Critique of Marketing Mix Concept - Essay Example

?The concept of marketing mix (MM) introduced by Neil Borden in 1953 referred to the mixture of elements useful in pursuing a certain market response(Waterschoot and Bulte 1992). The elements or the 4Ps were subsequently added by McCarthy and since then MM is considered an important tool for marketing managers. As firms started venturing overseas, Kotler added two more Ps because of the political nature of the new marketing environment. Magrath found the 4Ps insufficient for the service industry and added three more elements – personnel, physical facilities and process management (Low and Tan 1995). All these suggest that the concept of marketing mix has evolved over time as the 4Ps were initially based on the production and supply context of the 1950s (Kent and Brown 2006). The model now encompasses aspects of sociology and cognitive psychology (Hakansson and Waluszewski 2005 cited in Kent and Brown 2006). Without marketing mix capability other concepts such as customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination would not be able to contribute to better firm performance, suggests Shin (2012) thereby highlighting the significance of MM concept in the field of marketing. However, scholars do not agree on the ingredients of the marketing mix. Some authors such as Borden (1964), Frey (1956), and Staudt and Taylor (1965) consider the elements as procedures, policies and processes, while others look at these elements as tools, parameters or instruments (cited by Waterschoot and Bulte 1992). This concept has been criticized as it lacks any specific explanation of characteristics, thereby suggesting that the concept has a major flaw. The elements of marketing mix do not lead to any theory development. Gronroos (1989) postulates that the marketing mix artificially limits the scope of marketing management as the concept suggests that marketing decisions can be taken based on the 4 Ps (cited by Bitner 1991). Since many authors are critical of this concept, the marketing mix will be evaluated based on the typology of critique in marketing designed by Hackley (2009). This typology has four overlapping categories – functional, intellectual, ethical and political critique. Functional critique The functional critique would simply question whether the marketing mix concept works. Even though it is considered an important tool, there is no consensus over the eligibility and agreement of the practical application of the 4Ps of the MM variables (Kent and Brown 2006). The MM concept suggests that the buyers are a homogeneous group of people with common buying behaviour (Bennett, 1997). Resources and capabilities of the organization are organized in a way to satisfy customer needs but Bennett debates whether the customer accepts product benefits and attributes in the same way as the company claims. The customers are not concerned with the elements of the marketing mix and only seek satisfaction from the products and services. The purpose of MM is to improve sustainability performance across economic, ecological and societal indicators (Pomering, Noble and Johnson 2011). Consumers expect firms to be more socially and environmentally responsible and report that they would prefer to purchase from such organizations. However, there is an attitude-behaviour gap in actual consumer purchase, thereby implying that firms that tend to focus on the MM variables do not achieve the intended objectives. Sustainability through MM elements may appear discordant and hollow unless sustainability is addressed at the vision and mission level or at the corporate strategy level. The MM concept focuses on the tactical and managerial aspects of marketing and does not take into account the social, organizational, competitive and economic issues (Bitner 1991). The MM has been criticized for its short-term focus on sales and transactions while undermining the long-term relational thinking and brand equity (Rafiq and Ahmed, 1995 cited in Gordon, 2012). The concept has also been criticized for being too simplistic for complex marketing problems like social marketing, business to business networking and service provision (Zineldin and Philipson 2007 cited in Gordon 2012). The elements of MM have to be inter-related which is not explicit in the traditional concept. At P&G in India, to achieve value and volume growth, when the price was increased, distribution too had to increase (Kumar, Fan, Gulati and Venkat 2009). Had they maintained status quo in marketing mix variables, they would not have achieved growth. Therefore, the managers have to fully understand the effects of the MM variables. Intellectual critique When applied to service marketing, the MM concept lacks connection and integration among variables such as people, processes and participants (Rafiq and Ahmed 1995 cited in Gordon 2012). The MM elements cannot be standardized in international marketing and certain elements would have to be adapted to local requirements (Brei et al 2011). The different elements should be integrated based on factors such as culture, competition and technology. Before launching a new product MM variables can be used to forecast demand and the responsiveness but managers tend to hold private information within them about the heterogeneous effects of MM variables on sales. This is a critical challenge in implementing MM concept which cannot be ignored (Luan and Sudhir 2010). Besides, the traditional MM variables have not been found to be effective for marketing of high-tech products as these require specialized view of marketing (Siems 2012). In the case of new products, it is not possible to forecast which mix of the ingredients (the four Ps) will maximize profit. Hence the management must develop different marketing mixes on the basis of information gathered. However, uncertainties still prevail and hence in the case of new products, analysis would not necessarily lead to better decision (Kotler 1964). This implies that MM is applicable only products that are already in the market. Decline of mass markets, growth of specialization, growth of database management and customer relationship management have diluted the importance of the traditional MM variables as one-to-one marketing opportunities have developed over the internet (Kent and Brown 2006). Ethical critique The MM has no provision for ethics but companies today are conscious of maintaining an ethical stand. Gimesy (2012) suggests that ethics should be incorporated in all the Ps under the MM as marketers have responsibility towards the stakeholders. An organization cannot sell just anything or promote the brand in anyway just because it is good for the brand. This has become essential as more and more organizations escape responsibility by declaring it as ‘the company strategy’. Brand equity can be improved through transparency. Managers have a tendency to be ethical but when they are confronted with four situations such as coercion and control, deceit and falsehood, conflict of interest and personal integrity, their ethical decisions depend upon which marketing mix decision they face (Lund 2000). Ethical marketing must promote moral and social values but companies such as Nestle commodify human relationships. Nestle engages in dubious marketing strategies in promoting artificial baby milk (Corporate Watch 2003). While WHO International Code says breastfeeding should be promoted above all other products Nestle has been flouting the rules and engaging in advertising, free samples, promotions and sponsorships. The underpinning of the marketing concept is satisfaction of customer needs leading to increased customer retention (Day 1994 cited in Woodall 2004). By engaging in such dubious marketing strategies, Nestle is far from satisfying customer needs. Political critique Marketing mix has a political dimension because they are concerned with the power which plays through the use of certain ideas (Hackney 2009). Low and Tan (1995) refer to the MM concept as mundane although it remains an important framework for the western world. The western economies have experienced decline while the eastern economies based on oriental traditions and philosophies have grown from strength to strength. The eastern philosophies, through lateral thinking have been able to extend the concept of marketing mix. When applied to the construction industry in Singapore, better results were achieved. Gronroos (1994) found that MM only fosters toolbox thinking while marketing is now multi-faceted social process. If MM management is allowed to dominate it could have negative consequences. Hence relationship marketing should be new marketing paradigm, suggests Gronroos. Public relations and product promotion are both part of the promotion mix, within the MM elements. However, there is an increasing trend towards enhanced PR activity which conflicts with product publicity. If the managers are unable to blend competent public relations performance with sound marketing principles, corporate credibility is at stake (Marketing News 1973). Managers have been evaluating return on investment (ROI) as the ROI is the main concern of the managers in the interest of the stockholders. D’Esopo and Almquist (2007) contend that ongoing evaluation of processes, skill sets and organizational models acknowledge that the marketing mix changes over time based on shifts in business strategy and changing consumer demands. The ROI techniques, if applied consistently will keep the marketing mix in balance as product lines change and shift in marketing channels occur (Wise and Sirohi 2005). The critique of marketing mix concept suggests that even though it is an important and valuable tool that influences marketing decisions, the marketing decisions cannot be solely based on the elements of the marketing mix. With the changes in the business environment relationship marketing is the new paradigm. This concept has also been found to be ineffective in the case of high-tech and also in the case of new products. Therefore, marketers have to think beyond this concept to achieve customer satisfaction leading to customer retention. References Bennett AR. 1997. The five Vs – a buyer’s perspective of the marketing mix. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15 (3): 151–156 Bitner MJ. 1991. The evolution of the services marketing mix and its relationship to service quality. Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books? hl=en&lr=&id=mYrrUHgAgOgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA23&dq=critique+of+Marketing+mix+concept&ots=CU6gi1fBKo&sig=0jRSKW5gA_bgg8TbmGn0B2oB8B0 [Accessed 23 Nov 2012] Brei VA, D'avila L, Camargo LF. Engels J. 2011. The Influence of Adaptation and Standardization of the Marketing Mix on Performance: a Meta-Analysis. Brazilian Administration Review, 8 (3): 266-287 Corporate Watch. 2003. Unethical Marketing of Artificial Baby Milk. Available from: http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=240 D’Esopo M. Almquist E. 2007. An approach to mastering the marketing mix. BUSINESS STRATEGY SERIES, 8 (2): 122-131 Gimesy D. 2012. Every breath you take: adding ethics to the marketing mix. Market Leader, Quarter 3 Gordon R. 2012. Re-thinking and re-tooling the social marketing mix. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20: 122–126 Gronroos C. 1994. From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing. Management Decision, 32 (2): 4-20 Hackley C. 2009. Marketing - a critical introduction. Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x2Jz9nXLbYkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=typology+of+critique+in+marketing&ots=So9XISuu-o&sig=_ELU0c_CZaDLSNWiVi9kgfxRNs4#v=onepage&q=typology%20of%20critique%20in%20marketing&f=false [Accessed 23 Nov 2012] Kent T. Brown RB. 2006. Erotic retailing in the UK (1963-2003): The view from the marketing mix. Journal of Management History, 12 (2): 199-211 Kotler P. 1964. Marketing Mix Decisions for New Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (1): 43-49 Kumar V. Fan J. Gulati R. Venkat P. 2009. Marketing-Mix Recommendations to Manage Value Growth at P&G Asia-Pacific. Marketing Science, 28 (4): 645-655 Marketing News. 1973. Critical chaiienges facing marketing - Blending PR into the marketing mix. American Marketing Association, 6 (15) Low SP. Tan MCS. 1995. A convergence of Western marketing mix concepts and oriental strategic thinking. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13 (2): 36-46 Luan YJ. Sudhir K. 2010. Forecasting Marketing-Mix Responsiveness for New Products. Journal of Marketing Research, XLVII: 444-457 Lund DB. 2000. An Empirical Examination of Marketing Professionals' Ethical Behavior in Differing Situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 24: 331-342 Pomering A. Noble G. Johnson LW. 2011. Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (8): 953-969 Shin S. 2012. Decomposed Approach of Market Orientation and Marketing Mix Capability: Research on Their Relationships with Firm Performance in the Korean Context. International Business Research, 5 (1): 22-34 Siems FU. 2012. HIGH TECH MARKETING AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE MARKETING MIX – A SYNOPSIS AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF EXISTING APPROACHES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR RESEARCH AND TEACHING. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 12 (2): 9-23 Waterschoot W. Bulte C. 1992. The 4P Classification of the Marketing Mix Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 56: 83-93 Wise R. Sirohi N. 2005. Finding the best marketing mix. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY, 26 (6): 10-11 Woodall T. 2004. Why Marketers Don't Market: Rethinking Offensive and Defensive Archetypes. Journal of Marketing Management, 20 (5/6): 559-576 Read More