Download the marketing mix: a review

ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THE MARKETING MIX: A REVIEW
Virender Sanghvi
Professor, Management Department
Institute of Management Technology,
Ghaziabad, India
ABSTRACT
Shifting the model of traditional business for selling digital products related to physical media to online globe
leads to the requirement for a system to secure digital intellectual property. DRM (Digital Right Management)
is a system to secure greater value digital properties and handle the usage and distribution of those digital
properties. This study presents a review of present state of digital rights management concentrating on security
techniques underlying legitimate suggestions and major drawbacks to deployment of digital rights management
with the target of offering a better understanding of what are happening presently to management of content on
a technological and legal basis and prepared well for holding future possibilities.
Keywords: Marketing mix, 4Ps, marketing theory.
Introduction
Marketing mix originates from the micro
compared to that of mixing a cake. A
economics theory variable, price (Chong,
baker is required to make changes in
2003).
proportion
McCarthy
(1964)
suggested
in
marketing mix, known as the 4Ps, as a tool
accordance with the kind of cake to be
to implement marketing plans (Bennett,
baked. Similarly, strategies need to be
1997). The marketing mix spells out the
suited for different products (Hodder
key decisions that managers make in
Education, n.d). Kent (1986) defines the
oreder to adjust the products and services
4Ps of the marketing mix as “the holy
to the customers’ demands. It is thus not a
quadruple…of
scientific theory but rather a theoretical
faith…written
framework. The 4Ps framework can be
Marketing mix has been found to be a
utilized to design both short term and long
significant determiner of theory and
term
practical tools in marketing. (Möller,
strategies
(Palmer,
2004).
The
concept of the marketing mix can be
1
of various ingredients
2006).
the
in
tablets
marketing
of
stone”.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The primary factors that make the
within the organization (Low and Tan,
marketing mix a powerful approach are:
1995).
marketing appears easy to handle with the
Möller (2006) however argued that the
availability of this framework. It also
deficiencies of the 4Ps marketing mix
delegates marketing tasks to experts and
concept, as the cornerstones of the
separates the marketing domain from other
traditional marketing management are
organizational activities. And the elements
subject to extreme criticism. Many critics
of the marketing mix can be instrumental
reject the 4Ps altogether and propose other
in altering a firm’s competitive standing
substitute frameworks (refer Table 1-6)
(Grönroos, 1994). The marketing mix
framework
also
presents
two
major
Objective
advantages. First, it is an important tool
used to enable one to see that the
marketing manager’s job is, in a large part,
a matter of trading off the benefits of one’s
competitive strengths in the marketing mix
against the benefits of others. The other
advantage of the marketing mix is that it
helps in revealing the flip side of the tasks
of the marketing manager. All managers
are
required
to
allocate
accessible
resources among various demands, the
marketing manager on the other hand must
delegate these resources among different
competitive elements of the marketing
mix. This in turn will enable the
culmination of a marketing philosophy
Since the gestation of the concept of
marketing, it has remained a subject of
constant research in order to develop new
theoretical frameworks in view of the
changing
commercial
outlook
and
attitudes, especially in the previous few
decades
(1940s
–
2000s).
Many
researchers have attempted to identify and
introduce new and more relevant Ps to the
existing framework. This process has
continued over a long time now, since new
Ps keep coming up in
light of the
evolving commercial environment. This
paper therefore seeks to review the present
frameworks available for marketing mix.
History and application of Marketing Mix
2
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Culliton (1948) suggested to Borden, the
and fact identification and investigation.
definition of a business executive as a
Frey (1961) recommends dividing the
“mixer of ingredients” who then used the
marketing variables into 2: the offering
term “marketing mix” for the very first
(product, brand, price, packaging, and
time
service) and the tools and methods
in
A
business
executive is “a mixer of ingredients, who
(channels
at times follows a recipe as he goes along,
personal
sometimes
the
promotion). Conversely, Lazer and Kelly
ingredients readily available, and ventures
(1962) and Lazer, Culley and Staudt
with or develops ingredients previously
(1973) recommended three elements of the
not tried, the other times” (Culliton, 1948).
marketing mix: the goods and services
The erstwhile marketing concept was built
mix, the communication mx and the
on the action elements suggested by
distribution mix.
Stackleberg (1939) and was similar to the
clarified Borden’s (1965) concept further
marketing mix framework. Subsequently,
and explained the marketing mix as a
Rasmussen (1955) introduced what came
consolidation
to be known as the parameter theory. He
command of a marketing manager so as to
suggested
meet the consumers’ demands. He re-
adapts
that
the
a
recipe
four
to
determining
of distribution,
advertising,
selling, publicity and sales
of
McCarthy
all
factors
(1964)
in
the
elements of sales and competition are
categorized Borden’s
price, service, quality and advertising.
12 elements into four elements or 4Ps,
Mickwitz (1959) associates this theory to
namely product, price, promotion and
the Product Life Cycle Concept.
place.
The original marketing mix suggested by
Particularly since the 1980s, a number of
Borden constituted 12 elements namely:
new
product
pricing;
marketing mix. A fith P-People, was
advertising;
suggested by Judd (1987). Booms and
personal selling promotions; servicing;
Bitner (1980) introduced 3 new Ps
display; packaging; physical handling;
(process,
channels
3
theory (1965).
planning;
of
branding;
distribution;
introductions
were
participants
and
made
the
physical
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
evidence) to the existing 4 Ps to make the
framework. Some have even rejected and
marketing mix framework applicable to
replaced the original framework.
services. Kotler (1986) recommended the
addition of public opinion formation and
Criticism against the marketing mix
political power to the existing 4Ps.
4Ps delimits four distinct, well-defined
Baumgartner
recommends15Ps.
and independent management processes.
MaGrath (1986) introduced another 3 Ps
Despite the consistent effort by many
(process
personnel
physical businesses to deal with the 4P in
management and management of physical
an integrated manner, the drafting but
facilities). Goldsmith (1999) recommends
mainly the implementation of the P
8Ps (product, price, place, promotion,
policies remains largely the task of various
personalization, participants, process and
departments
physical evidence). Vignalis and Davis
organisation.
(1994) recommend the S of services to the
thought is the fact that the customer is
marketing mix.
typically
The tables 1-6 summarize the academic
effects of each of the 4Ps in diverse
literature
the
occasions, times and places, even in case
five
that some companies take great pains to
sub-disciplines
fully integrate their marketing activities
relationship
internally (Constantinides, 2002; Wang,
(1991)
management,
and
marketing
mix
marketing
management
(consumer
in
about
context
marketing,
marketing,
services
of
Even
more
experiencing
the
within
the
significant
individual
Wang and Yao, 2005). However, a study
marketing and industrial marketing) and
by Rafiq and Ahmed (1995) suggested that
an emerging discipline (E-Commerce) as
there is a high degree of dissatisfaction
reported
by
marketing,
persons
retail
(2006).
Most
with the 4Ps framework. Even, Overall
researchers
have
these results provide fairly strong support
and
Booms and Bitner’s (1981) 7P framework
inclusion of additional parameters in light
should replace McCarthy’s 4Ps framework
of significant deficiencies in the original
as
academicians
proposed
4
perceptions
and
Moller
and
alternative
frameworks
the
generic
marketing
mix.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Development
mix
has
Pricing was considered the most important
academic
and
marketing activity in Robicheaux’s (1976)
Numerous
survey, although it ranked only sixth in
modifications to the 4Ps framework have
Udell’s (1964) survey. Udell (1968) found
been
concerted
that sales efforts were rated as most
criticism has come from the services
important, followed by product efforts,
marketing area (Rafiq and Ahmed, 1995).
pricing, and distribution. LaLonde (1977)
The introductory marketing texts suggest
found product related criteria to be most
that all parts of the marketing mix (4Ps)
important, followed by distribution, price,
are equally important, since a deficiency
and promotion. Perreault and Russ (1976)
in any one can mean failure (Kellerman,
found that product quality was considered
Gordon and Hekmat, 1995). Number of
most important, followed by distribution
studies
and
service and price. McDaniel and Hise,
purchasers indicated that the marketing
(1984) found that chief executive officers
mix components differ significantly in
judge two of the 4 Ps, pricing and product
importance (Jackson, Burdick and Keith,
to be somewhat more important than the
1985).
on
other two – place (physical distribution)
determination of key marketing policies
and promotion. Kurtz and Boone (1987)
and procedures common to successful
found that on the average, business
manufacturing firms (Jackson, Burdick
persons ranked the 4 Ps to be of most
and Keith, 1985). Udell (1964) determined
importance in the following order: price,
that these key policies and procedures
product,
included those related to product efforts
Thus, it appears from these studies that
and sales efforts. This followed in order by
business executives do not really view the
promotion, price, and
a
4 Ps as being equally important, but
replication of this survey, Robicheaux
consider the price and product components
(1976)
to be the most important (Kellerman,
received
of
considerable
industry
5
attention.
proposed,
policies
marketing
of
the
industrial
Two
found
had
surveys
that
most
marketers
focused
place.
key
In
marketing
changed significantly.
distribution,
and
Gordon and Hekmat, 1995).
promotion.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The concept of 4Ps has been criticised
as
being
a
definition of
production-oriented
marketing,
and
not
a


Product is stated in the singular but most
isolation. Marketers sell product lines, or
perspective. Lauterborn (1990) claims that
brands, all interconnected in the mind of
each of these variables should also be seen
the consumer.
is
accomplished

The mix does not mention relationship
by
building which has become a major
converting product into customer solution,
marketing focus, or the experiences that
price into cost to the customer, place into
consumers buy.
and
promotion
into

The conceptualisation of the mix has
communication, or the 4C’s. Möller
implied marketers are the central element.
(2006) highlighted 3-4 key criticisms
This is not the case. Marketing is meant to
against the Marketing Mix framework:
be ‘customer-focused management’.
The Mix does not consider customer
Even, a study by Rafiq and Ahmed (1995)
behaviour but is internally oriented.
found that there is a high degree of
The Mix regards customers as passive; it
dissatisfaction with the 4Ps, however, 4Ps
does not allow interaction and cannot
is thought to be most relevant for
capture relationships.
introductory marketing and consumer
The Mix is void of theoretical content; it
marketing. The result also suggests that
works primarily as a simplistic device
the 7Ps framework has already achieved a
focusing the attention of management.
high degree of acceptance as a generic
The
Mix
does
not
offer
help
for
marketing mix among our sample of
personification of marketing activities.
respondents. Rafiq and Ahmed (1995) also
A review of another article, “Revision:
highlighted the strengths and weaknesses
Reviewing
of the 4Ps and 7Ps mixes .
the
Marketing
(Fakeideas, 2008) found that:
6

referred to as a marketing management
convenience,

the unique elements of services marketing.
companies do not sell a product in
transformation

The mix does not take into consideration
customer-oriented (Popovic, 2006). It’s
from a consumer’s perspective. This


Mix”
Conclusion
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Marketing
mix
as
a
paradigm
for
important to be considered (Low and Kok,
management has continued to dominate
1997). As McCarthy (1960) argued that
marketing dating back to the 1940s. The
“the number of possible permutations of
idea was further developed and refined by
the marketing mix is infinite.
McCarthy (1964) to what we commonly
The criticism of marketing mix framework
refer to as the 4Ps today. However dot-
has led to the evolution of marketing theoy
com evolution, has presented to the
as well as practice. As such, the marketing
marketing managers with a whole new
mix is believed to be useful in the initial
host of elements that have emerged from
periods of the marketing concept when
the internet domain. The new elements on
larger proportion in the economy was
one hand are closely associate with the
represented by physical products.
traditional offline arrangement while on
the other hand, present revolutionary
implications
that
are
a
Authors have attempted to include newer
completely new characterization that is E-
Ps like process, packaging, people to
Marketing Mix (Kalyanam and McIntyre,
address the variety of products and the
2002).
dynamism of markets. Despite these
Marketing mix design and implementation
developments, the marketing mix still
is a function of a firm’s resources, the
continues to be based on the original 4Ps
needs of its clients and the market
of product, price, place and promotion.
conditions. The significance of certain
The deficiencies are possibly overlooked
elements within the marketing mix will
pertaining to the convenience offered by
evolve continuously. Decisions on one
this
element of the mix are sure to impact the
deficiencies, the 4Ps remain a staple of the
other elements
marketing mix (Kent and Brown, 2006).
and
worthy
this
of
relation
is
framework.
Table 1. Literature review of theory on consumer marketing
7
In
spite
of
its
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Author
Kotler (1984)
Ohmae (1982)
Robins (1991)
Doyle (1994)
Argumentts
External and uncontrollable environmental
factors are very important elements of the
marketing strategy Programs.
Proposition
The Marketing Mix should include
customers, environmental variables,
and competitive variables.
The marketing strategy is defined by three
elements wherein no strategic angle is to
be found.
The marketing mix of 4Ps is extremely
inward looking.
Two additional Ps to the 4
traditional ones: Political power, and
3public
Cs opinion
characterize
the marketing
formulation.
strategy: Customers, corporation
and competitors.
4 Cs that reflect external
perspective
are:
Customers,
capabilities, the company and the
competitors.
For achieving marketing objectives and
positioning the products, most managers
will be required to add 2 Ps to the existing
base of marketing mix.
Bennett (1997) Customer orientation is in the inverse
direction as suggested by the marketing
mix. The framework lacks customer
perspective.
Yudelson
1999
8
The 21st century marketing cannot thrive
on the 4Ps. A more dynamic and flexible
framework is called for.
Services and staff must be included in the
marketing mix framework.
Customer selection process is
represented by 5Vs : Value, variety,
viability, virtue and volume.
4 new Ps based on exchange
activities:
Product -Performance
Price-Penalty
Promotion-Perceptions
Place-Process
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Schultz
2001
The 4Ps have lost relevance since markets
are increasingly becoming consumer
oriented.
Adapted from: Möller (2006)
9
Market is guided by the customer. A
new marketing system should be
based on the triangular relationship
of the customer, the marketer and
the product.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Table 2. Review of literature on relationship marketing
10
Author
Arguments
Rozenberg and Retention of customers should also be
Czepiel (1992) considered just as important as acquisition
of new ones.
Proposition
Retention Marketing Mix: Product
extras, post sales communication,
reinstating promotions, connections
through sales-force, customized
distribution,
andpost-purchase
communication.
Gummesson
(1994, 1997)
The 4Ps have now become the
contributing factors to marketing as
opposed to being the founding basis.
30 R(elationship) elements describe
marketing
as
a
blend
of
relationships,
interactions
and
networks.
Grönroos
(1994)
The marketing mix framework lacks
integrity and does not apply to all markets,
is obsolete and highly product centric.
The marketing mix is inappropriate
to address a relation based
approach. The necessary elements
are better presented by Relationship
marketing.
Goldsmith
(1999)
Services are increasingly becoming
significant to marketing of product and the
design of marketing management.
Apart from the 4Ps, additional 4Ps
must be included- procedures,
personnel, personalization and
physical assets.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Patterson and
Ward (2000)
Organizations today need to nurture
customer relationships and thus the 4Ps
lose relevance because of being output
centric.
Adapted from: Möller (2006)
11
The current market is reflected in
the 4 information-intensive Cs:
Customerisation, collaboration,
clairvoyance and communication.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Table 3. Review of literature on services marketing
Author
Booms and
Bitner
(1981)
Arguments
Services as a type of products were considered.
Consequently, physical evidence, customers and
employees and the process of service delivery
were additionally included.
Proposition
In addition to the existing 4Ps, 3
new ones were suggestedprocess, participants and
physical evidence.
Cowell
(1984)
Originally, the marketing mix was designed for
manufacturing units and not for service sector
and thus it is found not inclusive by service
sector managers.
recommends the framework
presented by
Booms and Bitner
Brunner
(1989)
Factors that affect services should be added
within the 4Ps so that they become
comprehensive.
Generalization renders inadequacy to marketing
tools. Marketing for services is controlled by
peculiar features of services like inseparability,
intangibility, variability and perishability.
Concept Mix, Communication
Mix Cost Mix and Channels
Mix.
New instruments and concepts
must be developed
Fryar
(1991)
Marketing of services is successfully driven by
differentiation,
segmentation,
customer
relationships and delivery quality.
Requirements of successful
marketing for services:
Focus on quality, customer
relationships and differentiation.
Heuvel
(1993)
Customer’s interaction with the agent of delivery
shapes his perceptions of service and quality.
Marketing mix for services can be
represented as: product,
personnel, price, place and
promotion.
Ruston and
Carson
(1989)
12
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(continued)
Author
Melewar
and
Saunders
(2000)
Arguments
The visual identity of the firm and differentiation
is based on the Corporate Visual Identity System
(CVIS).
Proposition
Publications P should be added
to the existing framework.
Beckwit
h
(2001)
Marketing today needs to emphasize on greater
consumer satisfaction.
Relationships, price, packaging
and brand are the current
important elements of marketing
of services:
Adapted from: Möller (2006)
13
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Table 4. Review of literature on retail marketing
Author
Boekema et al.
(1995)
Arguments
The choice of the consumer is influenced
by the perception of the retail outlet, that
is its image. The 4Ps of marketing can be
used to enhance this image.
Proposition
Assortment, presentation, personnel,
price policy, promotion and place
constitute marketing mix for retail
outlets.
Rousey and
Morganosk
y (1996)
Exclusive formats for retail must replace
the original 4Ps.
4Ps should be replaced with Cs to
suit retail: convenience, Customer
needs, communication and cost to
the customer.
For web retail, the tasks of the marketer
vary from traditional marketing. Here,
identifying, establishing and maintaining
relationships are important.
For web retailing, interaction,
database and networks constitute the
marketing mix.
Since consumers have become more
sophisticated, service and procurement
assume greater importance for marketers.
Main elements are: target market,
assortment and procurement of
product, pricing, services.
Wang et al.
(2000)
Kotler (2003)
Adapted from: Möller (2006)
14
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Table 5. Review of E-Commerce marketing literature
Author
Chaffey et al.
(2000)
Arguments
The important elements for an effective
website are the content, credibility,
capture, commerce, community and
customer orientation.
Proposition
Important factors for successful internet
market planning are: integration, brand
migration, potential audience, budget,
strategic partnerships, organizational
structure and marketing support.
Lawrence et al.
(2000)
The traditional 4ps along with the
people and packaging elements should
be combined with 5 new Ps.
The New Five Ps of Marketing are:
persuasion, perspective, paradigm,
passion and paradox.
Bhatt and
Emdad
(2001)
Businesses adapt the original 4Ps with
new dimensions to suit the changingvalue chains in virtual marketing.
New Character of the 4P’s
Allen and
Fjermestad
(2001)
15
Product: new options for customised
information
-
Place: no time and location restrictions,
direct delivery
-
Price: price discrimination and
customisation, price transparency
-
Promotion: action-oriented promotional
activities are possible, promotional
flexibility
For
applicant in e-commerce, the
following changes are required:
Certain changes need to be made to suit
the existing 4Ps to internet marketing.




Product: innovative and informative
Place: better outreach
Price: greater competition
Promotion: direct selling
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Table 6. Strengths and weakness of the 4Ps and 7Ps
Strengths
7Ps
exhaustive
precise
clarity
wider perspective
Includes participants
regularity
Supports theories of
marketing
Weaknesses complex
4Ps
Simple and easy to understand
Easily remembered
Dogmatic tool
providence
useful model
flexible
Extremely simplistic
unnecessary new
characterization
Ignores participants
governance of additional
elements.
Physical evidence
Disintegration among variables
Ignores service marketing
Passive
Adapted from: Rafiq and Ahmed (1995)
References
[1] Aldridge, A., Forcht, K. & Pierson, J.
(1997). Get Linked or Get Lost: Marketing
Strategy for the Internet. Internet
[2] Allen, E. & Fjermestad, J. (2001). ECommerce Marketing Strategies: An
Integrated Framework and Case Analysis.
Logistics Information Management, 14(1/2),
14-23.
[3] Andersen, J. C. & Narus J. A. (1999).
Business
Market
Management,
Understanding, Creating and Delivering
Value. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
16
[4] Assessing Web Sites. Industrial Marketing
Management, 28(4), 343-358.
[5] Baungartner J. (1991). Nonmarketing
Professionals Need More Than 4Ps,
Marketing News.
[6] Bennett, A. R. (1997). The Five Vs - A
Buyer’s Perspective of the Marketing Mix.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning,15(3),
151-156.
[7] Bhatt G. & Emdad, A. F. (2001). An
Analysis of the Virtual Chain in Electronic
Commerce.
Logistics
Information
Management, 14(1/2), 78-85.
[8]
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[9] Booms B. H. & Bitner B. J. (1980).
Marketing strategies and organisation
structures for service firms. In Donnelly, J. &
George W. R. (Eds.), Marketing of services.
American Marketing Association, 47-51.
[10]
Borden, N. H. (1965). The concept of
the marketing mix. In Schwartz, G. (Ed),
Science in marketing. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 386-397.
[11]
Chong, K. W. (2003). The Role of
Pricing in Relationship Marketing - A Study
of the Singapore Heavy Equipment Spare
Parts
Industry,
PhD
Dissertation,
International
Graduate
School
of
Management, University of South Australia.
[12]
Constantinides, E. (2002). The 4S WebMarketing Mix Model. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 1(1), 57-76.
[13]
Culliton,
J.W.
(1948).
The
Management of Marketing Costs. Division
of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Boston, MA: Harvard
University.
[14]
Davis W. & Brush, K. E. (1997).
High-Tech
Industry
Marketing:
The
Elements of a Sophisticated Global
Strategy. Industrial Marketing Management,
26(1), 1-13.
[15]
Doyle,
P.
(1994).
Marketing
Management and Strategy. Prentice Hall.
[16]
English, J. (2000). The Four “P”s of
Marketing are Dead. Marketing Health
Services, 20(2), 20-23.
[17]
Goldsmith R. E. (1999). The
Personalised Marketplace: Beyond the 4Ps.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(4),
178-185.
[18]
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P. & John, J.
(2000). Service as Theater, Guidelines
and Implications, Handbook Services
17
[19]
Gummesson, E. (1994). Making
Relationship
Marketing
Operational.
International Journal of Service Industry
[20]
Gummesson, E. (1997). Relationship
Marketing as a Paradigm Shift: Some
Conclusions From the 30R Approach.
Management Decision, 35(4), 267-272.
[21]
Judd V. C. (1987). Differentiate With
the 5th P: People. Industrial Marketing
Management, 16(4), 241-247.
[22]
Kalyanam, K. & McIntyre, S. (2002).
The E-Marketing Mix: A Contribution of the
E-Tailing Wars. Working Paper, Leavey
School of Business, Santa Clara University.
[Online]
Available:
http://lsb.scu.edu/faculty/research/working_p
apers/pdf/e-marketing.pdf.
[23]
Kent, T. & Brown, R. B. (2006). Erotic
Retailing in the UK (1963-2003) - The View
from the Marketing Mix. Journal of
Management History, 12(2), 199-211.
[24]
Kotler,
P.
(1984).
Marketing
Management: Analysis, Planning and Control
(5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kotler,
P. (1986). Principles of Marketing (3rd ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[25]
Kotler,
P.
(2003).
Marketing
Management (11th ed.). Prentice Hall
International Editions. Kurtz, D. L. & Boone,
L. E. (1987). Marketing (3rd ed.). Chicago
The Dryden Press.
[26]
Lauterborn, B. (1990). New Marketing
Litany: Four Ps Passé: C-Words Take Over.
Advertising Age, 61(41), 26. Lawrence, E.,
Corbitt, B, Fisher, J.A, Lawrence, J. &
Tidwell, A. (2000). Internet Commerce (2nd
ed.). John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd, 79.
[27]
Lazer, W. & Kelly, E. K. (1962).
Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and
Viewpoints. IL: Richard D. Irwin.
ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0976-7193 (Print) ISSN 2349-2317 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJMRM/issn.2349-2317/2014
Volume 5 Issue 4 (2014)
www.elkjournals.com
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[28]
Lazer, W., Culley, J.D. & Staudt, T.
(1973). The Concept of the Marketing Mix,
In Britt, S. H. (Ed.), Marketing Manager’s
Handbook.
Chicago:
The
Dartnell
Corporation, 39-43.
[29]
McCarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic
Marketing, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
[30]
Mickwitz, G.. (1959). Marketing and
Competition. Finland: Societas Scientarium
Fennica, Helsingfors.
[31]
Möller, K. (2006). The Marketing Mix
Revisited: Towards the 21st Century
Marketing by E. Constantinides. Journal of
Marketing Management, 22(3), 439-450.
[32]
Mosley-Matchett, J. D. (1997). Include
the Internet in Marketing Mix. Marketing
News, 31(25).
[33]
O’Connor, J. & Galvin, E. (1997).
Marketing and Information Technology –
The
strategy,
Application
and
Implementation of IT in Marketing. London:
Pitman Publishing.
[34]
Patterson, G.P. & Ward, T. (2000).
Relationship Marketing and Management,
Handbook
Services
Marketing
and
Management. Sage Publications Inc, 416.
[35]
Peattie, K. (1997). The Marketing Mix
in the Third Age of Computing. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 15(3), 142-150.
[36]
Perreault, W. D. Jr. & Russ, F. A.
(1976). Physical Distribution Service in
Industrial Purchase Decisions. Journal of
Marketing, 40(4), 3-10.
[37]
Rasmussen, A. (1955). Pristeori Eller
Parameterteori
Studier
Omkring
Virksomhedens Afsaetning (Price Theory or
Parameter Theory - Studies of the Sales of the
Firm. Denmark: Erhvervsokonomisk Forlag.
[38]
Research:
Electronic
Networking
Applications and Policy, 7(3), 161-169.
18
[39]
Robicheaux, R. A. (1976). How
Important Is Pricing in Competitive
Strategy?. In Nash, H. W & Donald, P. R.
(Eds). Southern Marketing Association 1975
Conference, Southern Marketing Association,
Atlanta, 55-57.
[40]
Robins, F. (1991). Four Ps or Four Cs
or Four Ps and Four Cs. Paper Presented at
MEG Conference.
[41]
Rousey, S. P. & Morganosky, M. A.
(1996). Retail Format Change in US
Markets. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 24(3), 8-16.
[42]
Schultz, D. E. (2001). Marketers: Bid
Farewell To Strategy Based on Old 4Ps.
Marketing News, 35(2), 7.
[43]
Udell, J.G. (1964). How Important Is
Pricing in Competitive Strategy. Journal of
Marketing, 28, 44-48. Udell, J.G. (1968). The
Perceived Importance of the Elements of
Strategy. Journal of Marketing, 32, 34-40.
[44]
Undergraduate Marketing Curricula.
Journal of Product & Brand Management,
4(1), 18-25.
[45]
Wang, F., Head, M. & Archer, N.
(2000). A Relationship-Building Model for
The Web Retail Marketplace. Internet
Research:
Electronic
Networking
Applications and Policy, 10(5), 374-384.
[46]
Wu, C. C. & Wu, S. I. (1998). A
Proposed Method for the Development of
Marketing Mix of the Tea Drink Market.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 10(1), 3-21.
[47]
Yudelson,
J.
(1999).
Adapting
McCarthy’s Four P’s for the Twenty-First
Century. Journal of Marketing Education,
21(1), 60.