Markets changing,changing markets: Institutional work as market shaping

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the marketing discipline to adopt an institutional perspective when examining markets. This requires seeing markets as complex systems that evolve through time, rather than as preexisting, stable structures. Using a historical, longitudinal case study, we integrate the “institutional work” framework as a lens to understand the process of market change in the novel, historic case of circus in North America through the 20th century. We explore the decline of the market for traditional American circus, and the emergence, in the 1970s, of the adjacent market for new circus, with a specific focus on the world’s preeminent new circus company, Cirque du Soleil. Theoretical contributions of the article include a “market-shaping activities” framework that illustrates market shaping involves considerably more actors than the dyad of producer and consumer. Market-shaping occurs through an interdependent process involving institutionalized practices, beliefs and expectations, and the intentional activities of market actors at any institutional level. Market change is shared, iterative, and recursive, that is cocreated, and undertaken by market actors both formal and informal. Market shapers do not necessarily work in an orchestrated fashion; nevertheless, vibrant networks of complementary actors contribute positively to the construction of shared identities and normative networks. From a managerial perspective, we find implications for policy makers, funders, strategists, and marketers.

Keywords

Cirque du soleil institutional work market creation market decline market innovation market shaping secondary data

Introduction

It is only recently that marketing scholars have paid attention to understanding the relationship between “the market” and social institutions that interact and overlap (Mele et al., 2015; Vargo and Lusch, 2016). This is despite Schumpeter’s encouragement, some seven decades ago, that:

The interaction of institutional forms and entrepreneurial activity, the ‘shaping’ influence of the former and the ‘bursting’ influence of the latter, is…a major topic for further inquiry. (Schumpeter, 1947: 153)

Put simply, institutions provide the structures within which human interaction takes place (Scott, 2001). They are “those (more or less) enduring elements of social life that affect the behaviour and beliefs of individuals and collective actors” (Lawrence et al., 2011: 53). Institutions exist as both formal arrangements (e.g. the legal system) and informal arrangements (e.g. how people greet each other on the street). Although institutions are typically resilient (Scott, 2001), they are capable of change as they are (re)produced by the activities of those actors embedded within them (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009). Hence, activities actors undertake to effect institutions can be thought of as “institutional work,” defined as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006: 215). This conceptualization can also be applied to the efforts of market actors—as the activities of market actors change, the institutions that overlap and interact with that market change, and vice versa.

Vargo and Lusch (2017) have called for research that adopts an institutional perspective on understanding the decay of industries and markets and the emergence of new ones. Hence, the purpose of this article is to explore the way market actors can respond to, influence, or manage institutional arrangements in declining and emergent markets. We conceptualize markets as socially embedded, complex adaptive systems (Storbacka and Nenonen, 2015). This enables examination of markets as processes that evolve through time, rather than as preexisting, stable structures (Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007; Mele et al., 2015). In such a view, markets offer “institutionalized solutions” (Lusch and Vargo, 2014: 25) and are “nested or embedded within a particular service ecosystem” (Vargo et al., 2017: 265).

We use a longitudinal case study to examine markets that are both novel and historical. First, we explore the decline of the market for traditional American circus and, second, the emergence of the market for what became known as new circus (nouveau cirque). While our research looks at the circus field generally, the focal organization of our case study is Cirque du Soleil (Cirque), which has emerged as the world’s preeminent new circus company. Although Cirque is celebrated for its “blue ocean strategy” (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005) and distinctive service experiences (Berry et al., 2006), one of the key figures in the development of Cirque has said:

People might think that we set out to reinvent the circus, and then just did it. But things don’t happen that way. We were just a bunch of crazy people who wanted to do things and little by little we came to a vision of what the modern circus could be. (René Dupéré, Cirque composer, quoted in Babinski, 2004: 89)

Thus, the success of Cirque provides valuable insight that goes beyond illustrating and documenting entrepreneurial flair.

In the broadest sense, this study contributes to the emergent literature within the marketing discipline examining markets as socially constructed, complex systems comprising relational processes (Giesler, 2008; Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2017; Hietanen and Rokka, 2015). However, there has been little attention paid to the interdependent interplay between heterogeneous market actors and different institutional levels when markets change or are changed. Hence, empirically this study is one of the first to examine market change that occurs through the interplay of (1) the evolving shared understandings, ideologies, and belief systems of social collectives at the macrolevel and (2) the adoption of new practices, expectations, and behaviors at the microlevel. Furthermore, we examine this process not just in the creation of the market system for new circus but also in the disruption and decline of the market for traditional circus.

This article proceeds in five parts. First, an outline of the theoretical background of the study is provided including a brief review of literature about markets and a description of the institutional work framework. Second, our research method and an overview of the case is presented, along with an outline of our “market-shaping activities” framework. Third, our findings are elaborated upon in two sections. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications and suggestions for future research.

Markets and institutional work

In this section, we briefly review the literature on markets and then describe the institutional work framework.

Markets

The foundational conceptualization of markets by the marketing academy has been of relatively stable, bounded backdrops to the efforts of marketing managers (Mele et al., 2015). This conceptualization and the primacy of dyads comprising producers (as value creators) and consumers (as value destroyers) also framed the literature examining innovation, for example, resulting from new geographical or product markets, or entrepreneurial actors that adapt to, or create, change (Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2006). Later, the impact of technological developments on innovations became a primary focus of scholars (Kjellberg et al., 2015) although still mainly seeing markets as comprising dyadic economic exchange (Vargo et al., 2015).

Now there is a growing stream of marketing research using neoinstitutional theory, exploring market change due to relational processes, and innovations to markets themselves (e.g. Kjellberg et al., 2012; Mele et al., 2015; Storbacka and Nenonen, 2015). This research reflects several important characteristics of markets. First, many actors within a service ecosystem can drive innovation (e.g. innovation networks including research institutes and universities), not just producers and users (Möller and Rajala, 2007). Second, as markets are not fixed in time, they are always in development, generated by the practices performed by those actors operating within them. Third, any innovation is in effect a reconfiguration of value cocreation processes (Vargo et al., 2015). Therefore, to be successful, innovation requires changes to previously institutionalized practices, norms, and rules (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016). Hence, markets are sociomaterially constructed plastic entities, open to manipulation by those actors who collectively generate their form (Kjellberg et al., 2012; Storbacka and Nenonen, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2011; Hietanen and Rokka, 2015). In sum, this sociological view recognizes that (1) microlevel practices collectively shape a market and (2) as practices change so does the market, and vice versa.

However, much of this institutional theory-inspired research still largely focuses on narrow actor groups. For example, Rosa et al. (1999) research the institutionalization of product categories and learn market definitions are socially constructed, negotiated through time by both producer and consumer. Humphreys (2010) traces the legitimation of casino gambling that occurred through a search for cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulatory legitimacy. She finds those in media and marketing undertake critical work by changing public discourse, and regulators inspire legitimation through legalization. Ertimur and Coskuner-Balli (2015) explore the implications to brand managers of markets that feature multiple competing logics, where brands can become fragmented and incoherent. Brand managers are encouraged to ensure their brands reflect current social ideologies.

Researchers have also examined institutional change driven by fashion consumers. Scaraboto and Fischer (2013) explore the way marginalized (plus size) consumers of fashion drive inclusion in the mainstream market by collecting under a shared identity. Additionally, Dolbec and Fischer (2015) discover that highly engaged, digitally connected consumers can substantially influence market outcomes, replacing or reducing the institutional role previously taken by paid experts. Entrepreneurial innovation has also been examined by integrating a conceptualization of institutional levels but through bottom-up (or inside out) actions (micro- to meso- to macrolevel) by entrepreneurial firms (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016).

The research contributions, above, have no-doubt been invaluable in drawing attention to market creation from social processes. However, there has been little attention paid to the interdependent interplay between multiple heterogeneous market actors and different institutional levels when markets are created or disrupted. This requires a theoretical framework, with a multilevel perspective, that enables exploration of the process of (de)institutionalizing innovation. Thus, we draw on the institutional work framework (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011).

Institutional work

The “institutional work” framework is an attempt at bridging the gap between institutional entrepreneurship and institutional determinism. It recognizes that institutionalized practices and understandings are the product of activities enacted by individuals and organizations. (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). These activities sometimes sustain and reproduce institutionalized practices and meanings and sometimes transform or translate them (Barley, 2008; Lawrence et al., 2009; Zilber, 2008). The work that takes place within institutions implies some sort of intentional effort or action by an actor that may shape an institution or social structure (like a market) or manage (including maintaining) a given situation (Lawrence et al., 2011).

According to institutional work, institutions reside within “nested systems” that exist on micro-, meso- or macrolevels. However, levels are arbitrary as they oscillate and fluctuate between, within, and among themselves, interdependent in both form and function (Giddens, 1984). While most institutional work studies have focused on changes that occur at a field or organizational level, “work” undertaken by actors can occur at any institutional level (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). For example, at a microlevel work by an individual human or organization; regulatory, government, or organizational field bodies at mesolevel; and social collectives at macrolevel (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009). Therefore, a key contribution of the institutional work framework has been the integration of a practice-based perspective of changes that occur at all levels of institutions (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2009).

Institutional work is categorized by the institutional life cycle: institutional disruption, creation, and maintenance (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). In this study, we incorporate the first two only as they most readily lend themselves to better understanding the decline of an incumbent market and emergence of another. The institutional work framework is depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Institutional work framework.

Institutional change	Nature of work
Disruption	Attacking or undermining institutional mechanisms
Creation	Political work
	Change in actor belief system
	Change in meanings and boundaries

Institutional disruption

Table 1 shows institutional disruption results from “attacking or undermining the mechanisms that lead members to comply with institutions” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006: 235), ultimately because of a reduction in the risks associated with noncompliance (including cognitive, social, and economic risks). The actors responsible for disruptive behavior may occupy a variety of contrasting forms. They might be unconventional or countercultural actors with an original, innovative perspective but may not be socialized in existing norms and accepted practices; or they might be actors highly sophisticated, well-resourced, and well-versed in existing norms and beliefs (Zietsma and McKnight, 2009).

Disruption often occurs against a broader backdrop of economic, social, or environmental pressures (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), which can often encourage institutional entrepreneurs to act (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009). Institutional disruption may also occur when the accepted ethical, normative foundations of a field are challenged (e.g. by social collectives such as environmental activists). Questioning the morality of practices can be achieved through a particularly disruptive type of institutional work—“practice work”—undertaken by actors wishing to change accepted practices (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010). Practices are shared routines considered legitimate, which collectively define a field. Lastly, when institutional entrepreneurs perceive incumbent organizations feature heterogeneity, such as inconsistencies in form, scope, or behavior, they may attempt to disrupt the status quo (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009) as lack of standardization implicitly allows for increased flexibility.

Institutional creation

The process of institutional creation can be the result of a variety of activities within three basic areas—political actions, changes to actor belief systems, and changes to boundaries and abstract meanings (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).

Firstly, political actions may feature an interdependent cycle of definition and redefinition of resource allocation, norms, and rules (e.g. regulatory structures or standards) or include persuasive techniques (e.g. lobbying or advocating). Institutional innovation can also be enabled through the creation of temporary platforms that allow for testing or experimentation (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010).

Secondly, creation can result from changes to the perceptions, beliefs, or expectations of actors at any level (i.e. macro-, meso-, or microlevel). These can be due to the reconfiguration of an actor’s role or relationship with others in its field or because of changes to previously accepted institutional structures (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Additionally, changes in the perception of the success of a new actor can be dependent on the degree of legitimacy they earn through their actions and as new practices are subsequently adopted and normalized.

Thirdly, institutional creation can occur on an abstract level as meanings and boundaries are reinterpreted or redefined (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). This change in meanings can include the reconceptualization of ideas and practices and their renaming and redefinition. Additionally, as new types or models of institutions develop, incumbents within the same or similar field are naturally scrutinized and compared, especially when new actors mimic some aspects of existing structures or practices. Lastly, on an abstract level, educating other actors assists in the increased legitimation and adoption of new ideas and practices.

Research process

We employ “systematic combining,” the abductive method of case study research (Dubois and Gadde, 2014) when examining the historical case of circus. Here we briefly outline our theorizing process and describe the case. For clarity, our emergent “market-shaping activities” framework will then be introduced.

Case study approach

To investigate market decline and creation, we use 20th-century North American circus as an illustrative case study. Such a historical case allows for richness when examining emergent processes (Siggelkow, 2007).

In abductive theorizing, unlike induction, the researcher constantly alternates between empirical observations and the initial theoretical framework, the research activities of analysis and interpretation, and the developing theoretical framework (Dubois and Gadde, 2014). As the researcher goes back-and-forth, questions evolve, and synthesis takes place, allowing for the emergence of the new framework. It is imperative to remain open to discovery through the interpretation of data, which allows the data to take on an active role in the development of any new framework. The researcher is therefore encouraged to let the case boundaries emerge (Dubois and Gadde, 2014), then consult literature for theory-based explanations. Hence, we combined case observations with insights from continuous exposure to literature, while nevertheless assigning primacy to the empirical world (Van Maanen et al., 2007). As an example, we initially set out to examine the institutional factors in 1970s Quebec that had enabled the creation of the Cirque phenomenon. However, as further discovery took place, it was apparent that the study needed to encompass the broader, rich context of 20th-century North American circus, generally.

This historical case allows for an examination from two perspectives. First, the exogenous, macrolevel institutional influences on both market decline and creation; and second, the micro- and mesolevel purposive actions that actors took that shaped institutional arrangements. Additionally, the case demonstrates that the markets for traditional and new circus are strongly contrasting in numerous ways (e.g. content of core service offering, scale, price, profitability, business model, customer profile, geographical location, employee training, etc.) but change did not come about due to any significant technological or processual innovation. Lastly, the case is large enough to see patterns emerge yet bounded enough to have a manageable scope, with a wealth of secondary data available.

Contextual evidence and a broad array of information are required about the subject of any case study to allow for triangulation and to increase validity (Creswell, 1998; Yin, 2014). This study draws research materials from numerous secondary sources, for example, circus histories, academic and practice publications, media and audiovisual materials, websites, and blogs. The most instructive of these sources examined during the exploratory phase appears in Appendix Table 1A (numerous others are not listed). However, Dubois and Gadde (2014) and Siggelkow (2007) encourage parsimony when writing up a case, so only data necessary to support the theoretical contributions and allow for reader evaluation are included. Accordingly, we present a selection of data for illustrative purposes, while Appendix Table 2A provides detailed information about the main cited sources to better enable reader evaluation.

Circus: Market decline and market creation

The story of 20th-century circus begins with the growing disruption of traditional American circus (e.g. Barnum & Bailey’s “The Greatest Show on Earth”). The traditional circus format was established in the mid-19th century. Performances were on a grand scale, featuring three or more circus rings in Big Top tents holding up to 20,000 people. The adoption of three rings had been an American innovation of the European-style one-ring by “Circus King” P.T. Barnum in 1881 (Truzzi, 1968), which, while contributing a sense of spectacle, was also criticized for its impact on artistic worth:

The only drawback to the performance was that the spectator was compelled to receive more than his money’s worth; in other words, that while his head was turned in one direction, he felt he was losing something good in another. (New York Herald, 1881, in Truzzi, 1968: 318)

Appearing in these rings were numerous, isolated but simultaneous short acts—high-wire and acrobatic spectacles, (mostly unspoken) slapstick clowning, and a veritable menagerie of circus animals (Albrecht, 1995; Jando, n.d.; Simon, 2014). The “Golden Age” of traditional circus was the early 20th century. In 1903, there were 98 full circuses in North America, and in 1910, 38 of these were touring full-time by rail (Truzzi, 1968). By 1956, other entertainment options and exogenous shocks had taken their toll, and only 13 full circuses remained, two traveling by railroad.

The disruption of traditional American circus was followed, in the 1970s, by the creation of an alternative style of circus under the moniker new circus (nouveau cirque), for example, Pickle Family Circus (established San Francisco, 1975), Big Apple Circus (New York, 1977), and Cirque du Soleil (Montréal, 1984) (Albrecht, 1995). New circus is notable for theatricality and expressiveness, considerably smaller scale (at least in the early years) with one ring only, typically no circus animals, and overarching theatrical narratives. The clowning style is also considerably more sophisticated—characterful, sometimes speaking, and often functionally replacing the top-hat-, tails-coat-wearing ringmaster of traditional circus (Schechter, 2001). Customers for each style of circus are also in stark contrast. Traditional circus delivered large spectacles to thousands of ticket buyers at a time, many paying extremely modest sums, and frequently in small towns accessed by railroad. In contrast, by the end of the 20th century, the market for new circus featured well-heeled customers paying substantial sums per ticket, with performances in large international metropolitan cities (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005).

Of the new circus companies that emerged, Cirque is the one most celebrated as innovative and visionary, for example, for service innovation (Berry et al., 2006) and strategic genius (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005). While Cirque’s success reflects the power of value cocreated by a dynamic network of resource-integrating actors, our research finds that numerous institutional factors, and the response to those factors by many in the nascent new circus, allowed for the emergence of Cirque.

Findings: Market-shaping activities

To make the case analysis an easier read, we first present an overview of our results, followed by two sections detailing our results. Our research process helped us to develop a framework of market-shaping activities related to the decline and creation of markets, as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2.

Market-shaping activities.

	Market decline	Market creation
Macrolevel contributors	Changing sociocultural expectations; exogenous shocks	Favorable policies; a growing, complementary eco-system
Purposive actions of market actors	Unresponsiveness by incumbent actors to external factors; emerging alternatives alter belief systems	External orientation and responsiveness; reclassification; mimicry; access to new resources; novel intersections with other actors

Our case analysis identified two macrolevel factors that trigger market decline: changing societal ideologies and exogenous shocks. Two types of purposive actions then emerge that allow for decline. The first, “lack of responsiveness,” is reflected in an unrelentingly myopic product-orientation, coupled with a focus on a dwindling, unprofitable customer base. Second, “emerging alternatives” are the work of nontraditional, peripheral actors. An emergence of substitutes enables development of belief systems of both users and providers, for example, new representations such as novel platforms and lexicon, questioning ethical foundations of normalized practices, and new types of resource integration involving engagement and exchange with peripheral or unconventional actors. Concurrently, these factors collectively contribute to adjacent market creation.

Market creation features evolving favorable policies and a growing ecosystem of complementary actors as contributing macrolevel factors, while market creation activities cluster into five primary categories. First, emergent organizations implicitly adopt an external orientation and responsiveness to changing institutional factors and market forces as a means of sensemaking. Accordingly, these new field actors adopt a cocreative stance and present as interactive. Second, reclassification occurs through emergence and adoption of a new lexicon, including novel terminology and names. Education of market actors especially enables this process, implicitly increasing legitimacy of emergent practices and lifting expertise of operant resources. Third, emergent organizations mimic aspects of the practices of traditional actors, which can reduce the cognitive dissonance of others, including potential customers. This reduces the perceived risk of integrating resources with the new. Fourth, new market actors can marshal political and regulatory forces to allow access to new or existing resource. This further contributes to shaping emergent macrolevel policies that contribute to the market creation process, enabling increasing resource integration. Fifth, new platforms for resource integration occur where novel intersections between market actors occur. These actors include those on the margins of, and outsiders to, the old. New networks and interorganizational connections emerge, normalizing new practices and defining the peer group of market actors.

Elaborating on the nature of market decline

Next, we integrate circus histories, blogs, and academic, media and business articles, to theorize about the disruption and decline of the traditional circus market, beginning with contributing macrolevel factors.

Contributing macrolevel factors

While the process of market disruption and creation are interlinked, they are nevertheless different (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Disruption can result from macrolevel influences such as economic shocks or social disturbance (including driven by technology) which often encourage institutional entrepreneurs to undermine previously accepted arrangements (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Additionally, disruption is common as an institution becomes limited in reach or scope due to declining engagement or usefulness (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009).

After over a century of enormous success, from the early 20th century, traditional circus began to wane considerably in popularity, profitability, and reach (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005). Even the two behemoths of circus, Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey, merged in 1919, and by 1956 had ceased touring with a big top (Simon, 2014), abandoned its sideshow, and heavily reduced its menagerie (Truzzi, 1968). Economic and social shocks took their toll (e.g. Great Depression and World War II), then new technology proved fateful, especially movies, radio, and, eventually television (Albrecht, 1995; Simon, 2014): “Invading American households, menacing the film industry…TV was a formidable distraction for circus audiences” (Gamble, 2008: 147).

Another profound negative influence was the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. This period featured great social upheaval such as anti-Vietnam War sentiment (Parker, 2011; Simon, 2014; Sugarman, 2008), concern for animal- and worker-welfare, and a rejection of nearly every American tradition—including circus (Albrecht, 1995). The circus market never recovered from the vicissitudes of the mid-20th century, and the last remaining high-profile traditional circus company, Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey’s, gave its final-ever performance in May 2017 (BBC News, 2017).

Lack of responsiveness

Despite adverse market realities for traditional circus, by the 1950s, dwindling troupes were unrelentingly oriented toward a narrow, diminishing, increasingly unprofitable customer-base. They resisted change to their basic performance format while trying to attract as many spectators as possible by appealing to ever-younger audiences and charging cheaper prices (Albrecht, 1995; Jando, n.d.; Simon, 2014). The only real response was to become more gargantuan, evident in the Barnum and Ringling merger, and by the adoption of even more circus rings:

Despite losses, circus people doggedly continued to present whatever sort of spectacle they could muster on ever-dwindling resources as they attempted to convince their patrons that the show was still bigger and better. (Albrecht, 1995: 4)

This did not curb the decline, and the net effect was to further undermine what little sense of sophistication they might have previously enjoyed (Simon, 2014).

Emerging alternatives challenge belief systems

One profound influence that inspired scrutiny of traditional American circus came from outside the country—Soviet circus. Following the Russian Revolution, Lenin had nationalized all private circuses in 1919 (Neirick, 2012). Circus was perceived a worthy vehicle for the Soviet political message due to its popularity with everyday people (Neirick, 2012; Sugarman, 2008). A state agency was formed—SoyuzGostsirk—responsible for the development and “cleansing” of circus (Albrecht, 1995; Neirick, 2012). SoyuzGostsirk was populated not with circus specialists but avant-garde visual artists, dance and theatre practitioners, and gymnastics specialists. Circus artistry was to be created: “An act, with performers from the circus schools, would be assigned a director, a choreographer, composers and designers” (Sugarman, 2008: 191–2). Theatrical narratives were introduced, and the adopted new practices reflected the multidisciplinary SoyuzGostsirk (Jando, n.d.; Neirick, 2012). Even clowns “would no longer be grotesque. They would abandon extreme makeup and be witty, earthy citizens commenting on the social system” (Sugarman, 2008: 191).

Soviet performers had entirely new expectations placed upon them—utmost strength and agility with theatricality and expressiveness (Neirick, 2012)—marking a major change in norms and practices previously accepted by performers and spectators, and altering belief systems:

By […] 1936, most observers agreed that these performers – all perfect products of Soviet socialism – had succeeded in transforming crowds of circus viewers into new Soviet men and women […] inspired by the superhuman feats they saw. (Neirick, 2012: 60)

Moscow State Circus undertook numerous international tours to the West from the mid-20th century as Stalin tried to use circus for (macrolevel) diplomacy and propaganda to try softening Western attitudes toward the USSR. Hence, Soviet circus became one of the most profound influences on what would later become new circus and was admired for its success in the face of declining traditional American circus:

The continued success of the European- and especially the Soviet-Circus, both through visits to this country and through television viewing, has demonstrated that the American public still enjoys this form of entertainment. (Truzzi, 1968: 322)

Like in Russia, Soviet circus influenced belief systems in the West, exacerbating the struggle for traditional American circus.

Questioning ethical foundations

Institutional disruption may also occur when ethical or moral foundations of normalized practices are questioned (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Driving this questioning might be macrolevel changes in ideology, social norms, or new technologies. For circus, animal- and worker-rights would inspire practice work, undertaken by social collectives unaccepting of incumbent practices (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010). Animal rights campaigners challenged the use of animals in performances, their training, and housing (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005). Although questioning the use of circus animals began early in the 20th century (led initially by Jack London), multiple protests began in the 1980s, primarily led by Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) (Einwohner, 1999). Traditional circus made little response, seeing no legitimacy in the protests, and the use of animals a normalized, time-honored practice, key to success. Nevertheless, with the demise of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey’s in May 2017, animal-rights campaigners appeared in New York carrying placards reading “We Shut You Down!” and “Bye-bye animal abusers” (BBC News, 2017, para 22).

In traditional circus, many laborers were also mistreated, extremely poorly paid, and companies very hierarchical:

The status of the workingman in the American circus was exceedingly low…Interaction with performers was highly limited, and definite forms of segregation maintained. (Truzzi, 1968: 321)

In response, the Teamsters Union organized circus workers in the mid-1950s, and in 1956, circuses found themselves picketed (Truzzi, 1968). In both the treatment of animals and workers, the normative associations between circus practices and their ethical foundations were greatly undermined.

Peripheral actors drive scrutiny of incumbents

As new types or models of institutions develop, incumbents within the same or similar field are naturally scrutinized and compared (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Traditional circus had responded to declining popularity by trying to become bigger, but with no change to the basic content of performances. In contrast, in the 1960s and 1970s, new performing groups began to emerge, frequently comprising hippie street performers in festival settings. Their performances were inspired by a myriad of other alternative traditions such as guerrilla street theater and the likes of Soviet circus and highlighted staid, traditional circus (Albrecht, 1995). For example, Guy Laliberté, cofounder of Cirque, would later say, “The Russians were so strong. But, more than that, some acts told a little story from beginning to end” (in Babinski, 2004: 62).

Those emerging groups that did emulate some aspects of traditional circus did so while testing incumbent practices, for example, opting for the more contained European style of one ring (Albrecht, 1995; Jando, n.d.; Simon, 2014). Together with the turbulence of the early-mid-20th century and challenges by Soviet circus, a wellspring of new, alternative troupes emerged, thereby creating new circus, and with it a new market.

Elaborating on the nature of market creation

Here we provide a detailed description of our findings regarding the creation of the new circus market with integration of numerous source documents to inform our theorizing.

Contributing macrolevel factors

Like Soviet circus, political work in the form of favorable government policies proved seminal to new circus. For example, in Quebec, there was growing Quebecois nationalism and a desire to position Montréal as a center of arts and culture. Policy makers, responding to growing public nationalism, saw the Francophone arts community as a means to express pride in Quebec’s French heritage (Harvie and Hurley, 1999; Leslie and Rantisi, 2011). Ensuing policy decisions drove development of the fashion industry, Francophone theater, numerous street-performance festivals, and contemporary music. Thus, there grew in Montréal a loosely bound, rich ecosystem of interdependent, complementary cultural fields with overlapping boundaries.

Evolving business models

On an abstract level, institutional creation results as new forms and structures arise, and field boundaries redefined (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Historically, traditional circus companies were family owned, profit-making companies, pandering to the lowest common denominator (Albrecht, 1995). The many new circus troupes were alternative in legal structure (e.g. nonprofit cooperatives). Many featured community outreach programs, and some were communes with shared decision-making, possessions, and responsibilities (Albrecht, 1995; Parker, 2011; Sugarman, 2002), strongly in contrast to the hierarchical traditional circus. Additionally, founders of small new circus troupes were typical of the hippies of the time—frequently from middle-class, white-collar families, and often well-traveled (Albrecht, 1995).

A critical feature of new circus business models was an actively outward-facing orientation—particularly recognition of the cocreative role of audience and fans. New circus audiences and performers enjoyed much closer engagement than traditional circus, due to the one circus ring, and performers’ previous experiences working on the street (Albrecht, 1995; Simon, 2014). Major creative figures in new circus (e.g. Pickle Family Circus and Cirque) acknowledged the role of audience to guide material, rather than performers solely dictating what would be performed (Babinski, 2004; Pearce, 2013):

I’m lucky because I improvised on the streets as a clown, so I learned a lot about people. I know how to talk to them and stay open and listen. (Cirque creative director in Leslie and Rantisi, 2011: 1776)

Additionally, Cirque cofounder Gilles Ste.-Croix:

We always keep contact with the public. This is our source. We want the public to cross through the wall and be an actor in the event. (in Corliss, 2001, para. 10)

This is reflected in a coproductive practice adopted early by Cirque of including audience members in improvised clowning before the beginning of shows (Babinski, 2004).

Accessing new resource and advocacy

Political work may feature an interdependent cycle of disruption and redefinition of resource allocation, norms, and rules (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Modifications to existing regulations or resource allocation may be generated through overt persuasive techniques (e.g. lobbying or advocating); long a feature of social and political movements, and industry groups. Like SoyuzGostsirk, favorable policies were seminal in Cirque’s creation and success in the 1980s.

Firstly, provincial government policies created a temporary platform that allowed Cirque to form. Platforms that allow for experimentation and testing can relinquish entrepreneurs from constraining institutional arrangements (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010: 214). Because of growing nationalism, in 1984, the provincial government decided to celebrate the 450th anniversary of the French discovery of Canada (Leslie and Rantisi, 2011; Sugarman, 2002). This celebration gave the precursor to Cirque (Les Echassiers de Baie-Saint-Paul—The Stilt-walkers of Baie-St-Paul) an opportunity to embark on a province-wide tour that was to be highly original and theatrical (Cirque du Soleil, 2016). This group of street performers decided they would tour under a Big Top and relabel themselves a circus—Cirque du Soleil (Circus of the Sun).

Secondly, Cirque would attract total estimated funding of $CA9.8m (Harvie and Hurley, 1999). Some bureaucrats were reticent to award these grants, but fortuitously Quebec’s premiere, René Lévesque, was a fan of one of the founders, Guy Laliberté, perceiving him a new-generation Quebecer able to adapt to the demands of modern times (Babinski, 2004). In turn, Laliberté had worked hard to cultivate the relationship. This dual advocacy—of Laliberté for Cirque and Lévesque for Laliberté—was critical to the early development of the organization.

Thirdly, government support for Cirque would not merely be financial. Canadian (and Quebec) international government officials became instrumental in providing local market information and contacts (Leslie and Rantisi, 2011):

Our relations with diplomats evolved a great deal. When we first started touring abroad, we’d go to see the cultural attaché who would do everything possible to assist us…Ever on the lookout for sponsors, we knew the [embassy economic] advisors were in frequent contact with local enterprises […]. We were an excellent tool for establishing business relations. (David, July 6, 2008, para 2)

Accessing reallocated resource also proved influential in both the viability and representation of other new circus companies, such as accessing arts funding customarily reserved for performing arts companies. For example, Pickle Family Circus received funding from the National Endowment of the Arts to tour domestically in 1976 and internationally in 1981 (Carroll and Lorant, 1986). Pickle also received employment funding from the federal Comprehensive Employment and Training Act arts program. This would have been unheard of for a privately held, family-owned traditional circus company, but as new circus companies were nonprofits, grants and funding were accessible. As such, new circus took on a similar relationship to traditional circus that theater companies had with Broadway (Albrecht, 1995). Most critically, new circus became implicitly aligned with the respectability and sophistication of their nonprofit cousins in the performing arts sector (Ghazzawi et al., 2014), if still something of a fringe dweller.

Novel intersections with other actors

A cocreative approach is reflected in the redefinition of relationships between actors. This is a particularly powerful force in institutional creation, changing actor belief systems (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Network redefinition features novel or reconfigured connections between organizations and other actors thus establishing new boundaries and peer groups. These new connections assist in redefining previously accepted or sanctioned practices and considerably broaden resource-integration opportunities. New circus troupes featured new interorganizational connections beyond traditional boundaries, for example, Pickle Family Circus grew out of the San Francisco Mime Troupe (satirical guerrilla theater; Pearce, 2013), and some members of Les Echassiers came from a stilt-theater group—Bread and Butter Theatre (Babinski, 2004).

Additionally, while established incumbent organizations typically focus on maintenance of the status quo, innovation often emerges from actors on the margins of a market (Rao et al., 2000; Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010) or where adjacent markets meet (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006). For example, as mostly street performers, the members of Les Echassiers were outsiders to the circus world:

Cirque du Soleil started in a country where there was no tradition…There was no circus. Once in a while ignorance can be [an asset]…We were in a certain way free. (Montréal circus-arts trade association founder, in Leslie and Rantisi, 2011: 176)

Other significant new circus entrepreneurs were also on the margins of traditional circus (e.g. founders of Big Apple and Pickle Family Circuses) or emerged from the intersection with other fields (e.g. street performance and theater). Pickle Family Circus even appointed a creative director who had made his name on Broadway (Albrecht, 1995). For the founders of Cirque, gymnasts at the 1976 Montreal Olympics and tours by foreign circuses would be highly influential:

One of the things that really affected Cirque was the 1976 Summer Olympic Games in Montréal…Right from the very beginning there was a drive for high performance that met with and married street performance and circus performance. (former Cirque COO, in Babinski, 2004: 24)

Additionally, cinema influenced Cirque: “…the big secret of Cirque…we created shows like a film…it should be edited and scored like a film” (Caron in Babinski, 2004: 64).

The mobility of circus performers also enabled a reevaluation of expectations through exposure to new practices. North American performers sought inspiration from European circus with key new circus innovators spending time in places like Paris and Hungary; and many Russian artists immigrated to North America following perestroika (Sugarman, 2002). For example, Alla Youdina became a high-profile circus trainer (McCormack, 2009), and the world-renowned theatrical trapeze troupe, ‘The Flying Cranes’, became resident in Las Vegas in 1985 (Palchikoff, 2014).

Education and market practices

Educating other actors in new ideas or practices aids in the adoption and legitimation of new approaches (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Early in the market creation phase and reflecting the athletic and artistic demands on new circus performers, circus schools rapidly appeared throughout the West—Paris in 1974, then New York (1977) and Montréal (1980) (Jando, n.d.). Through the 1980s, new circus schools continued to be established at an increasing rate throughout the United States, Europe, Australia, and Brazil. By the end of the 1990s, many were offering tertiary-level degree courses, for example, “Clown Conservatory” in San Francisco.

These schools enabled legitimation, diffusion, and promotion of new circus practices and lexicon, for example, terminology relating to the diverse, street-inspired equipment not previously a feature of traditional circus (silks, lyra, cyr wheel, Spanish web, etc.), and the formalized integration of disciplines such as commedia dell ‘arte. Hence, practitioners’ belief systems were rapidly shaped and, externally, new circus acquired an air of legitimacy and respectability. Circus training began to be perceived as a worthy pursuit for children of new circus customers – “middle-class parents who find it a non-competitive physical activity that helps their children develop skills and self-esteem” (Sugarman, 2001: 132). Accordingly, a burgeoning of circus arts training programs occurred internationally, and availability of operant resource for professional companies increased considerably. For example, École Nationale de Cirque (Montréal) and Circus Arts Centre (New York) proved to be particularly fertile sources of talent for their local new circus companies (Albrecht, 1995). The role of formalized education in the development of new circus contrasts starkly with the barriers erected by traditional circus where to train as a circus performer meant to “runaway to the circus” or be born into a circus family (Sugarman, 2002).

Mimicry

If disruptors mimic some aspects of incumbent practices, scrutiny of existing actors can be particularly pronounced (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Mimicry also assists in overcoming cognitive dissonance experienced by early adopters (e.g. a customer, practitioner, or service provider), while also drawing attention to shortcomings in the status quo. Moscow State Circus created this predicament for traditional circus (Albrecht, 1995; Simon, 2014) with traditional features present (e.g. Big Top and animals), while other new practices (e.g. theatricality) highlighted shortcomings. When referring to Les Echassiers, Cirque cofounder Ste-Croix said, “I remember we used to say: ‘if we put this under a Big Top and toured with it, we’d have a circus’” (Babinski, 2004: 44). Indeed, both Pickle Family Circus and Cirque originally performed outdoors without a Big Top but later adopted them to align with spectator expectations (Albrecht, 1995).

Additionally, acquiring the name “circus” by new circus companies was particularly powerful, although origination of the name, new circus, is unclear. Circus historian Ernest Albrecht says, “I used the term new circus in my book [1995]…but I believe it was already in use before that, but not in general usage” (personal communication, December 16, 2016). Indeed, Cirque’s cofounder LaLiberté stated adopting the ‘circus’ label and Big Top was about “bringing legitimacy to the whole street performer scene” (LaLiberté in Babinski, 2004: 54).

The power of success

Finally, a group’s ensuing level of success can often be dependent upon the degree of legitimacy it earns, which can promote a process of institutional definition and redefinition (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). For Cirque, the enormous success of its early international tours positioned it as a Canadian “national institution,” and it began to attract substantial corporate sponsorship while maintaining an association with government funders (Leslie and Rantisi, 2011). This increased resource enabled Cirque to restructure from a nonprofit to a private company, fully financially independent by 1992 (Babinski, 2004). Here we see a critical distinction between Cirque and other new circus companies—this deliberate ongoing change in organizational structure reflected Cirque’s continued growth in profitability and scale, allowing it to emerge as the industry leader it is today.

Discussion

Contemporary research calls for a better understanding of the foundational concept of the marketing discipline—“the market”—by researching markets from an institutional perspective (Vargo and Lusch, 2017), examining markets as complex systems comprising relational processes (Vargo et al., 2017), and integrating new theoretical viewpoints (Mele et al., 2015). We respond by integrating “institutional work” to examine the historical, illustrative case of circus markets in 20th-century North America.

Overview

Table 3 provides a summary of our findings related to market-shaping activities with illustrative examples from the case. Macrolevel actors such as animal-rights collectives and factors like growing alternative entertainment options triggered market decline for traditional circus. Unresponsiveness by circus operators and the emergence of peripheral, nontraditional performers compounded these macrofactors and drew scrutiny of incumbents. These alternative actors then bridged the market-creation stage.

Table 3.

Market-shaping activities: Illustration.

	Macrolevel contributors	Examples
Market decline	Changing socioculturalexpectations;exogenous shocks	New technologies (TV, radio, cinema) The Great Depression World War II Worker and animal rights
	Purposive actions of market actors	Examples
	Unresponsiveness by incumbent actors to external factors	Maintenance of internally-focused orientation Maintenance of traditional service provision; lexicon and platforms Maintenance of traditional business models and structures Erection of barriers to disruption Underlying acceptance of declining reach, scope, and increasing business failures
	Emerging alternatives alter belief systems	Peripheral actors test emergent practices, business models and structures; develop new lexicon and platforms for engagement Ethical foundations of practices questioned by those within or external to the field Testing and comparing of the new and incumbent
Market creation	Macrolevel contributors	Examples
	Favorable policies and a growing, complementary ecosystem	Increased access to public funds Availability of temporary platforms for experimentation Potential new intersections with other actors emerge
	Purposive actions of market actors	Examples
	External orientation and responsiveness	Cocreative stance; seen as open and interactive Business models remain in development
	Reclassification	Education of actors legitimates and diffuses new practices Market actors adopt and promote new lexicon and terminologies
	Mimicry	Overcomes cognitive dissonance and eases adoption Attracts those resistant to the new
	Access to new resources	Education increases availability of operant resources Access to new resources allows for testing and expansion Marshalling and advocating for reallocation of existing, or access to new, resources Success drives increased adoption, driving increase in access to resource
	Novel intersections with other actors	Embracing ideas and practices from marginalized or external actors Building novel inter-organizational connections and networks New connections collectively define practices, peer group, and market boundaries

Government policies and growing networks within hippy communities of the 1970s were macrolevel contributors to the creation of new circus. Emergent performers demonstrated a cocreative external orientation, informed by their experiences on the street. Driving the reclassification of circus was the use of new equipment and performance practices and adoption of novel representations (e.g. new circus and circus arts) coupled with mimicry of some old practices (especially the Big Top) which increased familiarity. Burgeoning circus-education programs enabled this growth—lending legitimacy and enabling increasing numbers of performers—and novel intersections between actors (e.g. Broadway, gymnastics, etc.) drove new ideas, exposure, and redefinition of belief systems.

Theoretical and methodological implications

We contribute to a growing literature focused on market shaping by providing a historic, longitudinal case study exploring both market disruption and market emergence. Prior marketing studies incorporating institutional theory have focused on a narrow group of actors such as consumers (Dolbec and Fischer, 2015; Scaraboto and Fischer, 2013) or institutional entrepreneurs (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016;), while others have examined the process of legitimation (Humphreys, 2010). However, our research examines change to two adjacent market systems—the decline of the market for traditional American circus and creation of the new circus market—and the interdependent interplay between macrolevel factors and microlevel practices. We undertake this examination by integrating the “institutional work” framework, which recognizes institutions are a product of those routinized activities and understandings enacted by individuals and organizations (Lawrence et al., 2013). Our research makes five main theoretical contributions.

First, we find that market shaping occurs through an interdependent process involving institutionalized practices, beliefs and expectations, and the intentional activities of market actors at any institutional level (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Additionally, the relationship between constraining institutional arrangements and enacted activities are interdependent and recursive (Lawrence et al., 2009; Loasby, 2000). What presents as decline through obsolescence or growth through entrepreneurialism are, in essence, manifestations of market-shaping activity undertaken by multiple, heterogeneous actors, far beyond just industries and products, and dyads of firms and customers (Wieland et al., 2016). Instead, market systems comprise multiple elements (Nenonen and Storbacka, 2018). Hence, market change occurs through an interplay of institutional arrangements and market practices (e.g. a macro-social-collective or a micro-stilt-walker) by both formal actors (e.g. policy makers) and informal actors (e.g. street performers).

Second, shared beliefs, ideologies, and groupings shape market actors and contribute as operant resources to market-shaping and value cocreation processes. While social movements undoubtedly start as microlevel activity somewhere, sometime, as collectives negotiate shared understandings of what and who is the problem, how it should be countered, and motivate others to join, macrolevel movements form, become widespread (Benford and Snow, 2000), and engage in institutional work. The impact of macrolevel movements played a major role in establishing the social contexts that enabled both market disruption (animal-activists) and creation (hippies). Such work happens gradually, not suddenly (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), but can be extremely effective.

Third, it is apparent that emergent markets do not necessarily require a clearly defined new product or technology. Instead, product and market emerge and develop together through time as multiple dispersed actors achieve institutionalization of the new. Even though new circus actors did not work in an orchestrated fashion, they collectively contributed to the construction of shared identities, normative associations, and networks. If actors were instead coordinated through strategic cooperation, the potential for rapid market shaping would seem to be substantial. Additionally, while alternative ideas and practices may materialize from disruptive, peripheral actors, the processes of decline and creation are concurrently enacted and overlapping (Zietsma and McKnight, 2009), so these marginalized actors can become established players in a new market. The adoption of institutionalized elements from an adjacent market by these emergent market shapers enables the process of institutionalizing the new by creating familiarity (Kjellberg and Olson, 2017). In new circus, this was reflected in the adoption of the name “circus” and symbols such as the Big Top. Further, incorporating traditional elements does not just diminish potential cognitive dissonance but also acts as a source of legitimacy while engaging in otherwise unconventional behaviors or associations.

Fourth, vibrant, complementary networks seem critical to attempting to grow a market, in contrast to attempting to grow market share through competitiveness. These networks enhance opportunities for value cocreation, evident in centers of excellence such as Silicon Valley and Hollywood, San Francisco for Pickle Family Circus, and Montréal for Cirque (Leslie and Rantisi, 2011). Thus, market-shaping activities transcend the strategist’s competitive focus on the task environment and the marketer’s 4Ps.

Lastly, this study makes two methodological contributions. First, except for some notable exceptions (e.g. Burr, 2014; Ertimur and Coskuner-Balli, 2015; Giesler, 2008), the use of historical, longitudinal case studies is relatively rare in marketing research yet provide rich illustrations of market change processes. Interpreting markets as fixed-in-time, primarily comprising economic transactions, or defined by industries or products, does not suitably recognize the degree of complexity or influence of social processes. Instead, our approach enables recognition of the ongoing (r)evolutionary processes of markets as complex sociomaterial systems. Second, this study relies on secondary data drawn from a variety of disciplines. We believe there is scope for more such examinations in the future, especially as technology platforms (e.g. YouTube, scholarly and news databases) enable increasing access to rich, complementary secondary source material.

Managerial implications

It is apparent that fields resistant to change increase their chances of disruption. Instead, an outward-facing orientation is required—not just toward those with whom direct interaction takes place but also wider stakeholders including those thought not to have legitimate concerns. This includes the need for an awareness of changing norms and ideologies (e.g. climate change, wealth inequality, political populism), so the attributes of a brand always reflect social expectations of customers (Ertimur and Coskuner-Balli, 2015). Where traditional circus companies failed to maintain touch with a rising tide of ethical concern, Cirque reflected growing Quebecois-nationalism and a desire for cultural expression.

This study highlights implications for regulators and funders, who need to strike a balance between regulating while enabling innovation, thereby embracing the mutability of fields. A growth in temporary platforms that allow for experimentation may be one way to facilitate change. Firms navigate a finely balanced state—identifying advantage in maintaining the status quo versus attempting to shape new markets through alternative practices that respond to shifting landscapes, that is, concurrently being market-driven (satisfying the needs of existing customers) and market-driving (satisfying customers’ yet-to-be-realized needs) (Kumar et al., 2000). For traditional circus, being market oriented toward a dwindling customer base with reducing profitability was fruitless (Giesler, 2008). However, even fields considered at the end of their “life-cycle” may offer opportunities (e.g. ‘classical’ performing arts) providing transformation of traditional practices and expectations is embraced. Regardless, a systemic, institutional perspective requires a broad strategic focus far beyond elements such as product features or redefined platforms; for example, monitoring of peripheral actors, building stakeholder and network relationships, and a cocreative stance as core business.

Educating market actors delivers multifaceted benefits—rapidly normalizing practices, establishing belief systems, defining boundaries, increasing the availability of the operant resource, and providing sophistication and legitimacy. Therefore, professional bodies and large firms must develop and maintain stakeholder relationships with higher education and vocational trainers. Stakeholder relationships with regulators and government bodies are also critical, especially when wanting to advocate for a redefinition of rules or reallocation of resource.

These measures, above, require future-focused investment, embracing a system approach to the market, and awareness of a broad array of stakeholders. Hence, for established market actors, there is a need to balance planning for institutional maintenance and planning for volatility. Such a long-term view requires a commitment to a vibrant, growing market for all, which means actively enabling the success of other network actors as well as oneself.

Limitations and future research

Generalizability is limited with a historical case drawing on secondary data, especially when the context is atypical. Therefore, other contexts will aid in the further refinement of our conclusions. A case involving newer markets (e.g. sharing economy) will provide a more contemporary perspective, and the role of the mesolevel in transmitting or translating between micro- and macrolevels needs examination, for example, regulators, industry bodies, cooperating competitors, and so on. This study has examined disruption and creation phases of “institutional work” only, hence, market maintenance needs investigation. Ironically, an organization needs to undergo continuous development and innovation to “maintain,” but to what degree? What institutionalized elements must be maintained, and which can be changed? Additionally, specialized perspectives are required for more in-depth research and understanding, for example, what is the degree to which different market practices affect institutions; is education of other actors the most effective means of legitimizing new practices, or is legitimation more due to a perception of success? Furthermore, what part does government play in market creation, does this represent a conflict of interests with tax-paying incumbents? What role does agency play in the development of markets, in the ability to act? Lastly, what role do evolving business models perform, and their impact on institutionalized norms?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments received from the anonymous reviewers and editor of Marketing Theory and Dr Sandy Smith at the University of Auckland Business School for her contributions to discussions in the early stages of paper development.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix 1

Table 1A.

Source documents.

Class of empirical data	Author	Year	Title
Circus histories	Albrecht	1995	The new American circus
	Carroll and Lorant	1986	The Pickle Family Circus
	Neirick	2012	When pigs could fly and bears could dance: A history of the Soviet circus.
	Schechter	2001	The Pickle clowns: New American circus comedy
	Simon	2014	The greatest shows on earth: A history of the circus
Cirque du Soleil resources	16x9	2012	Getting into Cirque du Soleil [Video file]
	Babinski	2004	Cirque du Soleil: 20 years under the sun
	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Echo Média Productions, Inc.	2011	Inside the Cirque [Video file]
	Heward/Bacon	2006	Cirque du Soleil: The Spark
Business, industry and media articles	Anon.	2013	Cirque du Soleil and Macy’s partner to bring entertainment to Macy’s iconic events [Business wire].
	Corliss	2001	Voila (Time magazine)
	Hargrave-Silk	2005	Creating magic outside the tent [Media magazine]
	IQPC	2008	Corporate University Leaders Join the Circus (Cirque du Soleil, to be exact)
	McCormack	2009	A childhood dream: You don’t have to run off to join the circus, it has come to Morrisville [newspaper article]
	Munk	September 22, 1997	A high-wire act (Forbes magazine)
	Sebastian	February 19, 1992	Marketing: Arts groups go after corporate sponsors with all the brashness of the big top (Wall Street Journal)
	Simon	November 12, 1996	The big top business: Doom-Sayers regret their words as unlikely success just continues to grow (Financial Times)
	Williams	2008	Marketing, Cirque style [strategyonline.ca]
	Williams	2005	The marketer behind one of the most creative brands around [strategyonline.ca]
Circus-related academic journal articles	Aster	2002	Cirque’s sun shines brightly: Cirque du Soleil.
	Berry, Shankar, Parish, Cadwallader, and Dotzel	2006	Creating new markets through service innovation
	Einwohner	1999	Gender, class, and social movement outcomes: Identity and effectiveness in two animal rights campaigns.
	Gamble	2008	Circus in a box: The big top on TV
	Ghazzawi, Martinelli-Lee, and Palladini	2014	Cirque du Soleil: an innovative culture of entertainment
	Harvie and Hurley	1999	States of play: Locating Québec in the performances of Robert Lepage, Ex Machina, and the Cirque du Soleil.
	Leslie and Rantisi	2011	Creativity and place in the evolution of a cultural industry: The Case of Cirque du Soleil
	Rantisi and Leslie	2013	Significance of higher educational institutions as cultural intermediaries: The case of the École Nationale de Cirque in Montreal, Canada
	Morrish	2011	Entrepreneurial marketing: a strategy for the 21st century?
	Parker	2011	Organizing the circus: The engineering of miracles
	Sugarman	2008	Russian circus, American circus: Politics, economics and performance
	Sugarman	2002	The new circus: The next generation
	Truzzi	1968	The decline of the American circus
Internet sources	Cirque du Soleil	2016	www.cirquedusoleil.com
	David	2009	What a cirque [blog—personal history]
	Jando	n.d.	Circopedia.org [online circus encyclopedia]
	McCormack	2009	A childhood dream: You don’t have to run off to join the circus, it has come to Morrisville
	Pearce	2013	Pickle family circus: Origins and influence
Other sources	Beers	2006	For the prevention of cruelty: The history and legacy of animal rights activism in the United States
	Carmelli	1997	The sight of cruelty: The case of circus animal acts
	Einwohner	1999	Gender, class, and social movement outcomes: Identity and effectiveness in two animal rights campaigns
	Skidmore	2007	Dark and ancient roots—The Circus of the Sun [Conference proceedings]
	Sugarman	2001	Circus for everyone: Circus learning around the world

Appendix 2

Table 2A.

Details of main cited sources relating to circus.

Author	Year of publication	Title	Source type	Notes
Albrecht, Ernest	1995	The new American circus	Book, circus history, 258 pages	At the time of writing the book, the author was an assistant professor of English at Middlesex County College, NJ. Additionally, the author had written over 3,500 reviews of NY theatre and articles published in Variety, Bandwagon, Circus Report, and Theater Crafts. The book is based on primary data including numerous interviews and observations of circus performers, educators, and managers.
Babinski, Tony	2004	Cirque du Soleil: 20 years under the sun	Book, Cirque du Soleil retrospective, 352 pages	An elaborate and large volume comprising over 300 illustrations and numerous interviews of prominent figures involved in the developmental period before Cirque, and its first 20 years of existence. This volume is more than a glossy retrospective as, in the many direct quotes present, disagreements and conflicts are evident.
David, Jean	2008	What a Cirque!	Online English-language version of author’s book, Quel Cirque!	Jean David is the former vice president of marketing for Cirque du Soleil from 1984 to 1999. The blog comprises 49 entries posted between March 2008 and February 2009. It is a personal memoir (an English-language version of his book originally written in French), based on his personal experiences and observations working at Cirque for over 15 years.
Jando, Dominique	n.d.	Circopedia.org	Online encyclopedia of circus	Reproduced from http://www.circopedia.org/Circopedia: About: “Dominique Jando and Charles Forcey have guided Circopedia from its inception, with support provided by the Big Apple Circus and Mary Jane Brock. An internationally renowned circus historian, and former Associate Artistic Director of the Big Apple Circus, Jando has served as Curator and editor-in-chief for the project, with creative responsibility for all content. Forcey has provided a strong complement to these efforts, as Technical Producer and Information Architect, through his firm Historicus, Inc. After its official launch in October 2008, Circopedia has expanded steadily, gaining an important and growing viewership all around the world. It has allowed the foundation of a unique ongoing historical archive of the art form and its development over the past 250 years of its history.”
Leslie, Deborah and Rantisi, Norma M.	2011	Creativity and place in the evolution of a cultural industry: The case of Cirque du Soleil	Academic journal article in Urban Studies	The authors draw on evolutionary economics to highlight the importance that Montréal (as a place) and the provincial government had in assisting Cirque to emerge to be what it is today. Data are drawn from semistructured interviews of Cirque employees, officials from municipal and provincial governments, and other circus people external to Cirque including educators and performers. Snowball sampling was used, and other secondary sources were integrated into the analysis including policy documents, trade journals, newspaper articles, and websites. Numerous direct quotes appear in the article.
Truzzi, Marcello	1968	The decline of the American circus: The shrinkage of an institution	Chapter 27 in volume (edited by the author) titled Sociology and everyday life	Professionally, Truzzi was a sociologist, but, as the son of circus performers, was once an amateur juggler. This chapter examines the decline of American circus from a sociological perspective. Data include interviews and participant observations; several circus-related journals and magazines; historical and museum materials; circus company “route books.”
Neirick, Miriam	2012	When pigs could fly and bears could dance	Book, history of Soviet circus, 287 pages	Based on a PhD dissertation completed at the University of California, Berkeley, later expanded to be a book while an academic staff member in history at California State University, Northridge. The book is based on secondary sources drawn from libraries in the United States and Russia (including the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art and the State Archive of the Russian Federation). Dr Neirick’s research has focused on Soviet cultural history.
Simon, Linda	2014	The greatest shows on Earth: A history of the circus	Book, circus history, 288 pages	Linda Simon is a professor emeritus of English at Skidmore College, NY. The author draws on primary and secondary data. Secondary data include numerous histories and articles and draw extensively on historical material housed at the Library of Congress, Washington DC. Primary data comprise interviews with performers and circus directors. The book features almost 100 historical images.
Sugarman, Robert (ed.)	2008	The many worlds of circus	Edited volume: 22 chapters, 18 contributors, 237 pages	Robert Sugarman is one of the most prolific authors and contributors on circus and circus history. He is also the author of a book about circus education (Circus for everyone: Circus learning around the world, also cited in this article). Most of the contributing authors are drawn from academia—from sociology, English, history, popular culture, and so on—and also circus performers and managers. The publisher of the book, Mountainside Press in VT, is co-owned by Sugarman.

References

Albrecht

E.J.

(1995) The New American Circus. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Babinski

(2004) Cirque du Soleil: 20 Years Under the Sun. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Barley

S.R.

(2008) ‘Coalface Institutionalism’, in Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 491–518. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Battilana

D’Aunno

(2009) ‘Institutional Work and the Paradox of Embedded Agency’, in Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, pp. 31–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BBC News (2017) ‘Ringling Brothers Circus Stages Final Show. URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39995384 (accessed 20 May 2017).

Benford

R.D.

Snow

D.A.

(2000) ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology 261(1): 611–639.

Berry

L.L.

Shankar

Parish

J.T.

et al. (2006) ‘Creating New Markets through Service Innovation’, MIT Sloan Management Review 47(2): 56.

Burr

T.C.

(2014) ‘Market-Widening: Shaping Total Market Demand for French and American Bicycles circa 1890’, Marketing Theory 14(1): 19–34.

Carroll

Lorant

(1986) The Pickle Family Circus. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

10.

Cirque du, Soleil (2016) ‘Cirque du Soleil’, URL: www.cirquedusoleil.com (accessed 18 November 2016).

11.

Corliss

(2001) ‘Voila!’, URL: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,163008,00.html (accessed 12 December 2016).

12.

Creswell

J.W.

(1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

13.

Dolbec

P-Y.

Fischer

(2015) ‘Refashioning a Field? Connected Consumers and Institutional Dynamics in Markets’, Journal of Consumer Research 41(April): 1447–68.

14.

Dubois

Gadde

(2014) ‘“Systematic Combining”—A Decade Later’, Journal of Business Research 67(6): 1277–84.

15.

Einwohner

R.L.

(1999) ‘Gender, Class, and Social Movement Outcomes: Identity and Effectiveness in Two Animal Rights Campaigns’, Gender & Society 13(1): 56–76.

16.

Ertimur

Coskuner-Balli

(2015) ‘Navigating the Institutional Logics of Markets: Implications for Strategic Brand Management’, Journal of Marketing 79(March): 40–61.

17.

Gamble

(2008) ‘Circus in a Box: The Big Top on TV’, in Sugarman

(ed.) The Many Worlds of Circus, pp. 147–51. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

18.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

19.

Giesler

(2008) ‘Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution’, Journal of Consumer Research 34(6): 739–53.

20.

Greenwood

Suddaby

(2006) ‘Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms’, Academy of Management Journal 45: 58–80.

21.

Ghazzawi

I.A.

Martinelli-Lee

Palladini

(2014) Cirque du Soleil: An innovative culture of entertainment. Journal of the International Academy of Case Studies 20(5): 23–46.

22.

Hargrave

T.J.

Van de Ven

A.H.

(2009) ‘Institutional Work as the Creative Embrace of Contradiction’, in Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, pp. 120–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Harvie

Hurley

(1999) ‘States of Play: Locating Québec in the Performances of Robert Lepage, Ex Machina, and the Cirque du Soleil’, Theatre Journal 51(3): 299–315.

24.

Hietanen

Rokka

(2015) ‘Market Practices in Counter-Cultural Market Emergence’, European Journal of Marketing 49(9/10): 1563–88.

25.

Humphreys

(2010) ‘Megamarketing: The Creation of Markets as a Social Process’, Journal of Marketing 74(March): 1–19.

26.

Jando

(n.d.) ‘Short History of the Circus’, URL: http://www.circopedia.org/SHORT_HISTORY_OF_THE_CIRCUS (accessed 4 December 2016).

27.

Kim

W.C.

Mauborgne

(2005) Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

28.

Kjellberg

Azimont

Reid

(2015) ‘Market Innovation Processes: Balancing Stability and Change’, Industrial Marketing Management 44: 4–12.

29.

Kjellberg

Helgesson

C-F.

(2006) ‘Multiple Versions of Markets: Multiplicity and Performativity in Market Practice’, Industrial Marketing Management 35(7): 839–55.

30.

Kjellberg

Helgesson

C-F.

(2007) ‘On the Nature of Markets and Their Practices’, Marketing Theory 7(2): 137–62.

31.

Kjellberg

Olson

(2017) ‘Joint Markets: How Adjacent Markets Influence the Formation of Regulated Markets’, Marketing Theory 17(1): 95–123.

32.

Kjellberg

Storbacka

Akaka

et al. (2012) ‘Market Futures/Future Markets: Research Directions in the Study of Markets’, Marketing Theory 12(2): 219–23.

33.

Koskela-Huotari

Edvardsson

Jonas

J.M.

et al. (2016) ‘Innovation in Service ecosystems: Breaking, Making and Maintaining Institutionalized Rules of Resource Integration’, Journal of Business Research 69(8): 2964–71.

34.

Kumar

Scheer

Kotler

(2000) ‘From Market Driven to Market Driving’, European Management Journal 18(2): 129–42.

35.

Lawrence

T.B.

Suddaby

(2006) ‘Institutions and Institutional Work’, in Clegg

S. R.

Hardy

Lawrence

T. B.

Nord

W. R.

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 215–54. London: SAGE.

36.

Lawrence

T.B.

Leca

Zilber

T.B.

(2013) ‘Institutional Work: Current Research, New Directions and Overlooked Issues’, Organization Studies 34(8): 1023–33.

37.

Lawrence

T.B.

Suddaby

Leca

(eds) (2009) Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Lawrence

T.B.

Suddaby

Leca

(2011) ‘Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization’, Journal of Management Inquiry 20(1): 52–8. DOI: 10.1177/1056492610387222

39.

Leslie

Rantisi

N.M.

(2011) ‘Creativity and Place in the Evolution of a Cultural Industry: The Case of Cirque du Soleil’, Urban Studies 48(9): 1771–87.

40.

Loasby

B.J.

(2000) ‘Market Institutions and Economic Evolution’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10(3): 297–309.

41.

Lusch

R.F.

Vargo

S.L.

(2014) Service Dominant-logic: Premises, perspective, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

McCormack

(2009) ‘A Childhood Dream: You don’t Have to Run Off to Join the Circus, It Has Come to Morrisville’, URL: http://www.stowetoday.com/this_week/features/a-childhood-dream/article_2343bbb6-cd8c-5b71-9975-29e8ebfc85ab.html (accessed 2 December 2016).

43.

Mele

Pels

Storbacka

(2015) ‘A Holistic Market Conceptualization’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43(1): 100–14.

44.

Möller

Rajala

(2007) ‘Rise of Strategic Nets—New Modes of Value Creation’, Industrial Marketing Management 36(7): 895–908.

45.

Neirick

(2012) When Pigs Could Fly and Bears Could Dance: A History of the Soviet Circus. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

46.

Nenonen

Storbacka

(2018) SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth. Bingley: Emerald.

47.

Palchikoff

(2014) ‘Sochi and Circus: A Celebration of Olympic Athletes’, URL: http://rbth.com/blogs/2014/02/11/sochi_and_circus_a_celebration_of_olympic_athletes_34079.html (accessed 4 December 2016).

48.

Parker

(2011) ‘Organizing the Circus: The Engineering of Miracles’, Organization Studies 32(4): 555–69.

49.

Pearce

(2013) ‘Pickle Family Circus: Origins and influence’, URL: http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Pickle_Family_Circus:_Origins_and_Influence (accessed 5 November 2016).

50.

Rao

Morrill

Zald

(2000) ‘Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms’, in Staw

B. M.

Sutton

R. I.

(eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, pp. 237–82. New York: Elsevier/JAI.

51.

Rosa

J.A.

Porac

J.F.

Runser-Spanjol

et al. (1999) ‘Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market’, Journal of Marketing 63: 64–77.

52.

Scaraboto

Fischer

(2013) ‘Frustrated Fatshionistas: An Institutional Theory Perspective on Consumer Quests for Greater Choice in Mainstream Markets’, Journal of Consumer Research 39(April): 1234–57.

53.

Schechter

(2001) The Pickle Clowns: New American Circus Comedy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

54.

Schumpeter

J.A.

(1947) ‘The Creative Response in Economic History’, The Journal of Economic History 7(2): 149–59.

55.

Scott

W.R.

(2001) Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

56.

Siggelkow

(2007) ‘Persuasion with Case Studies’, Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 20–4.

57.

Simon

(2014) The Greatest Shows on Earth: a History of the Circus. London: Reaktion Books.

58.

Storbacka

Nenonen

(2011) ‘Scripting Markets: From Value Propositions to Market Propositions’, Industrial Marketing Management 40(2): 255–266.

59.

Storbacka

Nenonen

(2015) ‘Learning With the Market: Facilitating Market Innovation’, Industrial Marketing Management 44(2015): 73–82.

60.

Sugarman

(2001) Circus for Everyone: Circus Learning Around the World. Shaftsbury: Mountainside Press.

61.

Sugarman

(2002) ‘The New Circus: the Next Generation’, Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 25(3–4): 438–41.

62.

Sugarman

(2008) ‘Russian Circus, American Circus: Politics, Economics and Performance’, in Sugarman

(ed.) The Many Worlds of Circus, pp. 191–8. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

63.

Truzzi

(1968) ‘The Decline of the American Circus: The Shrinkage of an Institution’, in Truzzi

(ed.) Sociology and Everyday Life, pp. 314–22. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

64.

Van Maanen

Sørensen

J.B.

Mitchell

T.R.

(2007) ‘The Interplay Between Theory and Method’, Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1145–54.

65.

Vargo

S.L.

Koskela-Huotari

Baron

et al. (2017) ‘A Systems Perspective on Markets - Toward a Research Agenda’, Journal of Business Research 79(2017): 260–8.

66.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2011) ‘It’s All B2B…and Beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market’, Industrial Marketing Management 40(2): 181–7.

67.

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.

68.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2017) ‘Service-Dominant Logic 2025’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 34(1): 46–67.

69.

Vargo

S.L.

Wieland

Akaka

M.A.

(2015) ‘Innovation Through Institutionalization: A Service Ecosystems Perspective’, Industrial Marketing Management 44: 63–72.

70.

Wieland

Koskela-Huotari

Vargo

S.L.

(2016) ‘Extending Actor Participation in Value creation: An Institutional View’, Journal of Strategic Marketing 24(3–4): 210–26.

71.

Yin

R.K.

(2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

72.

Zietsma

Lawrence

T.B.

(2010) ‘Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work’, Administrative Science Quarterly 55(2): 189–221.

73.

Zietsma

McKnight

(2009) ‘Building the Iron Cage: Institutional Creation Work in the Context of Competing Proto-Institutions’, in Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(eds) Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, pp. 143–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

74.

Zilber

T.B.

(2008) ‘The Work of Meanings in Institutional Processes and Thinking’, in Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 151–69. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.