Marketing through the eyes of senior management: Insights from Fortune 500 reporting

ABSTRACT Building on an in-depth content analysis of letters to shareholders in the annual reports of 54 Fortune 500 firms, this study examines the types of marketing information currently being highlighted to stakeholders external to the firm. The study identifies seven types of marketing assets: customer relationships, other value network relationships, societal relationships, reputational assets, marketing information, offering-related assets, and market position. The study also reveals three distinct profiles of firms’ reporting. The findings shed empirical light on aspects of marketing that diverse firms perceive as meriting disclosure to external stakeholders, thereby providing insights into how senior management perceives marketing.


Introduction
A broadened view of marketing's scope within firms (e.g. Kumar & Shah, 2009;Yadav et al., 2007) as well as the role of top executives in determining it (e.g. Germann et al., 2015;O'Sullivan & Abela, 2007) have resulted in calls for greater marketing accountability so that marketing can demonstrate its contribution and value to the firm (Good, 1992;Stewart, 2009). Following such calls, several studies have discussed the use of diverse marketing metrics -as well as their combinations -to assess firms' marketing performance (e.g. Ambler et al., 2004;Mintz & Currim, 2013). These studies have revealed that the contribution of marketing is multidimensional (e.g. Ambler et al., 2004;Mintz & Currim, 2013), and that its practical measurement varies across firms (e.g. Frösén et al., 2016;Homburg et al., 2012). The ways in which metrics information is processed and disseminated across firms also vary (e.g. Clark et al., 2006). However, the way in which marketing's contribution is reported to diverse stakeholders within and outside firms has received less attention. This perspective is particularly important given the shifts in management practice toward catering for investors -an important group of external stakeholders -as one of a firm's primary audiences (e.g. Graham et al., 2005;Grewal et al., 2008) and the advent of international standards for reporting on marketing's contributions to creating and maintaining the value of brands (ISO, 2010(ISO, , 2019. As the only function that directly generates revenues for the firm (e.g. Drucker, 1973), investors concerned with the long-term wealth-generating abilities of the targets of their investments are likely to benefit from a comprehensive view of how the firms' marketing is performing. This need is further highlighted by recent estimates of up to 80-90% of the market value of firms being derived from intangible assets (e.g. Ocean Tomo, LLC, 2020), including marketing.
Traditional financial measures that largely reflect the worth of a firm's tangible assets (such as facilities, production equipment, or products) and ignore most intangible assets (such as market information, brands, and customer relationships) have been declining in their informativeness and ability to predict stock returns (Lev & Zarowin, 1999). In fact, in today's fast-paced market environments, overreliance on such measures may even lead to a misguided assessment of firms' potential performance in the stock market (see Healy & Palepu, 1993). This is because omitting information relevant to long-term value, such as information incorporated in intangible assets, when making financial disclosures creates incentives for managers to prioritize initiatives with short-term payoffs at the cost of longterm earnings. Thus, disclosure of longer-term initiatives related to the intangible assets in firms' annual reporting is not only likely to increase such reports' informativeness but will also better align managers with the goals and interests of the financial markets.
However, by definition, reporting the value of intangibles is problematic because the value of the outcomes associated with such investments is often difficult to define and quantify (e.g. Kelm et al., 1995;Sorescu & Spanjol, 2008). In addition, there are numerous ways in which investments in intangible assets, such as brands or customer relationships, can be translated into cash flows (e.g. Mizik & Jacobson, 2009;Rego et al., 2009). Standardized approaches to the valuation of such assets do not exist.
As an alternative to direct numerical valuation, intangible assets and longer-term initiatives can also be addressed in textual disclosures or management notes that make part of financial disclosure as a means of expanding financial reporting to enhance greater transparency and accountability (e.g. Beattie et al., 2004). While accounting rules and policies set minimum disclosure requirements, they do not restrict firms from voluntarily providing additional information, such as information related to a firm's intangible assets. Accordingly, whereas the numerical information contained in annual reports is largely backward looking, such information is often complemented by broader accounts of non-financial, more forward-looking narratives. This has led to recommendations for the inclusion of forward-looking marketing metrics in the more freeformat parts of financial reporting (e.g. Lim & Lusch, 2011;Wiesel et al., 2008).
In order to determine the "best" approach for disclosing developments in marketing assets, understanding current practices of disclosing marketing initiatives and outcomes, as well as the type of marketing information different stakeholders presently rely on, is useful. Although the demands and requirements from the investment markets (investors, creditors, and analysts) influence textual disclosures (e.g. Beattie et al., 2004), such disclosures provide firms with the flexibility to determine what they deem worth disclosing to external stakeholders. Thus, understanding current practices related to textual disclosure serves as a starting point for evaluating alternative policies related to more comprehensive disclosure.
One of the most important types of textual disclosure is the letter to shareholders most firms publish as part of their annual reports, in order to highlight the most important developments of the year as perceived by the firm's top executives. Given the role of the letters in summarizing the firm's most important developments over the year and highlighting those the firm considers to be relevant to its external stakeholders -particularly stakeholders in the investment markets -the letters provide important insights into how the firm's top executives perceive the marketing function and its contributions (cf. Li, 2010;Yadav et al., 2007). Building on these notions, we ask: (RQ1) What types of marketing-related information do leading firms choose to report in their letters to shareholders?
The context-dependent value of intangible assets in contributing to an individual firm's market value, as well as their varying relevance to individual firms (e.g. Cummins & Bawden, 2010), suggest there will be variability among firms with respect to what they disclose in textual notes. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, different Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) may place different weights on marketing initiatives or on the role of marketing in general (e.g. Germann et al., 2015;Yadav et al., 2007). In particular, their view of the types of developments that most directly affect their firm's value to shareholders may differ, and such differences may be detected in how and to what extent the letters discuss marketing-related developments. Thus, we further ask: (RQ2) What kind(s) of reporting profiles related to the disclosure of marketing information in the letters to shareholders can be identified among leading firms?
Taken together, the present study aims to identify prevailing practices of reporting the contribution and performance of marketing in leading firms. In doing so, our qualitative study identifies areas of focus highlighted in textual disclosure that are currently missing from the numerical reports, which will facilitate the identification of specific areas of improvement in formal disclosure policies. The study contributes to the ongoing discussion on reporting intangibles (e.g. Cummins & Bawden, 2010;Wiesel et al., 2008) by presenting a classification of marketing initiatives and outcomes emerging from current reporting practices. For academics working in the field of marketing performance, our findings provide a typology of the aspects of marketing that are perceived as relevant by the senior management. This typology is useful for future studies seeking to assess marketing's performance and contribution to firm value from a comprehensive perspective.
For business managers, the study sheds light on marketing-related reporting in financial disclosures, revealing different weights placed on marketing issues in diverse firms. For individual managers, the study's findings point to marketing aspects others have in general considered relevant for external audiences. This may be used as a benchmark for further developing individual firms' reporting practices. The preliminary taxonomy of reporting profiles stemming from our data further sheds light on the diverse approaches to marketing performance reporting currently adopted by firms. This taxonomy may help individuals (business managers and consultants) involved with developing such reporting practices to better understand the individual firms' and their top executives' current perceptions. For policy makers, the study's findings highlight potential areas in which standardized disclosure might be beneficial, serving as a starting point for further discussion.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly discuss the general role of financial disclosure, including its textual parts, in communicating the value of a firm for external stakeholders (most importantly, the holders of its shares). Next, we provide an overview of what is currently known about marketing's contribution to firm value and its role in financial disclosure. Subsequently, we proceed to describe in detail the process of content analysis performed on a sample of letters to shareholders, published as part of annual reports of leading firms, to highlight the current practices of reporting marketing's contribution. We also provide details on the analyses performed to examine the relative weight of diverse marketing assets gain in the letters as well as distinct profiles of firms' reporting. Finally, we discuss the findings of our study as well as their implications to research, managerial practice, and public policy.

The role of financial disclosure in communicating the value of a firm
The primary role of financial reporting is to inform external stakeholders about the firm's performance, thereby reducing information asymmetry between internal stakeholders and those external to the firm. In terms of investments in tangible assets -such as production plants, machinery, or inventory -accounting standards provide diligent guidelines for reporting their costs and market value, which enables stakeholders external to the firm to assess their contributions to the firm's worth. However, no established standards for evaluating the value of intangiblessuch as production and service reengineering, employee training, and market-based assets -exist. General accounting standards generally treat investments in intangible assets as immediate expenses, whereas the value of their benefits, such as lower production costs, improved quality or customer service, or higher customer value is likely to be realized only in the long run (Healy & Palepu, 1993;Lev & Zarowin, 1999;Srivastava et al., 1998). This leads to a situation where the costs of initial marketing investments -as well as any investments in intangibles -are expensed immediately and not matched with their outcomes that are likely to occur only later, which complicates external stakeholders' assessment of their value.
Furthermore, the standards often treat intangibles unequally. For instance, the development of assets, such as brands or customer relationships, for internal use is expensed immediately and will generally not appear on the balance sheet, whereas purchasing the same assets is capitalized as an investment and placed on the balance sheet (Brown & Tucker, 2011;Cummins & Bawden, 2010;Dyer et al., 2017). Curiously, intangible assets, like brands that do find their way onto the balance sheet by virtue of their purchase from an external party, cannot increase in value. This is sometimes referred to as the moribund effect (Sinclair & Keller, 2017).
Recognition of the declining value of formal financial reports (Healy & Palepu, 1993;Lev & Zarowin, 1999) has given rise to the importance of less formal, textual, or verbal reporting to complement such reports. In particular, management notes, most notably the letter to shareholders published as part of the formal annual report, complementing the numerical reporting, as well as the informal earnings calls accompanying the publication of financials are perceived as important means of guiding investors' and analysts' attention and providing additional insights to the formal reporting, especially with regard to future prospects. However, the informativeness of such notes has often been criticized because of the major role investor relations and corporate communications specialists perform in crafting them, as well the stagnancy and redundancy that are often characteristic of such notes produced from year to year (Brown & Tucker, 2011;Dyer et al., 2017). After all, it is clear the firms' interest in publishing such reports is to present any developments in the most favorable light possible.
Despite the numerous concerns related to financial reports, a typical CEO is likely to spend considerable time outlining the contents of the reports and reviewing them (Bowman, 1984;Yadav et al., 2007). Even if other, parallel means of reaching investors and analysts -such as quarterly reports and quarterly earnings calls -have become increasingly important over the years, particularly in communicating shorter-term performance and forward-looking prospects to these key audiences, annual reports in particular are pivotal in drawing together the most important firm and industry events of the past year (e.g. Bowman, 1984;Cummins & Bawden, 2010). From the perspective of examining the relative weight placed on reporting diverse developments, the summarizing role of annual reports, which also target a broader audience than the shorter-term reports that cater primarily for investors and analysts only, makes them a particularly interesting form of reporting. This is because the relative weight the CEO places on information such as marketing issues (as opposed to other types of initiatives related to production capacity and financial arrangements, for instance) is likely to show in such reports that highlight the most important developments from a longer period of observation. Srivastava et al. (1998), Rust et al. (2004a), and Stewart (2009Stewart ( , 2019 established marketing performance as a process that ranges (1) from an individual marketing activity's immediate impact on a consumer's mind-set to the change in behavior this mind-set generates, (2) to the impact on the firm's market position caused by the consumers' summed change in behaviors, (3) to the financial impact this change in behaviors has on the focal firm, and, finally, (4) to the long-term valuation of the firm and its ability to generate returns for its shareholders through cash flow and the stock price. This chain-like view of marketing performance highlights shareholder value as the ultimate goal for any marketing activity, while simultaneously pointing to the roles of intermediary marketing objectives in achieving this ultimate goal. Figure 1 summarizes the chainlike process of marketing performance as a sequence of impacts internal and external to the firm.

Marketing's contribution(s) to firm value
In practice, connecting the diverse types of intermediary marketing outcomes to each other, let alone to final shareholder value, remains a challenge (e.g. Hanssens & Pauwels, 2016). Further complicating the assessment of different marketing (or other) initiatives is that they will sometimes reinforce one another, while in other cases they may be in conflict (e.g. Frennea et al., 2019;Rego et al., 2013;Schulze et al., 2012). Taken together, these challenges lead to an attribution problem in defining the unique contributions of individual marketing initiatives (see e.g. Cui et al., 2021). This attribution problem is further complicated by the impact of competitors' activities and general market developments that also influence the outcomes associated with any individual marketing activities (e.g. Hooley et al., 2001). Due to this context dependency in assessing the contribution of any individual marketing activity, the individual metrics used to assess a firm's marketing performance at different stages of the marketing process tend to be numerous and vary across firms (e.g. Ambler et al., 2004;Frösén et al., 2016).
Even if the individual chains through which the value of marketing is created may vary, all such chains share a common role of marketing assets as "reservoirs of cash flows" (Rust et al., 2004a, p. 78), which in the long run translate into enhanced profits and shareholder value (e.g. Homburg et al., 2020;Rahman, 2020). In their comprehensive meta-analysis of studies linking marketing activities and assets to shareholder value, Edeling and Fischer (2016) conclude that marketing assetssuch as brands and, in particular, customers -play a major role in determining a firm's valuation in equity markets, whereas the role of individual marketing initiatives -such as advertising -is minor (albeit significant). This view suggests that marketing assets should be of particular interest to shareholders and other stakeholders external to the firm.

The role of marketing in financial disclosure
While a firm's marketing assets clearly have relevance for shareholders, potential investors, and analysts (for a comprehensive review, see Edeling and Fischer (2016)), the difficulty in assessing their monetary value, together with the absence of accounting standards for doing so, makes them difficult to report. Accordingly, most of the reporting related to the impact of marketing has traditionally focused on internal aspects and firm financials, with significantly less emphasis placed on the external aspects related to market reactions that, however, make up a major part of the performance process (see Figure 1). This tradition may, however, result in investors being underinformed (and, thereby, making suboptimal decisions). For instance, Healy and Palepu (1995) observed that the inability to assess and communicate the long-term value of marketing investments to shareholders leads to the undervaluation of firms in equity markets. The growth in the relative contribution of intangible assets to the value of firms over the past several decades (e.g. Ocean Tomo, LLC, 2020), has only increased the challenge associated with adequate disclosure.
Direct disclosures of marketing initiatives related to new product development (e.g. McAlister et al., 2007;Sorescu et al., 2007;), advertising (e.g. Joshi & Hanssens, 2010;Luo & Donthu, 2006;Wies et al., 2019), and sustainability (e.g. Gielens et al., 2018;Mishra & Modi, 2016;Woodroof et al., 2019) have been shown to impact firms' market valuation. These findings suggest that, despite not getting standardized information on firm's marketing assets as such, the financial markets have learned to pay attention to developments that signal changes in their value (see e.g. Homburg et al., 2020;Wies et al., 2019). Accordingly, firms have also learned to use information about marketing activities and outcomes to support their equity offerings, for instance, thereby generating more favorable reactions to their offerings in the stock market (e.g. Kurt & Hulland, 2013;Luo, 2008).
In light of these developments, estimates of the financial value of marketing assets, such as brands, even when imperfect, will provide information that is valuable for shareholders (see also Barth et al., 1998;Homburg et al., 2020). Even more useful would be information on the direction and magnitude of changes in such assets over time because such changes provide information about how well they are being managed. Because investors are not necessarily marketing experts, they may view their own estimates of the value of such assets as incomplete or less reliable than those provided by management ). This implies that ready estimates of the monetary value of marketing assets would be a useful element of firms' reporting.
Given the potential utility of disclosures related to marketing assets, it is not surprising some firms include such disclosures in their reporting. However, such reporting tends to be idiosyncratic, because, unlike disclosures of tangible assets, there are few standards governing the disclosure of information about marketing assets. Nevertheless, a useful starting point for empirical work on the disclosure of marketing assets is a description of current practices among large, publicly traded firms. The remainder of this paper provides an analysis of practices related to the disclosure of marketing assets.

Content analysis of letters to shareholders of a sample of Fortune 500 firms
This study involved a content analysis of letters to shareholders, published as part of the annual reporting of 54 Fortune 500 firms. As of 2020, Fortune 500 companies represent approximately two-thirds of the United States' Gross Domestic Product with approximately $14.2 trillion in revenue, $1.2 trillion in profits, and $20.4 trillion in total market value. These revenue figures also account for approximately 18% of the gross world product. The letters to shareholders represent the most widely read sections of annual reports, and thus serve as an influential means of communication to reach external stakeholders (Kohut & Segars, 1992;Yadav et al., 2007).
We conducted a content analysis of the letters to shareholders as the method of enquiry to focus on what firms, in practice, decide to disclose in their reporting (a form of actual behavior) instead of simply asking what they perceive as important via surveys or interviews (descriptions of such behavior) (Kohut & Segars, 1992), to gain a perspective as objective and truthful as possible on the themes emphasized. The letters to shareholders -a form of secondary data -were chosen as a focus because they are expected to reveal the natural foci of firms in reporting their marketing performance, as the letters represent (collective) cognitive schemas of the firm on what is likely to be important to its shareholders (e.g. Duriau et al., 2007;Ingram & Frazier, 1983). The letters represent free-format documents in which the firm's top executives are free to concentrate on whatever they feel is worth highlighting for external stakeholders -primarily the financial markets (e.g. Core, 2001;Li, 2010). Thereby, the letters summarize the annual developments that the top executives of the firms perceive as most relevant for their shareholders.
The 2016 Fortune 500 was used as a sampling frame for the study. In order to avoid differences in accounting standards (e.g. GAAP 1 vs. IFRS 2 ) directing our findings, we focused on the US listing of Fortune 500 firms only. Following Kohut and Segars (1992), to ensure that the set of substantially different perspectives incorporated in the sample is as comprehensive as possible, we defined our sample using stratified random sampling. We used main industries as strata and constructed the sample to represent the overall industry distribution of the Fortune 500 listing. In order to avoid any industry-specific biases and to include the potentially unique perspectives of 1 Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. 2 International Financial Reporting Standards. smaller industries also, however, we made sure to include at least one firm per industry to our final sample. Table 1 presents the resulting distribution of industries in our sample. In cases where a company included in the initial sample had not published a letter to shareholders for the year under observation (10 cases altogether), another firm from the same stratum was drawn randomly to replace the initial one.
The analysis was conducted using entire sentences as recording units to capture their full context and meaning (as opposed to recording individual words or phrases containing a single piece of information; cf. Beattie et al., 2004;Homburg et al., 2020). For the same reason, the coding was conducted manually, even though automated coding would have certainly been more cost effective (cf. Li, 2010). Following a deductive approach to content analysis (Duriau et al., 2007), we initiated the analysis by developing an initial coding scheme based on the extant marketing performance literature as well as literature discussing the content of annual reports. In order to do this, we conducted a systematic review of studies focusing on the marketing-finance interface and marketing's influence on stock prices published in the three leading marketing journals: Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. In particular, aspects of marketing established to have a direct impact on firm valuation in the stock market, as well as those directly suggested to be reported as part of formal annual reporting, were noted. The initial coding scheme was then mirrored against a sample of 30 letters from an earlier year (2013), not included in the final analysis. We extracted all statements related to marketing from the sample and classified them based on the initial coding scheme. Whenever a statement did not fit any existing code, a new one was created. This also led to altering the codes and their specific content throughout the process. Clarifications, qualifications, and exclusions, as well as examples, were added to the scheme whenever deemed necessary. The resulting codes were further iterated between the authors to ensure face validity.
Two graduate students were trained on the use of the coding system, and then coded all letters in the full final sample independently. To start the coding, two letters were first coded by the student assistants and the first author on a sentence-by-sentence basis according to their dominant theme(s) (only when present), tones (positive, neutral, or negative), and time orientations (long-term past, short-term past, present, or future). The resulting codes were compared and discussed thoroughly to ensure a shared understanding of the coding scheme. The process continued by coding a single letter from each industry (for maximum variety) and discussing the results thoroughly. The student assistants then proceeded to independently code letters for the remainder of the 54 companies included in the sample. The results of the coding were reviewed and compared in regular meetings between the two coders and the first author to discuss any issues or inconsistencies that emerged during the process. The initial categories and their descriptions were altered throughout the coding process whenever deemed necessary. The final coding results were compared against each other, and any codes yielding a difference of >10% of coded instances overall, or >1 difference per letter, were discussed together to reach consensus. The final code-level percentage of  Holsti's (1969) formula, this represents an overall intercoder reliability of 99%, ranging from 93% to 100% for individual letters. The final data set consists of 54 letters, equivalent to 3,296 coded sentences. The length of individual letters included in our sample varies from 16 to 141 sentences. Following the traditions of content analysis (e.g. Duriau et al., 2007), we analyzed the data by using simple frequency counts and cross-tabulations, followed by a cluster analysis to identify any differing reporting profiles among firms. As noted by Beattie et al. (2004, p. 207) in their study on disclosure quality, ". . . the development of a comprehensive disclosure profile serves as a practical tool, permitting the benchmarking of current practices. This allows inter-company, inter-industry and inter-country comparisons to be made and also allows changes over time to be monitored." Similarly, uncovering profiles of reporting regarding marketing performance in particular serves the purpose of providing benchmarks for improving the prevailing reporting practices, comparing practices across firms, industries, and markets, and identifying longitudinal changes in the reporting practice. However, considering the limited sample size and the primarily qualitative nature of the present study, our findings are not suggested to be directly generalizable but rather to serve as a starting point for further discussion and development.

Thematic classification of content in the letters to shareholders
We used thematic analysis to identify themes recurring in the letters, and to develop a general classification of their marketing content. The classification procedure was completed using a hierarchical, mutually exclusive set of codes (cf. Beattie et al., 2004). The coding instrument, including details of all individual codes (labels, definitions, description of qualification or exclusions, and possible examples) as well as their classification, was embedded in Dedoose, the software used for the coding (Dedoose, 2018). Table 2 summarizes the details of our final coding instrument.
Statements in the letters were categorized under two broad entities: statements related to directly measurable outcomes, at least partly attributable to the firm's marketing, and statements related to marketing initiatives that aimed to enhance these outcomes in the long run. The statements associated with marketing focus on a variety of themes and topics related to the firms' relationships with their customers, with other members of their value network, and with broader society; the firm's reputation; market information and offerings catering for the market's needs; as well as market and financial position. Overall, the categorization reflects a general division between initiatives and outcomes related to relationships, offerings, and operations (see Krasnikov & Jayachandran, 2008;Pauwels et al., 2004;Srivastava et al., 1999).
With respect to relationships-related initiatives and outcomes, the letters discuss the firms' customer base and/or individual customers as intangible, yet manageable, assets (e.g. Feng et al., 2020;Gupta et al., 2004;Tarasi et al., 2011). More specifically, the number of total/new customers, customer contacts, and customer churn receive particular attention. For instance, Finally, some of the letters recognize customer satisfaction as an additional asset (Anderson et al., 2004;Fornell et al., 2006;Gruca & Rego, 2005), further contributing to the potential value of the firm's customer relationships, as exemplified by the following excerpts: Providing exceptional service helps set us apart in the marketplace, and I'm delighted to say that our customer satisfaction scores reached all-time highs. (American Express) BGE, ComEd and PECO saw excellent results for the Customer Satisfaction Index, all having achieved new company records and ranking in the top 10 percent among peers. (Exelon) In addition to relationships with customers, relationships with intermediary customers/distributors (e.g. Gielens et al., 2018), suppliers (e.g. Houston & Johnson, 2000), partners (e.g. Mani & Luo, 2015; Sadovnikova & Pujari,  , and other members of the value network are recognized in the letters, as illustrated by the following excerpts on distributors: As a result, we actively diversified our distribution of CALVIN KLEIN and Tommy Hilfiger products into specialty accounts in the U.S. and Europe that have relevance with younger generations, such as Urban Outfitters and Topshop. (PVH) Second, we are focused on being a part of the channel packages offered by online video providers, and are to date included in Sony's PlayStation Vue, Sky's NOW TV and AT&T's DIRECTV NOW offerings. (Discovery Communications) . . . on suppliers: New branded items now offered at Costco include apparel items under the Spyder brand name and kitchen and bath products under the Kohler name. (Costco) . . . and on other partners/general members of the value network: Accelerating the proliferation of our offerings and platforms, we also have grown our relationships with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Qualcomm and Intel, to name a few. (Harman) Our business development activity continued to enhance our key disease areas of focus and spanned partnerships with academia, biotech and larger companies. (Bristol-Myers Squibb) As a further extension to these marketplace relationships, corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g. Mishra & Modi, 2016;Woodroof et al., 2019) and partnerships (Sadovnikova & Pujari, 2017), reflecting the firm's relationship with broader society, emerged as a separate category. These included both philanthropic initiatives: This past year we announced that Microsoft Philanthropies will donate $1 billion in public cloud computing for nonprofits around the world. (Microsoft) Boston WINs made great strides in 2016 instilling close collaboration among State Street, our five nonprofit partners and Boston Public Schools to increase the number of students receiving key services that advance college and career readiness. (State Street Corp) . . . as well as direct responsibility toward members of the supply chain: Whole Planet Foundation® has partnered with various microfinance institutions to facilitate more than $70 million in grants to 143 projects in 69 countries where we source products. (Whole Foods Market) Besides individual relationships, a category of initiatives and outcomes related to firms' general reputation building emerges from the letters. Within this category, initiatives related to brand building (Joshi & Hanssens, 2010;Madden et al., 2006): We've been reinvesting these savings in marketing programs that improve the reach, frequency or continuity of our advertising, and in programs such as product sampling that generate trial of our superior products. (Procter & Gamble) Also receiving remarkable attention are the outcomes of brand equity (e.g. Rego et al., 2009): The significant investments we've made in the brand, along with the expansion of our product portfolio at Ally Bank, engaging activities such as the Lucky Penny initiative, and the receipt of numerous industry accolades, resulted in record brand awareness of 57 percent in 2016, up from 45 percent only two years ago. (Ally Financial) Consumer research confirms the Macy's brand is wellknown and well-loved throughout the country and growing across the world. (Macy's) Also investments in, and outcomes related to media relations, including sponsorships (Evans et al., 2018;Mazodier & Rezaee, 2013), celebrity endorsements (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995), and awards and recognitions received (Balasubramanian et al., 2005) belong to this category. Awards and recognitions by independent organizations are mentioned often, for example: This year, Toll Brothers ranked #6 among all 1,500 companies in Fortune magazine's survey of the World's Most Admired Companies for the quality of our products and services. (Toll Brothers) Two important elements of a firm's dialogue with its markets are collecting and analyzing market information to understand the nature of the market (e.g. Day, 2011;Kohli & Jaworski, 1990;Zhu & Nakata, 2007) and developing new offerings to better cater for the market's needs (e.g. Hurley & Hult, 1998;Im & Workman, 2004). Interestingly, the collection of market information and the related use of marketing analytics are discussed only in terms of initiatives, not outcomes. This is likely because the outcomes of such activity are considered proprietary information (cf., Core, 2001;Healy & Palepu, 1993). For example: We collect and store the clinical and financial data from all of our health plans through Centelligence, our proprietary data analytics platform. (Centene) We proactively seek client feedback and, as a result, we are implementing numerous enhancements to our service delivery, which are becoming increasingly visible to our clients. (Bank of New York Mellon) However, their general value to business development is recognized: Customers will also experience better and more timely service as we increase our use of data, analytics and automation. (ADM) For offering-related initiatives and outcomes, new product introductions (e.g. Pauwels et al., 2004) as well as product development initiatives during their different phases (Grewal et al., 2008;Kelm et al., 1995) are widely recognized as having a positive impact on shareholder value, as the following examples from the letters illustrate: Later in the summer, we launched BET Play, which provides fans in more than 100 countries direct streaming access to the network's signature programming. (Viacom) In addition to advanced meters, we are pursuing several pilot programs to further lay the foundation for the integrated energy network: installing chargers for electric vehicles in each jurisdiction and our corporate headquarters to gain experience with EV resource integration, developing plans for expanded operations and integration of our utility solar and battery storage facility in New Orleans and completing smart thermostat installations to help low-income customers in New Orleans save on their energy consumption. (Entergy) The extant literature also points to incremental innovations related to product quality (Aaker & Jacobson, 1994;Sorescu & Spanjol, 2008;Tellis & Johnson, 2007) as contributing to firm value. As Srinivasan and Hanssens (2009, p. 306) state: "It takes more than merely introducing new products to improve stock performance. Improvements in consumer appraisal in terms of perceived quality, particularly for new products, are significantly related to firm value." Accordingly, both radical and incremental innovations related to offerings, as well as investments in them, are recognized in the letters, and are often accompanied by a statement on the value they provide to customers. For example: What this means for our customers is that they can scale their solutions without worrying about their cloud platform's capacity or the complex demands of transparency, reliability, security, privacy, and compliance.
Our ALTUS systems with atomic layer deposition capability and Kiyo with Hydra® technology provide enhanced variability control and help our customers extend multiple patterning to sustain scaling roadmaps in both logic and memory devices. (Lam Research) Discussion around marketing operations includes initiatives and outcomes related to both the size of operations and their quality. Initiatives and outcomes related to the marketing operations include, for instance, new channels of distribution (e.g. Geyskens et al., 2002) or service locations (e.g. Gielens et al., 2018): We expanded Online Grocery shopping to new markets, ramped up in-store and in-club pickup, fully acquired the Chinese online retailer Yihaodian, and began to add new mobile services such as Walmart Pay. (Walmart) We also improved the quality and performance of our existing store base with our raze-and-rebuild program, converting ten high-volume locations from kiosks into larger 1,200 square foot formats featuring enhanced fuel and merchandise offers. Initiatives related to market expansion and/or penetration, as well as positional outcomes, receive considerable attention in the letters (in line with the well-established link between market reach/position and shareholder value; e.g. Buzzell et al., 1975;Good, 1992). For instance: Consistent with our overall growth strategy, the acquired businesses expand Anixter's product offering, increase our customer and supplier base, broaden our end-market exposure and significantly expand the markets we serve. (Anixter International) As the most global exchange operator, with roughly half of our profits derived outside the U.S., we are leveraging our scalable technology infrastructure across North America, Europe and Asia. (Intercontinental Exchange) In terms of the quality of operations, initiatives such as transition to services (Fang et al., 2008); initiatives to enhance service quality and reduce servicing costs (Grewal et al., 2010;Zeithaml, 2000), by digitizing distribution, for instance, (Geyskens et al., 2002); and outsourcing of marketing-related functions (Kalaignanam et al., 2013) receive multiple mentions: We began processing aluminum for the auto industry in 2015, mainly through our toll-processing operations in the U.S. and Mexico, and since then have expanded our processing volume and capital investments in this area, due to the increased usage of aluminum in automotive.

(Reliance Steel & Aluminum)
Another long-term effort scheduled to come to fruition in 2017 is the completion and deployment of our new Amadeus Altéa reservation system on May 9, 2017. (Southwest Airlines) Second, we are continuing to improve the member experience and functionality of our site, including better search capability, a streamlined checkout process, a simpler and more automated returns process and easier member tracking of orders. (Costco) Finally, discussion related to cash flows, which by definition constitutes an important part of the letters, often incorporates themes directly relevant to the scope of marketing (cf. Srivastava et al., 1998), such as changes in pricing or margins (see e.g. Lim et al., 2018): However, the overall pricing environment was volatile throughout the year, causing our average selling price to decrease 6.8% in 2016 compared to 2015. (Reliance Steel & Aluminium) While we experienced foreign currency headwinds, particularly transactional pressures, our gross margins expanded significantly, due to our prudent inventory management, higher average unit retail prices, improved sourcing capabilities and the benefit related to expansion in our higher-margin international businesses. (PVH) In addition to investments and outcomes, many of the letters include information on the firms' general business context: the focus of the business and (the dynamics of) the firm's market environment, which are likely to impact the firm's future investment opportunities and decisions (cf. Rahman, 2020). For instance: Rather than focus on products and services, we moved to solutions-based selling around two primary sectorsentertainment and enterprise -to leverage what we believe is the most comprehensive portfolio of audio, lighting, video, and control and automation solutions available in the marketplace. (Harman International) As mobile connectivity continues to expand and mobile usage increases rapidly, our portfolio of physical capital, including macro towers, small cell systems and other communications real estate, is well positioned to serve as a key infrastructure solution underlying this mobile revolution. (American Tower) And of those experiences, concerts and live events are among their top priorities with more than half of millennials saying they are spending more on events and live experiences than ever before. (Live Nations Entertainment) In addition to the content-related categorization, all statements were classified in terms of their time orientation (ranging from the long-term past to the immediate past year, to the present, and to future events) and tone (varying from negative to neutral to positive). The separation of the immediate past from the long-term past was necessary, as the magnitude of previous initiatives, such as new product launches over time, has been shown to impact investor reactions to novel initiatives of the same type (e.g. Warren & Sorescu, 2017). The tone was included as a separate variable, following notions by Luo and Homburg (2008), who suggest that negative marketing outcomes outweigh positive ones in terms of their stock market effect, and that the overall tone of the letter can alter the stock market's response to the initiatives and outcomes discussed in it.

Analysis of the relative weight placed on diverse classes of content
In coding the letters, codes for marketing content, time orientation, and tone were added to each sentence based on its full meaning. Accordingly, the number of content codes assigned to a single sentenced varied from none to several. The extent to which each of the types of content is discussed in the letters varies greatly across firms -as does the weight placed on past-versus forward-looking or positive versus negative issues -as Table 3 illustrates.
In terms of time orientation, the vast majority of statements referred to the immediate past year, or present developments. This is most likely because the general purpose of annual reporting is to report on developments of the immediate past year. This focus may also reflect the top executives' higher confidence in discussing events related to a certain past than to an uncertain future. However, our sample consisting of high-performing firms only (included in the Fortune 500 list) may also have affected this finding, as firms performing less successfully would be more likely to focus on future prospects in their reporting (Kohut & Segars, 1992). Most statements are positive in their tone, which again is not surprising, given the general purpose of the letters.
In terms of content, marketing outcomes receive more attention than marketing initiatives or the marketing context. This is in line with the general focus of the annual reports on reporting immediate past performance. Also, marketing initiatives may be more easily considered as proprietary information compared to outcomes, which often reflect complex configurations of marketing initiatives and, as such, are more difficult for competitors to imitate (cf. Barney, 1991). About 10% of the letters are still devoted to discussion on marketing initiatives, and a similar share to discussion on the marketing context. What is perhaps more interesting is the distribution of, and focus placed on, the various types of initiatives and outcomes reported in Table 3. 3 The most frequently mentioned outcomes are those related to margins/cash flows (which form the core of annual reporting). Outcomes related to offerings and market position also receive considerable attention. The summed weight of discussion related to market relationships (with customers, other members of the value network, overall society, and the general public) is comparable to that of discussions related to offerings or market position. Of these market relationships, relationships with customers receive the most attention, which highlights the importance of customer equity as a market-based asset (Feng et al., 2020;Gupta et al., 2004).
Initiatives receiving the most attention include those related to offering development, societal relationships, and marketing operations, which shows the value product development initiatives represent to shareholders (e.g. Grewal et al., 2008;Kelm et al., 1995;Pauwels et al., 2004) and the importance they place on corporate social responsibility (e.g. Mishra & Modi, 2016;Sadovnikova & Pujari, 2017;Woodroof et al., 2019). New forms and channels of service (e.g. Fang et al., 2008;Geyskens et al., 2002;Gielens et al., 2018) related to the size and scope of marketing operations have also previously been shown to interest shareholders. However, in line with the perceived difficulty of reporting certain initiatives, those related to strengthening traditional marketing assets, such as customers and brands, receive relatively scant attention. Statements related to marketing initiatives, outcomes, and context were further characterized by their time orientation and tone. Table 4 reports this comparison.
As Table 4 illustrates, discussion on market environment in the letters has the least positive tone. Negative developments related to the outcomes of margins and cash flows are also discussed relatively frequently. On the contrary, only positive statements are made about initiatives related to value network development, societal relationships, market information, and margins/cash flows. The same applies to comments about outcomes related to societal relationships and reputational equity. Statements related to customer relationships and offering development plans generally have a positive tone. Statements related to future plans mostly discuss marketing initiatives and the environment. Initiatives related to customer relationships, market information, value network relationships, and offering development, are mentioned frequently. Discussion related to historical developments most often relates to the development of financial performance, as reflected in the outcomes of margins/cash flows. Societal relationships and reputational equity also receive several mentions in this category.

Classification of firms based on the relative weight placed on diverse categories of content
The reporting practices of individual firms can resemble those of others operating in the same industry because corporate communications specialists often play a large role in developing the letters (e.g. Kohut & Segars, 1992). These specialists usually have a schema of what is typically discussed in the letters of similar firms. Furthermore, individual firms may mimic each other's letters to ensure competitiveness in investment markets and to adhere to expectations by investors and analysts (see e.g. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). To investigate such potential industry specificities our study compared the general marketing-related themes discussed across industries using analysis of variance (ANOVA). However, a comparison of the three largest industries in our sample reveals statistically significant differences only in initiatives related to marketing operations (F = 6.10; p < .05; means ranging from 0.92% for manufacturing; to 2.85% for financial and insurance activities; and to 5.22% for wholesale and retail trade) and market position (F = 4.53; p < .05; means ranging from 3.82% to 6.33% and to 8.51%, respectively). 4 Any other differences, albeit seemingly large, are not statistically significant. This suggests that the differences in foci of firms within each industry are also relatively large. Instead of relying on an industry-specific classification, we therefore proceeded to classify firms in our sample based on their reporting profiles, in other words, the relative weight placed on the diverse categories of marketing content identified in the letters.
A hierarchical clustering using the Ward's (1963) method provided relatively equal support for solutions with two, three, four, or five clusters, which we used as a basis for K-means clustering. The three-cluster solution reflects a balanced distribution of cases (19, 18, and 17) and is easily interpretable, and was thereby selected as final. The resulting clusters differ in their relative focus placed on diverse types of marketing investments/outcomes, particularly concerning customer relationships, value network relationships, offerings, market position, and margins/cash flows. The clusters also reflected differences related to the weight they placed on discussing their market environment. The upper part of Table 5 reports the final cluster centers that serve as a basis for interpreting the clusters.
C1: Cash flow geeks focus primarily on the traditional language of annual reports: the financial outcomes related to margins and cash flows. They place the least focus on market relationships (with customers or, in particular, other members of the value network), and are among the least likely to focus on their contribution to the market (as related to their offering). They are also among the least likely to discuss their market environment.
C2: Outsourcers focus primarily on discussing the characteristics and developments related to their marketing environment. They place the least emphasis on reporting any developments related to their offering or market position. They are also among the least likely to discuss their customer relationships or their financial performance related to margins/cash flows. Furthermore, the Games-Howell post hoc test (Games & Howell, 1976) reveals that the more detailed differences between individual industries are only marginally significant: specifically, compared to firms in manufacturing, firms in wholesale and retail trade focus relatively more on discussing initiatives related to marketing operations (p < .10) as well as outcomes related to market position (p < .10).
C3: Marketing enthusiasts place the most emphasis on reporting customer relationships, value network relationships, offerings, and market position. They are among the least likely to discuss financial performance or their market environment.
We further conducted Chi-square tests to examine potential differences in industry distributions between clusters; however, no clear differences were identified (χ 2 = 36.77; p > .10). Thus, the three reporting profiles identified appear as equally applicable to all industries. However, analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveals that the clusters differ in their tone. The lower part of Table 5 reports the cluster means. As expected, the vast majority of statements have a positive tone; however, the tendency also varies across clusters (F = 4.70; p < .05). More specifically, the Games-Howell test (Games & Howell, 1976) shows that C3 uses more positive statements than C2 (p < .05). On the contrary, in terms of neutral statements (F = 6.14; p < .05) C2 uses more of them than C3 (p < .05), and at a marginally significant level more than C1 (p < .10). The tendency to include negative statements varies (F = 5.12; p < .05), with firms in C3 being less likely to reveal any negative information compared to firms in C1 (p < .05) or C2 (p < .10). As related to time orientation, a tendency to report events from the longer-term past reveals marginally significant differences between the clusters (F = 2.93; p < .10). This is particularly due to a difference between C1 and C3, with C1 focusing more on the longerterm past (p < .10).
Taken together, the reporting profiles differ in their tone and time orientation: Cash flow geeks (C1) are the most likely to refer to negative developments as well. They take the broadest time perspective in their reporting, also discussing longer term developments. They are also not afraid to make negative statements. In contrast, Outsourcers (C2) remain the most neutral in their statements. Marketing enthusiasts (C3), while broad in their content, make sure they keep the tone of the letters most positive. They also take the narrowest time perspective for their reporting. The profiles identified illustrate the aspects of marketing top executives view as worth disclosing to stakeholders external to the firm, as well as the timeline and tone of such disclosures.

Theoretical contributions
To answer our first research question (what types of marketing-related information do leading firms choose to report in their letters to shareholders?), this study explored the thematic content of letters to shareholders included in the annual reports of Fortune 500 firms, and categorized marketing information related to initiatives, outcomes, and environment typically discussed in the letters. To cater for the second research question (what kind(s) of reporting profiles related to the disclosure of marketing information in the letters to shareholders can be identified among leading firms?), the study further continued to analyze the different weights placed on diverse categories of content across diverse industries and reporting profiles. As such, our findings make four important contributions to understanding reporting marketing's contribution to shareholder value.
First, our study extends the ongoing academic discussion on the measurement of marketing performance to its reporting to external stakeholders. Even if the multidimensionality of marketing performance measurement has been widely recognized in the recent literature (e.g. Hanssens & Pauwels, 2016;Mintz & Currim, 2013;  NB. Statistically significant differences (p < .05) marked with bold. The differences related to market information (in clustering) and time orientation (in terms of past > 1 year) are additionally marginally significant (p < .10). Tone and time orientation were not included in the initial clustering. , the research to date has focused only on its internal use -largely ignoring its external reporting. This study sheds further light on the current practices of reporting marketing information to stakeholders external to the firm. The findings of our study divide categories of marketing information currently gaining attention in letters to shareholders into initiatives and outcomes related to relationships and reputation, market information and offerings, and operations and market share, as well as both short-and long-term financial implications. This typology provides a comprehensive view to the key aspects of marketing that senior management considers as worth reporting to external stakeholders and can be used as a basis for future studies seeking to assess marketing's performance and contribution to firm value from a comprehensive perspective. Second, we extend calls for greater disclosure of information about marketing assets, such as brand equity (e.g. Madden et al., 2006;Rego et al., 2009) or customer equity (e.g. Kumar & Shah, 2009), and find that the types of marketing initiatives and outcomes currently highlighted in the letters to shareholders are divided into seven (a-g) distinct categories of assets. In addition to (a) customer relationships (e.g. Rust et al., 2004b;Vogel et al., 2008;Wiesel et al., 2008), developments related to (b) other value network relationships, such as relationships with suppliers, partners, and retailers, as well as (c) society at large (cf. Woodroof et al., 2019) receive mentions in the letters. In addition to (d) brand equity as a reputational asset (e.g. Ailawadi et al., 2003;Mizik & Jacobson, 2009;Rego et al., 2009), (e) marketing information emerges as a novel category of assets, well aligned with the traditional (McKitterick, 1957) and more recent (Webster & Lusch, 2013) notions of the marketing concept and market orientation (e.g. Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), as well as recent developments of the overall marketing environment (Day, 2011). Investments in (f) R&D and new product launches (e.g. Grewal et al., 2008;Pauwels et al., 2004;Sorescu et al., 2007), and the perceived quality of a firm's offering (Aaker & Jacobson, 1994;Tellis & Johnson, 2007) are recognized as equally important marketing assets. Finally, (g) positional assets and related marketing operations (cf. Beckers et al., 2018;Lim & Lusch, 2011) emerge as a distinct category of assets. Taken together, our findings suggest that instead of any single measure of marketing assets, the value of marketing may be better captured by a series of measures that account for the diversity of marketing assets.
In addition to marketing assets, our study also recognizes the value of disclosing information on the characteristics and development of the external market environment, which receives considerable attention in the letters; in some firms even exceeding the weight placed on marketing assets or operations. Thus, in addition to the state and development of marketing assets, similar measures related to the firm's external marketing context may be perceived as valuable for stakeholders concerned about the firm's future prospects (cf. Rahman, 2020).
Third, our study highlights the relatively minor weight the letters place on marketing information in general. This observation holds across firms. On the one hand, this lack of emphasis may be due to proprietary costs related to disclosing such information (e.g. Core, 2001;Healy & Palepu, 1993). On the other hand, it may also suggest a continuing lack of recognition of marketing initiatives' contribution to firm value among firms' top executives, at least in terms of what they consider as worth reporting to shareholders. As O'Sullivan and Abela (2007) point out, this lack of recognition may be partially due to marketing's inability to demonstrate its value in hard numerical terms. Thus, our findings highlight the continuing need for marketers to reach for better accountability in their investments, and for marketing scholars to continue developing and further improving models that translate the impact of marketing into financial terms.
Fourth, our study finds that the relative weight placed on the different aspects of marketing varies across firms. We identify three distinct profiles of marketing performance disclosure: (1) Cash flow geeks, who focus primarily on the financials, and don't pay any attention to marketing assets; (2) Outsourcers, who focus mostly on discussing their external marketing context; and (3) Marketing enthusiasts, who disclose a broad array of marketing-related initiatives and/or outcomes. These profiles may be interpreted as reflecting diversity in the role of marketing within the organizations and, thereby, the extent to which marketing-related issues are viewed as relevant for shareholders. The profiles suggest that even if the strategic role of marketing is relatively well established in the recent literature on marketing (Homburg et al., 2000;Webster, 1992), in practice, the related views of different firms and, in particular, their CEOs (see also Whitler et al., 2021;You et al., 2020) may vary. Thus, the view of marketing as a central explanans for performance differentials across firms (e.g. Morgan, 2012;Rubera & Kirca, 2017) may not be equally shared across firms. In their 2007 study, O'Sullivan and Abela demonstrate that a firm's ability to measure marketing performance has a positive impact on marketing's stature within the firm, especially in terms of CEO satisfaction with marketing. Thus, developing standardized measures for reporting marketing performance may also help draw the attention of CEOs to marketing as a strategic asset.

Implications for managers and policy makers
This study serves as a starting point for gaining a better understanding of the relative weight top executives place on the diverse aspects of marketing when disclosing their performance to the investor market. As such, the study provides benchmarks for further developing the firms' reporting practices. First, the typology of marketing assets extracted from the letters to shareholders provides a general framework of marketing topics that might be of interest to shareholders and the types of development they may expect to be informed of. This classification can be used as a checklist when deciding what specific developments to disclose.
Second, our study highlights the multitude of marketing initiatives and outcomes, as well as contextual factors currently reported in the letters, each of which is likely to play a different role across firms. In order to provide shareholders a rounded view of firms' marketing value, both in the short and the long run, our findings suggest that developments related to the firm's marketing initiatives and outcomes should be disclosed equally. In particular, developments regarding market relationships (such as relationships with customers, other members of the value network, the broader public, and society at large); market information (including investments in market insights and marketing analytics); offerings (including new offerings launched to the market and improvements related to existing ones); the firm's market position; and contributions to cash flows demand disclosure. Even if assets related to brands, customers, and R&D are already widely recognized as offering value to shareholders, our findings further stress the potential of additional marketing assets related to relationships with suppliers or partners, corporate social responsibility, and market intelligence in impacting shareholder perceptions.
Finally, our findings once more underscore the important role financial performance metrics play in the evaluation of marketing's contribution to firms. Accordingly, marketers would be well advised to ensure that their efforts are communicated to senior management in a manner that clearly identifies financial outcomes, in addition to other more marketer-centric outcomes.
For public policy makers, our study's findings shed light on fields of marketing currently perceived as worth disclosing to shareholders. First, the typology presented in Table 2 provides tangible insights into firms' present foci of reporting. These foci provide a backdrop against which present reporting standards and initiatives to alter them can be weighed. In particular, our findings stress the multitude of marketing assets that may prove relevant for shareholders, thereby expanding the already on-going discussion on including brands (as a particular type of marketing assets) to balance sheets.
Second, the diversity of marketing initiatives and outcomes currently disclosed by firms, as reflected in our typology, together with the different weights assigned to them in firms with diverse reporting profiles, suggest marketing plays diverse roles within firms. Accordingly, the value potential of marketing initiatives and outcomes, as well as their relative weights, differ across individual firms. This notion calls for multidimensionality in reporting; instead of aiming to reduce the value of marketing to a single balance-sheet item, such as brand or customer equity, external stakeholders would benefit most from a standardized yet multidimensional report of the different types of intangible value generated by a firm's marketing.
In particular, our findings call for including (at least) the aspects of customer relationships, other value network relationships, societal relationships, reputational assets, marketing information, offering-related assets, and market position to a comprehensive scheme of marketing performance reporting. Even if the relative role of each aspect may vary across firms and industries, assessing all seven types of marketing assets identified in our study as part of standard financial reporting would ensure providing external evaluators a more comprehensive view of the firms' marketing performance and sources of (marketing-related) competitive advantages.

Limitations and future research
The limitations of the study point to avenues for further research. First, the present study focuses on annual reports only, and ignores the disclosures in shorterterm quarterly reports and, for instance, earnings calls with analysts. This choice was made to gain an aggregated view of the marketing-related issues highlighted in disclosures to external stakeholders and served as a starting point for a discussion on how marketingrelated issues gain attention in top executives' reporting. However, we acknowledge that including shorter-term reports would likely provide a more detailed view of a firm's marketing initiatives. Therefore, future research could examine how and to what extent marketing initiatives are discussed in these more detailed reports.
Second, the manual coding approach used for the present study has its limitations. Due to the high costs of coding, the manual coding of data resulted in a relatively small sample size which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Nevertheless, the sample obtained is comparable to previous studies (e.g. Kohut & Segars, 1992). The manual coding approach also makes the coding process subjective, which hinders replication (Li, 2010). On the positive side, however, manual coding enables researchers to take the context and interpretation of each sentence into account when coding sentences, instead of concentrating on the mere occurrence of individual words (cf. Duriau et al., 2007;Homburg et al., 2020). This becomes particularly important when interpreting the free-format letters that address marketing-related aspects of a business from a variety of positions and angles. Thus, the approach also comes with strengths that would be lost with a more cost-effective, automated approach.
Third, the sample used for the present study represents a mere snapshot in time, and is tied to marketleading, publicly listed firms only. Longitudinal analysis of a greater diversity of letters to shareholders may provide valuable insights into shifts in managerial focus over time. Thus, future studies using an automated coding approach and a broader, perhaps longitudinal, sample of letters are encouraged. As the results of the present study are based on a sample of Fortune 500 firms only, future studies addressing the suitability of our classification for other types of firms (e.g. small-and medium-sized enterprises) would be welcome. Further studies aiming to elaborate on industry-specific benchmarks would also be useful (cf. Beattie et al., 2004). Finally, given the differences in present reporting standards across countries, comparisons of foci across different reporting systems, as well as their perceived informativeness to shareholders, would shed further light on the market's needs for reporting.
Finally, future research might examine the relationship-(s) among what is reported in textual communications, such as the letters to shareholders examined in the present study, and accompanying quantitative reporting, past actions, and future actions of the firm, and movements in the equity prices of the firms. In particular, we encourage future studies building on our findings to compare relative weights placed on reporting different marketing investments and outcomes against the relative budgets allocated to them and their eventual financial outcomes.

Conclusion
The present study opens a discussion on reporting marketing performance to stakeholders external to the firm. By presenting a typology of marketing assets gaining attention in the annual reporting by world-leading firms, as well as by pointing to the diversity of their specific reporting profiles, the study highlights the multidimensionality of marketing performance as perceived by the firms' senior management. This multidimensionality suggests that any standards to be developed for reporting marketing performance should also be multidimensional in nature, to account for the diversity of firms' reporting needs.