Elements of Marketing Strategy,:

How Important Are They

from the ExecutiveViewpoint?
Saeed Samiee, Ph.D.
Kent State University

The significance of the various elements of a marketing program are as

dynamic as the marketplace itself. Though marketing strategy remains an
often-used term within marketing, its elements are generally intuitively
ranked for importance by practitioners and academicians. In the absence of
any recent research finding, it is difficult to place an appropriate rank-order
on all marketing mix variables and state their importance in the firms'
marketing operations.
It would be a relatively simple task to determine the most significant
marketing mix variable. Most marketing practitioners would admit that in
the absence of an acceptable "produc, t" or "service," other elements of
marketing strategy can do little to help. But associating a rank with other
marketing mix variables becomes increasingly difficult as the list goes on.
The purpose of present study is to determine the importance of the various
elements of the marketing mix for managing the marketing operations.

O 1980, Academyof MarketingScience, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Winter, 1980, Vol. 8, No. 1,40-50
0092-0703/80/0801~$2.00
40
 SAMIEE 41

PAST STUDIES

Two studies have examined the significance of the elements of marketing

strategy. In a study which was conducted in 1964, the author sought to
measure the importance of the marketing mix variables in terms of the
respondents' success in the marketplace (Udell, 1964). ~'Success," how-
ever, was never really defined per se, though the author selected his sample
from Martindell's Manual of Excellent Management. In a more recent study
in which Robicheaux repeated Udell's study with some changes in its
methodology, he reported that pricing was picked as the most important
variable in the firms' marketing mix (Robicheaux, 1976). Robicheaux has
pointed out that it may not be entirely appropriate to compare the ranks
presented in Table II with those of Udell because his terminologies were
somewhat different from those of Udell and also because of adding a
thirteenth category, "'Selecting target markets." It appears, however, that
the major differences between his results and those of Udell's are due to
more than just the changes in the perceptions of corporate executives and
terminologies used in the study. The mean rating scores from which the
ranks were derived are based on individual rating of 13 marketing mix
elements. Naturally, all of the marketing mix variables presented in Table II
are important to the marketer and their generally high score (4.02 to 6.07) is
indicative of this point. But the question that Udell had asked dealt with the
importance of the elements in relation to one another. Even though the
respondents tend to keep some frame of reference with respect to the
importance level they associate with each variable in relation tc the others,
this method of measurement does not reflect an accurate measure of the
relative significance of the elements of marketing strategy. Marginal differ-
ences between the importance levels (ratings) of various elements of the
marketing mix in Table II provide further evidence that these ratings may not
ruly reflect their importance in relation to one another. Tables I and II
present the findings of these studies.
In another study that was conducted in 1973, the authors selected a sample
of Canadian firms which had assets of more than $5 million from The
Business Quarterly, Canada's management journal (Banting and Ross,
1973). Table III presents the findings of this study. It is difficult to ljompare
the results of this study with those of Udell's and Robicheaux's because
they have employed different methodologies and have drawn theitsamples
from widely different populations, and also because Robicheaux has not
employed a rank order or constant sum scaling method. In addition to
42 ELEMENTS OF MARKETING STRATEGY:
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THEY FROM THE EXECUTIVE VIEWPOINT?

TABLE I

SDI~LARY OF RESULTS OF UDELL'S STUDY

Rank Policy Area Percent of Firm a

i Product Research and Development 79

2 Sales Research and Sales Planning 73
3 Management of Sales Personnel 59
4 Advertising and Sales Promotion 56
5 Product Service 52
6 Pricing 50
7 Organizational Structure 44
8 Distribution Channel and Their Control 41
9 Marketing Cost, Budgeting, and Control 17
I0 Financing and Credit 14
ii Transportation and Storage 7
12 Public Relations 7

abased on 135 responses; respondents were asked to choose

5 vital marketing areas.

TABLE II

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ROBICHEAUX'S STUDY

Rank Policy Area Mean Rating a

i Pricing 6.07
2 Customer Service 5.82
3 Sales Personnel Management 5.59
4 Product Research and Development 5.43
5 Marketing Cost Budgeting and Control 5.25
6 Physical Distribution 5.24
7 Selecting Target Marketing 5.00
8 Market Research 4.99
9 Marketing Organization Structure 4.72
i0 Advertising and Sales Promotion Planniag . 4.57
Ii Distribution Channel Control 4.50
12 Extending Customer Credit 4.31
13 Public Relations 4.02

abased on a 7 point scale where 7 represents "extremely

important." The figures represent the mean score for forty-four
responses from industrial and consumer goods manufacturers.
 SAMIEE 43

TABLE III

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF BANTING AND ROSS' STUDY

Rank Policy Area Number of Firms

i Product-Service Mix 89
2 Price 17
3 Promotion 12
4 Marketing Cost, Budgeting, and Control 12
5 Organizational Structure 9
6 Marketing Research 7
7 Distribution 6
Corporate Image 3

methodological differences, the authors have not employed an identical set

of marketing mix variables which makes cross-comparison even more
difficult.
Some general conclusions, however, can be drawn from these studies. As
one might expect, and as evidenced by Banting and Ross's findings, the
general category of product has remained the most important marketing
area.' Technically, the importance of this area should not erode through
time nor should it change drastically across the U.S. and Canadian respon-
dents. However, Robicheaux found product to be the fourth most important
variable in the firms' marketing program. The product category was pre-
ceded by sales personnel management, customer services (product service),
and pricing. With respect to these ranks, one would expect that a firm would
put more emphasis on its product and its development than on product
service, sales personnel management, or pricing. Robicheaux's results
further indicate that there has been no change in the rank executives assigned
to sales personnel management, customer credit, and public relations (3, 11,
and 12, respectively) since Udell's study.
The similarity of ranks ends after the first category. Perhaps the most
significant change is the relative change in the emphasis put on the pricing
area. Banting and Ross found pricing to be the second most important
marketing area contributing to the firm's success. In contrast, Udell's study
indicated that price was not among the top five marketing mix elements
contributing to the finns' success. Robicheaux's replications of Udell's
study showed that price is the most important element of the marketing mix,
but the difference in his results can largely be attributed to his measurement
scales.
44 ELEMENTSOF MARKETINGSTRATEGY:
HOW IMPORTANTARE THEYFROMTHE EXECUTIVEVIEWPOINT?

METHODOLOGY

A mail questionnaire was used to survey the views of vice presidents of

marketing (or sales) toward the importance of various elements of their
marketing programs. The questionnaire was designed after several lengthy
interviews with marketing vice presidents and was then augmented by the
findings of a literature search. The outcome was then pretested using both
academicians and practitioners as respondents. The final questionnaire was
then mailed to 800 respondents who were randomly selected from Dun and
Bradstreet's Million Dollar and Middle Market directories.
The nature of the respondents in this study varies somewhat from that of
previous studies. The aim of this study was to examine the views of
marketing practitioners from the manufacturing sectors (Standard Industrial
Codes 19 through 39). Using this definition, all mining and petroleum
companies were excluded from the study. The logic behind such an exclu-
sion is that there is a certain amount of pressure on one or more marketing
variables of such in'ms because of worldwide controls on certain com-
modities. The market for oil, for example, is very much affected by the
pricing decisions made by the OPEC countries. The exclusion of mining and
petroleum companies should lead to a better defined set of relative im-
portance measures for the respondents.
The methodology used in this study varies from the previous ones in
several aspects. First, the measurement method was different in that the
respondents were asked to provide relative interval measures of importance
for various marketing areas by dividing I00 points among them. This
measurement method, known as the constant-sum scaling, was employed
because during the interviews it was discovered that some executives put
much more emphasis on one area than the rest. If a simple ranking technique
had been employed a good bit of information would have been lost in that the
executives would have not been able to give some interval measure of the
level of importance they associate with the elements of the marketing mix.
Secondly, a somewhat lengthy procedure was used to narrow down a long
list of marketing strategy elements. The final list had 11 areas and an
additional category "other--please specify" was included to give some
latitude to respondents who found the list incomplete. Finally, the question-
naires were not mailed to "positions" but rather to individuals occupying
positions. The individuals were identified through primary and secon-
dary sources. The specific advantage of this step was that since some firms
did not have a "vice president of marketing," if the person in charge of the
marketing or sales program was identified, the questionnaire was sent
 SAMIEE 45

directly to him instead of just a position which may or may not have existed
within a particular company. An added advantage of this step was that the
questionnaires became more personal and thus may have contributed to a
greater response rate.
All questionnaires mailed included a personalized cover letter and a
self-addressed stamped envelope for the respondents' convenience. Overall,
202 usable responses were received.
The responding firms reported sales figures ranging from $150,000 to
$1.6 billion. The mean sales figure for the responding companies was $56
million.
The twelfth category, "other--please specify," was filled by only a
handful of respondents who generally allocated a small number of points to
such areas as "application of technology" and "salesmen and sales man-
agement." These categories were excluded from the final analysis because
they were not supported by enough respondents.

RESULTS

Table IV presents the average relative interval measures and ranks as-
sociated with various marketing areas as well as the percentage of firms
selecting them. Since relative interval measures were used, the relative
importance of the ranks of different elements of marketing mix can be
compared. As was expected, the mean value for the "product" category was
higher than any other, thus making it the most important area of marketing
for marketing practitioners. In terms of the most important area of market-
ing, the finding of this study is also in line with those of Udell and Banting
and Ross (Tables I and III), but it does not support Robicheaux's findings
(Table II). The "Pricing" category followed product for the second highest
mean value of relative interval measure. It is apparent from the data that to
the average respondent, "product" is about 1.6 times more important than
"pricing" in terms of its contribution to the "average firm's" success.
These findings are similar to those of Banting and Ross (Table III). Again,
Robicheaux's findings are not supported by this study's results,
Customer service support, a relatively new term in markeCt!ng practice,
received a rank of three.-' Customer service support is a combination of a
whole host of functions in logistics of which transportation an~l storage are
two. In contrast to the findings of the present study, and gi~fen that direct
comparison of ranks among studies is difficult, Udell's study gave transpor-
tation and storage a rank of 11 out of 12. The general area of distribution
46 ELEMENTS OF MARKETING STRATEGY:
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THEY FROM THE EXECUTIVE VIEWPOINT?
TABLE IV

RELATIVE INTERVAL RANKS OF MARKETING MIX ELEMENTS

Ranks
Rank Marketing Area Interval Measure a -~I II c

1 product 27,12 41.4 15.6

2 Pricing 16,55 16.1 18.8
3 Customer Service Support Including
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Storage 11.09 12.3 12.5
4 Product Service (including guar-
antees, warranties, and service) 9.10 7.2 8.9
5 Promotion (advertising, personal
selling, and sales promotion) 8,35 5,1 ii,5
6 Product Research and Development 6.46 3,8 9.9
7 Corporate Image 5,55 3.8 1,6
8 Sales Research, AnalysiS, and
F1anning 4.15 3.1 4.7
9 Quality of Middlemen 4.07 2.7 2.6
i0 Marketing Cost, Budgeting, and
Control 3.66 2.4 4.7
ii Cooperation and Control of
Middlemen 3.27 2,1 4.2

aMesn value for 20Z respondents.

bFercent of all firms selecting area 1 thru ii as the most

important marketing mix variable in their firms' operations.

epercent of all firms selecting areas 1 thru Ii as the second

most important marketing mix variable in their firms' operations,

received a rank of 7 out of 8 in Bantmg and Ross- s study. Robicheaux found

that physical distribution was the sixth most important variable of the
marketing mix.
Another significant change in the ranks is the relative unimportance
associated with "sales research, analysis, and planning" in the present
study, as compared to the early study by Udell where it was ranked as the
second most important area of marketing practice, This relative unimport-
ance is also supported by Robicheaux's findings.
A breakdown of the results by industry affiliation of the respondents
provides a somewhat different picture of the marketing programming within
various industries. For example, within the primary metal industries (SIC
33) an equal percentage of responding executives (20%) selected the "'pro-
duct" and "'customer service support" as the primary marketing area
contributing to their firm's success. Their secondary marketing area was
"pricing" (44%), followed by "'customer service support" (33%). On the
other hand, in the miscellaneous manufacturing industries group (SIC 39)
"product" was the overwhelming first choice of the executives (36%)
 SAMIEE 47

followed by "promotion" (18%). "Product service" was the major secon-

dary choice of this group (38%).
Table V presents the summary of results for the non-electrical machinery
industry (SIC 35), electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies (SIC 36),
and professional, scientific and controlling instrument, photographic and
optical goods, watches and clocks (SIC 38) industries. Any conclusion
TABLE V

SUMMARY OF R E S U L T S F O R THREE INDUSTRIES a

SIC 35 SIC 36 SIC 38

Rank b ic li d ic li d ic Ii ~

i 49 7 40 29 28 24
2 15 19 17 17 i0 12
3 12 i0 - 13 i0 18
4 5 20 20 13 21 12
5 5 15 6 17 4 12
6 2 15 3 8 i0 18
7 2 4 3 - 4
8 2 6 - 7 6
9 5 3 3 - -
i0 i 4 4 7 -
ii i 3 3 - -

aAll percentages are rounded.

bRanks correspond with marketing areas of Table IV.

Cpercent of firms from industry selecting areas i thru ii as

the most important marketing mix variable in their firms' operations.

dpercent of firms from industry selecting areas i thru ii as

the second most important marketing mix variable in their firms' oper-
ations.

regarding specific patterns of marketing programming in these industries

should be reached with extreme caution since these are general categories
and within each category exist individual industries which may be different
in competitive conditions, technological developments, traditions, channel
management and other factors.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A number of changes have taken place in marketing practice and with

respect to marketing executives' view on the importance of various elements
of marketing strategy contributing to their firms' success. Product has
remained the most important area of marketing practice. The reasons for the
48 ELEMENTSOF MARKETINGSTRATEGY:
HOW IMPORTANTARE THEYFROMTHE EXECUTIVEVIEWPOINT?

high rank given in this category in all industries as well as in two previous
studies have to do with the impact of this marketing area upon the firms'
future growth and survival and the costs associated with product failures.
Product research and development efforts did not rank very high on the list
of marketing areas. This is in contrast to Udell's study in which it was ranked
first, at least partially because he did not include a separate "product"
category to his list of marketing areas. A relatively low rank for product
research and development indicates that, on the average, firms tend to
concentrate on the present product line than on developing newer ones. This
is somewhat evidenced by Robicheaux's findings in which product research
and development received a rank of four. In addition, in the electrical
machinery, equipment, and supplies industries, only eight percent of the
respondents selected product research and development as the second most
important marketing area. "Product" is also the most important second
choice for this industry.
The area of pricing appears to be receiving a good deal more attention
today than it did over a decade ago. A more competitive marketplace, recent
periodic shortages in some commodities and products, and inflation are cited
as major reasons for the emphasis on price in the fLrrns' marketing
programs.3 This finding is in line with the survey of Canadian firms by
Banting and Ross (Banting and Ross, 1973). Table V includes results from
two industries (SIC's 36 and 38) which,on the average, do not rank price as
the second most important element of marketing strategy. In both cases,
more marketing executives selected "product" as the second most im-
portant marketing mix element.
Another major change is the finding that customer service support (func-
tions dealing with physical distribution) which received a rank of three. This
also is in contrast to both previous studies in which such functions were
ranked as if they were fairly unimportant as compared to other marketing
functions (see Tables I and III).
Today's competitive marketplace has diverted a good deal of attention
from other areas of marketing to pricing and customer service support. This
shift, however, does not indicate that nonprice competition is unimportant.
In contrast, the increased attention that is given to customer service support
indicates that nonprice competition has become an even more significant
marketing strategy tool. The importance of customer service support can be
partially attributed to the realization by many f'trrns that a good deal of
savings is associated with a more efficient logistics system (LaLonde,
Grabner and Robeson, 1970). 4
The ranks of product service and promotion, other forms of nonprice
 SAMIEE 49

c o m p e t i t i o n , h a v e r e m a i n e d about the s a m e since the earlier studies. This is

i n d i c a t i v e o f the fact that nonprice c o m p e t i t i o n is still a m a j o r tool in
f o r m u l a t i n g the r i m s ' m a r k e t i n g strategy. Therefore, it w o u l d appear that to
be s u c c e s s f u l in a c u s t o m e r oriented marketing e n v i r o n m e n t , the firm must
e m p h a s i z e the n o n p r i c e e l e m e n t s o f marketing strategy (Barksdale and
D a r d e n , 1971; B e l l and E m o r y , 1971). O n the other hand, pricing decisions
m u s t be m a d e with e x t r e m e care because o f the importance associated with
this e l e m e n t o f market strategy in t o d a y ' s marketplace.

NOTES

IUdell's "product research and development" category is the only category on his list that is
comparable to Banting and Ross' "product service mix."
2Although the term "customer service" has been used in the physical distribution literature
in recent years, credit for conceptualization and investigation of "customer service support"
should go to Bernard J. LaLonde and Paul H. Zinszer.
3The emphasis put on pricing may also be explained by two other conditions of today's
marketplace. First is the tremendous growth of discount retailers such as K-Mart and the
Treasury within the past decade. In addition, other large discounters, known as hypermarkets,
are becoming even more popular. Meijers Thrifty Acres, for example, has 24 stores in
Michigan, some of which are 286,000 square feet in size. Second, since fair trade pricing has
been repealed, the manufacturers who used it have apparently become more sensitive toward
pricing. These two factors would have some impact on consumer goods manufacturers. On the
other hand, one may take side with the classical economic theories and point out that in the
absence of an acceptable market price, achievement of sales growth objectives will be difficult.
4Increased attention given to this area is further evidenced by a change in the organizational
structure of an increasing number of firms to include such positions as the vice president of
physical distribution. For further information see (LaLonde, 1975).

REFERENCES

Banting, Peter M., and Ross, Randolph E. "The Marketing Mix: A Canadian Perspective."
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Spring 1973): 1-11.
Barksdale, Hiram C., and Darden, Bill. "Marketers Attitudes Toward the Marketing Con-
cept." Journal of Marketing 35 (October 1971): 29-36.
Bell, Martin L., and Emory, C. William. "The Faltering Marketing Concept." Journal of
Marketing 35 (October 1971) 37-42.
50 ELEMENTS OF MARKETINGSTRATEGY:
HOW IMPORTANTARE THEY FROMTHE EXECUTIVEVIEWPOINT?

Borden, Neil H. "The Conceptof the Marketing Mix" m George Schwartz, ed., Science in
Marketing. New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc., 1965.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundanons. Hinsdale, Il-
linois: The Dryden Press, 1976.
Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. EnglewoodCliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1976.
LaLonde, BernardJ. "The DistributionManagerToday." Proceedings: The Nanonal Council
of Physical Distribution Management 13 (October 1975): 1-22.
, Grabner,John R., and Robeson,James F. "IntegratedDistribution
Systems: A Management Perspective." lnternational Journal of Phystcal Distribution
(October 1970): 133-139.
Robicheaux, Robert A. "How ~nportant is Pricing in Competitive Strategy? Circa 1975."
Proceedings: Southern Marketing Association, edited by Henry W.Nash and Donald P.
Robin (January 1976), pp. 55-57.
Udell, Jon C. "How Importantis Pricingin CompetitiveStrategy?" Journal of Marketing 23
(January 1964):44-48.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

S A E E D S A M I E E is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Graduate

School of Business Administration at Kent State University, Ohio. He
received his Ph.D. in Marketing from the Ohio State University. Dr.
S a m i e e ' s research interests are primarily in marketing management and
international business. He has published several articles in these areas in
various journals and proceedings.