 67

Marketing expertise .............................................................................................. 69

Relative importance of barriers to marketing effectiveness ................................. 70

Comparison to direct competition ......................................................................... 71

Exploration of microbusiness marketing strategies .............................................. 72

Researcher observations........................................................................................ 74

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 76

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES viii


Page

Theme: Narrow definition of marketing ............................................................... 77

Theme: Underestimation of time spent on marketing........................................... 77

Theme: Underestimation of the money spent on marketing ................................. 78

Theme: Lack of a marketing budgeting process ................................................... 78

Theme: Improvement of the return-on-investment process .................................. 78

Theme: High interest level in improving marketing expertise ............................. 79

Theme: High interest level in improving digital marketing expertise .................. 79

Theme: Traditional marketing strategies are effective ......................................... 79

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 80

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion, Recommendations, and Summary ..................................... 81

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 82

Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 84



Exploration of Barriers to Marketing Effectiveness ......................................................... 90

Relative Comparison of Barriers to Direct Competitors................................................... 91

Microbusiness Marketing Strategies ................................................................................. 92

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 95

Theme: Narrow definition of marketing ............................................................... 96

Theme: Underestimation of the time spent on marketing ..................................... 98

Theme: Underestimation of money spent on marketing ..................................... 100

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES ix


Page

Theme: Lack of a marketing budgeting process ................................................. 101

Theme: Improvement of the return-on-investment process ................................ 101

Theme: High-interest level in improving marketing expertise ........................... 102

Theme: High-interest level in improving digital marketing expertise ................ 103

Theme: Traditional marketing strategies are effective ....................................... 104

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 106

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 109

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 123

APPENDIX B: Observation Form .............................................................................................. 131

APPENDIX C: Informed Consent .............................................................................................. 132

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES x

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Types of Microbusiness Interviewed .............................................................................. 63

Table 2: Sales Ranges of Participating Microbusinesses .............................................................. 64

Table 3: Satisfaction With Previous Year’s Sales Increase .......................................................... 65

Table 4: Satisfaction With YTD Sales Increase ........................................................................... 66

Table 5: Time Spent on Marketing ............................................................................................... 66

Table 6: Monthly Marketing Budget ............................................................................................ 67

Table 7: Monthly Marketing Budget Comparison to Sales Increases .......................................... 68

Table 8: Marketing Expertise Ratings .......................................................................................... 69

Table 9: Marketing Expertise Ratings Comparison to Sales Increases ........................................ 70

Table 10: Ratings of Barriers ........................................................................................................ 71

Table 11: Ratings of Comparison to Direct Competitors ............................................................. 72

IMPROVING MARKETING RESULTS FOR MICROBUSINESSES 1

Chapter 1:

Introduction

The United States Small Business Administration defined small businesses as having less

than 500 employees (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2017). Microbusinesses are defined

by the U.S. Small Business Development Administration Office of Advocacy as a small business

with nine employees or less (as cited in Headd, 2015). There are 3.8 million employer

microbusinesses in the United States (Headd, 2017). Microbusinesses are an important segment

of the United States economy, comprising 74.8% of private sector employers and employing

10.3% of private sector jobs (Headd, 2017). Microbusinesses are key components of local

economies and provide employment opportunities.

The actual definition of microbusiness is not definitive (Headd, 2015). The Association

for Enterprise Opportunity (2015) stated that microbusinesses are firms with zero to four

employees. The Association for Enterprise Opportunity reported 2.6 million employer firms that

employ 8 million people. These firms average $408,000 in sales (Association for Enterprise

Opportunity, 2015). Further adding to the complexity of the demographic analysis is that there

are 22 million nonemployer firms that average $45,000 in sales. Nonemployer firms employ only

the owner, having no other employees. For this study, microbusinesses are considered to have

nine or fewer employees, including the owner (Headd, 2015).

Microbusinesses are a subset of the small business market. Microbusinesses are typically

small and locally focused, providing limited products and services. The largest group are owners

who work full time with less than $50,000 in sales (Association for Enterprise Opportunity,

2011). Microbusinesses may be home based and provide a source of income for the owner.

Microbusinesses are typically based on the owner’s passion, skills, and expertise. There are low


barriers to entry for most microbusinesses (Association for Enterprise Opportunity, 2011).

Microbusinesses are often independent local business people who specialize in one type of

service or product.

Microbusinesses are critical for local economies. Microbusinesses provide products and

services that are vital for quality of life in communities, such as plumbers, builders, small

retailers, transportation, accountants, lawyers, medical services, real estate, insurance, specialty

products, and food service. Home-based businesses are an important component of business

development (Mattare, Monahan, & Shah, 2011). Indeed, encouraging and supporting

microbusiness is a viable local economic development strategy (Mattare et al., 2011). A thriving

microbusiness ecosystem has economic benefit for the community.

Microbusinesses create economic opportunity for the owners. Microbusinesses are often

started by displaced workers or people wanting to be their own boss (Association for Enterprise

Opportunity, 2011). There also may be limited local job opportunities, thereby creating the

personal drive to start a microbusiness (Mattare et al., 2011). Last, owners may have an expertise

that lends itself to operating a microbusiness such as automobile repair.

Entrepreneurs are considered small businesses as a result of their small number of

employees, often with nine employees or less. However, entrepreneurs are not considered

microbusinesses. Businesspeople are considered entrepreneurs when they start new businesses to

pursue new technologies or business ideas with the purpose of exponential growth (Fiore,

Niehm, Hurst, Son, & Sadachar, 2013). The entrepreneurial mind-set seeks out new

opportunities with a focus on exponential growth. Entrepreneurs have a different set of goals

than microbusiness people. Microbusinesses differ from entrepreneurial startups because they

have more modest goals and limited growth opportunities (Becherer & Helms, 2016).


The microbusiness segment has a unique set of challenges because of its small size and

lack of resources (Grimes, 2012). Microbusinesses are often resource constrained in comparison

to larger businesses. Indeed, managing a business of 100 or more employees is different from

managing a business of nine or fewer employees and entails a different set of operating issues on

a daily basis (Long, 2017). Previous research has identified the issues of limited time, money,

and marketing expertise as significant barriers to success for microbusinesses (Brown-Peterson,

2017).

Previous studies have found that marketing is critical to the success of the

microbusinesses (Long, 2017; Marom & Lussier, 2014; Premo-Hurt, 2016). The ability to

acquire and retain customers who provide sales to the microbusiness is a key success factor in

the survival of the microbusiness (Long, 2017). Specifically, small-business owners without

marketing skills have a higher chance of failure than small-business owners with marketing skills

(Marom & Lussier, 2014). Effective marketing is an important aspect of microbusiness success.

Microbusinesses are focused on operating the business on a daily basis (Monahan, Shah,

& Mattare, 2011). Daily operations require a microbusiness owner to have expertise over a broad

scope of business functions (i.e., finance, sales, operations, human resources, customer service)

along with their particular area of expertise (Solis, 2017). The challenge of managing the various

operating functions along with the challenge of adapting to a dynamic external environment can

be overwhelming to the microbusiness owner (Ab-Rahman, Mandrinos, & Hashim, 2015).

Because of their small size and broad scope of responsibilities, microbusiness ownership can be

challenging.

Researchers have identified gaps that create opportunities for future research on

microbusiness marketing (Gherhes, Williams, Vorley, & Vasconcelos, 2016; Premo-Hurt, 2016).


The use of digital marketing, specifically social media, is an opportunity for microbusinesses to

market to customers at a low cost. Researching successful social media marketing strategies was

identified as a subject to explore more fully (Brown-Peterson, 2017; Bruce, 2016; Caruth, 2016).

Small sample sizes have been an issue in many qualitative studies conducted on microbusiness

marketing strategies (Pai, 2017), Demishkevich (2015), Gandy (2015), and Fluker (2016)

recommended that studies with larger sample sizes would improve applicability of results along

with conducting microbusiness marketing research in other geographic areas. Premo-Hurt (2016)

recommended researching different geographic locations, selecting larger sample sizes, and

choosing a different conceptual framework for microbusiness success. Yang (2015)

recommended research on varied microbusiness sectors and industries.

This study addressed many of the gaps that were identified by previous researchers on

microbusiness marketing. The sample size was 18 participants, which is significantly larger than

previous qualitative studies. The research was conducted in southwestern Wisconsin. Conducting

research in this area added to the geographic diversity of the body of knowledge of

microbusiness marketing. Finally, the conceptual framework of constraints on time, money, and

expertise related to sales growth has been previously identified for further study.

The results of this study have the potential to help address specific marketing issues of

limited time, money, and marketing expertise, which can also aid in the understanding of

microbusiness marketing in the context of improving microbusiness performance. It can also

provide economic development organization information and tools to improve their support of

microbusinesses in their local areas. It adds to the body of knowledge on microbusiness

marketing.


Background of the Study

Effective marketing is a key factor of success for any business. Microbusinesses are

especially vulnerable to issues created by poor marketing (Premo-Hurt, 2016). The gain or loss

of just a few customers can be the difference between success and failure for a microbusiness. It

is critical for microbusinesses to effectively attract effectively, satisfy, and retain customers

because of their lack of size and critical mass.

Microbusinesses pursue marketing strategies such as networking, relationships, word of

mouth, and customer-focused activities in the context of their daily operations. Microbusinesses

tend to implement marketing strategies that fit their size, expertise, market position, and intuition

(Premo-Hurt, 2016). This is in contrast to larger firms that utilize a strategic marketing strategy

that is more conventional (Yang, 2015). In addition, researchers have identified digital marketing

strategies that can be implemented in the context of daily operations (Brown-Peterson, 2017;

Caruth, 2016; Demishkevich, 2015; Jenkins, 2015).

Microbusiness marketing has not been researched extensively (Premo-Hurt, 2016).

Monahan et al. (2011) found the body of research limited regarding microbusinesses in general

and that the focus of research was often on entrepreneurs. There has been significant research on

marketing for small and medium enterprises but little research on the subset of microbusinesses

(Gherhes et al., 2016). There was an opportunity to conduct qualitative descriptive case study

research that focused on limited time, money, and marketing expertise in order to understand

more completely the specific issues related to microbusiness marketing.

The microbusiness owner is often focused on daily operations, so marketing is not a

priority because of a lack of time (Demishkevich, 2015). In addition, there are issues of a lack of

money and marketing expertise that can hinder the marketing effort (Premo-Hurt, 2016).


Microbusiness owners who have an operating expertise that is the base of the business are often

not proficient in marketing (Gandy, 2015). A recurring theme in previous research is that

microbusiness owners need to address effectively the resource constraints of time, money, and

marketing expertise to improve marketing effectiveness (Au, 2015; Brown-Peterson, 2017;

Bruce, 2016).

This qualitative descriptive case study was intended to explore the issues of

microbusiness marketing in the context of limited time, money, and marketing expertise.

Microbusiness owners were interviewed on time and money spent on marketing along with their

level of marketing expertise. The perceived business performance was described in the context of

limited time, money, and marketing expertise. Microbusiness marketing strategies of personal

selling, networking, relationship building, digital, and word of mouth were also described.

Problem Statement

Reiner, Reimann, and Vitkauskaite (2016) stated that innovation (i.e., marketing) for

microbusinesses is difficult because of a lack of capital, expertise, and time. Impediments to

effective marketing include inadequate time, money, and expertise to develop and implement

successful marketing strategies (Premo-Hurt, 2016). A common theme researchers identified is

that microbusiness owners face significant issues regarding limited time, money, and marketing

expertise (Brown-Peterson, 2017; Schaupp & Bélanger, 2013). The problem statement is

microbusinesses have inadequate time, money, and marketing expertise to develop and

implement successful marketing strategies. The relationships among the time and money spent

along with marketing expertise to sales performance has not been specifically explored in

previous qualitative research. The research study focused on a descriptive case study analysis

that investigated the relationship of the microbusiness owner’s time and money spent on


marketing along with perceived marketing expertise to the owner’s evaluation of sales

performance.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to describe the amount of time

and money that microbusiness owners spend on marketing. The study described the

microbusiness owner’s perception of his or her marketing expertise. The three concepts of time,

money, and marketing expertise were related to the microbusiness owner’s perception of sales

performance. In addition, other aspects of microbusiness marketing related to time, money, and

marketing expertise were explored and evaluated. The location of the study was southwestern

Wisconsin.

The study benefits microbusinesses by identifying factors of success related to time,

money, and marketing expertise. The results of this study have the potential to provide direction

for microbusiness owners on profitable time, money, and marketing expertise strategies to

improve microbusiness sales performance. The study also provides recommendations and tools

for microbusinesses to develop and implement effective marketing strategies. In addition,

microbusiness support organizations that are involved in small business and economic

development can use the results to improve their support of microbusinesses. Communities can

benefit economically from more successful microbusinesses that provide employment, products,

services, and income to the local economic environment.

Research Questions

Microbusiness owners (nine or fewer employees) were interviewed in southwestern

Wisconsin. The study addressed the following research questions:


R1: What is the perception of microbusiness owner’s time spent on marketing to sales

performance?

R2: What is the perception of the relationship of money spent on marketing to sales

performance?

R3: What is the perceived relationship of marketing expertise to sales performance?

Importance of the Study

The gap in the microbusiness research was that the themes of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise had not been described in detail. There was also a gap in relating the themes

of limited time, money, and marketing expertise to sales performance. Further research has also

been recommended on key marketing themes of personal selling, digital marketing, relationship

building, networking, branding, and word-of-mouth marketing.

The study focused on the microbusiness segment of the small-business market.

Microbusinesses employ nine people or less, including the owner. The yearly sales of the

business were defined along with years in business. The respondents were questioned on their

perception of previous year’s and year-to-date sales performance. Microbusiness owners also

estimated the time per week spent on marketing, their perception of whether it is enough time to

achieve their goals, and their perception of time spent compared to direct competition.

Microbusiness owners also estimated the amount of money spent on marketing per month along

with their perception of whether it is enough to achieve their goals and their perception of money

spent compared to direct competition. Their perception of return on investment of the marketing

spend was also described. The microbusiness owner’s perception of their relative marketing

expertise was described along his or her perception of how his or her company compared to the


competition. The microbusiness owners were also queried on their use of specific marketing

strategies.

The purpose of the study was to describe the concept of limited time, money, and

expertise for microbusiness marketing. A descriptive analysis was performed on the concepts of

time, money, and marketing expertise effect on the microbusiness owner’s perception of

previous year and year-to-date sales performance. The results of this study provide direction for

microbusiness owners on profitable time, money, and expertise strategies to improve

microbusiness sales performance.

Research Design

A qualitative descriptive case study was chosen for this study to develop further the

previous research on microbusiness marketing that identified limited time, money, and marketing

expertise as themes that hinder the success of microbusiness marketing (Brown-Peterson, 2017;

Bruce, 2016; Premo-Hurt, 2016; Yang, 2015). A qualitative descriptive case study described

microbusiness marketing’s key aspects in the context of limited time, money, and marketing

expertise in detail to develop the themes previous microbusiness marketing research identified.

The researcher used Likert scales on the themes of limited time, money, and marketing

expertise to introduce the topics and describe the relative importance of each topic to the

participant. The respondents were asked open-ended questions when explaining their responses.

The interviews mix of demographic questions, Likert-scale responses, and open-ended questions

were intended to elicit information-rich responses.

Data collection was done by the researcher personally interviewing microbusiness owners

in southwest Wisconsin. The participants were not identified and the responses were anonymous.

Participants could end their interviews and withdraw their consent at any time. Face-to-face


interviews were recorded on a questionnaire (see APPENDIX A). The questions were focused on

the themes of limited time, money, and marketing expertise. Questions on marketing practices

had Likert scales and open-ended responses to elicit information-rich responses. The data were

compiled and analyzed by the researcher. The questionnaires will be kept in a secure location for

five years. After that time, the questionnaires will be destroyed.

Definition of Terms

Entrepreneur: A business where the owner is pursuing a technology-based strategy with

exponential growth potential (Mort, Weerawardena, & Liesch, 2012).

Entrepreneurial marketing: Marketing strategies that focus on creativity, and are

emergent, aggressive, and highly flexible (Anwar & Daniel, 2016).

Marketing: The actions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and

exchanging offers of value with customers (American Marketing Association, 2018); the

promotion of the business to customers.

Microbusiness: A business with at least one employee, but no more than nine employees

(including the owner), that focuses on the owner’s expertise, and a local market (Association for

Enterprise Opportunity, 2015).

Networking: The microbusiness owner focuses on community involvement along with

local relationships with customers and influencers to promote his or her business (Gibbons,

2015).

Relationship building: A marketing strategy that emphasizes working closely with

customers to meet their needs and keep them satisfied (Fluker, 2016); satisfied customers then

are retained by the business for further business and also are a source of word-of-mouth

marketing.


Small business: Businesses that employ less than 500 employees (U.S. Small Business

Administration, 2017).

Word-of-mouth marketing: A marketing strategy where customers promote the

microbusiness through talking about their positive experiences; word of mouth is often leveraged

through social media to retain customers and gain new customers (Jenkins, 2015).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

The assumptions of the study started with respondents’ honest responses to questions. A

key assumption was that the researcher worded the questions to elicit accurate responses. It was

also assumed that the researcher did not bias the responses to the questions during the interview.

The participants were assumed to have a suitable level of expertise in marketing to answer the

questions accurately. It was also assumed that the participants’ answers accurately represent and

were applicable to the population of rural microbusinesses.

Limitations of the study were related to participants’ answers and the rural location. The

information can be considered sensitive for microbusiness owners, which may bias how they

answered questions. Participants may not have truthfully divulge information on marketing

expertise that reflected poorly on their business. Participants may not have been willing to

provide truthful information on sales performance because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The participants may have also overestimated or underestimated their results and provided

inaccurate responses. The participant’s perceptions may not have been an accurate representation

of the situation. The researcher may have been biased and used terms that were not familiar to

the participants, thereby reducing reliability and validity. The participants were in rural areas;

therefore, the results may not generalize to other areas.


The research study remained delimited in several ways. A qualitative case study provides

insight and information, but lacks quantitative analysis. The researcher chose to delimit the study

to rural areas. Urban areas were excluded because of the focus on rural microbusiness

development. The study was also delimited to the perceptions of the participants for their

answers.

Summary

Microbusinesses are an important sector of the economy. Microbusinesses focus on the

owner’s expertise and the local market. Microbusinesses employ nine or less people, including

the owner. Marketing is an important aspect of business success; however, microbusiness owners

are challenged with limited resources of time, money, and marketing expertise. The purpose of

this study was to describe the relationships among time, money, and marketing expertise on sales

results. The results of this study will aid in the improvement of marketing for microbusinesses

and support organizations to improve success.


Chapter 2:

Literature Review

Small businesses are a major driver of the economy. In the United States, there are 29.6

million small businesses (500 or less employees) that employ 57.9 million people (U.S. Small

Business Administration, 2017). The smaller businesses that employ less than 20 people make up

98% of the total number of businesses. Small businesses are also an important part of the

economic structure of communities.

A subset of small businesses is microbusinesses that employ nine or less people,

including the owner. Microbusinesses, such as building contractors, professional service

providers, small specialty retailers, and other enterprises that focus on the individual owner’s

skill sets make up the microbusiness segment. In smaller rural communities, niche markets offer

opportunities for microbusinesses (Dinis, 2006). Microbusiness owners are often more invested

in their communities than larger businesses (Sarra & Berman, 2017). Microbusinesses often

support local initiatives to promote the community through arts and social responsibility.

Microbusiness owners are often leaders of community-oriented associations such as chambers of

commerce and Main Street programs. Microbusinesses are an important part of local

communities and economies.

The dynamics of operating a microbusiness with less than nine employees are different

from a small business with more than 100 employees. Larger small businesses can afford to hire

specialists for key functional areas such as accounting, finance, human resources, marketing, and

supply chain. A microbusiness owner needs to have expertise over a broad range of functional

business areas along with a particular area of expertise (Solis, 2017). The challenge of managing

the various operating functions along with the challenge of adapting to a dynamic external


environment can be overwhelming to the microbusiness owner (Ab-Rahman, Mandrinos, &

Hashim, 2015). Because of the small size and broad scope of responsibilities, microbusiness

ownership can be challenging.

It has been established that marketing is one of the keys to success for small businesses

(Long, 2017). Successful implementation of marketing strategies creates competitive advantage

for firms (West, Ford, & Ibrahim, 2015). Competitive advantage is built through cost-effective

marketing strategies that attract customers. Superior offerings that build value for customers

along with excellent customer service build competitive advantage.

The Lussier model identified 15 variables that lead to success or failure of a small

business (Marom & Lussier, 2014). Of the 15 variables, two are directly applicable to

microbusiness marketing. One of the relevant aspects of the Lussier model is marketing.

Specifically, small-business owners without marketing skills have a higher chance of failure than

small-business owners with marketing skills. The other relevant aspect is capital. Small

businesses that are underfunded have a higher likelihood of failure. Capital was highly

significant at .004, whereas marketing was moderately significant at .108. The Lussier model

supports the theme that lack of money negatively affects small-business success. It also supports

the theme that marketing expertise is important to the success of a small business.

The acquisition and retention of customers through effective marketing strategies are key

processes for microbusinesses. Customer acquisition is a major issue for microbusinesses, with

44% of Australian microbusinesses indicating that their biggest business challenge is finding

clients (Flying Solo, 2017). Customer retention is one of the keys to successful microbusiness

marketing. Microbusinesses often rely on relationship marketing through word of mouth and

social media for both customer acquisition and retention (Jenkins, 2015; Yang, 2015). The ability


to attract and retain customers based on relationship marketing is a strategy that microbusinesses

can implement to build competitive advantage.

Microbusinesses have unique challenges because the owner has many daily management

responsibilities, including running operations, finance, sales, marketing, human resource

management, bookkeeping, and planning. Microbusinesses are focused on daily operations and

achieving short-term goals (Monahan et al., 2011). Microbusinesses are often more focused on

operations and providing income for a family. In many cases, microbusiness owners do not want

to grow because growth may negatively impact their lifestyle or employees (Weber, Geneste, &

Connell, 2015). Marketing may not be the priority on a daily basis nor be a major factor in the

strategic direction of the microbusiness because of the unique challenges of microbusiness daily

operations and the focus on the owner.

Microbusinesses often face intensely competitive markets where customers have many

options (Alom, Abdullah, Moten, & Azam, 2016). The situation where marketing is not a high

priority for microbusinesses can create competitive issues. For example, if the time to acquire

new customers is lengthy, a lack of focus on marketing can create a situation where there are not

enough customers to sustain the business. The microbusiness may also resort to using short-term

marketing tools that reduce price, resulting in a decline of margins (Krämer, Jung, & Burgartz,

2016). Using price as a marketing tool can produce short-term sales increases. However, this

strategy can result in attracting price buyers who are not loyal along with competitive price

reduction actions. These negative results can reduce profitability and threaten the viability of the

microbusiness.

Competitive issues can also arise as a result of the relatively small size of the

microbusiness. Small businesses have limited resources for marketing (Brown-Peterson, 2017).


This issue can be exacerbated if the microbusiness is competing with larger businesses that have

expertise, financial, and scale competitive advantages (Bruce, 2016). In addition, because of the

small size of a microbusiness, the loss of an individual customer may create a more significant

issue than for a larger business where loss of an individual customer is spread over a larger

customer base. The small size of a microbusiness is a significant issue in the context of

competitive positioning.

There are advantages to being small from a marketing perspective for a microbusiness.

The microbusiness owner is close to the market and customers. This can create an opportunity to

identify and act on market opportunities first. Acting on marketing opportunities first can create

competitive advantage (West et al., 2015). Microbusiness owners often possess insight on the

market that can create competitive advantages. Because of their small size and focus on daily

operations, microbusinesses can respond quickly to changes in customer needs (Liao, Rice, &

Lu, 2015). The microbusiness owner has no organizational structure to navigate thereby creating

a competitive advantage of organizational speed over larger businesses. The microbusiness also

may have low overhead costs, which can create a cost advantage compared to larger businesses

that have higher overhead costs.

Microbusinesses pursue marketing strategies that fit their size, expertise, market position,

and intuition (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Microbusinesses tend toward networking and customer-

focused marketing strategies rather than more conventional large-firm marketing strategies

(Yang, 2015). Larger firms with resources and expertise develop and implement long-term

marketing strategies that encompass marketing research, customer focus, opportunity analysis,

and implementation of extensive promotion strategies. In contrast, microbusiness marketing

strategies are more focused on the short term. This situation may put the microbusiness at a


strategic disadvantage because of the limited and reactive nature of short-term marketing

strategies.

The rise of digital marketing has added complexity and new promotion tools to an

already complicated marketing environment (Ryan, 2016). Larger businesses have the resources

to utilize digital marketing tools in their marketing strategies. Microbusinesses often struggle to

implement digital marketing strategies (Nikunen, Saarela, Oikarinen, Muhos, & Isohella, 2017).

Microbusinesses that are not utilizing digital marketing tools may be at a competitive

disadvantage.

Social media is an effective marketing tool for microbusinesses (Au, 2015). Social media

offers microbusinesses opportunities to connect and interact with customers on a personal basis.

It is cost effective and microbusinesses can build competitive advantage (Brown-Peterson,

2017). The social media adoption process of initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, use, and

incorporation has resulted in social media positively affecting relationship marketing for

microbusinesses (Mandal, 2015). Successful microbusinesses utilize planning processes and

implement effective social media strategies to pursue cost-effective relationship marketing

strategies.

The issue of financial and time allocation priorities can lead a microbusiness not to invest

resources in marketing and put the microbusiness at a competitive disadvantage in the market.

The microbusiness owner has many uses for cash flow and capital, especially if the market is in a

downturn (Enqvist, Graham, & Nikkinen, 2014). Uses of capital include payroll, equipment

purchases, inventory, and operating expenses. Marketing also takes valuable time that the owner

needs to spend on other daily business operations such as delivering the product to customers to

generate sales (Fiore et al., 2013). Marketing can be expensive and time consuming, thereby


creating the situation where the owner focuses on higher priorities in the daily operation of the

microbusiness.

In addition to marketing not being a high priority, marketing can be time consuming and

complicated as a result of a turbulent operating environment (Marjanova Jovanov &

Temjanovski, 2015). Constant shifting of competitive markets, customer needs, and marketing

technology create a difficult environment for the microbusiness owner to allocate time to

marketing. Microbusiness owners are challenged by limitations on financial resources, time, and

marketing expertise (Brown-Peterson, 2017). The combination of a time consuming and

complicated marketing environment with resource constraints creates issues for microbusiness

owners.

Small business and entrepreneurial marketing have been studied, but microbusiness

marketing has not been researched extensively (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Monahan et al. (2011) found

the body of research limited regarding microbusinesses in general. The researchers also found

that the focus of research was often entrepreneurship and there is a dearth of research on the

specifics of microbusiness marketing (Monahan et al., 2011). Another study found a significant

body of research on small and medium enterprises but little research on the subset of

microbusinesses (Gherhes et al., 2016).

This chapter covers the current research on microbusiness marketing along with issue

identification. A general overview of small-business and entrepreneurial marketing is reviewed

because of the paucity of directly applicable microbusiness marketing research. There are many

applicable aspects of small-business and entrepreneurial marketing that can be applied to

microbusiness marketing.


Literature Search

The literature review was based on Google and EBSCO databases of professional and

academic literature. Specifically, Google Scholar, Google, ABI-Inform, ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses Global, and ProQuest Central. Journal articles, dissertations, books, and government

information were the main sources. The reference sources were 75% (79) within five years, 22%

(24) within 10 years, and 3% (3) beyond 10 years. The key search terms included microbusiness

marketing, microbusiness management, entrepreneurial marketing, entrepreneurial orientation,

small-business marketing, small-business management, small-business success, small-business

finance, marketing theory, marketing orientation, digital marketing, branding, social-media

marketing, microbusiness time management, microbusiness marketing expertise, and

microbusiness financial resources.

Unique Aspects of Microbusiness Marketing

Rural areas offer opportunities for microbusiness operations because of low cost of

operation, lifestyle, and location preference of the owner. Many microbusinesses pursue small

niche markets, especially in rural areas (Dinis, 2006). Niche marketing strategies are often

appropriate for rural firms because of their location and niche nature of their businesses. For

example, small businesses can successfully pursue niche strategies that emphasize relationships,

are innovative, and utilize green characteristics (Maziriri & Chinomona, 2016). Microbusinesses

can contribute to the overall vitality of a local economy, especially in rural areas.

In many cases, a microbusiness consists of one employee: the owner. The owner’s

knowledge, skills, and ability to make marketing decisions are key aspects that influence the

firm’s performance (Centeno, Hart, & Dinnie, 2013; Demishkevich, 2015). However, because of

the broad scope of business functions, the planning process is often truncated and tactical in


nature (Solis, 2017). Even though microbusinesses are tactical in nature, they still need to

innovate. The need to innovate is often difficult to fulfill because of lack of capital, access to the

required innovative technologies, the necessary experts (qualification), and general lack of time

(Reiner et al., 2016). The microbusiness owner faces many business management challenges,

including marketing.

A key aspect of microbusiness marketing is the use of technology. Digital marketing

tools were found to have a positive influence on marketing performance for small businesses

(Eid & El-Gohary, 2013; Sheikh, Shahzad, & Ishaq, 2017). Demishkevich (2015) found that

microbusiness owners can create a long-term competitive advantage by leveraging their

resources to compete online. Microbusiness owners who create digital marketing capabilities that

are valuable, difficult to imitate, and nonsubstitutable build competitive advantage.

Social media marketing has the potential to have a positive impact on marketing and

customer service for small businesses (Schaupp & Bélanger, 2013). However, developing and

implementing digital marketing strategies requires expertise that microbusinesses may not

possess or can afford to hire. Microbusiness owners face barriers such as lack of time, financial

resources, and knowledge that inhibits effective social media strategies (Au, 2015). Brown-

Peterson (2017) found that successful social media strategies for microbusinesses included the

concepts of relevance, responsiveness, engaging content, paid promotion, adequate time, and a

reasonable budget. Microbusiness owners have the opportunity to utilize better time and

financial resources through effective social media marketing strategies.

A microbusiness is typically focused on the owner’s specific skill set and expertise,

which may not include marketing. In addition, microbusiness owners tend not to have a formal

education in business or engage with external support agencies (Yang, 2015). Therefore, they


need marketing expertise support from community‐based networks (Miller, Besser, & Weber,

2010). This dynamic creates an opportunity for communities to support microbusinesses through

offering programs to increase marketing expertise.

Microbusinesses tend to use word of mouth, relationships, and networking marketing

strategies (Long, 2017). Networking is a viable marketing strategy for small community retailers

that accrues economic as well as social benefits from interactions with network members

(Razalan, Bickle, Park, & Brosdahl, 2017). Word of mouth from current customers is a time-

honored marketing technique and is a powerful marketing tool (Vázquez-Casielles, Suárez-

Álvarez, & Río-Lanza, 2013). These types of marketing tools are relatively low cost and fit into

the daily operations of the owner. Building relationships within the community is a natural fit as

a marketing strategy for the microbusiness owner.

There are key differences in marketing strategies based on firm size (Franco, de Fátima

Santos, Ramalho, & Nunes, 2014). Microbusiness marketing is different from larger firms

(Grimes, 2012). Larger firms have resources and dedicated personnel trained in marketing.

Microbusiness marketing issues have been defined by limited time, money, and expertise

(Brown-Peterson, 2017). The small size of a microbusiness dictates that the marketing strategy

needs to provide a relevant return on investment of not only money, but also time spent on

marketing by the owner. The marketing strategy also needs to fit into the owner’s daily operation

of the microbusiness. The nature of the small size of a microbusiness creates marketing

challenges.

Marketing Conceptual Framework

Marketing is important for the success of small businesses (Franco et al., 2014).

Conventional marketing strategy focuses on market segmentation, targeting, and positioning.


The marketing mix of product, price, place, and promotion (four P’s) is then developed around

the target customer’s needs. Market orientation, solutions-focused marketing, and branding are

also applicable to microbusiness marketing (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Developing and implementing

effective marketing strategies are important to microbusiness success even though

microbusinesses have resource limitations.

Market orientation is defined as focusing externally on the customer and meeting the

customer’s needs. Firms that are market oriented focus on the customer, respond quickly to

changes in the market, and strive to outperform direct competitors (Porter, 1990). Firms can

pursue competitive advantage through marketing strategies under the conceptual framework of

cost-leadership, focused cost-leadership–differentiation, differentiation, and focused

differentiation. These marketing strategies can be applied to reach business goals (Liao et al.,

2015). Firm capabilities in marketing that have a fit with the firm strategy positively impacted

short-term and long-term performance (Feng, 2013). Microbusinesses that focus on their

customers, adapt to their competitive environment, and develop marketing strategies that align

with their business strengths have the opportunity to create competitive advantage.

Firms that pursue a market-orientation strategy were found to improve word-of-mouth

marketing and customer relationships (Sayil, Donmaz, Simsek, & Akyol, 2016). In addition,

applying a specific framework of marketing activities to improve systematically the firm’s

degree of market orientation positively impacted business performance and customer satisfaction

(Gupta, Bridgman, & Sahi, 2015). Microbusinesses that pursue a market-orientation strategy can

improve their customer relationships and business results.

External focus is important to implement a market-orientation strategy. A complementary

strategy to external focus is internal marketing orientation. Khazaei, Khodadadi, and


Amirbakzadeh (2017) found that an internal marketing orientation that focuses on customers,

internal processes, learning, and growth had a positive effective on small-business performance.

The internal processes include operations management. The combination of an external-

marketing focus with an internal operational focus on customers can produce a competitive

advantage for the microbusiness.

The combination of external-customer focus and internal-marketing orientation aligns

with the daily operations focus of the microbusiness owner (Premo-Hurt, 2016). The tendency

for microbusiness owners to focus on daily operations creates an opportunity to leverage this

focus with marketing (Centeno et al., 2013). The alignment of marketing with daily operations

can create opportunities to utilize resources efficiently for the microbusiness owner.

The increase in the use of digital marketing has created additional opportunities to

implement a market orientation strategy through electronic marketing orientation (EMO). EMO

uses digital marketing tools, such as social media, to communicate with customers and increase

customer satisfaction (Habibi, Hamilton, Valos, & Callaghan, 2015). Shaltoni, West, Alnawas,

and Shatnawi (2018) presented that small business can use an EMO construct consisting of

management beliefs, initiation, and implementation activities. The application of EMO can

create competitive advantage for small businesses. EMO was also found to enhance business

performance by positively influencing innovation through shared knowledge and vision (Schulz,

Martin, & Meyer, 2017). EMO is a key opportunity to improve business results for

microbusinesses.

Market orientation improves the financial performance of small firms when linked with

brand orientation that ultimately produces positive brand performance (Laukkanen, Tuominen,

Reijonen, & Hirvonen, 2016). Market-orientation practices that increase brand relevance and


value can lead to positive brand performance. For example, the owner produces a product that

creates significant value to the customer. The value delivered to the customer increases the

perceived brand value to the customer. This increased brand value can result in higher sales,

market share, and profitability, thereby increasing brand performance.

Renton, Daellenbach, Davenport, and Richard (2015) found that small businesses use

brand management practices to build competitive advantage. Brand management practices

develop positioning, differentiation, and brand identity to customers. Brand management

practices build brand value and positive brand associations with customers. Small firms were less

sophisticated with brand management practices and tended to concentrate on building and

communicating identities. Medium-sized firms were more sophisticated and used more tools to

build brands along with leveraging identities. Medium-sized firms also created separate brand

identities whereas small firms tended use only one brand. Brand management is an excellent

strategy to build competitive advantage in microbusiness marketing.

Relationship marketing is a key strategy for microbusinesses (Premo-Hurt, 2016). The

microbusiness owner is also involved directly with the customer on a daily basis, which builds

relationships. Microbusinesses that build relationships with customers and satisfy their needs

better than the competition have an advantage. Indeed, relationship marketing can improve

organizational and financial performance (Radu, 2013). Customer preferences are a central focus

of relationship marketing (Sarathy & Banalieva, 2014). Bruce (2016) found that customer

retention was enhanced with a relationship marketing strategy. Caruth (2016) also found that

competitive advantage was enhanced when the small-business owner strongly emphasized the

importance of the customer experience provided by his or her business. The concept of

relationship marketing for microbusinesses is supported in the literature.


An interesting aspect of the small-business marketing strategy is the concept that the

small-business owner is often the brand of the business (Centeno et al., 2013). The extensive use

of relationship building, word of mouth, and networking in small business often requires that the

owner is the focal point of the marketing strategy. Microbusiness owners can build

differentiation and competitive advantage by developing their brand identity and communicating

it to customers through relationships and networking.

The issue for using conventional marketing strategies in microbusiness is that they

require time, money, and expertise that are in short supply to the microbusiness owner. Ettenson,

Conrado, and Knowles (2013) presented an alternative to conventional marketing (four P’s of

product, place, price, and promotion) in the context of business-to-business marketing called

Solutions, Access, Value and Education (SAVE). Conventional marketing focuses on product

rather than value and the advantage of being a trusted source. The construct of SAVE is solutions

rather than products, access rather than place, value rather than price, and education rather than

promotion. The SAVE construct fits effectively with the customer-focus mind-set of

microbusinesses. The SAVE concept can be used for microbusiness marketing strategies of

relationship marketing, branding, social media, word of mouth, and networking. The SAVE

concept has the potential to reduce the complexity of marketing, thereby reducing the resources

required for planning and implementing marketing strategies.

Entrepreneurial and Small-Business Marketing

Entrepreneurial marketing is similar to microbusiness marketing because of the focus on

the owner–founder (Franco et al., 2014). The owner is often the driving force and the brand

identity of the business. An aspect of being the driving force of the business is the owner’s vision

and strategic direction. Entrepreneurial marketing is often intuitive and situation specific rather


than strategic (Bettiol, Di Maria, & Finotto, 2012). In many cases, the owner is the marketer and

brand of the business. There are applications of entrepreneurial marketing to microbusiness

marketing, most namely branding, intuition, and situational opportunities.

Entrepreneurs often suffer from constraints and lack of resources related to time, money,

and expertise, which are similar to microbusiness marketing resource constraints (Kannampuzha

& Suoranta, 2016). The issue of lack of resources creates a situation where the owner must adapt

to the situation to achieve the business goals. Entrepreneurial marketing is emergent and uses

resources creatively (Anwar & Daniel, 2016). Entrepreneurial marketing is also based on

immediate and available resources (Kilenthong, Hultman, & Hills, 2016). This situation is

similar to microbusiness marketing where the owner will use resources creatively and include

marketing activities as an aspect of daily business operations.

In contrast to microbusiness marketing, entrepreneurial marketing as a concept comprises

opportunity creation, customer intimacy‐based innovative products, resource enhancement, and

legitimacy (Mort et al., 2012). Entrepreneurs may be driven by a lucrative new technology or

market opportunity that can result in exponential growth. In contrast, microbusiness owners

pursue business opportunities with limited technology and market opportunity. In addition,

entrepreneurs pursue opportunities that may entail high risk whereas typical microbusiness

opportunities are less risky. Entrepreneurs are typically more risk tolerant than larger businesses

(Ellen, Anantadjaya, & Saroso, 2014). Entrepreneurial and microbusiness marketing differ as a

result of technology, market opportunity, and relative risk of the business. Because of the

different business objectives, strategic direction, and levels of risk, entrepreneurs and

microbusiness owners address marketing from different perspectives. The mind-sets and goals

that drive entrepreneurial marketing are different from microbusiness marketing.


Even though entrepreneurial and microbusiness marketing are different as a result of

technology, market opportunity, and relative risk, there are aspects of entrepreneurial marketing

that are applicable to microbusiness marketing (Becherer & Helms, 2016). Niehm, Dorie, Jablon,

Fiore, and Hurst (2016) studied the effect of entrepreneurial marketing on small retail-related

enterprises. Entrepreneurial marketing focused on seeking out opportunities, focusing on the

customer, reducing risk, and creating value. In the study, the researchers found that

entrepreneurial marketing strategies had a positive effect on small-business financial

performance. These concepts align effectively with microbusiness marketing. There are

opportunities to apply entrepreneurial marketing concepts to microbusiness marketing.

A key aspect of entrepreneurial marketing is the concept of exploitation (Osiri, 2013).

Exploitation is where the firm focuses on a short-term marketing strategy to build competitive

advantage. This concept involves learning to service more effectively current markets and enter

new markets (Price, 2012). Marketing exploitation is a capability that is dynamic and based on

refining skills along with applying current resources effectively. The exploitation process seeks

to gain efficiencies and increase results by meeting customer needs. It also seeks to use

organizational skills, processes, and marketing capabilities to increase effectiveness. Learning,

implementation, and adapting to changing market conditions along with seizing marketing

opportunities are the keys to a successful market exploitation strategy. Exploitation strategies are

applicable to microbusiness marketing.

Entrepreneurs are often focused on growth as a measure of success (Franco et al., 2014).

However, growth may not be a goal for the microbusiness if the growth has a negative effect on

the owner’s lifestyle or employees (Weber et al., 2015). Entrepreneurs may have investors to

fund growth, whereas the microbusiness owner must fund the growth of the microbusiness


through debt and owner’s equity. Growth can also create operational issues for a resource-

constrained microbusiness. In contrast to an entrepreneur’s focus on growth, the microbusiness

may not have growth as a key marketing objective. The microbusiness owner may have

maintenance of the current state of the business rather than growth as a marketing objective.

Becherer and Helms (2016) also found that the concept of entrepreneurial marketing is a

valid strategy for small businesses that face uncertain market conditions and limited resources.

Innovation is a key strategy when facing resource constraints. Jayawarna, Jones, Lam, and Phua

(2014) studied the link between marketing and successful new entrepreneurial ventures. The

researchers found that marketing practices such as product–service innovation, market service

quality, and functionality had a positive effect on performance. These marketing functions were

directly related to the innovative nature of new entrepreneurial ventures. The ability of the

entrepreneur to adapt to unique market situations can lead to success. Similarly, the ability of a

microbusiness owner to adapt to unique market situations can also be a source of competitive

advantage.

O’Donnell (2011) identified key themes of small-business marketing as framework of

customer relationships, bottom up, use of technology, creative use of resources, and word-of-

mouth promotion. This framework outlines the marketing opportunities available to small

businesses in the context of daily operations. Daily interactions with customers offer

opportunities to build customer relationships and word of mouth. Bottom-up marketing focuses

on the customer and customer service also to build relationships. Creative use of resources

emphasizes low-cost marketing tools such as digital marketing, signage, customer service, and

building relationships. These key themes align effectively with addressing the issue of limited

money for marketing in the context of daily operations (Caruth, 2016). Microbusiness that


deploy resources creatively can increase their return on investment and achieve their marketing

goals.

The concept of integrating low-cost marketing with daily business operations was

supported by Gibbons (2015). The study found that small businesses use the themes of brand

awareness, community involvement, customer loyalty, and seizing operational opportunities as

successful marketing strategies. The themes are low cost, customer focused, and integrated into

daily business operations. The concept of integrating low-cost marketing with daily business

operations was also presented by Au (2015). Microbusinesses can leverage resources by

integrating marketing into daily operations with the added value of building small-business brand

awareness with customers.

Digital marketing strategies offer effective and low-cost marketing tools for

entrepreneurs, small businesses, and microbusinesses (Brown-Peterson, 2017). Digital marketing

tools such as Facebook are used to acquire and retain customers. Hassan, Nadzim, and

Shiratuddin (2015) found that using social media as a marketing tool, using the Attention,

Interest, Desire, Action model, built brand awareness for small businesses. However, while

digital marketing strategies can be low cost, they take expertise and time to implement

effectively for microbusinesses. Microbusinesses have the opportunity to utilize digital

marketing effectively to build competitive advantage (Taiminen & Karjaluoto, 2015). Digital

strategies should be a marketing focus for microbusinesses.

Au (2015) utilized diffusion of innovations theory to identify themes that aided in the

understanding of social media usage in marketing. Technological competence embodies

microbusiness owners being comfortable utilizing digital and social media marketing. The top

three social media platforms in the study were Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. These three


platforms composed an effective social media presence for microbusinesses. The utilization of

the social media platform included engagement with customers and posting relevant content on a

regular basis. Having effective communication skills is another theme in successful social media

marketing. Engagement with customers and generating followers is an outcome of effective

communication skills. Promoting the brand is another important aspect of social media

marketing. Effective branding provides a competitive and differential advantage over

competitors (Jenkins, 2015). Microbusiness owners who utilize social-media marketing can build

their brand, communicate effectively, increase sales, develop customer relationships, and

improve the return on investment of time and money spent on marketing.

Small businesses also vary by type of marketing strategy. The mind-set of the owner has

an influence on the decision-making process (O’Brien, 2016). The marketing strategy is

influenced by the owner’s mind-set, outlook, resources, and business objectives. Astuti, Afiff,

and Balqiah (2017) categorized small-business marketer typology by Aggressive, Mass, Value,

Traditional, and Minimizer. Aggressive marketers used all dimensions of marketing and had the

highest growth. Mass marketers tended to follow competitor’s strategy, did not innovate, and had

the lowest growth. Value marketers tended to focus on customer service and had better growth.

Traditional marketers focused on high quality products along with innovative and proactive.

They did not use e-marketing and had better growth. Minimizer marketers tended to use survival

strategies and minimal marketing strategy. They had lower, but interestingly not the lowest,

growth. The mind-set that influences the marketing strategy that the microbusiness owner

pursues has an influence on the growth and the marketing strategies.

The self-perception, business goals, outlook, and mind-set of the small-business owner

was found to have an effect on the marketing strategy. An Infusionsoft (2014) survey of small-


business owners identified four distinct types: Freedom Seekers, Passionate Creators, Struggling

Survivors, and Legacy Builders. Freedom Seekers started their business to pursue their lifestyle

goals. Passionate Creators love what they do and bring passion, pride, and commitment to their

small business. Struggling Survivors have concerns about the challenges of running a small

business on a daily basis. Legacy Builders view their small business as a practical economic

choice and stable over the long term. Infusionsoft’s survey showed distinct marketing strategy

differences between the different types of small-business owners. Legacy Builders tended to do

the least amount of marketing and were least likely to use marketing technology. Struggling

Survivors tended to be overwhelmed and risk averse in their business operations. Freedom

Seekers were found to use marketing tools in the pursuit of operational efficiency. Passionate

Creators had the highest levels of marketing spending and involvement in marketing technology.

Bruce (2016) also found that the microbusiness owner’s self-perception and business goals had

an effect on marketing strategies. Important aspects of microbusiness marketing are the owner’s

personality, business goals, marketing expertise, and self-perception.

The construct of SAVE offers a focused and intuitive method of developing marketing

strategy for microbusinesses (Ettenson et al., 2013). The microbusiness can focus on solutions

that meet the needs of the customer. Access is the method of distribution that the customer

acquires the product or service. The value of the product or service drives the price and serves to

position the product or service in the market. Customers are then educated on the solution,

access, and value of the product or service. This concept aligns with the microbusiness owner

who may not have the expertise, time, or money to pursue more sophisticated marketing

strategies. SAVE also aligns with the intuitive nature of decision making of the microbusiness

owner. Premo-Hurt (2016) supported the role of business owner as a marketing instrument and


utilizing resources efficiently in the pursuit of achieving marketing goals. SAVE is a less

complicated marketing concept that also has the potential to address the issue of a lack of

marketing expertise.

Effective microbusiness marketing needs to be customer focused, cost effective, and time

efficient (Gibbons, 2015). There are several applicable models, including conventional

marketing, marketing orientation, entrepreneurial marketing, and SAVE. The most effective

model will depend on the individual microbusiness owner’s product or service, competitive

environment, expertise, and available resources. Au (2015) identified themes of technological

competence, effective communication skills, branding, and acquiring external support.

Microbusinesses need to adopt an overarching marketing model and then apply the marketing

principles that are relevant to their business and customer base. Relationship marketing,

branding, networking, social media, and word of mouth are common marketing themes

throughout the marketing literature that successful microbusiness owners utilize.

Effective microbusiness owners use limited resources effectively. One study concluded

that an attribute of successful founders was that they were adept at using limited resources in

pursuit of business success (Osiri, 2013). Using limited resources to take advantage of marketing

opportunities can create value for microbusinesses (Spivey, 2016). The effective microbusiness

owner understands the concept of applying limited resources of time, money, and expertise to

produce positive results.

Limited Time for Microbusiness Marketing

The nature of a microbusiness operation is that the time allocated for marketing will be

limited. A survey conducted in Australia by Flying Solo (2017) found that microbusinesses

average two hours per week finding new business. Interestingly, 44% of microbusinesses spend


little or no time on marketing. This was because of repeat business and satisfaction with the

current size of the business. However, 25% of microbusinesses spend a day or more a week on

marketing. Brown-Peterson (2017) identified small businesses that spent up to 20 hours per week

on marketing. Clearly, some small businesses place a high priority on marketing from a time

perspective.

The issue of time management is critical to the success of the microbusiness. Small

businesses are faced with limited time for marketing (Gilmore, 2011). Microbusiness owners

face the issue of the combination of limited time and uncertainty of results from their investment

of time when allocating time to marketing (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Resnick, Cheng, Simpson, and

Lourenço (2016) found that small-business owners are often unsure if the marketing effort is

worth the time investment. Caruth (2016) also found that microbusinesses did not spend time on

social-media marketing because of a perceived limited return on investment. Microbusiness

owners who are dealing with time management issues may not prioritize marketing activities.

Microbusiness owners are responsible for daily business activities, including operations,

finance, human resources, sales, and customer service. Long (2017) found that microbusiness

owners who were too focused on daily operations may experience reduced growth potential.

Successful microbusiness owners must prioritize the tasks of their role and allocation of limited

resources (Fiore et al., 2013). The daily operations involve various priority activities of customer

service, financial management, and operations. Prioritizing and integrating marketing activities

in daily operations can be a strategy for using limited resources more effectively.

The issue of time management is exacerbated in some types of microbusinesses. Low-

tech microbusinesses face a difficult competitive environment and have to focus their time on

daily operations (Reiner et al., 2016). In addition, microbusinesses that operate in low-tech


environments have difficulty managing because of lack of capital, access to the required

innovative technologies, expertise, and general lack of time (Reiner et al., 2016). Turbulent

environments with scarce resources can create issues that arise in the daily operations, which

reduce the time available to spend on marketing.

The scope of daily responsibilities is a challenge for microbusiness owners. Managing

daily operations is challenging and time consuming (Hanninen, Jokela, Saarela, & Muhos, 2017).

According to the Flying Solo (2017) survey, 28% of microbusiness owners stated that there were

not enough hours in the day. In addition, 27% stated that they were dealing with too many

aspects of the business. When asked how busy the respondents were compared to previous years,

the rating was an average of 7.4, where 5 is “no change,” which indicates a higher level of

activity. This study concluded that microbusiness owners were generally overwhelmed. When

daily business issues are a priority, marketing is often neglected (Reiner et al., 2016). Adding to

the feeling of being overwhelmed is the microbusiness issue of a lack of staffing (Hillary, 2017).

Garcia (2015) found that without competent staffing, the microbusiness owner must personally

handle the daily operations, which can lead to burnout. The microbusiness owner who is faced

with priority issues of operating the business may neglect marketing.

Hiring marketing staff is a strategy to increase the amount of time spent on marketing.

However, hiring staff to work on marketing is simply not feasible for most microbusinesses

because of a lack of resources. When microbusinesses hire staff, Bruce (2016) found that they

hired based on convenience rather than knowledge. The lack of staffing, or hiring staff without

the proper level of marketing expertise, led to the microbusiness owner focusing on too many

daily activities and neglecting marketing (Reiner et al., 2016). The lack of resources for hiring


marketing staff leads to the microbusiness owner having to decide how much time to allocate to

marketing in the context of running daily business operations.

Planning marketing strategies and learning how to use marketing tools is time consuming

(Demishkevich, 2015). The marketing strategies and tools require the microbusiness owner to

spend time to learn how to use effectively both to generate a positive return on investment.

However, Premo-Hurt (2016) found that formal training on social-media marketing was not

necessary for success. Microbusiness owners often strive to be innovative, opportunistic, and

intuitive with their time management. The time issue is compounded with the need to spend time

learning new skills where there is no guarantee of a positive return on investment.

One of the strategies to address the time issue is to incorporate marketing strategies into

daily operations (Gibbons, 2015). Marketing strategies that are an integral part of daily

operations will create time efficiencies for the microbusiness. For example, relationship building

with customers is an important marketing strategy and an integral aspect of daily operations

(Fluker, 2016). Another example is for the microbusiness to focus on excellent customer service

as an aspect of daily operations. The daily focus on the customer creates referrals, brand loyalty,

and add-on sales (Premo-Hurt, 2016). The daily operational focus of the microbusiness owner

can add significant value to the marketing effort.

Word of mouth, building relationships, and networking are key factors in microbusiness

success (Spivey, 2016). These marketing tools can also be time efficient. Word of mouth can be

generated efficiently by customers and through social media (Au, 2015; Jenkins, 2015).

Relationship building through customer-service strategies is a routine part of daily operations

(Gandy, 2015). Networking creates efficiencies through network effects and leveraging

community relationships (Gibbons, 2015). These types of marketing strategies are low cost and


effective. A marketing strategy that focuses on word of mouth, relationship marketing, and

networking has the potential to be successful and provide a positive return on investment.

Another strategy to make time for marketing is by seizing operational opportunities.

Daily business operations provide opportunities to promote the microbusiness. For example,

seasonal small-business owners can take advantage of business opportunities by offering

additional services during slow seasons (Gibbons, 2015). Another example is that a satisfied

customer can be solicited to provide a testimonial during a service call. A successful

relationship-building strategy for microbusinesses is to seize opportunities to promote a

continuing relationship rather than a one-time transaction (Premo-Hurt, 2016). By seeking out

and acting on daily business operation opportunities, the microbusiness owner can leverage time

toward marketing with minimal financial investment.

Brand awareness is another marketing strategy that can create efficiencies. A brand that

has value communicates the business offer efficiently to customers. Jenkins (2015) confirmed

the importance of promoting a brand as a fundamental marketing strategy for microbusinesses.

Brand awareness, visibility, and availability can create new business opportunities and sales by

introducing the microbusiness to new clients (Gibbons, 2015). Branding is a key strategy for

microbusinesses and offers opportunities to achieve marketing goals efficiently.

Social media can be perceived as being time intensive with uncertain results (Au, 2015).

However, Caruth (2016) found that social-media marketing strategies were effective for small

businesses from both a time and return-on-investment perspective. When properly planned and

executed, the social media tools took minimal time and produced positive results. Social media

can be an effective and efficient marketing tool for microbusinesses.


Limited Money for Microbusiness Marketing

Microbusinesses often struggle with financial issues and marketing is often underfunded

(Jenkins, 2015). There are many uses of capital, of which marketing is just one, for the

microbusiness. The microbusiness owner must allocate limited capital to inventory, operating

expenses, payroll, and customer service. Funding marketing may be a low priority or there may

not be enough capital to fund all the microbusiness’s needs. Microbusinesses may have limited

money for marketing and lack of financial resources was found to be a key factor in

microbusiness failure (Spivey, 2016). Successful microbusinesses manage their financial

operations effectively.

Low-cost marketing is one strategy to address the issue of limited financial resources.

O’Donnell (2011) identified key themes of small-business marketing as a framework of customer

relationships, bottom up, use of technology, creative use of resources, and word-of-mouth

promotion. These themes focus on low-cost marketing and are customer-centric. The familiarity

with customer needs can create competitive advantage at a low cost. Familiarity reduces the need

for market research and the resources can be focused on the customer more effectively (Gibbons,

2015). In addition to being low cost, the themes support a customer-orientation strategy in daily

operations further increasing the efficiency of the marketing spend.

Jenkins (2015) conducted research that determined the most effective marketing for

microbusinesses was word of mouth and social-media marketing. Microbusiness owners interact

with the customers directly. The microbusiness owner is in constant contact with customers and

receives feedback in real time (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Word of mouth can also translate into

effective social media strategies by leveraging customer stories and successes online. Word of

mouth and social-media marketing can be cost-effective marketing tools.


Budgeting for marketing spending can be a challenge for microbusinesses. The amount of

money allocated to marketing varies. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration

(2018), a small business should budget 7% to 8% of sales to marketing. The amount spent should

be focused on brand development and promotion costs. A tool to pursue success with limited

financial resources is the concept of an intelligent budget. Creating an intelligent budget is one

strategy to measure the effect of marketing investment (Apfelbaum, 2015). An intelligent budget

adapts to the current marketing situation by measuring results and then adapting to the strategies

that yield results. The level of marketing spend will vary depending on market conditions,

product attributes, competitive activity, and financial resources.

Microbusinesses that are experiencing financial issues may need to allocate available

financial resources to areas other than marketing. Collecting money and cash flow were cited as

major issues by 25% of microbusiness owners in the Flying Solo (2017) survey. Cash flow issues

may drive the microbusiness owner to curtail spending on marketing (Garcia, 2015). Solis (2017)

found that poor financial decisions negatively impacted initial profitability in small businesses. A

microbusiness that is struggling to break even may not be able to afford an adequate level of

promotion spend. Indeed, financial issues are a major cause of microbusiness failure (Marom &

Lussier, 2014). Available financial resources are a critical aspect of marketing spending.

If the microbusiness does not need significant capital to operate, the lack of financial

resources may not be an issue. Garcia (2015) found that capital did not have a significant effect

on the success or failure of microbusinesses in Puerto Rico. In addition, microbusinesses may be

part time or hobbies that do not require high amounts of capital. Small service businesses such as

accountants and lawyers may have low capital requirements (DeMers, 2017). A low capital


requirement combined with low-cost marketing tools of word of mouth and social-media

marketing can minimize the negative effect of a lack of financial resources on the microbusiness.

Measuring return on investment from marketing is often difficult. This can further inhibit

investments in marketing (Reibstein & Pauwels, 2010). To address this issue, models have been

developed to assess marketing promotion campaign performance (Ewing, Stewart, Mather, &

Newton, 2014). Keegan and Rowley (2017) found that it was vital to measure the return on

investment on social-media marketing. Measuring digital marketing return on investment is

easier than measuring return on investment on traditional promotional tools because of the ability

to measure online customer activity through analytics. In addition, the issue of the focus on

short-term financial performance often results in a misalignment with the long-term financial

performance of the business (Smyth & Lecoeuvre, 2015). Measuring return on investment is a

key success factor for microbusinesses when faced with limited financial resources.

There are many marketing strategies that can be implemented at low cost. Indeed, Premo-

Hurt (2016) found that no study participants used any traditional media vehicles. Print, radio, and

television advertising can be expensive promotion tools. Instead, microbusinesses tended to

focus on low-cost sponsorship of community, industry-related groups, and events. The concept

of leveraging community relationships as a low-cost marketing strategy was confirmed by Yang

(2015). Because of a lack of financial resources, low-cost marketing strategies should be the

cornerstone of the microbusiness marketing strategy.

The concept of resource leveraging is also a viable strategy for small-business owners

(Jenkins, 2015). Resource leveraging integrates marketing strategies into daily business

operations. Networking and community involvement marketing strategies are low cost and cost

efficient. Microbusiness owners are often involved in the communities and through their contacts


can market cost efficiently (Yang, 2015). Networking with members of the community through

community organizations such as chambers of commerce and Main Street programs are cost-

efficient marketing methods (Gibbons, 2015). Lead generation through customer service can

result in new customers by providing excellent service to current customers that generates

referrals and word-of-mouth advertising. Referrals and word-of-mouth advertising are also

inexpensive marketing strategies. The Flying Solo (2017) survey found that 84% of

microbusinesses use word of mouth as a marketing strategy. Referrals from satisfied customers

have credibility and can be leveraged online through social media and the business Web site at

low cost.

Exploitation of opportunities is another key area to create low-cost marketing results.

Gandy (2015) found that small-business owners enjoy the freedom and autonomy of a

microbusiness, which lead to an ability to adapt quickly to market opportunities. Microbusiness

owners also have the freedom to make quick decisions to pursue opportunities (Gibbons, 2015).

Exploiting opportunities can improve marketing performance at low cost.

Digital marketing offers the opportunity to promote the microbusiness through low-cost

online tools to customers. Digital marketing includes Web sites, search, content, blogs, e-mail,

and social media. Most notably, engaging with customers on social media has proved to be

effective (Jenkins, 2015). Demishkevich (2015) found that digital-marketing results can be

improved through strategy planning and acquiring specialized knowledge, which are relatively

inexpensive. Using social media as a marketing tool following the Attention, Interest, Desire,

Action model was found to build brand awareness for small businesses (Hassan et al., 2015).

Digital marketing offers many low-cost marketing opportunities for the microbusiness owner.


Limited Expertise for Microbusiness Marketing

Limited expertise in marketing is a significant issue for business success (Marom &

Lussier, 2014). Microbusiness owners often struggle with key marketing functions of planning,

marketing research, advertising, and the implementation of the marketing mix (Resnick et al.,

2016). The lack of expertise can impede marketing effectiveness. Expertise in key marketing

capabilities has been positively linked to successful marketing performance (Haniff & Halim,

2014). A lack of expertise can create a competitive disadvantage and cause the microbusiness

owner to not produce positive results from the marketing program.

In many cases the expertise of the microbusiness owner is often focused on his or her

operational or business expertise rather than marketing (Cronin-Gilmore, 2012). The lack of

marketing skills can cause the microbusiness owner to fail to focus on marketing and not pursue

opportunities. The microbusiness owner who lacks marketing skills may also suffer customer

loss along with unsuccessful client acquisition efforts. This is a common issue for

microbusinesses with 44% of respondents in the Flying Solo (2017) reporting acquiring new

clients as their number one issue. Building expertise in marketing, customer acquisition, and

customer retention can improve the results of the marketing strategies.

Chanu and Sharma (2015) found that business education (including marketing) increased

the likelihood of success. The researchers also found that 22.7% of the sales- and marketing-

related problems for microbusinesses were related to lack of marketing knowledge. In this study,

lack of marketing knowledge was the number two ranked problem behind heavy competition and

was ranked by respondents above lack of demand for the product. Chinomona (2013) found that

the small-business owner’s expertise (including marketing) had a significant positive effect on


business performance. Improving the microbusiness owner’s marketing expertise can result in a

more successful business.

Microbusiness owner marketing expertise is also limited by the relatively low level of use

of marketing decision models by microbusinesses (Lilien, 2011). Microbusiness owners typically

use more intuitive and action-oriented marketing strategies rather than conventional marketing.

Conventional marketing strategies of segmentation, targeting, and positioning take time and

expertise to develop. Fluker (2016) found that marketing measurement needs to be tied to

product and service strategies to increase sales. Daily operation time constraints often limit the

time that can be devoted to obtaining the expertise to use more sophisticated marketing

strategies. The lack of expertise contributes to the lack of use of marketing decision models.

Digital marketing can be a challenge for microbusinesses to learn and use because the

digital technology marketing environment changes rapidly (Nikunen et al., 2017). The

microbusiness owner may lack digital marketing knowledge and not have the time to learn

effective digital marketing practices. This leads to microbusiness owners engaging in digital

marketing without a strategic plan (Demishkevich, 2015). The lack of a systematic approach

along with inadequate measurement of the results of digital marketing were identified as key

issues for small businesses (Demishkevich, 2015). Taiminen and Karjaluoto (2015) found that

many small businesses were not keeping pace with digital developments, mostly because of the

lack of knowledge of digital marketing. Digital marketing is often approached in a haphazard

manner with little or no structured planning. Microbusinesses can improve their marketing

results through effective planning, implementation, and measurement of digital marketing

strategies.


Successful digital marketing strategies are an effective tool to build competitive

advantage in a rapidly changing digital environment. Small-business owners can be more

successful in digital marketing by gaining knowledge and expertise in digital marketing

(Demishkevich, 2015). Utilizing digital measurement tools can enhance microbusiness owners’

ability to measure marketing results. When used effectively, digital tools can produce positive

results for small businesses (Taiminen & Karjaluoto, 2015). Chong, Shafaghi, Woollaston, and

Lui (2010) found that proactive approaches for using digital marketing technology led to

competitive advantage in the business-to-business operating environment. Microbusiness owners

who engage in building expertise in digital marketing can communicate with customers, promote

their brand, and measure the results.

Microbusiness owners need to have the expertise to develop product and brand marketing

strategies. Jenkins (2015) found that product differentiation and ambiance are unique

characteristics that guide product and brand marketing strategies for small independent

restaurants. Effective social media marketing enables the microbusiness to promote the owner as

the brand (Au, 2015). The ability of the microbusiness owner to position successfully the brand

can positively influence competitive advantage and profitability. Microbusinesses tend to use

product-focused marketing strategies and rely on service to differentiate from the competition

(Fluker, 2016). Social media was also found to be a key tool for brand development (Au, 2015).

Successful microbusinesses develop and implement effective product and brand marketing

strategies.

Distribution and place strategies are an important aspect of many microbusiness

marketing strategies. Distribution issues can create a difficult situation where the microbusiness

owner spends resources on distribution and reduces profitability. Bruce (2016) studied the effect


of direct-to-consumer sales for small farms in Maine and found that a lack of profitability was

related to a lack of educational knowledge. In addition, microbusinesses that had unique

products, effective selling strategies, and close proximity to customers were more profitable

when distributing direct to the consumer. Gibbons (2015) found that seasonal businesses needed

to focus on operational opportunities of slack resources during off seasons. Microbusiness

owners can improve marketing performance through exploiting opportunities in distribution and

place strategies.

Microbusinesses often lack market knowledge (Pai, 2017). The intuitive nature of

microbusiness owner’s decision making along with resource constraints may cause the

microbusiness owner not to invest in marketing research. In addition, a lack of marketing

expertise may cause the microbusiness owner not to value market research, but rather follow

their intuition. This situation can create an environment where suboptimal decisions are made as

a result of a lack of market knowledge (Pai, 2017). However, being close to the customer can

create advantages because of the focus on daily operations that enables the microbusiness to

react quickly to changes in the market (Liao et al., 2015). Microbusinesses need to make

effective marketing decisions in the context of increasing value to the customer and addressing

the competitive situation.

The SAVE model is an attempt to address the issue of a lack of business owner marketing

expertise (Ettenson et al., 2013). The SAVE model is intuitive and action oriented, which aligns

effectively with the microbusiness owner’s decision-making process. The microbusiness owner

first focuses on solutions. This encourages the microbusiness owner to focus on the customer and

seek out opportunities for solutions. Access focuses on how the customer acquires the product.

This lessens the focus on distribution and increases the focus on the ultimate customer. A focus


on value reduces the tendency to decrease price and encourages the microbusiness to view the

solutions offered in the context of value to the customer. Education focuses on what the customer

needs to know about the value of the solution in the context of the customer’s needs. In

comparison to conventional marketing strategies, the SAVE model is more focused, requires less

expertise, and aligns with the microbusiness owner’s focus on daily operations.

Entrepreneurs typically perceive themselves as having limited marketing expertise

(Gilmore, 2011). Limited marketing expertise exacerbates the issue of limited time and money

resources for microbusinesses. Microbusiness owners with limited marketing expertise may

make suboptimal marketing decisions leading to poor return on investment on the time and

money that is invested in marketing. However, there are opportunities to improve marketing

expertise for microbusiness owners through community and educational institution support

(Jenkins, 2015). There is opportunity for community and economic development organizations to

facilitate the improvement of microbusiness marketing expertise.

Methodology

The current research on microbusiness marketing has largely focused on qualitative case

studies. Recommendations for further research in microbusiness marketing have focused on

other geographic areas (Gandy, 2015), larger sample size (Demishkevich, 2015), and quantitative

studies (Yang, 2015). Specifically, the relationships among variables such as level of marketing

education, business size, and number of years in business were recommended for further

research (Demishkevich, 2015). Premo-Hurt (2016) recommended a different industry and

population along with using a different conceptual framework. Spivey (2016) recommended

studying the factors that influence business performance in the specific context of the business

environment. There is a need for a more research on microbusiness marketing.


These recommendations were pursued through the qualitative descriptive case study that

explored the relationship of the constraints of time, money, and marketing expertise on previous

year’s sales growth for microbusinesses. In addition to the concept of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise, other applicable areas were researched such as typology of the

microbusiness owner, time in business, and type of business. The geographic region of

southwestern Wisconsin was not previously studied. The microbusiness marketing concepts of

personal selling, networking, relationship building, word of mouth, and digital marketing were

explored in the context of limited time, money, and marketing expertise.

Summary

Effective marketing is critical to business success. Microbusinesses are challenged in

marketing because of their small size, lack of resources, and lack of marketing expertise. There

are opportunities to improve microbusiness marketing through resource leveraging, relationship

management, digital marketing, and networking.

Microbusiness marketing research has focused on qualitative case studies in the context

of determining how microbusinesses market and identifying issues related to marketing. The

body of knowledge of microbusiness marketing is limited because of the emphasis on

entrepreneur and larger business research. Typically, microbusiness marketing has been

researched in the context of business operations and as a factor in the overall success or failure of

the small-business enterprise (Fluker, 2016).

There has been limited research conducted on microbusiness marketing. The studies that

have been conducted have focused on microbusiness marketing strategies in the context of

perceptions of the microbusiness owners. Microbusiness marketing research has focused on

qualitative case studies in the context of determining how microbusinesses market and


identifying issues related to marketing. There has been little research conducted on the specifics

of how microbusinesses deal with the issue of resource constraints of time, money, and expertise.

The body of knowledge of microbusiness marketing appears to be limited because of the

focus on larger businesses with more opportunities for growth. The specific subset of

microbusinesses (nine or less employees) has been overshadowed by larger small- and medium-

sized businesses (up to 500 employees) and entrepreneurs. The concept of the effect of limited

time, money, and marketing expertise on sales performance has not been studied directly in



Chapter 3:

Methodology

Reiner et al. (2016) stated that innovation (i.e., marketing) for microbusinesses is difficult

because of a lack of capital, expertise, and time. Impediments to effective marketing include

inadequate time, money, and expertise to develop and implement successful marketing strategies.

The research study focused on a descriptive case study analysis that investigated the relationship

of the microbusiness owner’s time spent on marketing per week, money spent on marketing, and

the microbusiness owner’s perceived marketing expertise to the microbusiness owner’s

evaluation of previous year’s sales growth.


and money that microbusiness owners spend on marketing. The microbusiness owner’s

marketing expertise was also described. The three variables of time, money, and marketing

expertise were then related to the microbusiness owner’s perception of the sales performance. In

addition, other aspects of microbusiness marketing related to time, money, and marketing

expertise were explored and described. Specifically, previous research identified personal sales,

digital marketing, networking, word of mouth, relationship building, and branding as marketing

strategies that can be implemented in the context of limited resources.

The results of this study provide direction for microbusiness owners on profitable time,

money, and marketing expertise strategies to improve microbusiness sales performance. The

study provides recommendations and tools for microbusinesses to develop and implement

effective marketing strategies. In addition, support organizations that are involved in small

business and economic development can use the results to improve their support of

microbusinesses.


The qualitative descriptive case study was selected as the most effective methodology for

this research. Yin (2017) favored case study research when the research questions involved how

and why the researcher had no control over the events of the research, and the focus is current

phenomenon. The research on limited time, money, and marketing expertise are how and why

questions, the researcher has no control over the events, and describing how microbusinesses

address these issues in the context of daily marketing aligns with Yin’s concepts.

Qualitative research has the advantage of rich information and the interviewer can fully

explore the context of participant answers (Baskarada, 2014). The understanding of the impact of

limited time, money, and marketing expertise on microbusiness performance is enabled by the

qualitative methodology. The qualitative methodology also allows the researcher to explore the

marketing topics related to microbusiness marketing such as personal selling, networking,

relationship building, word of mouth, and branding in the context of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise.

This chapter outlines the methodology for conducting the study. The chapter provides the

details on study participants, sampling, questionnaire analysis, data collection, and data analysis.

The chapter also covers the role of the researcher and ethical considerations.

Background

Microbusiness marketing has not been researched extensively (Premo-Hurt, 2016).

Monahan et al. (2011) found the body of research limited regarding microbusinesses in general,

and that the focus of research was often focused on entrepreneurs. There has been significant

research on marketing for small- and medium-sized enterprises but little research on the subset of

microbusinesses (Gherhes et al., 2016). Studies that have been done on microbusiness marketing

have focused on qualitative analysis (Brown-Peterson, 2017; Fluker, 2016; Premo-Hurt, 2016).


These studies identified that microbusinesses have significant barriers to success because of

limited resources. There is a gap in the research on the specifics of the effect of constraints of

time, money, and marketing expertise on marketing that influences microbusiness performance.

The research results will be used to counsel microbusinesses on successful marketing strategies

in the context of limited resources.

Microbusinesses are a unique segment of the small-business market with unique

operating challenges that need to be more fully understood (Solis, 2017; Spivey, 2016). Research

has been conducted on entrepreneurial marketing and found that entrepreneurs were also faced

with constraints of time, money, and expertise (Kannampuzha & Suoranta, 2016). Other research

found that entrepreneurial marketing was significantly different from small-business marketing

(Mort et al., 2012). A qualitative survey exploring and describing limited resources in

microbusiness marketing would contribute to the body of knowledge on the unique aspects of


Three research methods were evaluated: qualitative, mixed methods, and quantitative.

Each of these research methods has advantages and disadvantages that were evaluated in the

context of this research. The researcher evaluated the research methods in the context of the

theme of understanding how microbusinesses operate in a daily environment of limited time,

money, and marketing expertise.

Qualitative studies provide rich information that can provide insight into the marketing

issues that microbusinesses face on a daily basis. The recent qualitative studies (Brown-Peterson,

2017; Fluker, 2016; Premo-Hurt, 2016) reached saturation on marketing issues for

microbusinesses and recommended further qualitative research on specific aspects of their


research. The qualitative studies on microbusiness marketing provided a base of information on

which to base this study.

A mixed-methods study combines qualitative and quantitative methods. A mixed-

methods approach provides the opportunity to combine the strengths of qualitative and

quantitative methods (Venkatesh, Brown, & Sullivan, 2016). The quantitative aspect of the

mixed-methods approach was rejected because there is no validated survey instrument to

measure time, money, and marketing expertise effects on business performance. The researcher

has previous experience with microbusiness research and found that a mixed-methods approach

was difficult to implement because of the limited body of research on which to build a mixed-

method study.

A quantitative study has been recommended to measure microbusiness marketing (Long,

2017). Quantitative studies on marketing expertise have been conducted for small and

entrepreneurial businesses and indicated that higher levels of marketing expertise led to

improved sales results (Garcia, 2015; Marom & Lussier, 2014). The specific aspects of limited

time and money have been identified by qualitative research as issues in microbusiness. There

have been no previous quantitative studies conducted on microbusiness marketing related to time

and money. In addition, the lack of microbusiness performance data limits the opportunity to

conduct a quantitative analysis.

Another aspect that led the researcher to decline to pursue quantitative research is that the

researcher found no validated quantitative survey instruments on the concept of limited time,

money, and marketing expertise. Lussier’s quantitative small-business success model has been

validated, but it contains only two marketing references (Marom & Lussier, 2014). In addition,

because of the subjective nature of participants estimating their time spent on marketing and their


perception of their relative level of marketing expertise, a quantitative study may not provide

valid and reliable results. Also, participants are providing an estimate of their sales performance,

which may further reduce validity and reliability of a quantitative study.

The five approaches to qualitative research are narrative, phenomenological, case study,

grounded theory, and ethnography (Baskarada, 2014). Narrative and phenomenological

approaches focus on individuals. Case studies and grounded theory are used to explore

processes, activities, and events. Ethnography is used to explore cultural sharing behavior. The

goal of the study was to explore and describe microbusiness marketing in the context of limited

resources. Therefore, a descriptive case study was chosen as the optimal research method for the

study.

The descriptive case study approach is used to study issues that are extensive and in-

depth descriptions of complex phenomena (Baskarada, 2014). Descriptive case studies describe

different aspects of a phenomenon in its context and can lead to theory building. A descriptive

case study approach was selected as the most effective research methodology. The understanding

of the impact of limited time, money, and marketing expertise on microbusiness performance is

enabled by the descriptive case study methodology. The descriptive case study methodology also

allows the researcher to explore the marketing topics related to microbusiness marketing such as

personal selling, networking, relationship building, word of mouth, and branding in the context

of limited time, money, and marketing expertise. The descriptive case study explored the

concepts of limited time, money, and marketing expertise in the context of microbusiness sales

performance. The descriptive case study approach was the most appropriate approach to develop

further the concepts of how microbusinesses can address the issue of the effect of limited time,

money, and marketing expertise on business performance.


The microbusiness owner makes decisions based on intuition and perceptions. The

microbusiness owner makes decisions on resource allocation on a daily basis (Premo-Hurt,

2016). The microbusiness owner’s decisions on how to spend limited time and money on

marketing is a key area of study. In addition, the microbusiness owner’s marketing expertise may

have a direct influence on marketing decisions. The interactions among time, money, and

marketing expertise further complicate the complex nature of the decision-making process.

These dynamics indicate that a qualitative descriptive case study would be the preferred research

method.

The purpose of the additional questions on microbusiness marketing strategies was to

have a base of qualitative data that is directly related to the daily operational issues of limited

time, money, and marketing expertise. The qualitative data on microbusiness business marketing

strategies will aid microbusinesses and microbusiness support entities in developing and

implementing marketing strategies in the context of limited time, money, and marketing

expertise. The additional questions on marketing will also enable the researcher to increase the

understanding of microbusiness marketing in the context of limited time, money, and marketing

expertise.

Research Questions

Microbusiness owners (nine employees or less) were interviewed in southwestern

Wisconsin. The study used a convenience sample of microbusiness owners. The questionnaire

was administered by the researcher. The questionnaire addressed the following research

questions:

R1: What is the perception of microbusiness owner’s time spent on marketing to sales

performance?


R2: What is the perception of the relationship of money spent on marketing to sales

performance?

R3: What is the perceived relationship of marketing expertise to sales performance?

Methodology

The research study used multiple cases’ qualitative data gathered through a questionnaire

to measure the owner’s estimate of time spent on marketing, money spent on marketing, and the

owner’s perceived level of marketing expertise. The owners were interviewed on their perception

of business performance. The qualitative descriptive research design method was chosen because

there is a gap in the body of knowledge on the impact of the relationship of time, money, and

marketing expertise to business performance for microbusinesses. The literature review indicated

that there is a high level of variance among microbusiness owners on the amount of time, money,

and the level of expertise related to implementing marketing strategies. A qualitative descriptive

research study explores the concept of limited time, money, and marketing expertise in relation

to microbusiness performance.

There have been qualitative studies on microbusiness marketing that indicated that higher

levels of marketing expertise led to improved results (Au, 2015; Demishkevich, 2016; Pai,

2017). However, there is a gap in the knowledge base on the levels of marketing expertise for the

specific subset of microbusiness. The qualitative descriptive case study methodology also allows

the researcher to explore the marketing topics related to microbusiness marketing such as

personal selling, networking, relationship building, word of mouth, and branding in the context

of limited time, money, and marketing expertise.

The population of microbusinesses in southwestern Wisconsin were firms with nine or

less employees. The sampling method was a convenience sample utilizing the researcher’s


personal relationships with microbusinesses and organizations that support small businesses to

recruit participants. The businesses were based in southwestern Wisconsin and have nine or less

employees. The participants were willing to undergo a 45-minute interview on microbusiness

marketing. The goal was a minimum of 15 completed qualitative questionnaires (Baskarada,

2014). At least 15 or more questionnaires provided a robust data set to analyze for the

exploration and description of microbusiness marketing with limited time, money, and marketing

expertise. At least 15 or more completed questionnaires also provided a rich set of information

on marketing strategies that microbusinesses used to address the issues of limited time, money,

and marketing expertise.

The nonprobability sample may have introduced bias into the study. Microbusinesses that

have relationships with the researcher and the support organizations may not be representative of

the population of microbusinesses. In addition, sampling error may occur because

microbusinesses that were interested in marketing may have been more likely to respond and

took the time for the interview. However, the researcher decided that the potential bias of a

convenience sample was outweighed by having respondents who were willing to have in-depth

discussions on their marketing strategies in the context of limited time, money, and marketing

expertise.

Instrumentation

The data collection method for this study was a questionnaire that was developed by the

researcher (see APPENDIX A). Qualitative questionnaires were referenced in developing the

questionnaire (Brown-Peterson, 2017; Fluker, 2016; Premo-Hurt, 2016). The researcher also

used previous small-business consulting and microbusiness marketing survey experience in

developing the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of Likert-scale questions and then


followed up with open-ended questions. The questionnaire began with the key demographic

descriptions of the microbusiness, including the specific type of microbusiness, number of

employees, sales, and length of time in business. The questionnaire covered the subjects of the

perception of the participant on time, money, and marketing expertise in relation to sales

performance. The questionnaire then inquired on the use of various types of microbusiness

marketing tools in the context of daily operations time management. The interviews allowed the

researcher to gather descriptive data about the specific issues of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise of microbusiness owners.

After the interview, the researcher filled out an observation form (see APPENDIX B) that

was used as a triangulation tool. The observations included a general overview of the business,

digital marketing examples, marketing evidence at the participant place of business, evidence of

marketing expertise in conversations with the participant, and a general evaluation of the

marketing strategy for the microbusiness. The triangulation compared the observations of the

specific microbusiness with the responses to the questions. The researcher evaluated the

alignment of the question responses with the observations.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The researcher contacted the participants to gain their commitment to participate in the

research study. The researcher explained the purpose of the study and discussed informed

consent. When the participant agreed to participate, an appointment was scheduled at his or her

place of business. At the appointment, the informed consent form was signed (see APPENDIX

C) and the 45-minute interview commenced. The researcher observed the participant and the

place of business in the context of microbusiness marketing. After the interview, the researcher


observed the participant’s digital marketing strategies. All observations were recorded on the

observation form. The participants were provided a copy of their responses for their review.

The questionnaire was administered to the participants by the researcher. The

questionnaire used Likert-scale questions on the research topics and followed up with open-

ended questions to describe how the microbusiness addressed the issues of limited time, money,

and marketing expertise. Additional questions on microbusiness marketing strategies were

explored. The researcher had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, observe how the

participant answered the questions, and observe the microbusiness marketing at the participant’s

place of business. The data were tabulated, coded, and organized using Microsoft Excel.

The data were analyzed by tabulating the demographic and Likert-scale data. The open-

ended feedback was coded for key words and phrases. Codes were developed that related to the

key aspects of the interviews. A final master code list was developed when the questionnaires

were completed. Similar to Premo-Hurt (2016), the codes were then developed into themes and

the responses summarized.

The interview data were stored in a master Excel spreadsheet. A second Excel

spreadsheet contained additional observational data and other evidence for triangulation.

Participants were simply identified by a number. There were no individual microbusiness

identifiers on the data stored in the spreadsheets.

Maintaining the chain of evidence is a key aspect of an effective qualitative case study

(Yin, 2017). The original questionnaires, the formally written summaries, and the observation

sheets were stored in a secure file cabinet in the researcher’s office during the study. The data

were stored in a password-protected drive on the researcher’s computer.


Validity and Reliability

The validity of the study relies on reducing risks that affect the ability to make

conclusions about the data. Reliability is the accuracy, precision, and consistency of

measurement. Researchers must validate that the study is both reliable and valid. Qualitative

studies are inherently subject to reliability and validity issues (Baskarada, 2014). There were

several issues in this study that were addressed to increase reliability and validity.

One issue the study presented was the sample validity. The participants in the study

should represent the population. The sampling strategy of personal contact and leveraging

microbusiness support organizations may inherently bias the sample. Another factor was that

microbusinesses that were in contact with microbusiness support organizations may not be

representative of the general population of microbusinesses. However, this bias was offset by the

quality and willingness of the participants to engage with the researcher on microbusiness

marketing research.

The sampling method may reduce internal validity because the researcher may bias the

participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Bias was minimized by the researcher focusing on the

questionnaire, listening carefully, asking clarifying questions, avoiding leading questions, and

minimizing giving feedback on responses. The risk was acceptable because the researcher

focused on not biasing the responses and administering the questionnaire consistently across all

participants.

External validity was tested by having colleagues review the questionnaire before

administration to study participants. The questionnaire was evaluated for accuracy, relevance,

and ease of use by participants. Three colleagues reviewed the questionnaire, and the researcher

incorporated their feedback to improve the questionnaire.


The reliability of the qualitative study was increased by using triangulation, employing

member checking, ensuring accurate descriptions, and spending time in the field. Triangulation

was a key aspect of improving validity (Denzin, 1978). The triangulation strategy was for the

researcher to observe the participant’s place of business for evidence of microbusiness marketing

strategies. Research was conducted on the participant’s digital strategies after the interview. The

observation form served as confirmation of the responses. The triangulation strategy was to use

questionnaire responses, observations, and research on digital strategies to confirm that the data

in the analysis were valid for each participant.

Data saturation is reached when no new information has been revealed and coding is no

longer feasible. Data saturation occurs when enough information has been collected to replicate

the study (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Failure to reach data saturation has a negative effect on the

validity of the research. Hennink, Kaiser, and Marconi (2017) presented the concept that code

saturation and meaning saturation are two separate issues in data saturation. Code saturation may

indicate that researchers have heard all the responses. Meaning saturation is where the

researchers go beyond the coding to a thorough and detailed understanding of the issues. The

research study achieved code and meaning saturation with 18 completed questionnaires. A

minimum of 15 questionnaires was projected to provide data saturation (Baskarada, 2014).

Ethical Procedures

The questionnaires carried no identifiers and were anonymous. The researcher provided a

brief explanation of the questionnaire and the opt-out directions. During the study, the

questionnaires and observation forms were stored in a locked drawer in the researcher’s office.

When the study was complete, the questionnaires and observation forms were transferred to the

researcher’s secure storage facility. After five years, the paper questionnaires will be destroyed.


The digital data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected computer. After five years,

the digital data will also be destroyed.

The researcher obtained Institutional Review Board approval and complied with all rules

regarding participant rights. There were no foreseeable risks to the participants from

participating in the study. The researcher strived to be in compliance with university and

dissertation committee requirements at all stages of the research process.

The participants were clearly explained their rights and roles and signed the Informed

Consent Form. The questionnaire had the appropriate participant language and the participants

have access to the final dissertation. The participants were treated professionally by the

researcher. The participants were informed that they could elect to discontinue their participation

in the research at any time with no repercussions.

Summary

The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the effect of limited

time, money, and marketing expertise on microbusiness sales performance. The key

microbusiness marketing concepts of personal selling, networking, word of mouth, relationship

building, and branding were also explored in the context of limited marketing resources. The

results of this study provide direction for microbusiness owners on profitable time, money, and

expertise strategies to improve microbusiness sales performance. The results of the study also

provide direction to economic development organizations on microbusiness support strategies.


Chapter 4:

Findings

The microbusiness operating environment is challenging with daily issues of time,

money, and marketing expertise influencing sales performance. Microbusiness operators make

daily decisions on allocating resources, improving marketing expertise, and implementing

marketing strategies. The purpose of the qualitative descriptive case study was to describe the

amount of time and money that microbusiness owners spend on marketing. Time and money

along with the perception of marketing expertise were then related to sales performance. Specific

microbusiness marketing strategies that can affect sales performance were explored.

The researcher identified and contacted microbusinesses (nine employees or less) in

southwestern Wisconsin. The study used a convenience sample of microbusinesses. There were

18 respondents from a wide variety of microbusinesses. The researcher conducted all interviews.

All respondents completed the informed consent approval process (see APPENDIX C).

Qualitative research has the advantage of rich information and the interviewer can fully

explore the context of participant answers (Baskarada, 2014). Baskarada (2014) stated that 15 or

more questionnaires will provide a robust data set to analyze for the exploration and description

of the desired phenomenon. Eighteen questionnaires were completed with 89% (16 of 18) of the

respondents being microbusiness owners. One respondent was an employee who was a previous

owner of a microbusiness who moved to a marketing consulting role in a new microbusiness.

One respondent was the manager of the microbusiness. The two nonowners were included in the

data set because of their unique business types (business-to-business consultant and health care)

and extensive microbusiness marketing experience. Hence, the recurring description was

microbusiness operators.


The questionnaire (see APPENDIX A) consisted of Likert-scale questions and followed

up with open-ended questions. The detailed interviews enabled the researcher to gather

descriptive data about the specific issues of limited time, money, marketing expertise, and

specific marketing strategies of microbusiness operators. The research questions involved how

and why the researcher had no control over the events of the research, and the focus was current

phenomenon that aligned with Yin’s (2017) case-study research methodology. The data were

entered into Excel and analyzed by the researcher. Codes were developed to identify themes that

summarized and described the qualitative responses.

Triangulation is a key aspect of improving validity (Denzin, 1978). The triangulation

strategy was to use questionnaire responses, observations, and review of digital strategies to

confirm that the data in the analysis were aligned for each participant. The researcher observed

the participant’s place of business for evidence of microbusiness marketing strategies. The

researcher recorded the observations of the marketing evidence at the place of business except

for two business consultant participants. There were no physical locations for the consultants

because consulting is conducted at the client’s place of business. The data from these two

questionnaires were included in the study because of the extensive marketing expertise exhibited

by the respondents during the interview. The researcher also reviewed the digital strategies of

each respondent after the interview and recorded the observations on the observation form (see

APPENDIX B). All respondents utilized digital marketing strategies. The place and digital

observations aligned with the questionnaire responses from the participants.

In line with Baskarada (2014), data saturation was achieved through the administration of

18 questionnaires. The researcher pursued meaning saturation beyond code saturation (Hennink

et al., 2017). Meaning saturation was pursued through deep and detailed follow-up questions that


probed the participant’s reasoning for the responses. The barriers of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise were explored through direct Likert-scale questions, open-ended questions

to describe the reasoning behind the Likert-scale ratings, comparison to direct competition, and a

relative ranking of the relevance of each barrier. Data and meaning saturation were achieved.

Findings

Descriptive analysis of respondents. Microbusinesses employ nine employees or less,

including the owner. All 18 respondents employed nine people or less. If the business had part-

time employees, they were converted to full-time equivalents. Four of the businesses employed

only the owner. Nine of the businesses employed two to five people and five employed six to

nine people. The respondents were experienced in business with 72% having 10 years’ or more

of experience. A majority of the businesses (56%) interviewed had been in business 10 years or

more. There were four businesses in a start-up phase with less than 18 months of operation.

A key objective of the research study was to interview a broad base of microbusiness

types and industries. No type of business had more than three respondents. The businesses were

varied with 12 different types of businesses interviewed, as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1:

Types of Microbusiness Interviewed

Type of Microbusiness Number of Respondents

Service 3

Consulting 2

Retail Store 2

Restaurant-Hospitality 2

Financial Services 2

Travel-Tourism 1

Real Estate 1

Manufacturing 1

Health Care 1

Wholesale Distribution 1

(continued)


Type of Microbusiness Number of Respondents

Business Service (Business to Business) 1

Technology 1

The microbusinesses that were interviewed had a wide range of sales. The start-up

microbusinesses generated the lowest sales whereas the retail, professional services, travel-

tourism, and wholesale distribution businesses generated the highest sales. The sales ranges of

the participating microbusinesses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2:

Sales Ranges of Participating Microbusinesses

Yearly Sales Number Respondents % of Total

$1 to $12,000 1 6%

$12,001 to $50,000 1 6%

$50,001 to $100,000 2 11%

$100,001 to $500,000 7 39%

$500,001 to $999,000 3 17%

More than $1 million 4 22%

Questionnaire and interview findings. A Likert scale was used to quantify the

respondents’ answers to questions. The 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”)

to 5 (“strongly agree”). For subjects in specific areas of research interest, participants who

responded with a 4 (“agree”) or 5 (“strongly agree”) were asked to describe the rationale for their

ratings. The descriptions provided the information for coding, analysis, identification of common

themes, and insight.

Marketing was perceived to be important to the success of the microbusiness with

respondents averaging a 4.4 rating. A 4.4 score is indicative of strong agreement with the

concept that marketing is important to business success. Indeed, there were no ratings of 1 and

only one rating each of 2 or 3. All remaining respondents rated the importance of marketing a 4

or 5.


Aggressive sales growth had an average rating of 3.6, indicating a positive stance on

growing sales. Nine (50%) respondents rated 4 or 5 seeking to grow aggressively sales. Seven

(39%) responses were neutral at 3, indicating that they were satisfied with their current sales

levels and not aggressively seeking to grow sales. Two microbusinesses were not interested in

growing sales because of being at capacity at the time of the study.

Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with previous full year’s sales

performance growth on a Likert scale. There were four start-ups that could not answer this

question since they were not in business during that time period. The average of the respondents

was 3.6, indicating a positive average satisfaction level. The average year-over-year sales

increase for the microbusinesses that responded was 26%. Overall, the respondents had a

positive sales performance for the previous full year. The satisfaction with previous year’s sales

increase is presented in Table 3.

Table 3:

Satisfaction With Previous Year’s Sales Increase

Satisfaction Number of Respondents Average Previous Year’s Sales Increase

5 = Very Satisfied 4 51%

4 = Satisfied 5 20%

3 = Neutral 1 5%

2 = Dissatisfied 3 25%

1 = Very Dissatisfied 1 -20%

The participants were questioned about their year-to-date (YTD) sales performance

compared to the previous year. The study was conducted in August. Four start-up businesses

were excluded from this calculation because of their lack of sales comparison data to the

previous YTD. The satisfaction with the YTD sales increase is presented in Table 4.


Table 4:

Satisfaction With YTD Sales Increase

Satisfaction Number of Respondents Average YTD Sales Increase

5 = Very Satisfied 2 44%

4 = Satisfied 5 20%

3 = Neutral 4 6%

2 = Dissatisfied 2 3%

1 = Very Dissatisfied 1 -5%

Compared to the previous full year sales performance, sales growth slowed on a YTD

basis. The respondents reported an average of 15% compared to the previous full-year average of

26%. The respondents reported a satisfaction with the sales performance at 3.3 compared to the

previous full year satisfaction rating of 3.6. On average, the success of the sales performance

YTD was less than the sales performance of the previous year for these microbusinesses.

Time spent on marketing. A major issue for microbusiness operators is time spent on

marketing. The microbusiness operators were queried on their perception of the amount of time

they spent on marketing per week. Overall, 78% of the respondents stated that they spent less

than 1 hour per day on marketing. The data on time spent was skewed to the low end of the

measurement scale. The perceptions of the time spent on marketing of the participating

microbusinesses are presented in Table 5.

Table 5:

Time Spent on Marketing

Time Spent on Marketing Per Week Number of Respondents Percent of Total

Less than 1 Hour 10 56%

1–5 Hours 4 22%

6–10 Hours 1 6%

More Than 10 Hours 3 17%

When asked if they perceived that they were spending enough time on marketing to

achieve their goals, the average response was 2.3, indicating that respondents perceived that they


were not spending enough time on marketing. Respondents were then queried on the daily

challenges of running a microbusiness and the impact on the time spent on marketing.

Respondents averaged a 3.7 (indicating positive agreement) on their responses to the question if

the daily challenges of running a business negatively impacted the time spent on marketing. The

respondents who rated the question a 4 or 5 were then asked to describe the reason for their

rating. The respondents focused on daily business functions, customer service, not enough staff,

and crisis management as significant operating issues that reduced available time to spend on

marketing. The microbusiness operator was immersed in the daily business operations and time

allocation to marketing was found to be an issue. Comments such as “in charge of everything,”

“putting out fires,” “constant interruptions,” and “crisis management” indicated that the daily

challenges of running a microbusiness reduced the time spent on marketing.

Money spent on marketing. The amount of money spent on marketing is a key focus

area for microbusiness operators. The microbusiness operators were queried on their perception

of the amount of money they spent on marketing per month. The perceptions of the money spent

on marketing of the participating microbusinesses are presented in Table 6.

Table 6:

Monthly Marketing Budget

Monthly Marketing Budget Number of Respondents

Less than $100 5

$101-$500 9

$501-$1,000 1

$1,001-$2,000 2

Greater Than $2,000 1

The budgeting method that microbusiness operators use to make decisions on the amount

of money to allocate to marketing was the next subject of inquiry. When asked about their

marketing budgeting method, 6% used a fixed amount per month, 56% spent what was left over


and what could be afforded, and 28% used a combination of methods. Cost minimization was

identified by 11% of the respondents. The objective of cost minimization is not to have a budget

for marketing, but rather spend as little on marketing as possible. Microbusiness operators used a

variety of budgeting methods.

Generating sales increases for the amount of money spent on marketing is a key focus

area for microbusiness operators. There does not appear to be an association with the amount of

money spent on marketing to the previous year or YTD sales performance. The sales

performance for microbusinesses not in a start-up phase for the previous year and YTD were

compared to the amount of money spent on marketing per month in Table 7.

Table 7:

Monthly Marketing Budget Comparison to Sales Increases

Monthly Marketing Budget Number of

Respondents

Previous Year’s

Sales Increase

YTD Sales Increase

Less than $100 4 30% 35%

$101-$500 7 12% 8%

$501-$1,000 0 0% 0%

$1,001-$2,000 2 30% -2.5%

Greater Than $2,000 1 100% 20

Microbusiness operators appear to spend an adequate amount of money on marketing to

achieve their sales performance goals given the average satisfaction rating of 3.6 and average

sales increase of 26% for the previous year. The microbusiness operator’s average sales growth

during the current YTD was 15% and rated a 3.3 satisfaction level. While sales growth and

satisfaction were lower on a YTD basis when compared to previous full year, the respondents

were satisfied with the YTD sales performance.

The respondents were neutral on measuring return on investment on the marketing spend

with an average rating of 3.1. The rating of 3.1 indicated a neutral satisfaction where they


perceived they were spending an adequate amount of money on marketing and were not willing

to spend more without assurance of a positive return on investment on the additional marketing

spend. There were only five Likert scale ratings at 4 or 5 (28%) on measurement of return on

investment of the marketing spend. The descriptions of their return on investment of the

marketing spend were Google or Facebook analytics with five mentions, customer response with

four mentions, and sales generated with two mentions.

Marketing expertise. The perceived level of marketing expertise was explored with the

microbusiness operators. The respondents were asked to rate their level of marketing expertise

on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (“low level”) to 5 (“high level”). The overall perception of all

participants of their marketing expertise was adequate with a rating of 2.9. The perceptions of the

respondent’s level of marketing expertise are presented in Table 8.

Table 8:

Marketing Expertise Ratings

Marketing Expertise Rating Number of Respondents

5 = High Level 1

4 = Between Adequate and High 3

3 = Adequate 8

2 = Between Adequate and Low 6

1 = Low Level 0

The perceptions of their level of marketing expertise compared to the sales increases of

the participating microbusinesses not in start-up phase are presented in Table 9. There does

appear to be an association of higher levels of marketing expertise with previous year’s sales

performance. There does not appear to be an association of higher levels of marketing expertise

with YTD sales performance.


Table 9:

Marketing Expertise Ratings Comparison to Sales Increases

Marketing Expertise Rating Number of

Respondents

Previous Year’s

Sales Increase

YTD Sales

Increase

5 = High Level 1 30% 0%

4 = Between Adequate and High 2 60% 19%

3 = Adequate 5 29% 17%

2 = Between Adequate and Low 6 15% 15%

1 = Low Level 0 0% 0%

Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the previous year’s sales

performance. The microbusiness operators who rated their previous year’s sales performance 5

averaged a 3.5 rating on their marketing expertise, which was higher than the average marketing

expertise rating of 2.9. In this study, higher levels of marketing expertise did appear to have a

positive association with sales performance.

All respondents, regardless of Likert-scale rating, were asked to describe their marketing

expertise. When respondents described their marketing expertise, there were eight mentions that

their current skill set was adequate (capable), five mentions that they learn new tools, and three

mentions each of education, industry tools, and previous marketing experience. There were four

mentions that the microbusiness operator was not capable of marketing. Tactical promotion tools

such as social media, videos, fliers, Web sites, content, signage, campaigns, customer

promotions, and public relations were solely focused on by seven of the respondents. Sales

activities were mentioned twice. Customer service and branding were mentioned once. The

descriptions of marketing expertise tended to be tactical and focused on daily activities.

Relative importance of barriers to marketing effectiveness. Microbusiness owners

face the barriers of lack of time, money, and marketing expertise when pursuing marketing

effectiveness. Lack of time, lack of money, lack of marketing expertise, return on investment of


the marketing spend, and marketing is not a priority in daily operations were identified as

barriers to marketing effectiveness. Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of

each barrier in the context of marketing operations by major barrier, substantial barrier,

somewhat of a barrier, and not a barrier. The purpose of this question was to solicit feedback on

the relative importance of barriers to marketing effectiveness.

Table 10:

Ratings of Barriers

Rating of Barrier Lack of

Time

Lack of

Money

Lack of Marketing

Expertise

Return on Investment

of Marketing Spend

Not a

Priority

Major 4 2 0 1 0

Substantial 6 2 4 2 0

Somewhat 7 9 11 9 5

Not 1 5 3 6 13

Lack of time was rated the most important barrier with four ratings of major and six

ratings of substantial. Lack of money was the next most important barrier with two ratings of

major and two ratings of substantial. Lack of marketing expertise and return on investment of the

marketing spend were considered to be largely somewhat of a barrier. Marketing was a priority

to 13 (72%) of the microbusinesses.

Comparison to direct competition. Direct competition is an important issue for the

microbusiness operator on a daily basis. There may be few barriers to entry and customers may

be price driven in the microbusiness competitive environment. Customers may have many

alternatives and switching costs may be low. The microbusiness operators were interviewed on

their perception of how they compare to direct competitors on time, money, and marketing

expertise. The participants were asked if they perceived that they spent more time, about the

same, or less time on marketing than their direct competition. The question was repeated for

money and marketing expertise. The responses are summarized in Table 11.


Table 11:

Ratings of Comparison to Direct Competitors

Comparison to Direct Competitors Time Money Marketing Expertise

More Than 28% 17% 39%

About the Same 33% 17% 22%

Less Than 39% 67% 39%

Respondents favored the perception that they spent less time on marketing than direct

competitors. When asked about their perception of marketing expertise in comparison to direct

competitors, there was a perception of parity overall. In contrast, 67% of the respondents

perceived they spent less money than their direct competitors. This was double the response of

both more than and about the same.

Exploration of microbusiness marketing strategies. The microbusiness marketing

strategies of personal selling, digital strategies, relationship marketing, word of mouth,

networking, and branding have been identified as effective strategies that can improve marketing

effectiveness. These marketing strategies were explored using Likert-scale questions, ratings,

and open-ended questions. The purpose of exploring these specific marketing strategies was to

measure the respondent’s perception of effectiveness, identify common themes, and identify

opportunities to address the barriers of lack of time, money, and marketing expertise.

The personal selling process was explored with 72% of the microbusiness operators

responding that they were always involved in the personal selling process. An additional 17%

were often involved in the selling process for a total of 89% of microbusiness operators actively

involved in the personal selling process. The respondent was the primary point of contact for

customers with 67% of the mentions. Key descriptions of personal selling from the respondents


were face-to-face selling and education of customers. Customer service was also a key

description.

Digital strategies were deemed to be important to the success of microbusiness marketing

by respondents in this study. The importance of digital strategies averaged a rating of 4.4 on the

Likert scale. The digital tools that were identified were Web site, Facebook, Instagram,

YouTube, search, Twitter, and forums. The respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of

digital strategies were rated a 3.6, which is positive. The measurement tools mentioned were

analytics, sales conversions, customer feedback, and customer response (i.e., phone calls and

coupons).

The microbusiness operators’ personal satisfaction with their own digital expertise rated a

2.8, which was negative. There were only five Likert scale ratings at 4 or 5 out of 18

questionnaires on personal satisfaction with their own digital expertise. When asked to describe

their expertise responses included, “trial and error” and “figure it out.” There were mentions of

learning-specific digital tools such as YouTube, Google, and Facebook. One respondent hired a

vendor to manage the digital strategy.

Relationship marketing was rated an important marketing strategy at 4.9 on the Likert

scale. Specifically, face-to-face or direct contact was the number one response with 11 mentions.

Networking was mentioned eight times and customer focus was mentioned seven times.

Community visibility was mentioned six times and education was mentioned four times.

Word of mouth was rated as an important marketing strategy at 4.9. Asking for referrals

from customers was the number one response with eight mentions. Word of mouth was linked

with relationship marketing, garnering five mentions. Customer focus had four mentions and

location was identified as a word-of-mouth strategy with two mentions.


Networking was rated as an important marketing strategy at 4.6. Local organizations such

as chambers of commerce, community organizations, economic development organizations, and

local government agencies were identified by 50% of the respondents. Community, organization,

and customer events were identified by 33% of the respondents. Personal relationships and being

visible in the community were identified by 20% of the respondents.

The microbusiness operators were asked about the concept of being the face of the

business that is both the brand and the focal point of the marketing. The average response rating

was 4.7, which indicates a high level of agreement with this strategy. The respondents’

descriptions of their branding strategies focused in on the key areas of customer relationship

building, personal service, and relating to the individual needs of customers. Face branding was

identified in the descriptions as an overt strategy in 50% of the interviews.

Researcher observations. The researcher filled out the observation form (see

APPENDIX B) that was used as a triangulation tool after each interview. The observations

included a general overview of the business, digital marketing examples, marketing evidence at

the participant’s place of business, evidence of marketing expertise in conversations with the

participant, and a general evaluation of the marketing strategy for the microbusiness. The

observations of how the respondents answered questions and the relative level of confidence in

the response provided context for the descriptions. The triangulation compared the researcher’s

observations of the specific microbusiness with the participants’ responses to the questions. The

researcher evaluated the alignment of the responses with the observations. Of the 18 interviews,

14 were conducted at the respondent’s place of business. One retail store microbusiness

respondent did not want to conduct the interview at the place of business because he could not

focus on the interview in that environment. That interview was conducted at a coffee shop. One


interview for the restaurant-hospitality microbusiness was conducted at the researcher’s home

because of numerous scheduling issues with the respondent. The researcher visited the two

businesses after the interviews and observed the marketing environments. The two consultant

interviews were conducted at coffee shops because of the microbusiness being based at the

respondent’s home. For the consultant interviews, a physical place assessment was not

performed. Both consultants had extensive digital marketing presence along with their observed

marketing expertise. In all cases, the observations were consistent with the interview responses.

The researcher observed that activities such as customer service, customer inquiries, and

sales calls were considered daily business activities rather than marketing activities. The

researcher observed that the personal selling process was considered a routine part of customer

service and daily business operations rather than a marketing strategy. These observations led to

the insight that microbusiness operators were underestimating the time they spend on marketing.

The observation of the researcher was that the marketing budgeting process was based on

judgement and intuition rather than data and analysis. This observation was based on the

vagueness, indirect responses, and a lack of confidence in the responses by the microbusiness

operators. The observation of the researcher was that measuring the return on investment of the

marketing budgeting was a difficult subject for microbusiness operators. The answers were

vague and disjointed. The researcher had to ask numerous questions and follow up repeatedly to

solicit answers. Respondents also lacked confidence in their answers. These observations led to

the insight that improvement in marketing expertise should include data-driven budgeting and

return on investment analysis.

The microbusiness owner’s marketing strategy revolved around building and maintaining

relationships with customers, influencers, community members, and business organizations.


Discussions on relationship marketing, networking, branding, and word-of-mouth marketing

elicited positive responses and high levels of descriptive feedback. The researcher observed that

the respondents were confident in their descriptions of these specific strategies and confident in

their ability to implement these strategies during daily business operations. The terms

relationship marketing and word of mouth were used interchangeably during the discussions with

respondents. The researcher observed that networking was linked to relationship and word-of-

mouth marketing in the discussions. These observations led to the insight that rather than

relationship marketing, word of mouth, networking, and branding being separate and distinct

concepts, they were integrated as one general concept in the microbusiness operator’s marketing

strategy.

The researcher observed that the microbusiness owner’s involvement in customer service,

personal selling, and daily business operations can result in a face-branding strategy even if it is

not an overt strategy. The respondents who did not overtly identify a face-branding strategy still

practiced a face-branding strategy through their actions of visibility and dealing with customers

personally. This led to the insight that face-branding strategies are a key aspect of microbusiness

marketing strategy and a source of competitive advantage.

Discussion

One of the objectives of this study was to achieve a thorough and detailed understanding

of the issues of the effect of limited time, money, and marketing expertise on marketing

performance. Through the interview and observation processes, the researcher gathered detailed

data about the specific issues of limited time, money, marketing expertise, and specific

marketing strategies of microbusiness operators. The detailed descriptive data were coded and


analyzed. The analysis identified themes that provided insight into the specific issues related to

limited time, money, marketing expertise, and specific microbusiness marketing strategies.

Theme: Narrow definition of marketing. The first theme that emerged was the narrow

definition of marketing as promotion and advertising. Microbusiness operators in this study

defined marketing as promotion and advertising. Personal selling and customer service were

considered to be routine daily operational activities. A more holistic view of marketing with a

focus on customer acquisition, engagement, and retention may yield a more effective marketing

strategy.

Theme: Underestimation of time spent on marketing. A theme emerged that

microbusiness operators narrowly defined marketing as promotion and advertising when

estimating the time spent on marketing. They spent time on customer service, sales, and

customer relationships but did not consider these daily operating activities to be marketing. This

indicates that microbusiness owners underestimate their time spent on marketing by not

including customer activities and the sales process.

Limited time was ranked the number one barrier by the respondents. The respondents

also perceived that they were not spending enough time on marketing to achieve their goals.

However, by analyzing their time spent on customer service, sales, and customer relationships,

microbusiness operators may be spending enough time on marketing to achieve their goals. The

satisfaction levels of 3.6 and 3.3 for previous full year and YTD sales performance along with

26% and 15% sales increases respectively indicate that they are spending enough time on

marketing, which is in direct contrast to their perception of not spending enough time on

marketing.


Theme: Underestimation of the money spent on marketing. Microbusiness operators

in this study narrowly defined marketing as promotion and advertising. They spent time on

customer service, sales, and customer relationships but did not consider these daily operating

activities to be marketing. This suggests that microbusiness owners were not considering the

staffing costs of customer service and personal selling in their costs of marketing. The

microbusiness operators were satisfied with their marketing spend. A more robust analysis of the

total marketing investment that includes staffing costs may yield a more accurate assessment of

the amount of money spent on marketing.

Theme: Lack of a marketing budgeting process. The theme emerged that setting a

marketing budget was based on intuition and judgement rather than data and analysis. The

highest proportion of respondents (56%) used the affordability method where they spent what

they perceived they could afford. Cost minimization was identified by 11% of the respondents as

their budgeting method. The researcher observed a lack of confidence in their description of their

ability to use data in the marketing budgeting process. This lack of a marketing budgeting

process hinders the measurement process of marketing results. The lack of a marketing

budgeting process also negatively impacts the measurement of return on investment of the

marketing spend. There is an opportunity to improve microbusiness marketing results through

the use of a data-driven marketing budgeting process with reliable measures of results and return

on investment.

Theme: Improvement of the return-on-investment process. The theme emerged that

the respondents did not measure return on investment effectively. The researcher observed that

respondents were willing to spend more money on marketing if they were confident of a positive

return on investment. The lack of effective return-on-investment measurement led microbusiness


operators to conclude that they should only spend what they could afford or use a cost-

minimization strategy. An effective return-on-investment analysis would enable the

microbusiness operators to measure the return on investment of the marketing spend.

Theme: High interest level in improving marketing expertise. Microbusiness

operators perceived that their marketing expertise was adequate. A theme emerged that

microbusiness operators were interested in improving their marketing expertise. The rating for

interest level in improving marketing expertise was positive at 4.1 on the Likert scale. There did

appear to be an association between higher perceived marketing expertise and sales performance

in this study.

Theme: High interest level in improving digital marketing expertise. Digital

marketing was a key area of improvement identified by respondents. The satisfaction on digital

marketing expertise was rated a low 2.8 on the Likert scale. A theme emerged that microbusiness

operator’s digital marketing expertise, as one respondent stated, “needs improvement.” The

researcher observed that respondents lacked confidence and had difficulty describing their digital

marketing strategies. Education of microbusiness operators on digital marketing expertise is an

opportunity to improve microbusiness marketing results.

Theme: Traditional marketing strategies are effective. The theme emerged that

respondents considered the traditional marketing tools of personal selling, relationship

marketing, word of mouth, networking, and branding strategies to be effective. The researcher

observed that a majority of respondents exhibited a competent skill set and effective

implementation of traditional marketing strategies. In addition, traditional marketing tools are

low cost and can be integrated into daily operations. There is an opportunity to integrate overtly


traditional marketing strategies into daily operations thereby increasing the efficiency of time

and money allocated to marketing.

Summary


and money that microbusiness operators spend on marketing. Time and money along with the

perception of marketing expertise were then compared to the previous year and YTD sales

increase. In addition, specific microbusiness marketing strategies were explored to identify

opportunities to improve microbusiness marketing performance.

There were 18 respondents who represented 12 different types of microbusinesses,

ranging from start-ups with low sales to established businesses with sales in excess of $1 million.

The respondents rated the importance of marketing to be high with a 4.4 rating. Respondents

were satisfied with their previous year’s sales performance with a 3.6 rating and an average year-

over-year’s sales increase of 26%. In this study, there was no direct association found between

the time or money spent on marketing to sales performance. There did appear to be an

association between higher levels of marketing expertise and higher sales performance for the

previous year. In this study, respondents who rated their marketing expertise 5 on the Likert

scale had higher than average sales performance. Themes emerged that microbusiness operators

had a narrow definition of marketing, the time spent on marketing was underestimated, the

money spent on marketing was underestimated, there was a high interest level in improving

marketing expertise, there was a lack of a marketing budgeting process, improvement of the

return-on-investment process was needed, there was a high interest level in improving digital

marketing expertise, and traditional marketing strategies were effective.


Chapter 5:

Conclusions, Discussion, Recommendations, and Summary

Microbusinesses are an important segment of the United States economy (Headd, 2017).

Microbusinesses are key components of local economies and provide employment opportunities,

but microbusiness marketing has not been researched extensively (Premo-Hurt, 2016). Previous

studies identified that microbusinesses face significant barriers to success because of the effect of

the constraints of time, money, and marketing expertise (Brown-Peterson, 2017; Fluker, 2016;

Premo-Hurt, 2016).

This study addressed the gap in research on the effect of limited time, money, and

marketing expertise related to marketing performance as measured by sales performance.

Microbusiness operators were interviewed on their perceptions of the amount of time and money

they spent on marketing. They were queried on their perception of their level of marketing

expertise. The microbusiness operators were queried on their relative satisfaction with the sales

performance of the previous full year and current YTD. Their perceptions of time, money, and

marketing expertise were then compared to their sales performance. The study also explored

specific microbusiness marketing strategies that were identified as successful in previous studies.

The strategies were personal selling, digital marketing, relationship building, word of mouth,

networking, and branding.

Previous studies recommended larger sample sizes, a wide variety of types of

microbusinesses, and additional geographic areas (Demishkevich, 2015; Fluker, 2016; Gandy,

2015; Pai, 2017; Yang, 2015). The sample size was 18 respondents, which was significantly

larger than previous qualitative studies. A wide variety of microbusinesses from various sectors

and industries were interviewed compared to previous research that focused on specific types of


businesses. The research was conducted in a rural area of southwestern Wisconsin, which had

not been previously studied. The interviews were conducted by the researcher. The data were

compiled and coded for analysis along with theme identification. The researcher also observed

the participant’s digital marketing and place of business (where possible) for evidence to

triangulate the questionnaire responses.

Conclusions

There were 12 types of microbusinesses interviewed. The size of the microbusinesses

varied from start-ups with low sales to enterprises with sales more than $1 million. Of the 18

respondents, 16 were the owners of the microbusiness. The other two respondents were a

manager and an employee. Both the manager and the employee had extensive knowledge of the

microbusiness and the marketing operations. The respondents were experienced with 72%

having more than 10 years of experience and 56% of the businesses operated for at least 10

years. The sample represented a wide variety of microbusinesses.

The microbusiness operators perceived marketing to be important to success with an

average rating of 4.4 on the Likert scale. The 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (“strongly

disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). For microbusinesses that had physical locations, the

researcher observed the physical location for evidence of the importance of marketing. The

researcher also reviewed the digital marketing for all participating microbusinesses. The

observations of the researcher confirmed that marketing was an important aspect of their

business operations.

The microbusiness operators were questioned about their position on aggressive sales

growth. The respondent’s average rating was 3.6 on the Likert scale, indicating a positive stance

on pursuing aggressive growth. Nine (50%) of the respondents rated a 4 or 5, seeking to grow


aggressively sales. Two microbusinesses were not pursuing sales growth as a result of being at

capacity at the present time. In addition, seven (39%) responses were neutral at 3, indicating that

they were relatively satisfied with their current sales.

The five microbusiness operators who rated a 5 on aggressive growth spent the most time

on marketing with two responses of more than 10 hours, two responses of one to five hours, and

one response of six to 10 hours per week. The five lowest ratings on aggressive growth all spent

less than one hour per week on marketing. Three of the five respondents who rated a 5 on

aggressive growth perceived that they spent more time than their direct competition on

marketing. In contrast, three of the five respondents with the lowest rating on aggressive growth

perceived they spent less time on marketing than the direct competition. In this study,

microbusiness operators who were pursuing an aggressive growth strategy perceived that they

spent more time on marketing than microbusiness operators who were less aggressive on

pursuing sales growth.

Sales performance was measured based on their past full year’s percentage increase over

the previous year. There were four start-ups that did not respond to this question since they were

not in business during that time period. The average year-over-year sales increase for the

microbusinesses in operation in the previous year was 26%. When asked to rate their satisfaction

with that performance, the Likert scale rating was 3.6, indicating a positive average satisfaction

level. A total of nine of the 15 who responded (60%) rated their satisfaction a 4 or 5. The four

respondents who rated their satisfaction 5 averaged 51% sales increase, which was higher than

the average. On average, the microbusinesses in this study were successful at increasing sales

during this time period.


Sales performance was also measured on a YTD basis. The study was conducted in

August with more than 50% of the year completed. The average sales growth was 15% with a

3.3 satisfaction rating. Start-up businesses were again excluded from this calculation. A total of

seven of the 15 who responded (47%) rated their satisfaction a 4 or 5. The two respondents who

rated their satisfaction 5 averaged 44% sales increase. On average, the sales performance YTD

decreased when compared to the sales performance of the previous year for these

microbusinesses. The respondents were also less satisfied with their YTD sales performance

compared to the previous full year.

Research Question 1

One of the major issues for microbusiness operators is time allocation to the broad scope

of daily business activities. This led to the research question of what is the perception of

microbusiness operator’s time spent on marketing to sales performance? The average Likert-

scale rating of 2.3 indicated that the perception of the microbusiness operators was that they did

not spend enough time on marketing to achieve their goals.

When asked to estimate the amount of time they spent on marketing, 56% responded that

they spent less than one hour per week, 22% stated they spent one to five hours, 6% spent six to

10 hours per week, and 17% spent more than 10 hours per week. The data on time spent were

skewed to the low end of the measurement scale with 78% of the respondents stating that they

spent less than one hour per day on marketing. In this study, there appeared to be no direct

association between time spent on marketing and sales performance.

The daily challenges of running a microbusiness can negatively impact the time spent on

marketing (Premo-Hurt, 2016). This concept was confirmed in this study. Respondents averaged

a 3.7 rating (indicating positive agreement) to the question of whether the daily challenges of


running a business negatively impact the time spent on marketing. The respondents who rated

the question a 4 or 5 were then asked to explain the reason for their rating. The four issues that

arose from the responses were daily business functions, customer service, not enough staff, and

crisis management. Comments such as “in charge of everything,” “putting out fires,” “constant

interruptions,” and “crisis management” indicated that the daily challenges of running a

microbusiness created significant issues in time management for microbusiness operators. The

data indicated that microbusiness operators perceived that the daily challenges of running a

microbusiness negatively impacted the time spent on marketing.

In this study, microbusiness operators defined marketing as tactical promotion that they

spent money on such as digital, mass traditional advertising (i.e., newspaper and radio), public

relations, sponsorships, and short-term purchase incentives (i.e., deals). Microbusiness operators

considered marketing as promotion that they paid for and accounted for as a variable marketing

expense. They did not consider their own staffing cost to be a marketing cost. A theme emerged

that microbusiness operators did not view marketing as a strategic business function, but rather

narrowly defined it as promotion and advertising. The narrow definition of marketing led to the

theme that microbusiness operators underestimated the time they spent on marketing.

The descriptions of daily challenges by the respondents included references to customer

service, customer needs, and personal selling. Microbusiness operators spent time on customer

service, sales, and customer relationships, but did not consider these business activities to be

marketing in this study. This indicates that microbusiness operators underestimated their time

spent on marketing by not including customer activities and the sales process. This theme also

suggests that there is opportunity to integrate marketing into daily business operations to increase

the time spent on marketing.


Microbusiness operators perceived that they were not spending enough time on

marketing to achieve their sales goals. In contrast, the microbusiness operators were satisfied

with their sales performance for the previous full year and YTD. The dissonance between

microbusiness operators perceiving that they were not spending enough time on marketing and

satisfaction with sales performance supports the theme that microbusiness operators were

underestimating the time spent on marketing. In this study, there appears to be no direct

association between the time spent on marketing and sales performance.

Research Question 2

Microbusinesses often struggle with financial issues and marketing is often underfunded

(Jenkins, 2015). The research question was what is the microbusiness operator’s perception of

the relationship of money spent on marketing to sales performance? Respondents were satisfied

with their sales performance, rating the 26% average sales increase year over year at 3.6 on the

Likert scale. The respondents were less satisfied with YTD sales increase of 15% with a 3.3

Likert-scale rating.

When questioned on their marketing budgets, 28% of respondents estimated they spent

less than $100 per month on marketing, 56% of respondents spent $101 to $500, 6% spent $501

to $1,000, 11% spent $1,001 to $2,000, and 6% spent more than $2,000 per month. The

respondents who spent less than $100 per month averaged 30% sales growth year-over-year

growth. The largest cluster of respondents who spent $101 to $500 averaged a 12% sales

increase. For this sample of microbusinesses, there did not appear to be a direct association

between the money spent on marketing and sales performance.

When asked to compare themselves to their direct competition, 17% of the respondents

perceived they spent more than their direct competition on marketing, 17% about the same, and


67% perceived they spent less than the direct competition. The perception of 67% of the

respondents that they spent less than the competition on marketing may indicate that there is

opportunity to increase the level of spending on marketing to improve sales performance. The

researcher observed a theme that microbusiness operators were willing to spend more money on

marketing, but were not convinced that the higher spend had a positive return on investment.

One of the issues that related to the perception of poor return on investment of additional

marketing money was that the process of setting a marketing budget was not well-defined by the

respondents. Asked about their marketing budgeting method, 6% used a fixed amount per month,

56% spent what was left over-what can be afforded, 28% used a combination of methods, and

11% did not have a budgeting method but rather used cost minimization. The researcher’s

observation was that marketing budgeting for these microbusiness operators tended to be based

on judgement, perception, and intuition. The researcher observed vagueness, indirect references,

and a lack of confidence in the responses. These responses align with Premo-Hurt’s (2016)

findings that microbusiness operators make decisions based on their intuition and perceptions.

The theme emerged that there was a lack of a data-driven marketing budgeting process.

Measuring return on investment from marketing is often difficult. This can further inhibit

investments in marketing (Reibstein & Pauwels, 2010). When queried on their measurement of

return on investment on the marketing spend, the average Likert-scale rating was neutral at 3.1.

This neutral rating indicates an equilibrium where they perceived they were spending enough

money on marketing. When questioned on their level of marketing spend, the microbusiness

operators stated they would be willing to spend more money on marketing if they were confident

of a positive return on investment. Caruth (2016) presented research that marketing measurement

needs to be tied to sales generation. There were only two mentions of measuring return on


investment by sales results from respondents. Improved measurement of return on investment is

an opportunity for microbusiness operators to increase marketing performance.

The researcher observed that the microbusiness operators in this study had difficulty

describing their return on investment measurement process. The responses were limited in

number and the respondents provided vague answers on measuring the return on investment of

the marketing budget. There were few positive digital analytic responses that support the

conclusion by Demishkevich (2015) who found that small businesses had an inadequate

measurement system for digital marketing results. The observation of the researcher was that

respondents were neither confident nor precise in their descriptions of measuring the return on

investment of the marketing budget. The theme that improvement of the return-on-investment

process is an opportunity to improve microbusiness marketing performance was supported.

Microbusiness operators perceived that they were spending an adequate amount of

money on marketing and, on average, were satisfied with their sales performance. They

perceived that they spent less than their direct competition. They tended to set their marketing

budgets using the affordability method, relying on judgement and intuition. The respondents had

difficulty measuring the return on investment on the marketing budget. In this study there

appears to be no direct association between the money spent on marketing and sales

performance. The themes emerged that a data-driven marketing budgeting process and

measurement of return on investment are opportunities to improve microbusiness marketing

performance.

Research Question 3

Limited expertise in marketing is a significant issue for business success (Marom &

Lussier, 2014). Expertise in key marketing capabilities has been positively linked to successful


marketing performance (Haniff & Halim, 2014). In this study, the research question was what is

the perceived relationship of marketing expertise to sales performance? The respondents were

asked to rate their level of marketing expertise on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (“low level”) to 5

(“high level”). The overall rating of the perception of the microbusiness operator’s marketing

expertise was adequate at 2.9 on the Likert scale. There was only one microbusiness owner who

rated his or her marketing expertise a 5, and two rated a 4. There were eight ratings of 3 and six

ratings of 2. There were no rankings of 1. Microbusiness operators who rated their satisfaction

with their year-over-year sales performance 5 averaged a 3.5 rating on their marketing expertise.

When asked to compare their perception of their marketing expertise to the direct competition,

39% responded that they perceived that they had more marketing expertise than the direct

competition, 22% responded about the same, and 39% responded less, which supports the

perception of the respondents that their marketing expertise on average was adequate. In this

study, there appeared to be a positive association between the level of marketing expertise and

previous year’s sales performance.

When asked to describe their marketing expertise, there were eight mentions that their

current skill set was adequate (capable), five mentions that they learn new tools, and three

mentions each of education, industry tools, and previous marketing experience. The theme that

marketing was narrowly defined as promotion and advertising was supported in the respondent’s

descriptions of their marketing expertise. Tactical promotion tools such as social media, videos,

fliers, Web sites, content, signage, campaigns, customer promotions, and public relations were

described by seven of the respondents. Sales activities were mentioned twice. The core

marketing concepts of customer service and branding were mentioned once. The researcher


observed that marketing expertise descriptions were focused on short-term promotions and

tactical in theme.

There were four mentions that the microbusiness operator was not capable of marketing.

Concerns over marketing capability included the time and effort that negatively affected other

operational areas of the business, the small size of business that did not have the scale to afford

marketing, and that the microbusiness operator did not enjoy the marketing activities.

Microbusiness operators also mentioned that they were “old school” and not capable of applying

modern digital marketing strategies. Of the four microbusiness operators who stated they were

not capable of marketing, two of the microbusiness operators were start-ups, one had a 20% sales

decline, and one had a 25% sales increase.

Microbusiness operators were interested in improving their marketing expertise. The

average Likert-scale rating was 4.1, which indicated a high interest. The researcher observed a

high level of interest in improving their marketing expertise when participants responded to the

question. The theme emerged that microbusiness operators had a high-interest level in improving

their marketing expertise in general and a specific high-interest level in improving digital

marketing expertise. In this study, there appeared to be a positive association between the level

of marketing expertise and sales performance.

Exploration of Barriers to Marketing Effectiveness

The barriers of lack of time, lack of money, lack of marketing expertise, return on

investment of the marketing spend, and marketing is not a priority in daily operations were

explored from a relative importance perspective. Respondents were asked to rate the relative

importance of each barrier in the context of marketing operations by major barrier, substantial


barrier, somewhat of a barrier, and not a barrier. The purpose of this area of inquiry was to

explore the relative importance of these barriers to marketing effectiveness.

Lack of time was rated the most important barrier with four ratings of major and six

ratings of substantial. These responses support the low 2.3 Likert-scale rating when the

microbusiness operators were asked if they spent enough time on marketing to achieve their

objectives. The lack of money was the second most important barrier with two ratings of major,

two ratings of substantial, and nine ratings of somewhat. The researcher observed that

respondents related the lack of money to the lack of return on investment on the marketing

spend. Return on investment of the marketing spend was the third most important barrier with

nine responses that it was somewhat of a barrier and six responses that it was not a barrier.

Microbusiness operators rated the lack of marketing expertise as the fourth most important

barrier. Marketing is not a priority was the least important barrier with 13 of the 18 (72%)

participants responding that it was not a barrier. This supports the previous 4.4 Likert-scale

rating of the importance of marketing. The respondent’s ratings of the relative importance of

each barrier confirmed the Likert-scale ratings for the barriers of time, money, and marketing

expertise.

Relative Comparison of Barriers to Direct Competitors

The microbusiness operators were questioned on their perception of how they compare to

direct competitors on time, money, and marketing expertise. The questions asked the respondents

to perceive if they spent more, about the same, or less time on marketing than their direct

competition. The question was repeated for money and marketing expertise. Respondents

favored at 39% the perception that they spent less time on marketing than direct competitors

compared to 33% who thought they spent about the same amount of time and 28% who


perceived they spent more time. The ratings were similar for marketing expertise with 39% who

perceived they had less, 22% about the same, and 39% who perceived they had more marketing

expertise than their direct competition. In contrast to similar ratings for time and marketing

expertise, 67% of the respondents perceived they spent less money than their direct competitors.

This was double the response of both more than at 17% and about the same at 17%. There may

be a dissonance between the respondent’s perceptions that they were spending an adequate

amount of money on marketing to achieve their sales performance goals based on the perception

that they spent less than the direct competition. The perception of 67% of the respondents that

they spent less money on marketing than their direct competitors supports the theme that

microbusiness operators would be willing to spend more money on marketing if they were

confident of a positive return on investment.

Microbusiness Marketing Strategies

The purpose of this aspect of the descriptive case study was to support and further

explore previous research on successful microbusiness marketing strategies. Specifically, the

concepts of personal selling, digital strategies, relationship marketing, word of mouth,

networking, and branding were explored. These marketing strategies were explored in the

context of the daily operational issues of limited time, money, and marketing expertise.

Gibbons (2015) found that the small-business marketing strategies of brand awareness,

community involvement, customer loyalty, and seizing operational opportunities were

successful. These marketing strategies are low cost, customer focused, and integrated into daily

business operations. O’Donnell (2011) identified key themes of small-business marketing as a

framework of customer relationships, bottom up, use of technology, creative use of resources,

and word-of-mouth promotion. These themes focus on low-cost marketing and are customer


focused. The marketing strategies of branding, customer service, relationship marketing,

networking, and word of mouth are low cost and can be integrated into daily operations, thereby

creating competitive advantage.

Personal selling was an integral part of the microbusiness operator’s marketing strategy

in this study. There was an emphasis on personal selling with 89% of microbusiness operators

responding that they were highly involved in the personal selling process. The microbusiness

operators were the primary point of contact and education for customers. Even though personal

selling was an important microbusiness marketing strategy, a theme emerged from the research

that personal selling was not considered marketing by microbusiness operators. It was considered

a routine daily operational activity. Personal selling was not accounted for in their estimates of

time, money, or marketing expertise. This supports the themes that microbusiness operators

underestimate the time and money spent on marketing.

Caruth (2016), Brown-Peterson (2017), and Jenkins (2015) found that digital strategies

were important in small-business success. These findings were supported in this study. Digital

strategies were deemed to be important to the success of microbusiness marketing with an

average rating of 4.4. The respondent’s perception of the effectiveness of digital strategies was

rated 3.6, which was positive. The microbusiness operator’s personal satisfaction with their own

digital expertise was rated a 2.8, which was negative. In addition, the researcher’s observation

was that the respondents’ answers were vague and lacked confidence. A theme emerged that

improvement in microbusiness operator’s digital marketing expertise can provide opportunities

for increased marketing effectiveness.

Bruce (2016) found that relationship marketing was an effective small-business

marketing strategy. This concept was supported by the microbusiness operators rating


relationship marketing importance high at 4.9. The microbusiness operators focused on face-to-

face or direct contact, networking, and customer service. Being visible in the community and

educating customers were also deemed important by respondents. The researcher observed that

the exploration of relationship marketing elicited positive responses and high levels of

descriptive feedback. The microbusiness operators valued the relationships with their customers

and stakeholders. The microbusiness operator’s marketing strategy revolved around building and

maintaining relationships with customers, influencers, community members, and business

organizations.

O’Donnell’s (2011) research on the importance of word-of-mouth marketing was

supported in this study with a 4.9 Likert-scale rating from the microbusinesses. In this study,

respondents focused on asking for referrals from customers. Word of mouth was mentioned by

respondents when discussing relationship marketing and customer focus, indicating that the

marketing strategies were interrelated. Similar to relationship marketing, the researcher’s

observation was that this question elicited positive responses and high levels of descriptive

feedback. The terms relationship marketing and word of mouth were used interchangeably

during the discussions with microbusiness operators. Word of mouth was perceived to be a

successful marketing strategy for microbusiness operators in this study.

Networking was rated important with a 4.6 rating, which supported Premo-Hurt’s (2016)

research. Respondents’ networking strategies in this study focused on local organizations such as

the local chamber of commerce, community organizations, economic development organizations,

and local government agencies. Being visible in the community at events such as parades and

meetings along with personal relationships were identified as networking opportunities by the


microbusiness operators. The researcher observed that networking was directly linked to

relationship and word-of-mouth marketing in the discussions with respondents.

Bruce (2016) and Gandy (2015) found that the operator’s personality played an important

role in relationship building with customers. This concept was explored with the microbusiness

operators. They were asked about the concept of being the face of the business that was both the

brand and the focal point of the marketing. The average response rating was 4.7, which indicated

a high level of agreement with this strategy. The respondents’ descriptions of their branding

strategies focused on the key areas of customer relationship building, personal service, and

relating to the individual needs of customers. Face-branding was identified in the descriptions as

an overt strategy in 50% of the interviews. The researcher observed that the microbusiness

operators’ involvement in customer service, personal selling, and daily business operations can

result in a face-branding strategy even if it was not a stated overt strategy.

The theme emerged that traditional marketing strategies were perceived as effective.

Relationship building, word of mouth, networking, and branding strategies were used extensively

by the respondents. The respondents interconnected the terms and used them interchangeably.

Traditional marketing strategies can be cost and time efficient.

Discussion

The concept of microbusiness marketing with limited time, money, and marketing

expertise was the subject of this descriptive case study. Microbusiness operators make decisions

based on their intuition and perceptions and on resource allocation on a daily basis (Premo-Hurt,

2016). The microbusiness operator’s decisions on how to spend limited time and money

resources on marketing is a key factor in microbusiness success. In addition, the microbusiness

operator’s marketing expertise has a direct influence on marketing decisions (Gandy, 2015).


Marketing was a priority with microbusiness operators rating it a 4.4 on its importance.

The marketing was not a focus barrier was rated as not a barrier by 72% of the respondents,

which supports that marketing was a priority to the respondents in this study. These findings

confirm Pai’s (2017) research that marketing was important to microbusiness operators.

Theme: Narrow definition of marketing. Even though marketing was a priority to

microbusiness operators, they described a narrow definition of marketing. Microbusiness

operators in this study defined marketing as promotion and advertising. Personal selling and

customer service were considered to be routine daily operational activities. The researcher

observed that the higher-level strategic marketing models such as market orientation were

mentioned by only three of the respondents. The theme of a narrow definition of marketing limits

the opportunities to implement strategic marketing strategies and activities.

Businesses that developed a market orientation strategy to implement a specific set of

marketing activities had improved business performance and customer satisfaction (Gupta et al.,

2015). Specifically, the marketing concept of four P’s is applicable to microbusiness. The four

P’s can be applied to microbusiness marketing strategies to pursue a market orientation direction.

The application of the marketing orientation may result in a strategic view of marketing with a

focus on customer acquisition, engagement, and retention. The microbusiness operators may

benefit from a strategic view of marketing with its focus on customer satisfaction. The

application of strategic marketing on a daily basis may aid the microbusiness operator in using

time more effectively. This focus may yield a more effective marketing strategy by positioning

marketing as a strategic tool rather than focusing on tactical promotion. The result of an effective

marketing strategy is a higher level of satisfied customers, which increases marketing

performance. A microbusiness operator who focuses on a more strategic view of marketing has


the opportunity to create competitive advantage through a more focused and effective marketing

strategy.

In addition to implementing the marketing orientation as a business strategy, the

promotion mix was an area that the researcher observed to need improvement. The first

improvement was to expand the promotion mix from a focus on short-term direct customer

promotions, mass advertising, and digital to include personal selling and public relations. The

respondents focused on short-term, price-oriented promotions, advertising, and digital tools.

Personal selling was not considered as a promotion tool, but rather a routine daily operating

activity. Public relations is a promotion tool that fits microbusiness marketing strategies. Public

relations creates information that can be used to educate customers, garner free publicity, supply

digital content on Web sites, and provide social media content. The strategy of using all the

promotion tools of public relations—direct customer promotions, personal selling, mass

advertising, and digital—can increase the effectiveness of the promotion strategy.

In addition to using all of the promotion tools, the promotion tools should be coordinated,

integrated, and leveraged to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the promotion strategy.

The marketing orientation focuses the promotion on the customer’s needs. For example, a

microbusiness may be in a situation where the customer needs a high level of information to

make a decision. Public relations can be used to create content that is valuable to the customer

and information rich. The public relations content can be used in advertising and sales materials.

The public relations content can be posted on the digital platforms, including Web site, social

media, and e-mail. The content can be used in the personal selling process to educate customers

during the sales call. The leverage of public relations content can create a more effective


promotion strategy and is cost effective. The leverage of content across the promotion tools is a

key area of improvement for microbusiness marketing.

Theme: Underestimation of the time spent on marketing. Flying Solo (2017) found

that 44% of the microbusinesses spent little or no time on marketing. This study supported this

finding with 56% of the respondents spending less than 1 hour per week on marketing. When

respondents were asked if they generally spent enough time on marketing each week to achieve

their goals, their response was negative at 2.3. Lack of time was also identified in this study as

the most significant barrier of the three barriers of lack of time, lack of money, and lack of

marketing expertise. Microbusiness operators perceived that they were not spending enough time

on marketing.

Microbusiness operators who were pursuing an aggressive growth strategy perceived that

they spent more time on marketing than microbusiness operators who were less aggressive on

pursuing sales growth in this study. Respondents pursuing aggressive growth also perceived they

spent more time than their direct competition on marketing. The growth goals of microbusiness

operators appear to have an association with their time allocation to marketing in this study.

The perception that they were not spending enough time on marketing was contradicted

by the marketing performance, as measured by sales results. The previous year’s average sales

increase was 26% and the relative satisfaction was positive with a 3.6 rating. While YTD

average sales increase slowed to 15% and the satisfaction rating declined to 3.3, the results were

positive. There was a dissonance between the perception of not spending enough time on

marketing and achieving positive sales results. This may be related to the lack of measurement of

marketing results, which rated an overall neutral rating of 3.1.


When daily business issues take priority, marketing was often neglected (Reiner et al.,

2016). The perception of microbusiness operators not spending enough time on marketing also

may be driven by the pressure of daily operations reducing the amount of time allocated to

marketing. Respondents identified customer inquiry and customer service as routine daily

activities rather than marketing activities. A theme arose that microbusiness operators were

underestimating the time spent on marketing as a result of not considering personal selling and

customer service activities as marketing.

Gibbons (2015) presented a strategy to make time for marketing by seizing operational

opportunities. The daily operational activities of a business that include personal selling,

handling customer inquiries, and customer service create an opportunity to integrate promotion

activities into the daily activities. The researcher observed that respondents in this study

supported this concept by focusing on personal selling and customer relationships in daily

operations. A more focused effort on integrating marketing in daily operations has the potential

to increase efficiently the time spent on marketing to improve marketing results.

Lack of staffing has been identified as an issue in microbusiness marketing. Hillary

(2017) found that lack of staffing contributes to the feeling of being overwhelmed by

microbusiness operators. In this study, only two microbusinesses hired staff to conduct

marketing activities. Lack of staffing is also related to the lack of money barrier, as

microbusinesses may not have the financial resources to hire more staff. In contrast, adding more

staff has the potential to add time resources to address the barrier of lack of time to spend on

marketing. Microbusiness operators may want to consider hiring staff to increase the time

resources available to allocate to marketing.


In this study, there appeared to be no association between the time spent on marketing

and sales performance. This could be a result of underestimating the time spent on marketing and

not considering activities such as personal selling and customer service as marketing. Another

reason was that businesses such as real estate management and wholesale distribution did not

appear to be sensitive to promotion activities in this study. These types of business are operations

and customer-service focused. In many cases, a successful microbusiness operation attracts and

retains customers through customer satisfaction rather than promotion. This concept supports the

focus on daily operations with an emphasis on customer service as a marketing strategy that is

time efficient.

Theme: Underestimation of money spent on marketing. In this study, microbusiness

operators perceived that they were spending enough money on marketing and, on average, were

satisfied with their sales performance. Indeed, 28% of respondents spent less than $100 per

month on marketing. A contributing factor to relative satisfaction with the marketing spend was

that selling costs and customer service costs were considered operating costs rather than

marketing costs. Another contributing factor was that microbusinesses focus on relationship

marketing, word of mouth, and networking, which are inexpensive marketing strategies. If the

cost of the microbusiness operator’s time spent on personal selling, relationship building, word

of mouth, networking, and customer service were quantified, it would increase the level of

marketing spend.

Gibbons (2015) and Au (2015) presented the concept of integrating low-cost marketing

with daily business operations. The studies found that small businesses use the themes of brand

awareness, community involvement, customer loyalty, and seizing operational opportunities as

successful marketing strategies. This concept was supported in this research study.


Microbusiness operators emphasized community involvement, customer focus, and customer

satisfaction in their descriptions. The microbusiness operators interrelated the marketing

activities of relationships, word of mouth, and networking in their descriptions. These three

strategies can be leveraged in daily business operations and interactions with customers to

improve marketing performance.

Theme: Lack of a marketing budgeting process. The underestimating of marketing

costs and lack of measurement of return on investment may be directly related to the lack of

analysis on setting marketing budgets. In this study, 56% of microbusiness operators set

marketing budgets using the affordability method, which focused on intuition and judgement. If

the microbusiness operator does not use data and objectives to set the budget and the baseline of

comparison, the measurement of results and return on investment can be challenging.

Microbusiness operators may also lack the marketing expertise to create marketing objectives,

collect data, and analyze the data. Improving the ability of the microbusiness operators to

implement a data-driven marketing budgeting process is an opportunity to improve marketing

operations.

Theme: Improvement of the return-on-investment process. In this study, the

respondents had issues with measuring the return on investment of the marketing spend.

Microbusiness operators were neutral when asked to evaluate the effectiveness of their

measurement of return on investment of the marketing spend. The researcher observed that

respondents were hesitant in their answers and only five of 18 (27.7%) rated the return on

investment measurement 4 or 5 on the Likert scale. The descriptions of their ratings were brief,

vague, and disjointed. Only two mentioned sales results as a measurement of return on

investment. In addition, 67% of the respondents identified lack of return on investment as a


barrier to their marketing effectiveness. A theme arose that microbusiness operators would spend

more on marketing if they were confident of a positive return on investment for both the money

and time invested. There is an opportunity to improve marketing operations through measuring

return on investment of the marketing spend.

Theme: High-interest level in improving marketing expertise. Marketing expertise

has been identified as a significant influence on business success (Marom & Lussier, 2014).

Expertise in key marketing capabilities along with business education, including marketing, have

been shown to influence positively marketing performance (Chanu & Sharma, 2015; Haniff &

Halim, 2014). This study supported the concept that higher levels of marketing expertise have a

positive effect on marketing performance. Microbusiness operators in this study perceived their

marketing expertise as adequate at an average rating of 2.9 on the Likert scale. Microbusiness

operators who rated their sales performance 5 averaged a 3.5 on their marketing expertise.

Improving the marketing expertise of microbusiness operators is a strategy that has potential to

improve marketing performance.

The narrow definition of marketing was identified in this study as an issue that may

negatively influence marketing performance. Education on strategic marketing using marketing

orientation, including four P’s analysis, has the potential to impact positively customer

acquisition, engagement, and retention. Moving from a tactical limited promotion emphasis to a

strategic marketing emphasis may improve the utilization of limited time and money resources,

thereby resulting in enhanced marketing performance.

The narrow definition of marketing also creates opportunities to expand and improve the

promotion mix for microbusiness operators. Education on the key promotion areas of personal

selling, public relations, digital, customer promotions, and mass advertising can create the


opportunity to expand the microbusiness operator’s promotion tools. In addition, the integration

of the tools in daily operations can create time and money efficiencies. The coordination and

integration of the promotion mix can create efficiencies to improve the effectiveness of the

marketing spend.

Microbusiness operators in this study were interested in improving their marketing

expertise. When asked to rate their level of interest in improving their marketing expertise, the

response was positive with an average rating was 4.1 on the Likert scale. This creates the

opportunity for small-business support organizations to offer education opportunities such as

seminars, classes, and individual business support. Microbusiness operators should also be

encouraged to seek out educational opportunities to improve their marketing expertise.

The microbusiness strategy is typically focused on the operator’s specific skill set and

expertise, which may not include marketing. In addition, microbusiness operators tend not to

have a formal education in business or engage with external support agencies (Yang, 2015).

Therefore, they need marketing expertise support from community‐based networks (Miller et al.,

2010). This dynamic creates an opportunity for communities to support microbusinesses through

offering programs to increase marketing expertise.

Theme: High-interest level in improving digital marketing expertise. Digital

marketing strategies have been identified as key tools for successful microbusinesses (Jenkins,

2015). The findings of this study confirmed the concept that digital marketing was an important

marketing tool for microbusinesses. The importance of digital strategies averaged a rating of 4.4

on the Likert scale. The microbusiness operators’ perceptions of the effectiveness of digital

strategies was rated a 3.6, which was positive. However, the microbusiness operators’ personal

satisfaction with their own digital expertise was rated a 2.8, which was negative. There are


opportunities to improve the effectiveness of digital marketing strategies of the microbusiness

operators through education.

Effective digital marketing includes the use of analytics. The use of analytics to measure

key performance indicators such as Web site visits, conversions, social media engagements, and

lead generation can support the measurement of return on investment of the marketing spend.

Analytics and return-on-investment measurement are integral aspects of digital marketing

strategies.

The digital marketing environment is dynamic. The researcher observed that the

respondents were interested in improving their digital marketing expertise, but concerned about

the time and money needed to implement digital strategies. There is a need for small business

support organizations to offer education on digital marketing opportunities.

Theme: Traditional marketing strategies are effective. Microbusinesses tend to use

word of mouth, relationships, and networking marketing strategies (Long, 2017). This study

supported this conclusion. Relationship building, word of mouth, networking, and branding

strategies were used extensively by the respondents. The respondents interconnected the terms

and used them interchangeably. The theme emerged that traditional marketing strategies were

perceived as effective. These strategies can create opportunities for low-cost and time-efficient

marketing activities to increase return on investment on money and time spent on marketing. In

addition, traditional marketing strategies can be integrated into daily operations, which can create

time and money efficiencies.

Relationship marketing was rated a high priority with a 4.9 score. This confirms Premo-

Hurt’s (2016) conclusion that relationship marketing was an effective marketing tool. Word of

mouth was rated a high priority with a 4.9 score. The terms relationship marketing and word of


mouth were used interchangeably during the researcher’s discussions with microbusiness

operators. The researcher observed that relationship marketing and word of mouth were

enthusiastically embraced by microbusiness operators in their descriptions of their marketing

strategies. Another benefit of relationship and word-of-mouth marketing strategies is that these

strategies can also be leveraged through digital marketing on social media. By leveraging

relationship marketing and word of mouth through digital strategies of Web site content along

with social media, the positive messages can be communicated to customers efficiently.

Networking was rated a high priority with a 4.6 rating by the respondents. This supports

the concept that networking is effective and cost efficient (Gibbons, 2015; Yang, 2015). This

strategy includes working with local chambers of commerce, community organizations,

economic development organizations, and government agencies. Local events and being visible

in the community were also viable strategies that were identified by respondents. The researcher

observed that networking was linked to relationship and word-of-mouth marketing in the

discussions. Microbusiness operators considered networking and community involvement to be

key relationship building and word-of-mouth strategies.

The extensive use of relationship building, word of mouth, and networking in

microbusiness marketing offers the opportunity for the operator to be the focal point of the

marketing strategy. This supports the concept that the small-business operator is often the brand

of the business (Centeno et al., 2013). The respondent’s descriptions of their branding strategies

focused on the key areas of customer relationship building, personal service, and relating to the

individual needs of customers. The researcher observed that the microbusiness operator’s

involvement in customer service, personal selling, and daily business operations can result in a

face-branding strategy even if it was not an overt strategy.


Recommendations

The definition of marketing for microbusinesses needs to be expanded to include strategic

marketing, all customer-facing activities, and all promotion tools. A more strategic view of

marketing to include customer service, customer inquiries, and the sales process would provide a

more accurate assessment of time spent in marketing. The marketing orientation strategy needs

to be more fully defined and used as a base for the marketing strategy. The promotion mix of

public relations, direct customer promotions, personal selling, mass advertising, and digital needs

to be applied using the leverage of traditional marketing with digital. A microbusiness operator

who focuses on a more strategic view of marketing has the opportunity to create competitive

advantage through a more focused and effective marketing strategy.

Daily business operations centered on the customer can be a competitive advantage for

microbusinesses. Being close to the customer can create competitive advantage because of the

focus on daily operations that enables the microbusiness to react quickly to changes in the

market (Liao et al., 2015). Microbusiness operators should seek out marketing opportunities

when conducting daily operations. For example, the customer-service process should be

analyzed for relationship marketing opportunities. An effective customer inquiry process creates

the opportunity to generate a positive relationship with the customer. The microbusiness operator

uses personal sales skills and education to turn the customer inquiry into a sale. A testimonial

could be solicited from the customer. The customer testimonial would be used on the Web site

and on social media. The daily business operation of customer service offers opportunities to

leverage marketing time and money to increase sales and return on investment.

The variable of marketing expertise was found to have a positive association to sales in

this study. Marketing expertise can be increased through training for microbusiness operators


that is offered at the local level by community organizations. Specific topics should include

personal selling, digital marketing, networking, word of mouth, relationship building, and

branding. Training for microbusiness operators should be offered by local chambers of

commerce, economic development organizations, and educational institutions.

This descriptive case study built on previous case studies by interviewing a larger sample

of microbusiness operators across a broad variety of businesses. A recommendation is for further

research on the time invested in marketing activities beyond the narrow definition of promotion

and advertising that was identified in this study. A quantitative study exploring the relationship

of money spent on marketing to sales performance is another area of interest. The researcher

observed that the barriers of limited time, money, and marketing expertise were interrelated.

Research on the interrelationship of the barriers to microbusiness marketing performance is

recommended. Further research on digital marketing and analytics has the potential to improve

the return on investment of the marketing spend in this critical area.

Summary

There are several limitations in this research study. The study was conducted in

southwestern Wisconsin, which may limit the generalization opportunities because of the rural

nature of the area. The respondents were a convenience sample of microbusinesses, which may

not be representative of the general microbusiness population. The descriptive case study was

relatively small in number of respondents, which may lead to inaccurate conclusions. The

respondents may have been biased by the researcher during the interview process.

This study benefits microbusinesses by identifying factors of success related to time,

money, and marketing expertise. The findings of this study have the potential to provide

direction for microbusiness operators on effective time, money, and marketing-expertise


strategies to improve microbusiness sales performance. The study also provides

recommendations and tools for microbusinesses to develop and implement effective marketing

strategies. In addition, microbusiness support organizations that are involved in small business

and economic development can use the findings to improve their support of microbusinesses.

Communities can benefit economically from more successful microbusinesses that provide

employment, products, services, and income to the local economic environment.


REFERENCES

Ab-Rahman, I., Mandrinos, S., & Hashim, D. (2015). Challenges in managing micro enterprise:

A case of 1AZAM 1MALAYSIA social entrepreneurship program. The Proceedings of

the 4th International Seminar on Entrepreneurship and Business (pp. 559–575). Penang,

Malyasia. Retrieved from http://umkeprints.umk.edu.my/5022/

Alom, F., Abdullah, M., Moten, A., & Azam, S. (2016). Success factors of overall improvement

of microenterprises in Malaysia: An empirical study. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship

Research, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0050-2

American Marketing Association. (2018). Definition of marketing. Retrieved from https://www

.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-marketing.aspx

Anwar, M., & Daniel, E. (2016). Entrepreneurial marketing in online businesses: The case of

ethnic minority entrepreneurs in the UK. Qualitative Market Research, 19(3), 310–338.

Apfelbaum, J. (2015). Marketing budget for small businesses. Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/entrepreneursorganization/

Association for Enterprise Opportunity. (2011). Bigger than you think: The economic impact of

microbusiness in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.aeoworks.org/research

/reports

Association for Enterprise Opportunity. (2015). Fact sheet: What is a microbusiness? Retrieved

from https://aeoworks.org/research/data

Astuti, R., Afiff, A., & Balqiah, T. (2017). Which SMEs has the best marketing performance?

Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 68–

77). Sonning Common, United Kingdom: Reading. Retrieved from http://toc.proceedings

.com/36878webtoc.pdf


Au, A. (2015). Social media strategies used in marketing custom bicycle framebuilding

companies (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University Scholarworks. Retrieved from

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1668/

Baskarada, S. (2014). Qualitative case study guidelines. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research

Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2559424

Becherer, R., & Helms, M. (2016). The role of entrepreneurial marketing in improving market

share for small businesses facing external environmental or resource challenges. Journal

of Business and Entrepreneurship, 27(2), 119–147.

Bettiol, M., Di Maria, E., & Finotto, V. (2012). Marketing in SMEs: The role of entrepreneurial

sensemaking. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(2), 223–248.

http://dx.doi.org.ezp-01.lirn.net/10.1007/s11365-011-0174-3

Brown-Peterson, A. (2017). Successful Facebook marketing strategies by Missouri small

businesses: A qualitative case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No.10284766)

Bruce, R. (2016). A study of the effects of marketing on small business revenue generation as

represented by small farms (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 10257603)

Caruth, D. (2016). Social media marketing: An exploratory qualitative study of U.S. small

business owner’s priority balancing and cognitive strategies (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 10042863)

Centeno, E., Hart, S., & Dinnie, K. (2013). The five phases of SME brand-building. Journal of

Brand Management, 20(6), 445–457. http://dx.doi.org.ezp-2.lirn.net/10.1057/bm.2012.49


Chanu, Y., & Sharma, A., (2015). Marketing problems of micro enterprises of Papum Pare

District. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 4(2), 14–21.

Chinomona, R. (2013). Business owner’s expertise, employee skills training and business

performance: A small business perspective. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(6),

1883–1896.

Chong, W. K., Shafaghi, M., Woollaston, C., & Lui, V. (2010). B2B e-marketplace: An e-

marketing framework for B2B commerce. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(3),

310–329. http://dx.doi.org.ezp-01.lirn.net/10.1108/02634501011041444

Cronin-Gilmore, J. (2012). Exploring marketing strategies in small businesses. Journal of

Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 6(1), 96–107.

DeMers, J. (2017). 6 types of businesses you can start with almost no cash. Entrepreneur.

Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/299616

Demishkevich, M. (2015). Small business use of Internet marketing: Findings from case studies

(Doctoral dissertation). Walden University Scholarworks. Retrieved from


Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dinis, A. (2006). Marketing and innovation: Useful tools for competitiveness in rural and

peripheral areas. European Planning Studies, 14, 9–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500339083

Eid, R., & El-Gohary, H. (2013). The impact of e-marketing use on small business enterprises’

marketing success. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 31–50.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.594878


Ellen, C., Anantadjaya, S., & Saroso, P. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial success on

Indonesian food service MSMEs. Review of Integrative Business and Economics

Research, 3(1), 81–98.

Enqvist, J., Graham, M., & Nikkinen, J. (2014). The impact of working capital management on

firm profitability in different business cycles: Evidence from Finland. Research in

International Business and Finance, 32, 36–49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2014.03.005

Ettenson, R., Conrado, E., & Knowles, J. (2013). Rethinking the 4 P’s. Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/01/rethinking-the-4-ps

Ewing, M., Stewart, D., Mather, D., & Newton, J. (2014). How contagious is your viral

marketing campaign?: A mathematical model for assessing campaign performance.

Journal of Advertising Research, 54(2), 205–216.

https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-54-2-205-216

Feng, H. (2013). Two essays on marketing capabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3587643)

Fiore, A., Niehm, L., Hurst, J., Son, J., & Sadachar, A. (2013). Entrepreneurial marketing: Scale

validation with small, independently-owned businesses. Journal of Marketing

Development and Competitiveness, 7(4), 63–86.

Fluker, T. (2016). Performance factors that influence marketing measurement in successful small

businesses (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University Scholarworks. Retrieved from


Flying Solo. (2017). Starting a small business, advice, development & support in Australia.

Retrieved from http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/survey


Franco, M., de Fátima Santos, M., Ramalho, I., & Nunes, C. (2014). An exploratory study of

entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: The role of the founder-entrepreneur. Journal of

Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(2), 265–283.

Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet?: Data saturation in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.

Gandy, D. (2015). Small business strategies for company profitability and sustainability



Garcia, J. (2015). Success and failure factors of microbusinesses in Puerto Rico based on the

Lussier model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

database. (UMI No. 10090291)

Gherhes, C., Williams, N., Vorley, T., & Vasconcelos, A. (2016). Distinguishing micro-

businesses from SMEs: A systematic review of growth constraints. Journal of Small

Business and Enterprise Development, 23(4), 939–963.

Gibbons, K. (2015). Small seasonal business strategies to improve profits through community

collaboration (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University Scholarworks. Retrieved from


Gilmore, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial and SME marketing. Journal of Research in Marketing and

Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 137–145.

http://dx.doi.org.ezp-01.lirn.net/10.1108/14715201111176426

Grimes, L. (2012). Designing small business: A user-centered study of needs, resources, and

tools (Masters thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI

No. 1509099)


Gupta, M., Bridgman, J., & Sahi, G. (2015). Application of TOC-based framework to improve

market orientation in a non-profit organization. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(7),

579–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2014.1001865

Habibi, F., Hamilton, C., Valos, M., & Callaghan, M. (2015). E-marketing orientation and social

media implementation in B2B marketing. European Business Review, 27(6), 638–655.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2015-0026

Haniff, S., & Halim, M. (2014). Marketing capabilities and performance of SMEs in food and

beverages industry in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research, 6(1), 187–

195.

Hanninen, K., Jokela, H., Saarela, M., & Muhos, M. (2017). How to identify micro-firm owner-

manager’s potential growth intentions. 12th European Conference on Innovation and

Entrepreneurship Proceedings (pp. 280–289). Paris, France.

Hassan, S., Nadzim, S., & Shiratuddin, N. (2015). Strategic use of social media for small

business based on the AIDA model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 262–

269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.363

Headd, B. (2015). The role of microbusinesses in the economy. Office of Advocacy, Small

Business Administration. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files

/Microbusinesses_in_the_Economy.pdf

Headd, B. (2017). The role of microbusiness employers in the economy. Office of Advocacy,

Small Business Administration. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files

/508FINALAug17Microbusiness.pdf


Hennink, M., Kaiser, B., & Marconi, V. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How

many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

Hillary, R. (2017). Small and medium-sized enterprises and the environment: Business

imperatives. London, England: Routledge.

Infusionsoft. (2014). 2014 Small business market survey from Infusionsoft shines light on small

business owners’ motivations. Retrieved from https://www.infusionsoft.com/business-

success-blog/business/management/small-business-owner-profiles-2

Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., Lam, W., & Phua, S. (2014). The performance of entrepreneurial

ventures: Examining the role of marketing practices. Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development, 21(4), 565–587.

Jenkins, W. (2015). Marketing strategies for profitability in small independent restaurants



Kannampuzha, M., & Suoranta, M. (2016). Bricolage in the marketing efforts of a social

enterprise. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 176–196.

Keegan, B., & Rowley, J. (2017). Evaluation and decision making in social media marketing.

Management Decision, 55(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0450

Khazaei, J., Khodadadi, M., & Amirbakzadeh, E. (2017). Linking internal marketing orientation

to balanced scorecard outcomes in small businesses: The case of travel agencies.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(3), 297–308.


Kilenthong, P., Hultman, C., & Hills, G. (2016). Entrepreneurial marketing behaviours: Impact

of firm age, firm size and firm’s founder. Journal of Research in Marketing and

Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 127–145.

Krämer, A., Jung, M., & Burgartz, T. (2016). A small step from price competition to price war:

Understanding causes, effects and possible countermeasures. International Business

Research, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n3p1

Laukkanen, T., Tuominen, S., Reijonen, H., & Hirvonen, S. (2016). Does market orientation pay

off without brand orientation? A study of small business entrepreneurs. Journal of

Marketing Management, 32(7–8), 673–694.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1122659

Liao, T., Rice, J., & Lu, C. (2015). The vicissitudes of competitive advantage: Empirical

evidence from Australian manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management,

53(2), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12078

Lilien, G. (2011). Bridging the academic-practitioner divide in marketing decision models.

Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 196–210.

Long, D. (2017). Management and leadership skills that affect small business survival: A

resource guide for small businesses everywhere. Fairfax, VA: A Possum’s Company.

Mandal, D. (2015). Social media adoption by microbusinesses (Doctoral dissertation). University

of Waikato Research Commons. Retrieved from https://researchcommons.waikato.ac

.nz/handle/10289/9236


Marjanova Jovanov, T., & Temjanovski, R. (2015). Business environment factors and business

performance: The case of Macedonia—a developing economy. Proceedings of the

International Scientific Conference Geobalcanica 2015 (pp. 435–442). Skopje, Republic

of Macedonia.

Marom, S., & Lussier, R. (2014). A business success versus failure prediction model for small

businesses in Israel. Business and Economic Research, 4(2), 63–81.

Mattare, M., Monahan, M., & Shah, A. (2011). A profile of micro-entrepreneurship in western

Maryland: How demographic variables affect these nascent engines of opportunity.

Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(3), 127–138.

Maziriri, E., & Chinomona, E. (2016). Modeling the influence of relationship marketing, green

marketing and innovative marketing on the business performance of small, medium and

micro enterprises (SMMES). Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 8(3), 127–

139.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Miller, N., Besser, T., & Weber, S. (2010). Networking as marketing strategy: A case study of

small community businesses. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,

13(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751011053626

Monahan, M., Shah, A., & Mattare, M. (2011). The road ahead: Micro enterprise perspectives on

success and challenge factors. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(4), 113–

125.


Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Liesch, P. (2012). Advancing entrepreneurial marketing:

Evidence from born global firms. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 542–561.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211202602

Niehm, L., Dorie, A., Jablon, S., Fiore, A., & Hurst, J. (2016). Innovating with underutilized

marketing strategies to enhance profitability for small retail-related firms. Proceedings of

the International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) Annual Conference.

Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/itaa_proceedings

/2016/presentations/131

Nikunen, T., Saarela, M., Oikarinen, E., Muhos, M., & Isohella, L. (2017). Micro-enterprise’s

digital marketing tools for building customer relationships. Mikropodjetniška Ogrodja Za

Digitalno Trženje in Vzpostavljanje Odnosov s Strankami., 12(2), 171–188.

https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.12.171-188

O’Brien, C. (2016). Education for sustainable happiness and well-being. London, England:

Routledge.

O’Donnell, A. (2011). Small firm marketing: Synthesising and supporting received wisdom.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(4), 781–805.

http://dx.doi.org.ezp-01.lirn.net/10.1108/14626001111179802

Osiri, J. (2013). Entrepreneurial marketing: Activating the four P’s of marketing strategy in

entrepreneurship. The Entrepreneurial Executive, 18, 1–6.

Pai, S. (2017). Small business marketing strategies for the first 5 years (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3480401)

Porter, M. (1990). New global strategies for competitive advantage. Planning Review, 18(3), 4–

14. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054287


Premo-Hurt, J. (2016). Marketing and microbusiness (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University

Scholarworks. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/2227/

Price, J. (2012). Essays on the strategic implications of marketing capabilities: Marketing

exploration and exploitation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3539162)

Radu, P. (2013). Relationship marketing strategies in the knowledge society. Annals of Faculty

of Economics, 1(2), 605–613.

Razalan, D., Bickle, M., Park, J., & Brosdahl, D. (2017). Local retailers’ perspectives on social

responsibility. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(2), 211–

226. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2016-0006

Reibstein, D., & Pauwels, K. (2010). Challenges in measuring return on marketing investment.

Review of Marketing Research, 6(1), 107–124.

https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2009)0000006009

Reiner, M., Reimann, C., & Vitkauskaite, E. (2016). Innovative marketing in low-tech micro

companies—lessons learned from study projects. Systems, Software and Services Process

Improvement, 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_26

Renton, M., Daellenbach, U., Davenport, S., & Richard, J. (2015). Small but sophisticated:

Entrepreneurial marketing and SME approaches to brand management. Journal of

Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 149–164.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-05-2014-0008

Resnick, S., Cheng, R., Simpson, M., & Lourenço, F. (2016). Marketing in SMEs: A “4Ps” self-

branding model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 22(1),

155–174.


Ryan, D. (2016). Understanding digital marketing: Marketing strategies for engaging the digital

generation. London, England: Kogan Page.

Sarathy, R., & Banalieva, E. (2014). Economic development and marketing strategies: A

comparative lens. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 5(1), 49–73.

Sarra, J., & Berman, K. (2017). Ubuntu as a tool for resilience: Arts, microbusiness, and social

justice in South Africa. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 34(4), 455–490.

https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21192

Sayil, E., Donmaz, A., Simsek, G., & Akyol, A. (2016). The impacts of relationship marketing

orientation on relational response behaviours. International Journal of Mobile

Communications, 14(5), 472–498. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2016.078722

Schaupp, L. C., & Bélanger, F. (2013). The value of social media for small businesses. Journal

of Information Systems, 28(1), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-50674

Schulz, S., Martin, T., & Meyer, H. (2017). Factors influencing organization commitment:

Internal marketing orientation, external marketing orientation, and subjective well-being.

The Journal of Management Development, 36(10), 1294–1303.

Shaltoni, A., West, D., Alnawas, I., & Shatnawi, T. (2018). Electronic marketing orientation in

the SMEs context. European Business Review, 30(3), 272–284.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-02-2017-0034

Sheikh, A., Shahzad, A., & Ishaq, A. (2017). The growth of e-marketing in business-to-business

industry and its effect on the performance of businesses in Pakistan: Marketing success.

International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 178–214.

https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.2017.2704


Smyth, H., & Lecoeuvre, L. (2015). Differences in decision-making criteria towards the return

on marketing investment: A project business perspective. International Journal of

Project Management, 33(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.005

Solis, C. J. (2017). Small retail business owner strategies needed to succeed beyond 5 years



Spivey, S. (2016). Micro-entrepreneurship: Exploring factors that influence failure, success, and

sustainability of microenterprises in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 10254961)

Taiminen, H., & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). The usage of digital marketing channels in SMEs.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(4), 633–651.

U.S. Small Business Administration. (2017). Small business profiles for the States and

territories. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/2017-small-business-profiles-

states-and-territories

U.S. Small Business Administration. (2018). How to set a marketing budget that fits your

business goals and provides a high return on investment. Retrieved from https://www.sba

.gov/blogs/how-set-marketing-budget-fits-your-business-goals-and-provides-high-return-

investment

Vázquez-Casielles, R., Suárez-Álvarez, L., & Río-Lanza, A. (2013). The word of mouth

dynamic: How positive (and negative) WOM drives purchase probability: An analysis of

interpersonal and non-interpersonal factors. Journal of Advertising Research, 53(1), 43–

60. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-53-1-043-060


Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Sullivan, Y. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods

research: An extension and illustration. Journal of the Association for Information

Systems, 17(7), 435–494.

Weber, P., Geneste, L., & Connell, J. (2015). Small business growth: Strategic goals and owner

preparedness. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(3), 30–36.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-03-2014-0036

West, D., Ford, J., & Ibrahim, E. (2015). Strategic marketing: Creating competitive advantage.

Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Yang, X. (2015). Key success factors of small business in a southern region of California

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI

No. 3729791)

Yin, R. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.


APPENDIX A:

Questionnaire

Microbusiness Marketing Survey

1. Number of employees, including yourself (if employ part-time convert to full-time

equivalents)

a. 0-1

b. 2-5

c. 6-9

d. 10 or more

2. Your years of business experience

a. 0-1

b. 2-5

c. 6-9

d. 10 or more

3. Years in business (current business)

a. 0-1

b. 2-5

c. 6-9

d. 10 or more

4. Which of the following best describes your role in the business:

a. Owner

b. Manager

c. Employee


d. Other____ please specify__________

5. Which of the following best describes your business: Retail___ Restaurant/Hospitality__

Professional___ Construction/Trade___ Service ____ Arts___ Agriculture Production___

Financial Services___ Health Care___ Real Estate___Manufacturing___Other___

6. Yearly revenue (sales):

a. $0

b. $1-$12,000

c. $12,001 to $50,000

d. $50,001 to $100,000

e. $100,001 to $500,000

f. $500,001 to $999.000

g. Over $1 million

7. How aggressively are you attempting to increase the revenue of your business?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Aggressive Neutral Very Aggressive

8. As a percentage how much did your revenue increase (decrease) last year compared to

the previous year? ____%

9. How satisfied were you the revenue increase (decrease) last year?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Satisfied Neutral Very Satisfied

10. As a percentage how much did your revenue increase (decrease) this year-to-date

compared to the previous year? ____%

11. How satisfied are you with the revenue increase (decrease) this year?


1 2 3 4 5


12. How important is marketing to the success of your business?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Important Neutral Very Important

13. How much time per week do you typically spend on marketing?

a. Less than 1 hour

b. 1-5 hours

c. 6-10 hours

d. More than 10 hours

14. I generally spend enough time on marketing each week to achieve my goals.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

15. I perceive that I spend _________time on marketing than my direct competition.

a. More

b. About the same

c. Less

16. Which marketing budgeting method best fits your business

a. I spend X% of sales on marketing

b. I spend a fixed amount per month almost every month

c. I spend what is left over and what I can afford

d. I use a combination of methods

e. None of the above


17. How much do you estimate that on average you spend on marketing per month:

a. Less than $100

b. $101-$500

c. $501-$1,000

d. $1,001-$2,000

e. More than $2,000

18. I perceive that I spend _________ money than my direct competition on marketing.

a. More

b. About the same

c. Less

19. I measure my return-on-investment (ROI) for my marketing spend.

1 2 3 4 5


20. If applicable (4 or 5) what methods do you use to measure your ROI on your marketing

spend?

21. How would you rate your level of marketing expertise?

1 2 3 4 5

Low Level Adequate High Level Expertise

22. Describe your perception of your level of marketing expertise.

23. I perceive that I have _________ marketing expertise than my direct competition.

a. More


b. About the same

c. Less

24. What is your level of interest in improving your marketing expertise?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Interested Neutral Very Interested

25. How often do you personally sell to customers?

a. Always

b. Often

c. Sometimes

d. Seldom

e. Never

26. Describe your involvement in the selling process to your customers.

27. How much of a barrier are the following to improving your marketing operations?

(Check one box per horizontal line for each type of barrier.)

Type of Barrier Not a barrier Somewhat a

barrier

Substantial

barrier

Major barrier

Lack of time

Lack of money

Lack of

marketing

expertise


ROI of the

marketing spend

Not a priority

28. Due to the daily challenges of running a business I struggle to spend enough time on

marketing.

1 2 3 4 5


29. If applicable (4 or 5) describe the specific daily challenges of running a business that

detracts from your time that you spend on marketing.

30. Digital marketing tools (websites, social media, and online) are an important aspect of

my marketing strategies.

1 2 3 4 5


31. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your key digital marketing tools and strategies.

32. How effective are your digital marketing strategies?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Effective Neutral Very Effective

33. If applicable (4 or 5) how do you measure the effectiveness of your digital marketing

strategies?


34. I am satisfied with my digital marketing expertise.

1 2 3 4 5


35. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your digital marketing expertise.

36. Relationship building is an important marketing strategy for my business.

1 2 3 4 5


37. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your relationship building strategies.

38. Word-of-mouth marketing is an important marketing strategy for my business.

1 2 3 4 5


39. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your word-of-mouth marketing strategies.

40. Networking is an important marketing strategy for my business.

1 2 3 4 5


41. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your networking marketing strategies.

42. I am the “face” of the business (brand) and the focal point of the marketing for my

business.

1 2 3 4 5



43. If applicable (4 or 5) describe your “face” of the business branding strategies


APPENDIX B:

Observation Form

Observation Form

No Time, No Money, No Expertise Microbusiness Marketing Research Project

1. Overview of the business.

2. Digital marketing examples.

3. Marketing evidence at the place of business

4. Evidence of marketing expertise in conversations.

5. General evaluation of marketing strategy of the microbusiness


APPENDIX C:

Informed Consent

July 1, 2018

Dear Survey Respondent:

Small businesses are an important segment of our economy and our local communities.

Marketing is critical to the success of small businesses. In many cases, small businesses have

issues with time, money and marketing expertise related to developing and implementing

successful marketing programs.

I am a Doctoral Student at William Howard Taft University conducting research on marketing

practices for small businesses. Small businesses that employ 9 or fewer employees are

considered to be microbusinesses. The research is intended to better understand microbusiness

marketing in the context of limited time, money and marketing expertise. This letter is an

invitation for your contribution to my study.

The research is a qualitative descriptive study involving microbusinesses in southwest

Wisconsin. I am conducting the interview and recording responses. Please sign the “Informed

Consent” form. The survey is approximately 40 simple questions and the interview will take

approximately 30-45 minutes. All responses will remain confidential and your anonymity will be

ensured. Your responses will contribute to this unique research about the specific marketing

issues that microbusinesses face on a daily basis. The research will be available online at Taft

University or by contacting me.

I greatly appreciate your participation in this research. Please let me know if you have any

questions concerning this study or the enclosures. I may be reached at 608.732.7801 or at


[email protected].

Sincerely,

George B. Krueger

mailto:[email protected]


Informed Consent Form

Microbusiness Marketing with No Time, No Money and No Expertise—Research and

Recommendations for Improving Marketing Results for Microbusinesses

Respondent: ________________________

George B. Krueger, a doctoral student at William Howard Taft University is conducting this

study. You were selected as a possible participant because you operate a small business and your

views on marketing will provide information to analyze and use to develop marketing support

strategies for microbusinesses.

Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to participate.

Background & Purpose of the Research Project

Marketing is critically important to the success of small businesses. However, marketing can be

difficult for small businesses due to a lack of:

•Time. Microbusiness owners have numerous demands on their time such as daily

operations and financial management. Marketing is often not prioritized versus other

realities of operating a small business.

•Financial resources. Microbusinesses are often undercapitalized and do not spend

enough money on marketing to drive revenue.

•Expertise by the owner. Most microbusiness owners are operationally focused and do

not have a background, education nor expertise in marketing.

This investigation seeks to gather information on actual marketing practices by microbusinesses.

Microbusinesses are provided a survey of 40 questions. The data will be analyzed and strategies

developed from the information produced by the research project to more effectively support

microbusiness marketing resulting in more prosperous communities.


Respondent Participation

Participation participating in the interview process and answering questions related to your

business. The survey is anonymous with no individual identification of surveys. The results of

the study will be published. The results will also be provided to the economic development

organizations, will be available at my LinkedIn page and by direct request.

Confidentiality

The records of this study would be considered private information. Private information herein

means information ascertained by the investigator and constitutes research involving human

subjects. Private information includes information about businesses provided by the respondents.

Participation in the survey is anonymous. No information will be published that would make it

possible to identify a participant. Only the candidate/researcher would keep and safeguard the

research records.

Voluntary Nature of this Study

Your decision whether to participate would not affect your current or future relationship with the

candidate/researcher or the associated University. If you decide to participate, you are free to

withdraw at any time without prejudice.

Compensation

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You would not receive monetary

compensation/reward for your participation. The personal benefits of your participation are as

mentioned in the following section.

Benefits of Participating in this Study

Microbusinesses are an important sector of the economy. Microbusinesses focus on the owner’s

expertise and the local market. They are small employing 9 or less people including the owner.


Marketing is an important aspect of business success, however, microbusiness owners struggle

with limited resources of time, money and marketing expertise. The purpose of this study is to

study the relationship between time, money and marketing expertise on sales results. The results

of this study will help microbusinesses and support organizations to more effectively market to

drive business success.

Risks of Participating in this Study

There is minimal risk to participating in this study, meaning that the risks of harm anticipated in

the proposed research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life. If at any

time during completing the survey you wish to not continue simply draw a line across the survey

and it will be discarded.

Contacts and Questions

You may ask any questions you have by contacting the researcher by telephone at 608.732.7801

or by e-mail at [email protected].

Statement of Consent

I have read the information herein, I have asked questions and received answers, and I have

received a copy of this form. I consent to participate in this study.

_____________________________________________ _____________________

Participant/Subject Date

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

MICROBUSINESS MARKETING WITH NO TIME, NO MONEY, AND …€¦ · improving marketing results for microbusinesses iii we, the undersigned members of the committee, have approved this