STRATEGIC MARKETING CAPABILITIES AND ENTERPRISE COMPETITIVENESS IN DIGITAL PLATFORM ECOSYSTEMS: A CONCEPTUAL SMPC MODEL FOR EMERGING MARKETS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20465126Keywords:
Strategic marketing capability; enterprise competitiveness; digital platforms; platform dependence; algorithmic visibility risk; dynamic capabilities; customer analytics; PLS-SEM; emerging markets; Uzbekistan.Abstract
Purpose: This paper develops a Strategic Marketing–Platform Competitiveness (SMPC) model to explain how
enterprise competitiveness is shaped by the interaction between strategic marketing capabilities and platform-governance
risks in digital platform ecosystems. The study addresses an underdeveloped intersection between marketing capability
theory, dynamic capabilities, market orientation, service-dominant logic, and platform ecosystem research.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper is conceptual and theory-building in nature. It synthesizes established
theoretical streams and develops a testable structural model for future empirical validation using partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The proposed empirical design targets enterprises operating in digital platform
ecosystems in Uzbekistan and comparable emerging markets.
Findings: The SMPC model proposes that strategic marketing capability, customer analytics capability, innovation
orientation, and omnichannel integration contribute to enterprise competitiveness through customer value creation,
customer engagement, platform positioning, and digital trust. However, platform dependence, switching costs, algorithmic
visibility risk, and ecosystem concentration are theorized to weaken or condition these relationships. The model introduces
three platform-specific theoretical constructs: the platform governance paradox, platform reconfiguration agility, and the
customer analytics asymmetry penalty.
Originality/value: The paper contributes a cross-theoretical framework that translates platform-governance risks into
measurable marketing strategy constructs. It provides a falsifiable research architecture for examining how enterprises
in emerging markets can build platform-resilient competitiveness under conditions of algorithmic intermediation and
gatekeeper power.
References
1. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
2. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
3. Cennamo, C. (2021). Competing in digital markets: A platform-based perspective. Academy of Management
Perspectives.
4. Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A., & Schweitzer, H. (2019). Competition policy for the digital era. European Commission.
5. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
6. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–
11), 1105–1121.
7. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
8. Gawer, A. (2022). Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age.
Innovation, 24(1), 110–124.
9. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling. Sage.
10. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
SEM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
11. Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. A. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review, and research agenda. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.
12. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial
implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
13. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal
of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.
14. Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.
15. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing,
54(4), 20–35.
16. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. (2016). Platform revolution. W. W. Norton.
17. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. Free Press.
18. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.
19. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
20. Verhoef, P. C. et al. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of
Business Research, 122, 889–901.
21. Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage.
Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80–94.
22. Wedel, M., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. Journal of Marketing, 80(6),
97–121.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 GREEN ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.