http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2018, Vol. 28, No. 03, 69-79 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2018 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg This paper advances previous research on entrepre- neurial marketing (EM) by empirically exploring various EM-related decisions made by nascent entrepreneurs in high-tech, small businesses. Entrepreneurial marketing is an entrepreneurial characteristic shaped and generated by entrepreneurial mind and thought (Hills & Hultman, 2005). On the other hand, decision-making is an important part of entrepreneurship process by influencing the fate of en- trepreneurial ventures. Because of their specific cognitive characteristics as well as the unique characteristics of their business environment, entrepreneurial decisions are dis- tinctive (Baron, 1998). Furthermore, various scholars have studied EM and summarized key EM characteristics like entrepreneurial orientation (Hill & Wright, 2000), proac- tiveness and risk-taking (Kraus, Harms, & Fink, 2009), op- portunity-orientation (Morrish, Miles, & Deacon, 2010) as well as innovativeness, creativity, networking and flexibility (Hills, Hultman, Kraus, & Schulte, 2010). But, though EM comes from entrepreneurial thinking and decision-making (Hills & Hultman, 2005), there are few studies exploring various aspects of decision-making in entrepreneurial mar- keting (Nouri, Imanipour, Talebi, & Zali, 2018). The role of entrepreneurial personality in decision-making is more emphasized in the context of nascent entrepreneurship as well as small businesses. In small businesses, decisions are made under the influence of resource scarcity. Also, entre- preneurs running small businesses face decision complex- ity as well as decision uncertainty because of not having either needed expertise or necessary resources to gather information and evaluate it so as to make business-related decisions (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Moreover, nascent entrepreneurs’ decisions are informal (Carson, Cromie, McGowan, & Hill, 1995) and made under the influence of intuition and emotions (Baron & Shane, 2007). Because of not having experience, information processing of nascent Introduction Pouria Nouri1, Abdollah Ahmady2 1University of Tehran, Iran, pourianouri62@gmail.com 2Universisty of Tehran, Iran, ahmady84@gmail.com A taxonomy of nascent entrepreneurs’ marketing decisions in high-tech small businesses Entrepreneurial marketing, Decision making, Nascent entrepreneurs, Small businesses, Taxonomy Entrepreneurial marketing is a useful entrepreneurial strategy to achieve certain goals. This is mostly true for nascent entrepreneurs run- ning small businesses for two main reasons. On the one hand, these entrepreneurs encounter various kinds of resource scarcity. On the other hand, nascent entrepreneurs, especially the ones without having any previous start-up experience, face decision complexity and decision uncertainty in their decisions, including marketing decisions. Given the fact that entrepreneurial marketing emanates from entrepreneur- ial thinking and decision-making, there should be a direct link between entrepreneurial marketing and entrepreneurial decision-making. Coming to the conclusion that there are few, if any, studies regarding entrepreneurial decisions in entrepreneurial marketing, we conducted a qualitative content analysis to present a taxonomy of main entrepreneurial marketing decisions. According to our findings based on the data gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews with nascent Iranian high-tech entrepreneurs active in biotechnology and nano- technology industries and analyzed by open coding, marketing mix decisions, core marketing decisions, market entry decisions, opportuni- ty-related decisions, innovation decisions as well as growth decisions are the main decisions made by nascent entrepreneurs, respectively. APA Citation Information: Nouri, P., & Ahmady, A. (2018). A taxonomy of nascent entrepreneurs’ marketing decisions in high-tech small businesses Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(3), 69-79. 70 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 entrepreneurs is fundamentally different from experienced entrepreneurs (Ucbasaran, 2004). Thus, one would surmise that the decision-making context for nascent entrepreneurs is probably more tumultuous. We argue that there is a seri- ous gap in literature regarding EM decisions made by na- scent entrepreneurs. Therefore, based on a qualitative content analysis we offer a taxonomy of entrepreneurial marketing decisions. So our study adds two important contributions to the studies of entrepreneurship. First, we contribute to the EM literature by being a pioneer in connecting two important fields of EM and decision-making. Second, we study nascent entrepre- neurs, whose decision-making has rarely been studied. This paper proceeds as follows: We review the related literature and then we elaborate our research method, findings, dis- cussion and implications, respectively. Literature Review Entrepreneurial Marketing Marketing has been defined as the process of creating value for customers as well as building strong custom- er relationship so as to capture value in return (Kotler & Armstrong, 2010). Marketing and entrepreneurship are two fundamental elements of success in market creation (Dar- roch & Miles, 2011). Entrepreneurial marketing is a deci- sive instrument of entrepreneurial firms to achieve success by doing marketing in unconventional ways (Stokes, 2000). There are numerous definitions of entrepreneurial market- ing in the literature. EM is the process of passionately pur- suing opportunities and creating customer value by taking an innovative approach by emphasizing networking, market immersion as well as flexibility (Bjerke & Hultman, 2004). EM is also a strategy to address dynamic business environ- ment (Morrish, 2011), and a different way of doing mar- keting by emphasizing a proactive orientation to identify and create opportunities and exploiting them before com- petitors in order to gain the upper hand in the market (Miles, Gilmore, Harrigan, Lewis, & Sethna, 2015). Although EM firms engage in all the core marketing activities of tradition- al marketing like selling and value propositions (Morrish, Miles, & Deacon, 2010), contrary to the traditional market- ing that regards customers as the focal point of marketing activities, EM acknowledges the equally important function of the entrepreneur in the firm’s marketing activities (Mor- rish, 2011). Various factors influence the genesis of EM. According to Carson (1993), EM is mostly under the in- fluence of experience, knowledge, behavior and judgment of the owner-manager. Also, entrepreneurial mind and deci- sion-making are distinguished components of EM (Hills & Hultman, 2005). Table 1 shows a summary of key findings on entrepreneurial marketing. Reviewing these findings di- vulges the lack of studies on the role of entrepreneurial de- cision-making in EM. Table 1 Summary of key findings on entrepreneurial marketing Researchers Key findings Carson (1993) Experience, knowledge and judgment of entrepreneur are emphasized in EM. Carson et al. (1995) EM in SMEs is an informal and haphaz- ard approach to marketing activities. Stokes (2000) EM is doing marketing in unconventional ways. Bjerke & Hul- tman (2004) EM is marketing of small firms growing through entrepreneurship. Gruber (2004) Newness, uncertainty and turbulence affect EM in small firms. Hills & Hult- man (2005) EM behavior comes from entrepreneurial mind and thought. Kraus et al. (2009) Innovativeness, proactiveness, an entre- preneurial mindset.as well as risk-taking are necessary components of EM. Morrish et al. (2010) EM is an opportunity-driven way of mar- keting. Hills et al. (2010) Innovativeness, creativity, networking and flexibility are emphasized in EM. Gilmore (2011) Entrepreneur/owner/manager is the focal point of EM. Morris (2011) EM is a strategy to address dynamic busi- ness environment. Morrish (2011) Entrepreneur and customers play equally important roles in EM. Uslay & Er- dogan (2014) Entrepreneurial mindfulness is empha- sized in EM. Miles et al. (2015) Proactive orientation as well as innovative behavior define EM. Kilenthong Hultman, & Hills, (2016) Firm’s age influences EM behavior. 71 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 Entrepreneurial Decision-Making That entrepreneurial decision-making has the potential of becoming a scientific paradigm (Schade & Burmeis- ter-Lamp, 2009), indicates its importance in the field of en- trepreneurship. Decision-making is so important in the field of entrepreneurship that entrepreneurs have been defined as decision makers who identify opportunities through ap- proaches emphasizing innovations, profitable venture iden- tification as well as effectiveness (Sarasvathy & Berglund, 2010). Decision-making in an entrepreneurial context is more emphasized, given that entrepreneurs encounter sit- uations such as information overload, high time pressure, and uncertainty profusely (Baron, 1998; Shepherd, 2010; Van Auken, 1999). Compared to non-entrepreneurs, entre- preneurs possess more versatile decision-making styles, including linear as well as non-linear thinking and deci- sion-making capabilities (Groves, Vance, & Choi, 2011; Shepherd, Williams & Patzelt, 2015). Entrepreneurial decisions vary from non-entrepreneurs (Shepherd et al., 2015). Entrepreneurs tend to assess busi- ness situation more optimistically, overestimate one’s abili- ty to make sound business predictions, focus more on their own competencies while neglecting their competitors, over- generalize from available information, and expand their firms despite negative market feedbacks (Shepherd & Pat- zelt, 2017). Though prior studies have created a strong body of knowledge on entrepreneurial decision-making, these studies have only paved the ground for more work on the subject and the existing body of knowledge is far from fully capturing the complexity and dynamics of entrepreneurial decisions (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017). Table 2 summarizes key findings of entrepreneurial decision-making. This table clearly shows the lack of research on EM decision-making. Nascent Entrepreneurs’ Marketing Decisions in Small Businesses Nascent entrepreneurs are individuals in the process of establishing a business venture (Reynolds & White, 1997). Being important components of today’s business environ- ments (Delmar & Davidsson, 2000), nascent entrepreneurs possess unique decision-making styles and evaluation methods (Dimov, 2010). Furthermore, nascent entrepre- neurs in new ventures lack established marketing relation- ships as well as adequate experience in marketing issues resulting in errors in their marketing planning and execution (Gruber, 2004). This is indeed emphasized for nascent en- trepreneurs running small businesses. Marketing in smaller firms appears to be different from that practiced by larger organizations (Coviello, Brodie, & Munro, 2000). Also, de- cision-making in small firms has distinctive characteristics, which makes it different from decision-making in large or- ganizations, including the level of decision uncertainty and decision complexity entrepreneurs in small businesses en- counter (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Given that small businesses deal with various shortag- es of necessary resources and lack of specialized knowl- Table 2 Key research on entrepreneurial decision-making Researchers Key findings Palich & Bagby (1995) Entrepreneurs view some situations as “opportunities,” even though others per- ceive them to have little potential. Baron (1998) Entrepreneurs face situations that tend to overload their information-processing capacity and are characterized by high levels of uncertainty, novelty, emotion, and time pressure. Busenitz (1999) Entrepreneurs use biases and heuristics more, which is likely to lead them to per- ceive less risk in a given decision situation. Shepherd (2010) Entrepreneurial tasks are often extreme—rife with high levels of uncertainty, time pressure, stress, and emotions. This severely impacts entrepreneurial decisions. Sarasvathy & Berglund (2010) Entrepreneurs are decision makers who identify and capitalize on opportunities through approaches that emphasize innovation, profitable venture identification, effectiveness. Shepherd et al. (2015) For entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurial environment is characterized by high levels of uncertainty about the markets they enter or create, the outcomes of the techno- logical developments they pursue, and their competencies to successfully run a venture. 72 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 edge (Franco, de Fátima Santos, Ramalho, & Nunes, 2014), marketing activities in these firms tend to be informal and decision-making is intuitive rather than theoretical (Covi- ello et al., 2000). Moreover, in small businesses, a sole entrepreneur makes major decisions. By contrast, in larger enterprises, main decisions, including marketing ones, are formally made and formalized into marketing plans and marketing strategies (Bjerke & Hultman, 2004). Given their lack of resources, small firms face great levels of uncertain- ty in their decisions (Cacciolatti & Lee, 2015). In short, one could easily conclude the exceptional importance of entre- preneurial marketing decision-making in small businesses run by nascent entrepreneurs. Method The current research is descriptive in purpose with an anti-positivist stance by focusing on generating subjective knowledge based on entrepreneurial narratives about en- trepreneurial marketing decisions, instead of commencing the study from a given theory and applying quantitative measures. Thus, in order to gain a detailed understanding of nascent entrepreneurs’ main marketing decisions, we conducted a qualitative content analysis study by inter- viewing nascent Iranian high-tech entrepreneurs active in different sectors of biotechnology and nanotechnology, who have introduced at least one product to the market in the last 42 months. Out of high-tech industries, we selected nanotechnology as well as biotechnology. We concentrated on nanotechnology because of its importance as a sector of high-tech industry (Woolley & Rottner, 2008) as well as its importance in Iran’s economy. As of late 2016, more than 150 Iranian firms were active in nanotechnology (based on the latest statistics published by the Iranian council of nanotechnology development), indicating its importance in the Iranian economy as a whole. Moreover, we chose bio- technology for two main reasons. In general, biotechnology environment is rife with uncertainty as well as rapid change (Carsrud, Brännback, & Renko, 2008), thus, the importance of entrepreneurial judgmental decisions could be more em- phasized. In particular, biotechnology is a very thriving and important high-tech sector in Iran. According to the latest statistics published by the Iranian Center of Biotechnology Development, as of late 2016 more than a quarter of all do- mestic Iranian high-tech firms were active in the biotech- nology sector (Biotechnology Council, 2016), indicating the vitality of this industry for the Iranian economy. We ad- opted a purposive sample approach by selecting the initial list of prospective entrepreneurs from the updated list made available by the Council of Iranian Nanotechnology as well as the Iranian Institution of Biotechnology Development. We followed the Kvale (1996) rule regarding the number in our sample which regards a number of (10 ± 15) interviews in qualitative studies as adequate. In the process of selecting the interviewees, we made sure that the selected entrepreneurs were either the sole or main decision maker in their firms. Also, the interviewees were considered relatively educated (with at least a bache- lor’s degree). On the other hand, all firms were considered small businesses regarding their resources and the number of staff personnel. In the process of data analysis, our early involvement with the interview data helped us move back and forth be- tween the developed concepts and the collected data, thus enabling us to direct subsequent data collection toward sources that were considered more useful for addressing the main research question (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Fur- thermore, we strived for a balance between description and interpretation of the gathered data, given that description gives the readers background and context and thus needs to be rich and thick (Denzin, 1989). However because qualita- tive research is fundamentally interpretive, and interpreta- tion represents the researcher’s personal and theoretical un- derstanding of the phenomenon under study (Patton, 2002), we tried to provide sufficient description to allow the reader to understand the basis for our interpretations in this study. This study’s saturation point was achieved after ana- lyzing the gathered data of 22 interviews. Nevertheless, in order to make sure of our results, we conducted three more interviews which corroborated our initial results. In gener- al, we interviewed 13 nanotechnology entrepreneurs and 12 biotechnology ones. All the interviews were recorded af- ter getting the consent of the interviewees. Each interview lasted at least 40 minutes. In each interview, we asked the interviewee to recount and elaborate their most important marketing-related decisions, up to five decisions, in order of precedence. Table 3 elaborates the demographic charac- teristics of this sample. Findings In the process of interviewing, our main effort was to identi- fy nascent entrepreneurs’ main marketing decisions in order of precedence. We extracted these decisions from entrepre- neurs’ own experiences and narratives instead of resorting to the literature. We tried to grasp a better understanding of marketing decisions. In order to analyze the interviews, we used open coding. This was done by three coders, including 73 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 a marketing expert. Some of the identified decisions were routine and some of them were non-routine. Also, some of the decisions were in form of choosing among various al- ternatives. After analyzing and reviewing the gathered data, we concluded that entrepreneurial marketing decisions could be categorized into six distinctive categories, in order of precedence, as follows: • Marketing mix decisions (decisions regarding product, place, promotion, price). • Core marketing decisions (decisions about marketing strategy, targeting, market segmentation) • Market entry decisions (decisions about resources, bar- riers, competition, exporting) • Opportunity-related decisions (decisions about oppor- tunity identification, evaluation, exploitation) • Innovation decisions. • Growth decisions (market penetration, market devel- opment, product expansion, diversification, segmenta- tion). Table 4 shows the frequency of each of these categories based on the interviewed data. Table 3 Demographic characteristics of the entrepreneurs No. Percentage Gender Male 19 76.0 Female 6 24.0 Age <=30 4 16.0 30-40 13 52.0 40-60 8 32.0 Level of Education Bachelor’s degree 8 32.0 Master’s degree 9 36.0 PhD 8 32.0 Industry Nano-biotechnology 4 16.0 Semiconductors 4 16.0 DNA nanotechnology 3 12.0 Molecular engineer- ing 2 8.0 Gene therapy 3 12.0 Genetic engineering 2 8.0 Agriculture 4 16.0 Food production 3 12.0 Firm Age (years) <=2 9 36.0 2-3.5 16 64.0 Number of Employees 1-10 7 28.0 11-20 12 48.0 21<= 6 24.0 Table 4 Identified categories of EM decisions Categories of Decisions Frequency of Related Statements Marketing mix decisions 37 Core marketing decisions 32 Market entry decisions 25 Opportunity-related decisions 16 Innovation decisions 9 Growth decisions 6 Category One: Marketing Mix Decisions Marketing mix decisions, from product to place, pric- ing as well as promotion were the main decision-making category identified in our study. Though these decisions were similar to traditional marketing decisions, the lack of resources and also inexperience in nascent entrepreneurs running small businesses made these decisions more crucial for the interviewees. Most of the interviewees mentioned their difficulties in making marketing mix decisions. In ret- rospect, a lot of the interviewees recounted their decisions on marketing mix issues under the influence of their scarce resources. Other interviewee’s comments indicated the impor- tance of marketing mix decisions and the burden of various shortages, including inexperience, the entrepreneurs felt while making these decisions. Table 5 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their marketing mix decisions. Category Two: Core Marketing Decisions Many of the interviewees listed core marketing deci- sions as part of their marketing decisions. These decisions 74 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 Table 5 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding marketing mix decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (C) “I had designed an anti-pollutant to alleviate the fatal effects of air pollution in Tehran’s winter. This could be used at homes as well as in offices. Pilot test were satisfactory, even beyond my expectations. I noticed that it could be used in Tehran in at least one season of winter, or, alternatively, it could be sent to Ahvaz, consid- ering its pollution for at least three full seasons of the year. So I needed to make the vital decision of the place I want to offer my product.” Biotechnology (S) “I had to make some important decisions about promotional strategies according to financial resources we had at our disposal. Our area of expertise was a kind of pesticide for farmers. We concentrated on Iran’s north, but we were novice regard- ing promotions at the time.” especially consisted of marketing strategy, segmentations, targeting as well as positioning. Though these decisions are typical marketing decisions similar to traditional marketing decisions in various firms and organizations, given the na- scent nature of our sample, some of these decisions proved to be vital for their survival. For example, some entrepre- neurs recounted their difficulty in defining the most rele- vant target market, as is obvious in the comments made by an entrepreneurs shown in Table 6. Some knew practically nothing regarding marketing concepts like segmentation or strategy. They had to trust their own intuition to make de- cisions in the short span of time. Table 6 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their core mar- keting decisions. Category Three: Market Entry Decisions Various aspects of entry decisions, including barriers, competitors, resources, and for some entrepreneurs even exporting included another category of entrepreneurial marketing decisions in our study. Some entrepreneurs faced severe monopoly in their industry, which made competition all but impossible. Some others had to make the crucial de- cision of gathering and preparing vital resources. For oth- ers, the decision regarding the time of entry, was a crucial decision. Some faced the dilemma of when to enter. If en- tered immediately, they would possibly face severe hurdles and impediments. If they postponed their entry, they would lose time and possible opportunities. Also, some entrepreneurs had entered the domestic market successfully and were about to expand their markets to neighboring countries like Iraq and Turkey. On the oth- er hand, some interviewees were even uncertain regarding their positions in domestic markets, given the severity of entry barriers and competition. Table 7 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their marketing entry decisions. Category Four: Opportunity-Related Decisions Decisions regarding different aspects of identifying, evaluating, as well as exploiting marketing opportunities, were other important categories of entrepreneurial market- ing decisions. A few interviewees even mentioned their ex- ploitation decisions, the time of exploitation, and its various aspects, as their most important marketing decisions by far. Given their scarce resources as well as market turbulence at the time, these entrepreneurs needed to decide whether or not to exploit a given opportunity. Also, the bulk of resourc- es they needed to allocate for this exploitation was another important decision. Table 8 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their opportunity-related decisions. Category Five: Innovation Decisions Innovation-related decisions were another identified category of decisions emphasized by our interviewees. Some had built their venture on the concept of an innova- tive idea. Some were pursuing innovation after launching their businesses in order to achieve competitive advantages. Some even mentioned innovation as their resort to achieve profit and gain considerable market shares. For some inter- viewees, innovative ideas came from their own mind, be- cause they did not possess necessary financial resources to invest in research and development. Also, some important decisions were made regarding intellectual property issues, given the lax regulation that exists in Iran’s business envi- ronment. But more specifically, these entrepreneurs feared that, given their lack of resources on the one hand and com- plex intellectual property rights in business environment, their innovative ideas may have been exposed to their more powerful rivals in the market. Table 9 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their innova- 75 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 Table 7 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding marketing entry decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (H) “I had conducted some pilot tests and based on their results was about to make the decision of when to enter. I was facing a dilemma. If I entered the market imme- diately, I would face severe competition not only by governmental spin-offs but also by seasoned entrepreneurs already in the semi-conductor market. On the other hand, if I postponed my entry, I would probably lose the available windows of opportunities. Anyway, I chose to enter the market limitedly.” Biotechnology (P) “Genetic engineering is a young industry in Iran. I had invested in this industry dearly and I was hesitant to enter the market or postpone my entry till conducting satisfactory market tests and analyzing the situation. Though postponement would cost me pioneering advantages.” Table 6 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding core marketing decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (D) “I had an engineering background and based my venture on an engineering-related idea. I did not have reliable marketing expertise, I had just attended some courses of marketing. One of my main decisions at the inception of my venture was made regarding our best target market. On the one hand we could have concentrated on governmental firms, quite the contrary, we could select totally private sector to deliver our product. The differences were substantial. I had to make this decision in the first couple of months of my activities.” Biotechnology (A) “I entered the market without any sophisticated preparations or planning. Thus, the first couple of months were tumultuous, because I had difficulty about choosing tar- get markets or segmenting. Concepts like strategy or segmentation were unfamiliar to me and I learnt(sic) them mostly by doing trial and error in the market.” Table 8 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding opportunity-related decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (B) “I entered nano-biotechnology market two years ago. I was a consultant in a bio-related firm and based on my experiences as well as education, I founded my own firm. My main product is a kind of plastic bag. In the meantime, I identified a lucrative opportunity, the exploitation of which needed my firm to make some changes in its priorities. Because I was experiencing serious shortages at the time, I either had to let go of the new opportunity and focus on my ongoing project, or sidestep the ongoing project by prioritizing the new identified opportunity. It was a very difficult decision needed to be made in a couple of weeks.” Biotechnology (O) “Bio food is a burgeoning industry in Iran. Because of the various governmental as well as nongovernmental advertisements, people are getting familiar with bio products. I identified a lucrative opportunity to produce bio-yoghurt designed for sensitive people and built my venture upon it. It has been my most important busi- ness decision to this day.” 76 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 Table 9 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding innovation decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (F) “Semiconductor market, in which I am active, is a turbulent market. This means a high rate of change. If I want to survive and compete in this market, especially with my limited resources, I need to be innovative. This has been my business doctrine in the last couple of years. Coming to the conclusion that in order to not only gain a good market share but also to survive, innovation is a necessity, I have been nurturing and developing innovative ideas. For example, I have produced some kind of semiconductors with the same capabilities as the current products in the market, but with half the price.” Biotechnology (L) “Unfortunately, especially in recent years, immoral marketing behavior in food industry has led to lots of maladies for domestic consumers. For example, lots of artificial foods and even fruits have been produced and fed to Iranian people, with- out their knowledge. I decided to produce a natural bio product whose function is to reveal artificial ingredients in fruits.” tion-related decisions. Category Six: Growth Decisions Growth Decisions included all the decisions regarding market penetration, market development, product expan- sion, diversification and segmentation. Despite their nascent nature and even some of them being considered novice en- trepreneurs, some interviewees mentioned growth decisions as their main decisions after stabilizing their situations. Ta- ble 10 shows two related comments made by entrepreneurs regarding their growth decisions. Discussion Entrepreneurial marketing is an important character- istic of entrepreneurs, especially entrepreneurs founding and managing small businesses, given the resource scarcity these entrepreneurs encounter. Also, entrepreneurial deci- sion-making is an inseparable part of entrepreneurship. Na- Table 10 Entrepreneurs’ comments regarding growth decisions Industry Entrepreneur’s Code Entrepreneur’s Statement Nanotechnology (K) “After concluding that my current situation is reliable, I turned my attention to growth. I prepared some plans to expand my market. Firstly, I entered domestic market in vicinity. After that, I decided to export to Iraq.” Biotechnology (N) “As soon as I stabilized my market in Qazvin province, I decided to develop my market to Iran’s north, which proved to be a very lucrative market for our product (manure). That was in the second year of my activity in this firm. So I fully con- centrated on market expansion.” scent entrepreneurs’ decision-making is of substantial im- portance because nascent entrepreneurs may lack necessary decision-making experience and expertise and make their business decisions mostly based on their emotions and intu- ition. Thus, one could conclude that nascent entrepreneurs’ marketing decisions are of exceptional importance. Though emphasized in the literature, there are very few studies re- garding entrepreneurial decisions in EM. The current study focused on gaining a better understanding of both EM and entrepreneurial decision-making. The main objective of this paper was to offer a taxonomy of entrepreneurial mar- keting decisions. This goal was pursued by conducting semi-structured interviews with nascent Iranian high-tech entrepreneurs active in biotechnology and nanotechnolo- gy industries. According to our findings, all EM decisions could be categorized into six categories of marketing mix decisions (decisions regarding product, place, promotion, price), core marketing decisions (decisions about market- ing strategy, targeting, market segmentation), market entry decisions (decisions about resources, barriers, competition, 77 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 exporting), opportunity-related decisions (decisions about opportunity identification, evaluation, exploitation), inno- vation decisions and growth decisions (market penetration, market development, product expansion, diversification, segmentation). Most of our results corroborate the main principles set forth by the literature regarding important as- pects of EM. Opportunity orientation (Morrish et al., 2010), growth (Bjerke & Hultman, 2004), innovation (Miles et al., 2015) and innovativeness (Kraus et al., 2009) that have been emphasized in the literature as the main components of EM were corroborated in our study as we found out main EM decisions regarding these issues. Also, given that ac- cording to our findings, some important EM decisions are made regarding core marketing activities and marketing mix decisions, we conclude that EM decisions are rooted in traditional marketing decisions, but with the influence of the entrepreneur, as we made sure that in our sample the de- cision-making is mostly the task of a sole, novice entrepre- neur. This is in line with the proposition set forth by Mor- rish et al. (2010) that EM is actually traditional marketing with an entrepreneurial spirit. Also, according to Morrish et al. (2010), decision-making in high growth SMEs is often focused on exploiting opportunities to create radical inno- vations that disrupt markets and competitive relationships. This statement was partly and implicitly corroborated as our interviewees emphasized the importance of opportunity ex- ploitations decisions. That new ventures face lots of uncertainty in their busi- ness environment because of various resource scarcities (Gruber, 2004) was also corroborated in our study as a lot of interviewees mentioned the burden of resource scarcity on their marketing decisions. On the other hand, we found evidence of some entrepreneurs’ hesitations in their mar- keting decisions, which were apparent in their recounts of their marketing decisions, especially initial decisions. This could be due to the fact that they were nascent and novice in their decision-making. Also, that growth-related decisions were the least frequent category of decisions identified here could be due to the fact that our sample consisted of nascent entrepreneurs. Indicating that their main goal in the initial months and even years of their ventures were mere survival, not growth. Also, Gilmore, Carson, and Grant (2001) argue that networking is an inherent aspect of entrepreneurs’ deci- sions in small businesses. This was not corroborated in our study as none of the interviewees mentioned networking de- cisions as one of their main EM-related decisions. Implications Our results are of grave importance for high-tech en- trepreneurs as well as the entrepreneurs running small busi- nesses. Given that resource scarcity in small businesses in their marketing activities encounter has been emphasized in the literature and reiterated in our study, and this impacts EM decisions, policy makers should consider finding ways to reduce the negative effects of resource scarcity on EM decisions in small firms. We have also four important implications for future prospective researchers. We emphasize the fact that this study was conducted in Iran, a country in which govern- ment plays substantial roles in economy as a whole. Also, at the time of this study, Iran’s economy was still plagued by various sanctions. Thus, we call on future researchers to pay attention to contextual matters and conduct a similar study in other countries with different contexts. On the oth- er hand, according to the literature, entrepreneurs in small businesses are prone to heuristics and biases (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). These heuristics and biases influence lots of entrepreneurial decisions and have important outcomes for entrepreneurs (Shepherd et al., 2015). Do heuristics and bi- ases influence EM decisions, too? This is a very important research topic, given the important practical implications of heuristics and biases for entrepreneurs. Also, we targeted two important high-tech industries as our sample. For our findings to be applicable for high-tech industries as a whole, future studies should better select and study other parts of high-tech industries. Last, but not least, our sample consist- ed of nascent entrepreneurs. Because nascent entrepreneurs’ decisions are different from those decisions made by expe- rienced entrepreneurs, we call on prospective researchers to study the differences between EM decisions made by na- scent and experienced entrepreneurs. References Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepre- neurship: Why and when enterpreneurs think dif- ferently than other people. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 13(4), 275-294. Baron, R., & Shane, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Western College Pub- lishing. Biotechnology Council (BTC) (2016). The Second Nation- al Biotechnology Plan 2016-2025 (in Persian). Teh- ran, BTC. Bjerke, B., & Hultman, C. (2004). Entrepreneurial market- ing: The growth of small firms in the new economic era. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Busenitz, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision-making: It’s a matter of perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 325- 340. Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: 78 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30. Cacciolatti, L., & Lee, S. H. (2015). Entrepreneurial mar- keting for SMEs. London, UK: Palgrave Macmil- lan. Carson, D. (1993). A philosophy for marketing education in small firms. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(2), 189-204. Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P., & Hill, J. (1995). Marketing and entrepreneurship in SMEs: An inno- vative approach. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall (International). Carsrud, A. L., Brännback, M., & Renko, M. (2008). Strat- egy and strategic thinking in biotechnology en- trepreneurship. In H. Patzelt & T. Brenner (Eds.), Handbook of Bioentrepreneurship (pp. 83-103). New York, NY:Springer. Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., & Munro, H. J. (2000). An investigation of marketing practice by firm size. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 523-545. Darroch, J., & Miles, M. P. (2011). Implementing innova- tion: What does it take to create a new market?. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 723-727. Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P. (2000) Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent en- trepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Devel- opment, 12(1), 1-23. Denzin, N. K, (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dimov, D. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emer- gence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1123-1153. Franco, M., de Fátima Santos, M., Ramalho, I., & Nunes, C. (2014). An exploratory study of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: The role of the founder-entre- preneur. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(2), 265-283. Gilmore, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial and SME marketing. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepre- neurship, 13(2), 137-145. Gilmore, A., Carson, D., & Grant, K. (2001). SME market- ing in practice. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), 6-11. Groves, K., Vance, C., & Choi, D. (2011). Examining en- trepreneurial cognition: An occupational analysis of balanced linear and nonlinear thinking and en- trepreneurship success. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(3), 438-466. Gruber, M. (2004). Marketing in new ventures: theory and empirical evidence. Schmalenbach Business Re- view, 56(2), 164-199. Hill, J., & Wright, L. T. (2000). Defining the scope of entre- preneurial marketing: a qualitative approach. Jour- nal of Enterprising Culture, 8(1), 23-46. Hills, G. E., Hultman, C., Morris, M., & Carson, D. (2005, January). Marketing, entrepreneurship and SMEs: knowledge and education revisited. In Proceed- ings of the 10th Annual research Symposium of the Academy of marketing Special Interest Group on Entrepreneurial and SME marketing, Southampton University. Hills, G. E., Hultman, C. M., Kraus, S., & Schulte, R. (2010). History, theory and evidence of entrepre- neurial marketing–an overview. International Jour- nal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Manage- ment, 11(1), 3-18. Kilenthong, P., Hultman, C. M., & Hills, G. E. (2016). En- trepreneurial marketing behaviours: Impact of firm age, firm size and firm’s founder. Journal of Re- search in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 127-145. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Kraus, S., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial marketing: Moving beyond marketing in new ven- tures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(1), 19-34. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles M, Huberman AM, (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Miles, M., Gilmore, A., Harrigan, P., Lewis, G., & Seth- na, Z. (2015). Exploring entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(2), 94-111. Morris, S. C. (2011). Entrepreneurial marketing: A strategy for the twenty‐first century?. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 110‐119. Morrish, S. C. (2011). Entrepreneurial marketing: a strategy for the twenty-first century?. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 110-119. Morrish, S. C., Miles, M. P., & Deacon, J. H. (2010). Entre- preneurial marketing: acknowledging the entrepre- neur and customer-centric interrelationship. Jour- nal of Strategic Marketing, 18(4), 303-316. Nouri, P., Imanipour, N., Talebi, K., & Zali, M. (2018). Most common heuristics and biases in nascent en- trepreneurs’ marketing behavior. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30(6), 451-472. Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Ventur- ing, 10(6), 425-438. Patton M. Q, (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation 79 P. Nouri, & A. Ahmady Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 3 (2018) / 69--79 methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reynolds, P. D., & White, S. (1997). The entrepreneurial process. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sarasvathy, S. D., & Berglund, H. (2010). On the rele- vance of decision-making in entrepreneurial deci- sion-making. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurial Re- search, 163-184. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publinshing. Schade, C., & Burmeister-Lamp, K. (2009). Experiments on entrepreneurial decision-making: A different lens through which to look at entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 81-134. Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Multilevel entrepreneurship re- search: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision-making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2017). Researching Entre- preneurial Decision Making. In D. A. Sheperd & H. Patzelt (Eds.), Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship: Creating New Paths for Understanding the Field (pp. 257-285). Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Swit- zerland. Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T.A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision-making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Manage- ment, 41(1), 11–46. Stokes, D. (2000). Entrepreneurial marketing: A concep- tualisation from qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(1), 47-54. Ucbasaran, D. (2004). Opportunity identification behav- ior by different types of entrepreneurs. In J. Butler (ed.), Opportunity Identification and Entrepreneur- ial Behavior (pp.75-98). Greenwich, CA: Informa- tion Age Publishing. Uslay, C., & Erdogan, E. (2014). The mediating role of mindful entrepreneurial marketing (MEM) between production and consumption. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 16, 47–62. Van Auken, H. E. (1999). The business launch decision: An empirical investigation of reasons for not starting a new business. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 10(2), 43-55. Woolley, J., Rottner. R. (2008). Innovation policy and nan- otechnology entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 791-811. Appendix 1 Interview Protocol Section Approximate Duration Description Introduction 5 minutes • Introducing ourselves • Elaborating the purpose of the interview • Ensuring confidential aspects and interviewee’s consent • Gathering the inter- viewee’s demographic information Part 1 10 minutes Questioning about marketing process decisions Part 2 10 minutes Questioning about marketing strategy decisions Part 3 10 minutes Questioning about marketing mix decisions Conclusion 5 minutes • Appreciating the inter- viewee • Member checks