Recent developments in entrepreneurial marketing: systematic literature review, thematic analysis and research agenda Free

Over the past four decades, the field of entrepreneurial marketing research has expanded considerably (Most et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2019) to cover market-related entrepreneurship topics that might not align with traditional marketing paradigms or predictable firm environments (Hills et al., 2008). The interdisciplinary field offers great relevance for entrepreneurial enterprises that operate in increasingly dynamic, uncertain and turbulent conditions (O’Cass and Morrish, 2016), such that relevant research continues to appear in various entrepreneurship and marketing journals, providing an alternative to standard marketing approaches that might exclude entrepreneurial topics.

In particular, entrepreneurial marketing gained substantially following a first research symposium on marketing and entrepreneurship in 1986 (Hills et al., 2010), and early, fundamental contributions have strongly influenced subsequent academic investigations (Miles and Arnold, 1991; Morris and Paul, 1987). In turn, multiple definitions of “entrepreneurial marketing” emerged (Collinson and Shaw, 2001; Hill and Wright, 2000; Stokes, 2000b), ranging from narrow conceptual considerations of small and young firms to broader general concepts applicable to businesses of any size (Kraus et al., 2010). Miles and Darroch (2006) even emphasize its strategic relevance for large firms. Gruber (2004) proposes that entrepreneurial marketing is marketing in the context of new ventures. Morris et al.’s (2002, p. 5) commonly used definition describes entrepreneurial marketing as “the proactive identification and exploitation of opportunities for acquiring and retaining profitable customers through innovative approaches to risk management, resource leveraging and value creation.”

According to Hansen et al. (2019), the development of entrepreneurial marketing research comprises four main stages. The first three stages, which occurred prior to 2010, involve general expansions and broad discussion of the commonalities of marketing and entrepreneurship as related management disciplines. In 2010, interface researchers gathered at the Charleston Summit debated different entrepreneurial marketing perspectives and sought to define research avenues. Their efforts established four features: commonalities in marketing and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship in marketing, marketing in entrepreneurship and unique entrepreneurial marketing concepts (Hansen and Eggers, 2010); a recent update combines the second and third perspectives (Hansen et al., 2019). Miles et al. (2015) similarly identify three schools of thought: entrepreneurship in marketing, marketing in entrepreneurship and network and relationship marketing in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Thus, the field has expanded in several directions (Hansen et al., 2019).

With a citation analysis, Kraus et al. (2012) also reveal three general clusters of entrepreneurial marketing research: foundations in management, entrepreneurship and marketing theory; interface research into marketing and entrepreneurship; and new venture and SME enterprise marketing. Most et al. (2018) offer a bibliographic analysis and cite seven thematic meta-clusters of research: resources and capabilities, entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation–market orientation integration, measurement, international entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. Without any consensus on a definition or appropriate classification, entrepreneurial marketing research thus appears heterogeneous, fragmented and confusing (Solé, 2013; Sadiku-Dushi et al., 2019).

In response to calls for broader reviews and more profound thematic examinations (Hansen et al., 2019; Most et al., 2018), we undertake a systematic review of 12 years of entrepreneurial marketing literature (2010–2021). To identify the current state of research and its gaps (Breslin and Gatrell, 2023), as well as update previous reviews (Hills and Hultman, 2011a; Hills et al., 2008), we focus explicitly on recent research, which has expanded in various directions. In detail, our analysis is guided by three research questions:

To answer these research questions, our systematic review, following recommendations by Tranfield et al. (2003), includes only studies that exclusively refer to entrepreneurial marketing theory. We investigate 207 articles using an inductive thematic coding process (Braun and Clarke, 2006), with which we identify themes and map the entrepreneurial marketing research landscape. Prior reviews refer to related topics, such as SME marketing (Bocconcelli et al., 2018), marketing in international new ventures (Yang and Gabrielsson, 2018) and the commercialization of innovations (Datta et al., 2013). In addition to extending these reviews with an in-depth analysis of entrepreneurial marketing literature, in which we highlight key themes and explicate the heterogeneity in the field, we also build on narrative efforts to describe the diverse entrepreneurial marketing research field (Hansen and Eggers, 2010; Miles et al., 2015), as well as three bibliometric analyses that provide overviews of research clusters based on citation analyses (Kraus et al., 2012; Most et al., 2018; Ferreira and Robertson, 2020). These prior studies depict the development of the field and offer a valuable basis for a general understanding of entrepreneurial marketing. However, narrative reviews are not holistic, and citation-based analyses can only identify objective relationships among publications. They lack qualitative, in-depth assessments and do not necessarily cover all existing knowledge (Verbeek et al., 2002). A systematic review can address this gap by investigating each article’s content and thus providing a comprehensive view of a field within a given time frame; it also offers a replicable, reliable approach (Tranfield et al., 2003). Therefore, with our systematic review, we advance this research field in several ways. By investigating recent publications, we outline their methodological approaches, geographical coverage and research subjects. The research topics that we derive from the thematic analyses reveal key themes and subthemes. Finally, we suggest a research agenda based on the themes discovered.

Accordingly, in the next section, we outline our review method, reflecting search, reduction and review steps. Then we summarize the findings of the systematic literature review, in the form of both descriptive and thematic results. The descriptive analysis offers insights into the development of the research field; and the thematic analysis reflects a synthesis of the themes of entrepreneurial marketing research. Finally, we outline the key findings, cite some limitations of our review and offer a research agenda for entrepreneurial marketing.

Literature reviews in management and entrepreneurship research (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2020; Macpherson and Holt, 2007) offer helpful inventories of existing findings and directions for further investigations (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). To ensure that our review offers relevant contributions, we adopt the three-stage approach recommended by Tranfield et al. (2003) and rely on an inductive thematic analysis to complement our review process and reveal key themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). By combining such best practices for systematic reviews, we also ensure a replicable and reliable approach (Mochkabadi and Volkmann, 2020; Rialp et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2011).

In the first stage, we gathered a review panel, which consisted of both authors and two additional reviewers. In a scoping study, we screened entrepreneurial marketing literature for definitions, theoretical approaches and influential contributions, according to citation scores (Bjerke and Hultman, 2002; Collinson and Shaw, 2001; Hills et al., 2008; Miles and Darroch, 2006; Morris et al., 2002; Stokes, 2000a, 2000b). We used the search terms “entrepre*” AND “marketing,” similar to previous bibliometric analyses in this field (Kraus et al., 2012; Most et al., 2018). Noting the plethora of entrepreneurial marketing topics, we prefer this broad search operator for our initial search to ensure we include all relevant studies (Calabrò et al., 2019).

The inclusion and exclusion criteria we define (see Table A1 in the  Appendix) also help ensure a consistent, transparent approach (Mochkabadi and Volkmann, 2020; Jones et al., 2011). In particular, we limited the sample to peer-reviewed journal articles, which generally offer reliable knowledge and tend to exert significant influences on the research domain (Podsakoff et al., 2005; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). We included both theoretical and empirical articles but required they be written in English (Rialp et al., 2005) and published between 2010 and 2021 (inclusive); Hansen et al. (2019) establish 2010 as the starting point of the current stage of development in this research field. The included contributions had to relate closely to entrepreneurial marketing research to support comparisons, so we require the articles to refer to entrepreneurial marketing definitions or directly link their theoretical derivation to core contributions identified in the scoping study. Finally, we excluded papers focused on teaching entrepreneurial marketing.

The second stage involved identifying publications and conducting the thematic analysis. In a two-part literature search, we first performed keyword searches in the three most commonly used databases, Scopus, Business Source Ultimate and Web of Science Core Collection, to ensure the best possible coverage. The Boolean operator “entrepre*” AND “marketing” applied to the title, abstract and keyword fields. We adapted the search as needed to the specific databases and limited it to business and management areas (see Table A2 in the  Appendix). This search identified more than 3,600 initial results. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we examined the titles, abstracts and keywords of the remaining contributions to confirm their focus on entrepreneurial marketing. If doubts arose, the panel reviewed the entire paper. This step reduced the set to 173 contributions; this considerable reduction results from the broad and general search term we initially applied and its presence in other research fields (Anwar and Daniel, 2017). Next, we performed a manual search of the databases (Rashman et al., 2009) and scanned the reference lists of the identified papers for further relevant publications, which revealed 34 additional articles. At the end of this second stage, we had 207 contributions for our in-depth analysis; we transferred the citations to Excel for the descriptive analysis, where we specified information about the methodological approaches, the research samples and the geographical criteria based on the screening of each paper. The collection of descriptive data in systematic literature reviews is essential to assess the comparability of studies, reduce bias and promote transparency (Tranfield et al., 2003). Full texts were gathered in NVIVO for thematic coding [¹].

To identify distinct themes and subthemes in these recent entrepreneurial marketing publications, we followed an inductive thematic coding process, a flexible approach that is appropriate for “identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns within data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 79), in which each theme represents inherent concepts in a data set. That is, the interpretative, inductive approach helps determine dominant topics in a rich information pool (Jones et al., 2011). Three reviewers performed this analysis individually to avoid subjective theme identifications. Each reviewer read the papers carefully, focusing on the aims, research questions, discussion, results and conclusions. Independently, we noted recurring ideas that served as preliminary themes. Through a process of comparison, discussion and refinement, the reviewers agreed on a final set of themes that represented the core insights emerging consistently across the papers. This method allowed us to capture the essence of the field and consider the diversity and richness of the different research contributions (Mochkabadi and Volkmann, 2020; Liñán and Fayolle, 2015). Hence, the resulting themes reflect the content of this research field and key ideas arising from particular research objectives and contributions (Thorpe et al., 2005). We thus note three general themes in entrepreneurial marketing literature: entrepreneur perspective, business perspective and market perspective.

In this section, we present the descriptive results of our review of entrepreneurial marketing research in the past decade, then outline the three identified perspectives and their subcategories. To do justice to each perspective, we present the related discussions separately. In addition to outlining their content, we debate how each perspective fits into the broader context of entrepreneurial marketing and key research potentials.

Tranfield et al. (2003) note that descriptive observations of publications, such as methodological approaches, geographical coverage and different sectors, can support primary classifications in a systematic review process. We adopt this approach and investigate the fundamental research focus, sectors studied, publication history, contribution types and geographic coverage (Thorpe et al., 2005; Mochkabadi and Volkmann, 2020).

During the period under consideration, 2010–2021 (inclusive), the number of publications grew continuously, as revealed by Figure 1. At the start of our observation, ten scientific papers were published in 2010. The year 2020 is notable for a peak of 29 contributions; many papers appeared in a Journal of Business Research special issue. Interdisciplinary relevance is also evident in the span of publications. They were available in 111 different journals, mainly in the entrepreneurship, marketing and management domains. The Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship represented the most popular outlet, with 27 publications in total, followed by Journal of Business Research and Journal of Strategic Marketing (12 publications each).

In terms of journal quality, we acknowledge that journal rankings can vary according to different ranking systems. While more than half of the papers appear in B- or C-ranked journals according to our primary source, VHB-JOURQUAL 3, other widely used ranking systems, such as the ABDC Journal Quality List, classify some of these journals, such as the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Strategic Marketing and the Journal of Macromarketing, as A-ranked journals. However, relatively few papers were published in leading journals in the sub-disciplines (e.g. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and Journal of Business Venturing). Other studies can be found in unranked journals, where the link to entrepreneurial marketing theory sometimes seems forced. These papers often use samples from developing countries and use quantitative research methods.

Figure 2 presents information about the methodologies used. Of the 207 articles in our sample, 176 are empirical, and of these empirical papers, 81 studies are qualitative, 87 feature a quantitative research design and 8 studies provide a mixed-method approach. Interview-based research and case studies dominate the qualitative contributions. Among the quantitative studies, we find mostly regression analyses and structural equation models based on survey data.

For a more thorough understanding, we study the geographical coverage, sector distribution and research focus of the 176 empirical studies. European and Asian markets both account for about 32% of entrepreneurial marketing research contributions; samples from North America represent 13%. In total, 12 articles examine issues in African contexts, and there is just one study from South American markets. Finally, 8% of the samples are from Oceania, and 8% involve studies that span multiple markets.

Authors in this field frequently examine various sectors in combination (34 %), but we also find some studies specific to technology firms (16 %), the food/agricultural sector (12 %), tourism (7%), service sectors (7%), arts or culture (6%), manufacturing (5%), textiles (3%) and educational organizations (2 %). Eight percent of studies do not indicate their industry context.

The research focus indicates the specific object under investigation. Many analyses focus on SMEs (37 %) or small businesses (24 %). Furthermore, articles define companies based on more specific attributes. Six percent of papers refer to international new ventures or born global firms, 6% cite new ventures and 5% refer to startups. Large companies are rarely addressed (4 %) in empirical studies. Entrepreneurial marketing literature considers different organizations (e.g. banks, museums or non-profit organizations) in 7% of studies, and 3% take a customer perspective. Eight percent of studies do not specify their research object.

The dissemination of entrepreneurial marketing research, distinct firm types and various industries under examination indicate heterogeneity in the general understanding of entrepreneurial marketing, without any clear focus on a specific topic or scope. With our discussion of entrepreneurial marketing research themes, we seek a more profound understanding of existing views as well as novel impulses in this field.

In this section, we present the findings of the thematic analysis by synthesizing each perspective and providing an inventory of entrepreneurial marketing research themes. The categorization is challenging because of the complexity of research objects and topic diversity. Therefore, the themes represent the core insights that consistently emerge across the various studies while still capturing the breadth of the wide-ranging field. In our attempt to present recent entrepreneurial marketing developments, identify challenges and suggest research avenues, we organize our discussion along the three overarching dimensions of entrepreneur, business and market perspectives. Additional subtopics discovered during the review process could be delineated with a more detailed classification. Yet considering the variety of themes identified, we offer separate discussions of each perspective, in which we outline its fundamental aspects and identify issues and research possibilities related to its distinct subthemes.

An individual-specific view of the entrepreneur or owner-manager identifies the person in this role as a key decision-maker at the center of the business activities who faces various market-related obstacles (Morrish et al., 2010; Ioniță, 2012), then considers their characteristics, behavior and interactions with various stakeholders. Contributions that reflect this perspective can be divided into two subthemes: characteristics and behavior (33 contributions) and stakeholder interactions (20 contributions). Altogether, we find 53 entrepreneur-oriented articles dealing with the role of the entrepreneur in business and marketing processes and mainly featuring qualitative approaches. They identify challenges that result from complex, uncertain and constantly changing environments, amplified by the limited resources available to entrepreneurs (Franco et al., 2014; Fillis, 2010). Accordingly, they often feature SMEs, and many articles establish links with other research disciplines, including social (Kannampuzha and Suoranta, 2016; Foster and Brindley, 2018), non-profit (Crick and Crick, 2016), immigrant (Anwar and Daniel, 2016), hybrid entrepreneurship (Ferreira et al., 2019) or female (Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2018) entrepreneurship. Some papers explicitly address entrepreneurs in new ventures (Lingelbach et al., 2012; Phua and Jones, 2010) or startup companies (Crick et al., 2020; Krzyżanowska and Tkaczyk, 2013).

By taking the entrepreneur’s perspective, this research stream also differentiates entrepreneurs' marketing efforts from those of traditional marketing managers, who tend to follow formalized approaches (Fillis, 2010; Maritz et al., 2010). These differences reflect business-related challenges but also variance in academic research. While traditional marketing studies predominantly focus on resource-rich, structured companies (Guido et al., 2011), the articles we identify emphasize the ways marketing depends on particular situations and the individual entrepreneur, who tends to be reactive, pragmatic, intuitive and undirected (Harris and Deacon, 2011; Fillis, 2014).

Within the characteristics and behavior subtheme, we find that researchers link entrepreneurial marketing to entrepreneurs’ general understanding and development of marketing skills, potentially helpful character traits and marketing decision-making. For example, SME entrepreneurs appear to pay insufficient attention to marketing (Harris and Deacon, 2011), underestimate marketing activities and learn by making mistakes (Massiera et al., 2018). Prior knowledge and experience influence entrepreneurs’ perspectives on marketing actions (Weerawardena et al., 2019; Szabo et al., 2011). In addition to their growth intentions (Crick et al., 2018) and life cycle phase (Foster and Brindley, 2018), the entrepreneurs’ types, such as new venture versus SME entrepreneurs, may influence their marketing approaches. For example, new ventures and high-growth entrepreneurs use intuition to develop suitable marketing strategies that prove no less effective than traditional marketing approaches by larger firms (Maritz et al., 2010; Phua and Jones, 2010).

Some authors identify character traits as relevant influences (Franco et al., 2014; Anwar and Daniel, 2016). Fillis (2010) proposes that entrepreneurs use their creativity to overcome entrepreneurial challenges and calls for experiments that investigate business owners' personalities in more detail. Sarwoko and Nurfarida (2021) conclude that applying the Big Five personality traits could provide insights into SME owners’ marketing approaches. Kopfer-Rácz et al. (2013) introduce self-efficacy to the field by examining characteristics that affect owner-managers’ conceptions of marketing.

In addition to specific traits, entrepreneurial marketing literature emphasizes the importance of behavioral research pertaining to decision-making (Nouri and Ahmady, 2018), often by using common theories such as effectuation logic or heuristics and biases. For example, Ioniță (2012) determines that entrepreneurs follow an effectual logic in their marketing, and Lingelbach et al. (2012) apply effectuation theory to derive a model of how new ventures develop their marketing. However, differences in terms of effectual versus casual decision-making also might depend on the type of business owner (Crick and Crick, 2015); international new venture entrepreneurs can seemingly shift between approaches (Yang and Gabrielsson, 2017).

The second subtheme, stakeholder interaction, deals with relationships between entrepreneurs and stakeholders, for which networking is a fundamental concept and core resource. The entrepreneur is critical; she or he initiates and controls the network activities of smaller ventures (Morrish et al., 2010). Various contributions take a broader view of networking rather than focusing on any specific stakeholder group (Jones and Rowley, 2011; Andersson et al., 2018; Foster and Brindley, 2018). Others point to the district relationships of entrepreneurs with customers (Lam and Harker, 2015; Roundy, 2017) or competitors (Westerlund and Leminen, 2018; Krzyżanowska and Tkaczyk, 2013; Crick, 2018).

Entrepreneurs appear to use networks to compensate for resource gaps or reduce market uncertainties (Kubberød et al., 2019). Stakeholders in personal contact networks decisively influence marketing activities (Jones et al., 2013b). Andersson et al. (2018) establish that managing various social and business networks is essential for born-global firms’ efforts to enter international markets. Crick (2018) introduced the concept of coopetition to entrepreneurial marketing, showing that the interplay of cooperation and competition can increase firm performance. Coopetition appears particularly relevant for stakeholders pursuing growth-oriented business models (Crick et al., 2021).

After providing an overview of the papers and findings from the entrepreneur perspective, we will discuss the challenges and future research potential arising from this stance. To address various types of entrepreneurs' diversity, in addition to detailed considerations of their background conditions, this research stream needs to clarify differences in their growth orientations, existing marketing knowledge and intentions to generate profits. Another central question pertains to how an entrepreneur’s perception of marketing depends on the industry context; additional studies are needed to address other variances in entrepreneurs’ marketing perceptions. Most of the studies assigned to this first perspective rely on interviews. The many qualitative studies can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, entrepreneurial marketing research might require qualitative approaches to comprehend the more individualized marketing tactics that tend to be adopted by small firms (Gilmore et al., 2013). On the other hand, the frequent use of interviews and case studies may indicate that the field remains in a discovery phase and that further exploratory research is needed, including broader research methods and varied approaches to data analysis. For example, a qualitative comparative analysis could identify causal relationships from complex data (Thomann and Maggetti, 2020). Furthermore, to gain more profound knowledge about casual relationships, we recommend enhancing the rigor and extending the research methods to include observations and experiments (e.g. conjoint analysis), as well as using more mixed methods to achieve data triangulation (Gibson, 2017).

Behavioral research provides multiple research opportunities for entrepreneurial marketing. For example, it would be interesting to investigate the different extents to which effectual and casual behaviors alternate in advancing marketing developments. We also need insights into what triggers behavioral changes in entrepreneurs’ marketing decisions. Behavioral processes in marketing tend to be researched with qualitative studies (Guercini, 2012; Nouri et al., 2019), so further research should include more comprehensive samples, which can offer a more profound understanding of entrepreneurs’ behaviors. A potential avenue is to explore the impact of industry experience, cultural factors, or the regulatory environment on adopting effectual and causal marketing behaviors among entrepreneurs using quantitative methods.

Psychological factors significantly influence behavior and several well-founded studies relate to personality traits (Kerr et al., 2018), so it seems reasonable to include such characteristics in continued entrepreneurial marketing research. For example, researchers could examine the impact of individual differences in risk tolerance and self-efficacy on entrepreneurs’ marketing decision-making and strategy implementation. Moreover, scholars may apply large-scale survey data or experiments on the role of cognitive biases in shaping entrepreneurs' marketing choices and actions.

Because research from an entrepreneur perspective usually involves smaller companies, it remains to be determined which resources the different types of entrepreneurs can access for marketing development, as well as how they leverage and build them. The importance of learning and knowledge generation, depending on varying circumstances, highlights broad research potential, such as in studies that determine how entrepreneurs running low versus high growth firms extend their marketing knowledge over time.

In-depth studies of specific stakeholder groups should be expanded to include considerations of the unique relevance of customers and competitors. Morrish et al. (2010) find that customers and entrepreneurs mutually determine the company's long-term orientation. Because of the liabilities of newness or smallness, customer acquisition and retention tend to be distinct tasks for entrepreneurs. But we find few studies of the relationship between entrepreneurs and customers on an individual level. Future studies could investigate the nuances of the entrepreneur–customer relationship, such as the role of building trust, the impact of technology in fostering these connections and the integration of customer feedback into entrepreneurial marketing. Researchers could explore how entrepreneurs assemble, analyze and react to customer feedback to improve their offerings and marketing approaches. Moreover, they could examine entrepreneurs' practices to attract and retain customers, particularly within niche markets or industries with rapidly changing dynamics. By understanding the underlying factors that drive successful entrepreneur–customer relationships, scholars can provide valuable guidance for entrepreneurs seeking to strengthen their customer base and enhance overall business performance.

In addition, researchers argue that owner-managers pay insufficient attention to competitors (Westerlund and Leminen, 2018). Future studies should examine the role of competitive intelligence in entrepreneurial marketing decision-making and investigate the impact of incorporating comprehensive competitor analysis into marketing strategies. Moreover, studying the impact of collaborative strategies, such as co-opetition, strategic alliances or joint ventures, between entrepreneurs and their competitors on business performance can reveal these arrangements' potential benefits and disadvantages, providing valuable guidance for entrepreneurs.

The interrelationships of entrepreneurs, customers and competitors in marketing thus constitute a potentially distinct element, relative to traditional marketing, because of the proximity of the entrepreneur. Investigating these connections could increase understanding of stakeholder interactions in support of further developments in marketing strategy and practice. Further research questions also involve how cooperative behavior differs between low and high growth companies or in business-to-business versus business-to-consumer sectors. As a goal for quantitative research, we suggest studying which stakeholder groups offer the most significant benefits across different phases of a company’s life cycle.

One topic rarely addressed in entrepreneurial marketing literature is the internal relationship of entrepreneurs with employees or cofounders (Jones and Rowley, 2011). As some notable exceptions, Felzensztein et al. (2022) emphasize that developing management teams’ marketing capabilities is essential for smaller firms’ internationalization processes. Furthermore, Petrylaite and Rusk (2021) assert that nascent entrepreneurs can expand their knowledge through shared learning among team members. We recommend that researchers focus more on the importance of entrepreneurial teams for developing marketing skills. Especially in startups, entrepreneurial teams can determine business models and firm performance (Choi et al., 2021). It would be interesting to investigate how new venture entrepreneurs integrate employees into marketing processes. Furthermore, we recommend examinations of the influence of startup teams’ experience on marketing strategy development to learn which marketing skills the founders need to succeed in the long term.

The second perspective takes a business-oriented view, such that authors address practical marketing actions in smaller companies and the general strategic orientation of various firms. On a practical level, this stream of research assesses particular marketing approaches, often in relation to the marketing mix. From a strategy perspective, various studies conceptualize the entrepreneurial market orientation, primarily in line with strategic management and entrepreneurship research. Noting the lack of a generally accepted definition of entrepreneurial marketing (Solé, 2013; Fiore et al., 2013), authors in this group adopt two main approaches. First, they might view entrepreneurial marketing as synonymous with SME marketing and test how smaller companies perform operational marketing activities (Mitchell et al., 2015; Harrigan et al., 2012). With practice-oriented studies, they investigate tactical issues linked to the marketing process, often according to the company’s size. Second, more strategic studies define entrepreneurial marketing and its underlying strategies independent of company size, arguing that such strategies are suitable for meeting challenges related to internal resources, turbulent markets and uncertain environments (Eggers, 2010; Alqahtani and Uslay, 2020). These studies may tend to feature smaller companies with varying growth intentions or degrees of internationalization (Becherer and Helms, 2016; Hallbäck and Gabrielsson, 2013) but a few contributions also include large firms (Eggers et al., 2020; Zhu and Matsuno, 2016; Boonchoo et al., 2013). Thus, we can distinguish between entrepreneurial marketing tactics (39 contributions) and entrepreneurial marketing strategy (86 contributions) subcategories. With 125 studies, this perspective is the most prominent in our sample. It features a few purely conceptual contributions, along with numerous qualitative and quantitative studies.

In the entrepreneurial marketing tactics subcategory, the proximity to SME marketing literature is evident, and we note overlaps with previous literature reviews pertaining to small firms’ marketing (Bocconcelli et al., 2018). Echoing the discussion between the attributes of entrepreneurs to traditional managers, authors argue that the execution of marketing practices in smaller firms is not comparable with that of large firms, because of their limited resources and inadequate management structures (Jayawarna et al., 2014; Gross et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2013). Moreover, in implementing marketing tactics, the practices of small companies must always be understood in context (Harrigan et al., 2012) and often depend on the founders or owner-managers (Kolabi et al., 2011). Researchers also identify firms with a particular growth orientation; new, innovative firms encounter particular obstacles when they adopt growth-oriented business models (Schulte and Eggers, 2010).

Marketing mix elements are relevant for SMEs, but a systematic approach to them does not transfer readily to small companies (Martin, 2009). Therefore, scholars suggest adaptations and extensions to the classic marketing mix (Kolabi et al., 2011; Toghraee et al., 2018) and examine individual components of marketing practice in connection with small and young companies (Mansour and Barandas, 2017). The development of marketing capabilities appears especially relevant for new ventures’ survival (Patel et al., 2021), as well as the expansion of international new ventures (Kowalik et al., 2020). Promotional activities, such as branding and communication, also seem relevant for SMEs. For example, Shi and Miles (2020) address the brand identity of startup firms with the argument that different approaches are applicable to ensure the survival and growth of entrepreneurial ventures. In a digitization context, Pakura and Rudeloff (2023) add that public relations on social media enhance brand development and reputation for growth-oriented firms. Compared with offline sources, digital communication channels offer a good alternative for increasing visibility with limited resources (Schmengler and Kraus, 2010; Harrigan et al., 2012). Regarding pricing characteristics, Siems et al.’s (2012) expert interviews confirm that a skimming price strategy is appropriate for smaller companies; a value-based introductory price approach seems most suitable for SMEs and startups. Flatten et al. (2015) investigate the impact of pricing capabilities on company performance in a study of technology-based ventures.

Within the entrepreneurial marketing strategy subcategory, several conceptualizations have been developed and tested, reflecting an interdisciplinary consideration of strategic orientations from marketing, management and entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2010; Solé, 2013). So far, we find no final agreement on a model, so increasing numbers of concepts, variables and influences appear in this literature stream. Our thematic analysis identifies a connection between entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation as a strong foundation, though customer and innovation orientations have been considered. If they combine multiple dimensions, scholars describe companies’ strategic responses to the status quo in the market according to their future-oriented entrepreneurial mindset.

Both Jones et al. (2013a) and Kowalik and Danik (2019) use a qualitative framework with 15 dimensions to depict entrepreneurial, market, customer and innovation orientations. In contrast, Eggers et al. (2012) propose a framework that consists only of entrepreneurial and customer orientation elements. A substream of contributions (Becherer et al., 2012; Bachmann et al., 2021; Fard and Amiri, 2018) cites seven core dimensions: proactiveness, opportunity focus, innovativeness, risk-taking, resource leveraging, customer intensity and value creation, as derived from Morris et al. (2002). Then, extended models with varying designs and scales emerged from these seven core elements (Kilenthong et al., 2015; Alqahtani and Uslay, 2020; Fiore et al., 2013); qualitative international management studies argue that further dimensions might be helpful for internationalizing companies (Yang, 2018; Mort et al., 2012; Hallbäck and Gabrielsson, 2013).

Even if an entrepreneurial market orientation generally leads to increased firm performance, various studies offer divergent results regarding the precise impacts of different dimensions. Qualitative studies mostly find support for the effects of all seven dimensions (Kurgun et al., 2011; Krisjanous and Carruthers, 2018), but other studies consider categories of strategic and operational marketing elements (Morrish and Deacon, 2011; Kirchner et al., 2013). Quantitative studies reveal more nuanced impacts, such that Becherer et al. (2012) find no support for the claim that the opportunity focus dimension affects SMEs’ outcome goals, but Sadiku-Dushi et al. (2019) uncover a strong positive link with firm performance. Studying SMEs in Indonesia, Astuti and Balqiah (2020) affirm the presence of all dimensions and note that customer focus has the strongest, but resource leveraging has the least influence.

The authors discuss diverse factors influencing the EM dimensions. In addition to internal factors, Becherer and Helms (2016) show how external market turbulence, hostility and competitiveness affect the dimensions. Alqahtani and Uslay (2020) add environmental influences such as technological turbulence, supplier power, network structure and market growth as moderators. According to Buccieri et al. (2023), the entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have positive influences on exploratory innovation and a differentiation strategy, which ultimately informs new ventures’ internationalization performance.

Upon examining the papers and insights related to the business perspective, we will delve into the challenges and future research opportunities stemming from this viewpoint. A fundamental challenge for theory-building and legitimizing this research field is the lack of a clear distinction between SMEs and entrepreneurial marketing. The use of these terms as synonyms contributes substantially to the heterogeneity in this research field. Therefore, we call generally for future investigations that establish clearly what entrepreneurial marketing constitutes for various businesses. Researchers should not neglect the unique nature of smaller companies but rather define overarching internal and external influences or different growth orientations, either of which could provide potential differentiation mechanisms. Continued investigations should aim to identify the boundary conditions of SMEs and avoid false equivalences between different types of businesses by establishing fundamental differences in the marketing practices of new versus already established companies. In particular, alterations in growth prospects are relevant; a startup confronts distinct challenges compared with an already established SME. Differences can also be traced back to end-users, and distinctions between business-to-business and business-to-consumer marketing tactics need to be explored. It would be helpful to distinguish entrepreneurial marketing from SME marketing at a tactical level, such as by using innovativeness or market newness.

Contrary to previous claims (Miles et al., 2015), highly innovative and high-risk marketing methods, such as guerrilla or buzz marketing, have not been directly discussed in entrepreneurial marketing literature. We only find investigations of viral marketing activities. It remains debatable how innovative marketing approaches – which can induce significant effects even with limited resources – should be integrated (Morrish, 2011). Researchers might investigate when these approaches are most appropriate and what factors contribute to their success or failure.

Surprisingly, only a few studies incorporate a customer perspective or actively explore consumer insights (Bhatli et al., 2012; Fink et al., 2020; Dubey et al., 2020), which is unlike traditional marketing literature, for which customer value is a core focus (Zeithaml et al., 2020). In line with the previously discussed entrepreneur perspective, the current literature demonstrates a notable lack of customer inclusion at the tactical level. Future research endeavors could delve into customers’ perceptions of new ventures and startups by examining various aspects of their interactions with these businesses. For example, researchers might investigate customers’ attitudes and expectations toward new ventures compared to established firms. Additionally, scholars could explore the factors that influence customers’ decision-making processes when considering the offerings of smaller enterprises, taking into account aspects such as customer preferences, pricing and quality. Furthermore, the impact of communication practices used by entrepreneurial ventures in shaping customer perceptions warrants further examination. Evaluating the role of customer involvement and personalized marketing in developing and marketing new ventures could provide valuable insights into the benefits and challenges associated with adapting traditional marketing approaches to entrepreneurial contexts (Chandra et al., 2022).

In connection with the strategy subcategory, broader management literature does not always directly use the term “entrepreneurial marketing,” even when it researches strategic firm orientations (Montiel-Campos, 2018). Despite this, numerous authors regard these orientations as the core of the discipline. Noting the unique role of strategic dimensions in entrepreneurial marketing, we suggest that researchers should compare existing models as well as incorporate dimensionality, performance outcomes and moderating factors into them. For example, a debate persists about whether an entrepreneurial market orientation is a unique or multidimensional construct. Fard and Amiri (2018) examine entrepreneurial marketing dimensions unidimensionally; Kilenthong et al. (2016) postulate multidimensionality in their research. Eggers et al. (2020) call for validations of the individual dimensions that also acknowledge what the dimensions have in common.

Considering this evidence that the effect of an entrepreneurial market orientation is highly complex, we suggest that further research analyze variances in performance outcomes and specify differences based on firms’ internal factors and growth orientation, as well as market conditions. Arguably, then, varying results in prior research might stem from the heterogeneity of the companies studied, which vary in their innovativeness, size, age and regions. Eggers et al. (2012) note differences in the entrepreneurial market orientations of low and high growth businesses; Kilenthong et al. (2016) and Fiore et al. (2013) anticipate that the dimensions depend on the general entrepreneurial orientation of a company. Detailed considerations of moderating and mediating factors are clearly necessary, whereas we find only a few studies that incorporate moderators, mediators, or antecedent variables (Zhu and Matsuno, 2016; Ahmadi and O’Cass, 2016). For instance, organizational culture could influence marketing efforts by shaping entrepreneurs’ and employees’ attitudes. As another potential moderator, market dynamism might affect the relationship between entrepreneurial marketing and firm performance (Alqahtani and Uslay, 2020). Antecedent variables could be the entrepreneur’s prior industry knowledge or entrepreneurial experience, which may influence the firm’s strategic orientation. Furthermore, effectual and causal decision-making may be considered a mediator, reflecting how entrepreneurs adapt their marketing strategies based on available means and resources. Identifying and integrating appropriate moderators and mediators into future research could shed light on the complex interplay between entrepreneurial marketing and firm performance.

Finally, it is pertinent to compare various outcome measures and examine changes over extended periods. Noting that no studies track the dimensions and their effects over time, we reiterate Becherer et al.’s (2012) call for research into how entrepreneurial market performance changes over the business life cycle. Kirchner et al. (2013) and Becherer et al. (2012) emphasize that multiple monetary and non-monetary indicators should be considered to address the diverse influences of entrepreneurial market orientation. We also need to clarify what success means in entrepreneurial marketing in general. It is vital to concede that the financial success of young startups may not become apparent until later stages, and smaller companies might have different objectives than larger ones.

The third perspective deals with the development of markets, the challenges posed by external market influences and the resulting opportunities for discovering, exploiting and evaluating entrepreneurial actions. The research field emphasizes the importance of context, which is not necessarily determined by company size, and the influence of external environmental factors in business and marketing processes. Situational challenges and constant change offer potential for entrepreneurial opportunities; firm characteristics such as being innovative, risk-oriented and proactive drive their responses to environmental challenges and efforts to exploit opportunities (Matsuno and Kohlbacher, 2020; Whalen and Akaka, 2016). The discovery, development and exploitation of opportunities are a primary focus of research from this perspective, and the two thematic subthemes are closely related. That is, changing environmental conditions can be a source of market opportunities, but the market context can also provide a holistic framework for entrepreneurs’ actions and business activities. Thus, we consider environmental conditions (12 contributions) and market developments (16 contributions). This market perspective includes 28 contributions, many of which are conceptual in nature, indicating that this research stream is underdeveloped within the entrepreneurial marketing literature.

Related to the environmental conditions subtheme, authors generally agree that entrepreneurial marketing takes place in the context of constantly changing markets. Change can be triggered by various factors, including technological developments, globalization (Deacon and Harris, 2011), demographic changes (Matsuno and Kohlbacher, 2020), structural influences on social or political levels (Ojo and Nwankwo, 2020; Peterson and Crittenden, 2020), environmental disasters and climate change (Morrish and Jones, 2020). Polas and Raju (2021) also note how the COVID-19 pandemic has altered the use of technology for marketing decisions. Because entrepreneurs’ behaviors and companies’ actions must account for complex market-based challenges, they likely require a situational approach.

Some disagreement exists, though, such that this perspective has been discussed at different levels, and some scholars use the term loosely. Peterson (2020) views entrepreneurial marketing as a process generally characterized by activities in a highly dynamic environment, but Miles et al. (2016) view it as an explicit approach to rebuilding businesses after natural disasters. Morrish and Jones (2020) leverage disaster management insights to present a conceptual framework of how entrepreneurs can deal with post-disaster settings. Other authors take a macromarketing perspective, which has a systemic character; entrepreneurial activity appears determined by the interplay of various actors and the market’s regulatory structure (Renton and Simmonds, 2019). For example, Friske and Cockrell (2019) test for the influence of taxes on product quality among US microbreweries. They find that increasing excise taxes has a significant positive impact on product quality.

Within the market development perspective subtheme, authors affirm that entrepreneurial marketing refers primarily to innovative or opportunity-seeking businesses, and environmental challenges offer the potential for new market opportunities or novel paths to value creation. In a collective position paper, a group of researchers emphasize that procedures for discovering and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities in changing contexts are central to entrepreneurial marketing (Whalen et al., 2016). Various contributions cite the importance of value co-creation (Whalen and Akaka, 2016), social value creation (Özdemir, 2013) and relevant factors that affect the discovery and exploitation of opportunities (Pane Haden et al., 2016; Chalhoub, 2010). Hulbert et al. (2013) examine the origins of entrepreneurial opportunities in growth-oriented firms and conclude that SMEs tend to focus on incremental improvements based on close market observations rather than radical opportunities.

Ultimately, by broadening the scope, scholars taking a market perspective highlight the opportunity evaluation procedures of actors outside the firm, such as venture capitalists or business angels (Wallnöfer and Hacklin, 2013; Kafeshani et al., 2018). By considering the relevance of trademarks for valuation processes for startups, Block et al. (2014) conclude that venture capitalists’ valuation depends on the number and breadth of trademark applications, according to an inverted U-shaped curve. Furthermore, Bobelyn et al. (2021) show that focused marketing activities lead to higher valuations for young tech companies.

Moving forward, we will analyze the insights related to the third perspective, addressing the associated challenges and unveiling promising avenues for future research. We note several general questions related to environmental influences. Contributions diverge between presenting entrepreneurial marketing as an overarching concept for behaviors and processes in changing markets or as a concrete framework to manage specific environmental conditions. Continued studies should overcome such divergent understanding and determine the role of environmental conditions in reality, as well as how to integrate such circumstances into their research efforts. The environment is an all-encompassing frame in which entrepreneurs and firms operate strategically and tactically and interact with various stakeholders. Therefore, integrating identified aspects from the entrepreneur and business perspectives could be relevant, and the market perspective might directly influence the situational context. For example, studying entrepreneurs’ marketing responses to changing environmental conditions or the influence of external moderating variables on entrepreneurial market orientations might enhance our understanding. More specifically, the rapid advancements in digitalization and sustainability have become increasingly important factors in entrepreneurship (George et al., 2021). For instance, studies could examine the adoption and impact of novel digital tools based on artificial intelligence on entrepreneurial firms’ marketing practices. Regarding sustainability, research might focus on the influence of stakeholder expectations on marketing initiatives, uncovering how sustainable orientation drives decision-making and entrepreneurial market orientation.

In terms of the industries studied, no clear picture emerges in the body of literature; some investigations center on technology-oriented companies, but different industries usually get lumped together. The environmental perspective calls for more careful consideration of industry-specific characteristics and exploring how entrepreneurs can actively shape and influence their respective markets rather than respond to them (Jenson et al., 2020). In light of recent research, it is essential to recognize the capabilities needed for market-shaping, which involve considering the larger system of relevant stakeholders, understanding institutional arrangements and fostering new resource linkages within and across stakeholders (Nenonen et al., 2019). Scholars could investigate the market-shaping capabilities most effective in different industries and contexts, enabling the development of industry-specific guidelines and best practices. Furthermore, scholars might examine the dynamics and challenges faced in shaping new versus already established markets.

Regarding market development, the opportunity focus and value creation dimensions have been proposed in prior conceptualizations of entrepreneurial market orientation (Morris et al., 2002; Alqahtani and Uslay, 2020). However, the market perspective indicates that discovering opportunities and creating new sources of value could be antecedents or prerequisites of entrepreneurial marketing, and scholars generally assume more innovative and proactive orientations of entrepreneurs and businesses. This view potentially narrows the set of companies engaged in entrepreneurial marketing. Therefore, market development processes might be considered as starting points, and the discovery of opportunities or the creation of value in context could spark a holistic approach that integrates different perspectives (Whalen et al., 2016).

We suggest using the market perspective as a basis for independent considerations of entrepreneurial marketing in changing markets, because it can support insights into the unique context of growth-oriented entrepreneurs and businesses in terms of uncovering opportunities and developing new products and services for commercialization. The novel Lean startup concept also seems suitable, in that it offers a comprehensive approach to opportunity development and helps innovative offerings come to market (Shepherd and Gruber, 2021). But how do marketing strategies develop in turbulent environments, in which the minimum viable product constantly needs to be adapted?

The continuous increase in entrepreneurial marketing publications in various journals (Figure 1) affirms the development of this research paradigm. But before it attains full legitimacy as a mainstream research topic, it still must address multiple conceptual issues. We seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the development of entrepreneurial marketing research in the past 12 years by citing various themes and avenues for further investigation. With a critical assessment of 207 articles, following a systematic review process, we establish three perspectives (entrepreneur, business and market) according to our thematic analysis. In so doing, this article enhances current knowledge of the field, extends previous narrative and bibliographic reviews and reveals some research avenues.

Overall, the boundaries of this research field have only been vaguely defined, so authors adopt varied perspectives and address a wide range of topics on a thematic level. We find contributions that deal with the characteristics and behavior of entrepreneurs and entrepreneur–stakeholder relationships in marketing processes. Another approach is to address entrepreneurial marketing from tactical and strategic business viewpoints. Strategic considerations of an entrepreneurial market orientation represent the most prevalent subtheme in this body of literature. Another perspective takes an overarching scope within the research field and focuses on the influence of environmental factors on the market and the discovery and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.

General differences in definitions of entrepreneurial marketing and the objects being investigated represent the origin of the heterogeneity inherent to this research field. Some scholars assume entrepreneurial marketing is synonymous with SME marketing; others emphasize strategic uses of entrepreneurial market orientation, which do not depend on firm size. Furthermore, various types of entrepreneurs and businesses with different growth ambitions, internationalization levels and life cycle phases can be considered. Thus, the existing literature does not clearly distinguish entrepreneurial marketing, leading to a lack of common ground and limited comparability across studies.

Legitimization will require explaining precisely what entrepreneurial marketing constitutes in various businesses. We need research that defines boundary conditions such that distinctions between small and medium-sized firms, new ventures and growth-oriented businesses are apparent. The perspective taken also offers a potential means of differentiation; entrepreneurial marketing research focuses on entrepreneurs and businesses with entrepreneurial orientations in change-driven environments. By concentrating on the marketing challenges that these innovating actors face, we can delineate the field from traditional SME marketing studies without excluding younger or smaller firms. Furthermore, this view provides the option to include larger companies in the discussion, a topic that has been neglected. The research questions we outline in the agenda in “Research Agenda and Questions” refer to general challenges and specific topics. Finally, entrepreneurial marketing research has yet to answer questions raised by earlier research (Hills and Hultman, 2011b):

1. Entrepreneur perspective:

   • Identify distinct individual approaches to entrepreneurs’ marketing while maintaining generalizability for theory building.

   • How are entrepreneurs’ perceptions of marketing shaped, and what causes differences relative to managers’ perceptions?

   • How does prior knowledge (e.g. level of education, work experience and age) affect interpretations of marketing?

   • How do nascent entrepreneurs build marketing knowledge with scant resources in diverse markets?

   • Do the personal goals of entrepreneurs (e.g. income generation, lifestyle goals and business growth) affect the marketing process?

   • Identify characteristics to consider when researching entrepreneurs’ marketing skills.

   • How does entrepreneurs’ creativity affect the development of marketing capabilities?

   • Are intuitive marketing decisions more successful than planned decisions?

   • Uncover differences in marketing decision-making between experienced and nascent entrepreneurs.

   • Determine the extent to which effectual and causal behavior appear in entrepreneurs’ marketing approaches.

   • What triggers behavioral change?

   • Can entrepreneurs build close relationships with customers despite limited resources?

   • What type of relationship delivers the most significant value in developing a marketing strategy?

   • How do interactions change throughout a company's life cycle?

   • Differentiate business-to-business and business-to-consumer relationships in terms of entrepreneurs’ marketing tactics.

   • Establish processes for entrepreneurs to analyze competitors and make marketing decisions based on this information.

   • Can entrepreneurs build relationships with competitors to mitigate resource disadvantages?

   • Do new venture entrepreneurs integrate employees into marketing processes?

   • Find competencies that are relevant for a founding team’s successful marketing development.

2. Business perspective:

   • Test the differentiation, based on the focus on more innovative and growth-oriented companies, of entrepreneurial marketing versus traditional SME marketing literature.

   • Define the role of innovative, creative or cost-efficient marketing methods such as guerilla marketing in entrepreneurial marketing.

   • How do marketing practices differ in companies with a strong growth orientation versus those without expansion tendencies? 

   • Do marketing tactics evolve as companies grow?

   • How do the industry and target group influence the marketing tactics adopted by smaller and younger firms?

   • Can small companies with limited resources collect information about customers effectively, and what role might digital technologies play?

   • What communication channels are most relevant for startups?

   • Establish the importance of strong brand development for small firms.

   • How do emerging companies adjust their pricing strategies over time?

   • Do customers perceive communication by young and new companies differently than that from established firms?

   • Identify the most appropriate model for studying entrepreneurial market orientation from a strategic perspective.

   • Is there an ideal number of dimensions for entrepreneurial market orientation, or do the dimensions need to be adapted depending on the context (e.g. industry, internationalization, developing versus developed markets)?

   • Outline what an entrepreneurial market orientation means for large companies.

   • Differentiate an entrepreneurial market orientation for startups and SMEs without growth intentions.

   • What moderators and mediators need to be considered when researching entrepreneurial marketing?

   • What do entrepreneurial marketing dimensions have in common, and how do they influence one another?

   • How should business success be defined in entrepreneurial marketing?

   • Which (qualitative and quantitative) performance indicators are best suited for holistic effectiveness measures?

   • Does entrepreneurial market orientation change over time as a business grows?

   • Derive tactical marketing approaches from entrepreneurial marketing dimensions.

   • List the impacts of entrepreneurs’ characteristics and decision-making behavior on entrepreneurial market orientation.

3. Market perspective:

   • Can a focus on innovation in changing markets produce a unified view of entrepreneurial marketing?

   • Are opportunity focus and value creation antecedents of entrepreneurial marketing?

   • Take a situational view of the market, according to entrepreneurial marketing theory.

   • Conceptualize environmental challenges (e.g. technology, climate change, globalization and pandemic) for entrepreneurial marketing theory.

   • Do changing environmental conditions affect the behavior of entrepreneurs in various industries?

   • What external factors influence the marketing strategy and practice of entrepreneurial new ventures and small firms the most?

   • Do regulatory and social factors affect the execution of marketing tactics in entrepreneurial firms?

   • How can entrepreneurs adapt their marketing strategy to mitigate exogenous shocks?

   • Determine how entrepreneurs perceive their environment and develop entrepreneurial opportunities in turbulent conditions.

   • Differentiate marketing strategies related to developed opportunities versus discovered opportunities.

   • Outline the implications of novel approaches such as Lean startups for new product development in entrepreneurial marketing.

   • What role do characteristics play in the market creation process?

   • Does opportunity co-creation facilitate market development?

   • Which channels are best suited for information exchange?

   • How should an entrepreneurial opportunity be presented to attract investors?

This study is not without limitations. Although we surveyed three comprehensive databases, we cannot guarantee that all relevant contributions were included. Our inclusion criteria limit the sample to contributions in English and a 12-year period, so other languages and earlier publications are not considered in the thematic classification. We also constrain the sample to publications in peer-reviewed journals, which excludes book chapters, conference proceedings or gray literature. Although we sought input from a research panel of three experts, we cannot completely eliminate possible subjectivity biases; thematic overlaps indicate how certain contributions could have been categorized differently. Therefore, we caution that the three identified perspectives are not conclusive but rather serve as an abstraction in this wide-ranging research field. In turn, this study can provide a basis for further thematic elaborations.

After more than 40 years, it is surprising how research refers to entrepreneurial marketing without knowing precisely what it is or what it is supposed to be. Although some progress has been made, there is still a long way to go for scholars working at the nexus of entrepreneurship and marketing. We thus hope our study provides a starting point for further developments in entrepreneurial marketing as a solid, independent research field.

Declarations of interest: none.

Table A1 

Table A2