The Developed Concept of Service Marketing Mix : A

Literature Survey

*Dian Utami Sutiksno, **Aldina Shiratina

ABSTRACT

The objective of this article is to acquire the comparison of service marketing mix
[SMM] concept gap and to develop a comprehensive model in identifying SMM.
Market strategy and marketing mix strategy are expected to influence customer
value creating/customer satisfaction which eventually give positive influence to
marketing perfomance. STP in this issue is chosen because of the disagreement
among marketing experts. One critisism about 4P frame is having the diffrence
between the philosophy behind marketing mix and the fundamental from
management school of marketing. The aproach used in this article is journal reviews
which contains the concepts from the creation of marketing mix concept , elaborates
concept gaps and compains, and eventually it is expected to givea model of
designing SMM concept, which will give academical contrubution in developing the
concept that can be practically implemented in the businees world.The latest
concept used as the main reference in this article is about SMM which basically
focusing on the dimentional development of SMM from 4P and 8P [producer] and 8c
[customer].

Keywords:market strategy, STP, marketing mix strategy, marketing strategy,

customer value, marketing performance, service marketing mix

1.Introduction
The environmental situation in business/non-business organisation comes through a
relatively rapid transformation so that marketing environment [external] could not
easily be responded by the resources [internal]. This situation affects the company’s
position in competition which influences potential advantage in reaching marketing
perfomance.The condition demands for aproaching charger in marketing into two
processes : creating,communicating and delivering value to customer and managing
customer relationship (Soedijati et al, 2011). These processes are directed in such a
way so that the company could create superior marketing performance. Practically,
this is not easy to be done because each business/non-business organisation has
their own characteristic.

For market base company, all components involved in the company should have
market orientation. Not only the marketing staffs has the responsibility to create the
best marketing strategy, but also the other staffs involved in the organisation need to
have market orientation. Marketing mix strategy has to be applied in market
positioning strategy so that the company can have access to market. It is how the
company decides customer value proportion from marketing mix made it possible to
create superior customer value.

Nevertheless,there are still some disagreement among marketing experts.Some

critisism about 4P frame is that the root of difference between the philosophy behind
marketing mix and the fundament of management school of marketing. It should be
based on identification of customer needs and wants, typical external and therefore
uncontrollable factors (Constantinides, 2006).The short term versus the long term
from marketing mix,and the discussion regarding marketing mix, for
instance:theoretical base of marketing mix, practical application from marketing mix
concept and pedagogicial function of marketing mix.This different opinion marks the
theoritical gaps among marketing experts,especially about the basic concept
/dimension in SMM concept.

This article compiled according to a main article compiled by Bellmunt et al (2005),

Constantinides (2006), Borden (1964), Silverman (1995), Shaw et al (2005),
Watershoot et al (1992), Morrison et al (2004), Hermans (2009), Zethaml et al
(1985), Bartels (1951). Other supporting journals from Rudd et al (2008), Al-Share et
al (2011), Gajic (2012), Newman et al (2009), Al Muala et al (2012), Sarker et al
(2012), Alipour et al (2011), Dhiman et al (2009), Fu Ho et al(2008), Soedijati et al
(2011), Ivi (2008),and other related journals,also other relevant resources.The
purpose of this article is to examine the gap / comparison of SMM developed
concept and to develop a simple yet comprehensive model which can be used for
the development of SMM concept.

2.literature review

The concept of SMM is used alternately some SMM concepts are often defined as
strategy,some other defined as tools/variable/function in marketing strategy which
definitely have strong connection to market strategy. Therefore, in this article we
describe some terms connected to SMM and explain some of the marketing mix
different concepts according to several writers. Neil Burden is famous for his concept
of marketing mix,which was popularized from a scientific conference. Inspired by
James Cullington’s professor who gave the term of ‘mixer of ingredients’,Borden’s
initial concept was12 dimensions of marketing mix,which consists of:product,
planning, pricing, branding, channel of distribution, personal selling, advertising,
promotion, packaging, display, servicing, physical handling, fact finding and analysis.

The 4Ps term became popular because of Mc Carthly ,who elaborated marketing mix
dimensions into 4 dimensions,which are:product mix,place mix,promotion mix,price
mix. SMM itself is created from marketing mix for goods product.As the gap could
not be represented by 4Ps dimensions, Booms and Bitner created a SMM concept
known as 7Ps which consists of product, price, place, promotion, participants,
physical evidence, process. Broden’s definition includes several internal variables,
or manufacturer’s inggredients, and several external variables which respectively
combined to invent the perfect mix which will give profits from available resources.
This definition is considered to be extensive and useful for every sector
,consequently it develops object list which is easy to remember and to apply. Early
version of marketing mix suggested by Frey is differentiating 2 groups of variables:
offering and equipment, which reflect the object of the trade and the facilitating
action.

The most common used definition is from McCarthy, which minimizing object list into
4 variables: product, price, place, and promotion. For almost 25 years there has
been a perfect mix between marketing mix concept and 4Ps. Kelley and Lazer
suggested it in 3 groups: product and service mix (similar to Frey’s, defining
customer’s perceptions and company offerings), distribution mix (in physical
distribution and agent activity) and communication mix (including 2 way information
flow). The latest 4Ps clasification shows a model from 4 elements: product mix,
distribution mix, sale mix and communication mix. Kottler suggested a separated
marketing mix model. His purpose is to calculate ‘generic’ group applied to all
exchange situation. He used generic marketing function to trade as the center of the
classification. Therefore, the configuration, symbolism, facility, and assessment
agree with the product, communication, distribution, and price. Eventually, Boom and
Bitner suggested a model which expands the 4Ps to service, known as 7Ps
(participants, process and physical evidence)

Criticism based on the theoretical base of the Marketing Mix

The theoretical and practical gaps in marketing is based on a confusing essence: the
reduction of marketing concept for design, implementation and control of simplified
marketing mix. Although it is a dominant marketing paradigm, the concept of
marketing mix is frequently criticized. From theoretical point of view, those critisism
bases are: hypersimplification of Borden’s original concept never explains the
characteristics of classification, and its marketing concept is less cohesive. Building
the idea from this controversion, Bruner and Waterschoot made their contribution
(see scheme 2.3). Bruner II suggested the 4Cs: : consept, cost, channel dan
communication. The characteristic of this model is that the variables are overlapping,
not exclusive to each other. Waterschoot thought that marketing function as
suggested by Kotler is the appropriate property to classify marketing mix, which only
has one function (exhaustivity dan exclusivity). This classification overcomes three
weaknesses from 4Ps scheme according to Waterschoot: the criteria of the
classification is especified, exhaustive, and exclusive.

Silverman (1995) and Constantinides (2006) studied the marketing mix concept
development through Historical Context review and Development of The Marketing
Mix Construct from 1911-1960 and 1981-2001 (see table 2.1a and table 2.1b) from
both tables, we can see compare the dimension of marketing mix. Table 2.1b
explains the history of marketing mix concept for service product according to each
writers between 1981-2001. Unfortunately, we could not find the missing concept of
marketing mix between 1960-1980. Thus, each table can represent the comparison
of marketing mix concept development. Table 2.1a explains about the concept of
marketing mix for goods product (Borden, 1964). Meanwhile, table 2.1b explains
about the concept of marketing mix for service product (Booms & Bitner, 1981).

Started with marketing mix definition (service) from Dennis Rudd et al (2008),
Jonathan Ivy (2008), Both have different dimension from Booms&Bitner (1981),
Meanwhile Lamb et al in Satria (2008), Anil Kumar Dhiman et al (2009) about service
marketing mix, Elisabeth.K.S, et al (2011), Mehrdad Alipour et al (2011) about
marketing mix and the connection to marketing strategy, Palmer (2004) in Su Mei Lin
(2011), Hitesh Bhasin (2011) about service marketing mix, Priya Johnson (2012)
marketing mix as a strategy,are similar to/are adopting service maketing mix
dimensionfrom Booms&Bitner (1981). Stephen Newman et al (2009) had it from
customer driven (according to Kotler 2003&Lauterborn 1990), also Moh. R.
Doroodgar, et al (2012) had it from customer driven and company driven with
reference to Kotler 2003&Mc Carthy 1964).

Definition study also includes the definition of service maketing mix and the definition
ofstrategy, considering that this article is about service marketing mix.We thought
that we there are lack of journals explicitly using the term of service marketing
mix,but implicitly the term of strategy and service are already included in the concept
itself. Yet, it is needed to enrich the term/definition in business dictionary.

From what has been mentioned before, we can conclude that there are some
definition gaps and dimensional gaps from service marketing mix between 1981-
2001. Some writers from 2000s until now are still adopting the opinion
fromBooms&Bitner (1981), which stated that although there are some criticism about
essential weakness from service marketing mix, Booms&Bitner’s concept are strong
and frequently adopted by many researchers. According to some studies, we try to
make a definition about service marketing mix which is a combination of service,
tools or marketing key elements which can be controled by the company or
organisation to get the marketing target.

From the definition study, it can be said that many experts agreed that the marketing
mix concept contains 3 factors (Bellmunt, 2005):
1. WHAT (set variables that the organization can control),
2. WHO (the marketing manager), and
3. HOW (by combining then in a marketing programme)
 Table 2.1a.
Historical Context and Development of The Marketing Mix Construct (1911-1960)
Source: Silverman (1995:27)
Author Contribution
Butler (1911) Defined marketing as everything the promoter of a product has to do prior to his actual use
of salesmen and advertising
Shaw (1916) Defined the agencies of demand creation as ‘middlemen’ (i.e distribution), ‘direct
salesmen’, and ‘advertising’. Defined organization of demand creation as ‘analysis of the
market’ (i.e markt research), and ‘price policies’
Converse (1930) Clearly defined the major elements of marketing in firm (product, pricing, distribution,
advertising and selling). Emphasized the critical need to coordinate all aspects of the
organization to meet customer nees better than competitors
Cullington (1948) Described the role of the marketing administrator asa’mixer of ingredients’. Specified ‘order
getting ingredients’ –communications, channels, product performance, pricing, etc.
Specified the process for ‘putting order-getting ingredients together’—planning &
controlling organizational systems & people, studying competitors, adjusting to
organizational norms, checking results, etc
Borden (1953) Coined the phrase marketing mix to define elements of a marketing program (product
planning, pricing, branding, channels of distribution, personal selling, advertising,
promotion, packaging, display, servicing, physical handling, and fact finding) & forces
affecting the program ((consumer attitudes&methods, competition&governmental
controls)
Frey (1956) Defined the componens of the marketing mix as (1) the offer, & (2) methods&tools. Frey
highlighted the effiency which results from a properly designed marketing mix
Howard (1957) Suggested that the marketing manager uses product, channels, price, advertising,
personal selling, and location to ‘fit’ the company with the constraints of he environment
(e.g, marketing law, competition, demand, non-marketing costs, structure of
distribution)
Borden (1958) Clarified that the elements of marketing mix are the means for conforming & adjusting to
the dynamics of the market forces. Also introduced the notion of ‘push’ & ‘pull’ roles for
the marketing mix
Kenyon(1958) Identified the marketing mix as the means for achieving a given marketing objective. The
integration of activities formed an’essential’ part of the mixing process. integraton of
business&marketing activities ensures all areas contribute to business success. Apparently
the first to suggest the noton of synergy due to the marketing mix
Oxenfeldt(1958) Offered a more specific description of how the marketing mix is used by manufacturers to
push product to distributors&pull product through retailers
Kelley&Lazer Introduced a systems perspective to the marketing mix. Suggested that the intracton among
(1958) three elements (goods&services mix, distribution mix, & communcationsss mix) is the
most important aspect of developing optimal returns & profits
Mc Carthy (1960) Codified the notion of the marketing mix as the four P’s: product, price, place,
promotion. Built upon Frey (1956) & Keller&Lazer (1958) to develop ‘THE’marketing mx

Table 2.1b.
Historical Context and Development of The Marketing Mix Construct (1981-2001)
Source : Constantinides (2006:418-420)
Author Contribution
Booms andBitner 1981 Recognising the special character of the services as products, they demonstrated
theimportance of Environmental factors(PhysicalEvidence) influencing the quality
perception.They included the Participants (personnel and customers) and the
Process ofservice delivery as the additional MarketingMix factors.
Cowell 1984 Three aspects justifying the revision of theoriginal Marketing mix framework:- the
original mix was developed formanufacturing companies- empirical evidence
suggesting that marketing practitioners in the service sector find the marketing
mix not being inclusive enoughfor their needs
Brunner 1989 The 4P Marketing mix elements must be extended to include more factors affecting
theservices marketing thus becoming mixesthemselves
Ruston and The unique characteristics of the services –intangibility, inseparability,
Carson 1989 perishability and variability – make the control of the marketingprocess, using the
generalised tools ofmarketing, inadequate
Fryar 1991 Segmentation and differentiation is the basis of successful positioning of services.
Furthermorethe personal relationship with the customerand the quality of the service
are importantelements of the services Marketing
Heuvel 1993 Interaction between the one delivering theservice and the customer is very important
andhas direct effect on the service quality andquality perception. The Product
element can
be better demonstrated as having two components, the primary and secondary
service elements as well as the process
Doyle 1994 While recognising that the content of the 4Ps inthe service sector is somehow
different from that of the tangibles he does accept the 4Ps asthe elements of the
services marketing mix. Heidentifies special difficulties in Promotion andPlace
preferring to replace them by the termsCommunication and Distribution
Melewar, The Corporate Visual Identity System (CVIS) isthe basis of the corporate
Saunders differentiation andthe core of the company’s visual identity.
2000
English 2000 The traditional Marketing has never been an effective tool for health services
marketing
Grove et al., Services Marketing can be compared to atheatrical production. How the service
2000 isperformed is as important as what isperformed. Critical factor is therefore
thecustomer experience. The traditionalMarketing Mix does not adequately capture
the special circumstances that are presentwhen marketing a service product
Beckwith Marketing services in a changing worldrequires focusing on increasing the
2001 customer satisfaction and rejecting old productparadigms and marketing fallacies.

Silverman (1995) and Constantinides (2006) studied the marketing mix concept
development through Historical Context review and Development of The Marketing
Mix Construct from 1911-1960 and 1981-2001 (see table 2.1a and table 2.1b) from
both tables, we can see compare the dimension of marketing mix. Table 2.1b
explains the history of marketing mix concept for service product according to each
writers between 1981-2001.

Unfortunately, we could not find the missing concept of marketing mix between
1960-1980. Thus, each table can represent the comparison of marketing mix
concept development. Table 2.1a explains about the concept of marketing mix for
goods product (Borden, 1964).Meanwhile, table 2.1b explains about the concept of
marketing mix for service product (Booms & Bitner, 1981). Started with marketing
mix definition (service) from Dennis Rudd et al (2008), Jonathan Ivy (2008), Both
have different dimension from Booms&Bitner (1981), Meanwhile Lamb et al in Satria
(2008), Anil Kumar Dhiman et al (2009) about service marketing mix, Elisabeth. K. S
et al ( 2011), Mehrdad Alipour et al (2011) about marketing mix and the connection
to marketing strategy, Palmer (2004) in Su Mei Lin (2011), Hitesh Bhasin (2011)
about service marketing mix, Priya Johnson (2012) marketing mix as a strategy,are
similar to/are adopting service maketing mix dimensionfrom Booms&Bitner (1981).
Stephen Newman et al (2009) had it from customer driven (according to Kotler 2003
& Lauterborn 1990), also Moh. R. Doroodgar et al (2012) had it from customer driven
and company driven with reference to Kotler 2003&Mc Carthy (1964).

3. Result/Analysis

To get the access into the market, a company has to define marketing mix strategy
into market positioning strategy. The company should determine customer value
proposition from marketing mix so it is possible to achieve superior customer value.
To gain an adequate picture of service marketing mix concept, some researches has
been done by marketing researchers, one of them is Jelena Gajic who saw the
importance of marketing mix in the implementation of marketing strategy on higher
education based on the model developed by Zeithaml, et al (2006). The facts from
the combination of instrumental characteristics in a complex process is proved by
most of international researches. From a series of empirical studies, done at
Singidunum Belgrade University in 2008 and 2009 to a group of university students
(504 from the first year and 305 from the second year), we get the information about
marketing application, the importance of certain marketing instrument and strategic
concept.

Stephen Newman & Khosro Jahdi (2009), literature study about marketing mix in
education. Analysing the reason behind and the effect of marketization on education
to institutional marketing.Looking at marketing mix from customer’s orientation with
its 7C of Customer solution (product),Convenience (place), Customer cost (price),
Communication (promotion), Calibre/champion (people), Capabilities (process) and
Charisma/collateral (physical evidence). On the other hand, Hsuan-Fu Ho and Chia-
Chi Hung (2008), studying the formula of marketing mix on higher education (living,
learning, reputation, economy and strategy). The main variables are : living, learning,
reputation, economy, strategy. Using AHP method (Analytic Hierarchy
Process),Cluster Analysis method and Correspondence Analysis. Survey at 14
Universities in Taiwan. The result is highlighting the effectiveness and the application
from an integrated AHP model, CA and Correspondence Analysis to the
development of marketing mix on higher education. Jonathan Ivy (2008) also did the
same study with the main variables of premium, prominence, promotion, price,
programme, prospectus, and people.TheSurvey method is done to university
students in South Africa.The research about the application of marketing mix at
Universities in South Africa.

Elisabeth Koes Soedijati & Sri Astuti Pratminingsih (2011), analyzing the effect of
marketing mixto student’s choice according to the theory from Kotler&Fox(1995).
Denis Rudd & Richard Mills (2008), were studying the expansion of marketing
principals to sell through marketing mix approach to 115 universities/colleges. Some
models in Rudd et al journal (2008), model 1 about traditional mix 4Ps reffers to
William Pride’s concept, model 2 about marketing mix application on sporting
industry, reffers to Bernard Mullin, model 3 used in his research on higher education,
and model 4 about recruitment cycle accoeding to Hayes (2002). His result was that
college/university has to understand the 3 basic of marketing, which marketing is
very important, has to be consistent and continuous and marketingcan not treat all
problems. If college/university could not provide the needs from the students for a
reasonable value, marketing can only do small things to increase student population.

Mehrdad Alipour&Elham Darabi (2011), the used method is based on goals and
nature. Descriptive-surveyin data compilation in hypothetical test. statistical
population because the purpose of this research is to reassure the part and function
ofservice marketing mix and its effect on marketing. It covers all technical service
and technical service consultation from a car manufacturer in Iran.

The result is: generally,service marketing mixdo not have the same effect on
marketing auditat a engineeringservice company and every factor based on different
condition has different effect from the other. Beside that, FriedmanTespriorities have
been specified according to marketing mixelements and product, peopleand physical
assetson high ranks. Price, process management, promotion andplace are on the
next ranks. The implementation research of marketing mix concept on tourism
industry (Mula et al 2012 and Sarker et al 2012) is using the similar main variables,
which areproduct, place, promotion, price, people/personnel, process and physical
evidence. We can also find different main variables from service industry with
different characteristic. They all go back to the concept of 5 category on service mix
(pure tangible good, tangible good with accompanying services, hybrid, major
service with accompanying minor goods and services, and pure service). So it
depends on ‘augmented/core’. Edo Rajh et al (2009), researching about The Effect
Of Marketing Mix Elements On Service Brand Equity, survey method using 532
respondents university students about 3 service categories (fast food restaurant,
banks and retail outlets) =10 brands are selected. The result of marketing mix
elementsresearch sangat berpengaruh bagi service barand equity and suggest for
adding the element of marketing mix for the next research. Su-Mei Lin (2011:10634-
10644), her research about marketing mix 7P and performance assestment, with
survey method to western fast food industry in Taiwan. Adopting Palmer’s Model
(2004).

‘school of thought’ analysis

In this section, we try to combine the school of thoughts about service marketing mix
concept based on previously discussed concepts. With the dicipline of status
quoteritis approach, marketing mix is reviewed according to the publication which
reffering to 5 sub-diciplines of traditional and modern marketing management:
Consumer Marketing, Services Marketing, Industrial Marketing, Retail Marketing,
Relationship Marketing, Network Marketing/Online Marketing (e-Marketing), It is
necessary to make a comprehensive conclusion and assesment about the problem
from the begining of the concept. We can see briefly from table 3.1 above:

Table 3.1
‘school of thought’ analysis
Peneliti lain
Latar
yang Perubahan atau
belakang Model penelitian/teori
Authors mengadopsi perkembangan
bidang ilmu yang dikembangkan
model konsep saat ini
keahlian
penelitian/teori
The Marketing Mix & The Consumer’s Marketing
Ohmae (1982) public No strategic elements are to Kotler 1984, Start from 3C
dalam speaker and be found in the marketing Robins 1991, (customers,
Constantinides management mix. The marketing strategy Vignalli & competitors,
(2006::414=41 consultant is defined by three factors Davies 1994, corporation)=Ohmae;
5) Doyle 1994, , ke end-customer
Bennet 1997, controls the market,
Yudelson 1999, network systems
Schultz 2001 should define the
orientation of anew
marketing, and new
marketing mix must
be based on the
marketing triad
(marketer, employee
& customer)=Schultz
The Marketing Mix & The Relationship Marketing
Lauterborm Professor of The 4PsMarketing Mix is Rozenberg Start from Four Cs
(1990) dalam Advertising in productoriented, The Czepiel 1992, replace the 4Ps,
Constantinides the School of successful marketing plan Gronroos 1994, indicating the
(2006::416-417)
Journalism must place the customer in Gummesson199 customer
and Mass The centre of the marketing 4, 1997, orientation
Communicati Planning Goldsmith 1999, - Customer needs
on at Patterson & - Convenience
University of Ward 2000, - Cost (customer’s)
North Healy et al 2001 - Communication
Carolina at Became
Chapel Hill The Relationship
Marketingaddresses
the elements of
Marketing
Management
identified by the
Marketing
Relationship trilogy:
- Relationships
- Neo-Relationship
Marketing
- Networks
The Marketing Mix & The Services Marketing
Booms & Marketing Recognising the special Cowel 1984, Start from The
Bitner (1981) character of the Brunner 1989, Services Marketing
dalam services as products, they Ruston&Carson Mix includes next to
Constantinides demonstrated the 1989, Fryar the
(2006::418- importance of Environmental 1991, Heuvel 4Ps three more P’s:
420) factors (Physical 1993, Doyle - Participants
Evidence) influencing the 1994, Melewar - Physical Evidence
quality perception. Saunders 2000, - Process
They included the English 2000, Became Four keys
Participants Grove et al of modern (services)
(personnel and customers) 2000, Beckwith marketing
and the Process of 2001 - Price
service delivery as the - Brand
additional Marketing - Packaging
Mix factors. - Relationships

Marketing Mix & The Retail Marketing

Ster van der own business The retail format is the focus Boekema et al Start from The
(1993) dalam as Technical of retail 1995, Rousey, Retailing Marketing
Constantinides Maritime marketing, the basis of Morgansky Mix:
(2006::422- Consultant at merchant 1996, Mulhern Logistics Concept:
423) “Towingline” differentiation and the 1997, Wang et - Place Mix
element that al 2000, Kotler - Physical
attracts potential customers 2003 Distribution Mix
in the retail - Personnel Mix
outlet. Commercial
The Marketing Mix for Concept
retailers is - Product Mix
divided into two groups of - Presentation Mix
factors the - Price Mix
logistical and commercial - Promotion Mix
ones Became Retailer’s
marketing
Decisions:
- Target Market
- Product
assortment and
Procurement
- Services and Store
Atmosphere
- Price Decision
- Promotion decision
- Place Decision
 The Marketing Mix & The Industrial Marketing
Turnbull, Marketing/Bu More than 20 years of Davis, Brush Start from
Ford & siness research by the 1997, Competitive
Cunningham Peter International Marketing and Parasuraman advantage of firms
(1996) dalam Turnbull, Purchasing 1998, Andersen, engaged in B2B
Constantinides (Professor at Group (IMP) indicate that Narus 1999 marketing will
(2006::424) UMIST, success in depend
Manchester, Business to Business on:
UK), David Marketing is based - Interaction with
Ford, on the degree and the Customers
(University of quality of the - Interaction
Bath, UK), interdependence between Strategies
Malcolm firms - Organisation
Cunningham, Evolution
(Professor at - Improvements in
UMIST, Customer Portfolios
Manchester, - Inter-organisational
UK) –
Personal Contacts
- Network
Mobilisation
Became Value-
based
positioning orients
and updates each of
the four Ps
The Marketing Mix & E-Marketing
Peattie (1997) Ken Peattie, The new communication and Aldridge 1997, Start from:
dalam (Professor of interaction capabilities will Mosley 1997, - Product: co-design
Constantinides Marketing change everything around Evans et al and
(2006::427- and Strategy, marketing in many 1999, Chaffey et production
429) Director of industries, yet al 2000, - Price: more
BRASS, the basic marketing concept Lawrence et al transparency
Cardiff will 2000, Kambil et - Place: direct
Business remain unchanged. New role al 2000, contacts with
School, for O’Connor et al customers
University of the 4P’s of the Marketing 1997, Bhatt et al - Promotion: more
Wales Mix. 2001, Schultz control of
College of 2001, Allen et al the customer,
Cardiff, 2001, interaction
Cardiff, UK) Constantinides
2002 became
The 4S model offers
a comprehensive,
integral approach
on managing the
online presence:
- Scope: Strategic
issues
- Site: Operational
issues
- Synergy:
Organisational
issues
- System:
Technological
issues

The explanation about ‘school of thought’ started from a brief history studied by
Bartels (1951:4), about the people who contributed their thoughts for the
development concept about marketing (through teaching or writing). It was started
before 1902 until 1923. Around 1922-1923 came Borden who later is known for his
”concept of marketing mix”.

Marketing mix conceptcame from ‘school of marketing management’ (Shaw et al

2005:244-245) Marketing management emerged from the question, how should a
manager organized their product and service? Some concepts occured from 1950sto
the beginning of 1960s. Wendell Smith’s (1956) had the idea of ‘product
differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies’; Chester
Wasson’s idea (1960) about the ‘product life cycle’; and Robert Keith’s perspective
from customer orientation (1960) which is known as ‘marketing concept’. The most
important concept probably mentioned in this article on the school of thought is Neil
Borden’s (1964) which expressed the ‘marketing mix’. In his classic article of history,
Borden ensued James Culliton (1948) by explaining marketing executive as a
‘decider’, a ‘mixer of ingredients’. Following Borden’s idea, in the 1950s, on the
concept of what this mixer of ingredients is a ‘marketing mix’. McCarthy (1960: 52)
resulting A.W. Frey’s The Effective Marketing Mix in 1956 with the first marketing mix
checklist. Some initial books titled Marketing Management are written by D. Maynard
Phelps (1953), and Keith R. Davis (1961), even though both are focusing onsales
management. Another book is Management in Marketing written by Lazo and Corbin
(1961), but focusing on the management functions of planning, organizing and
controlling as applied to marketing. Wroe Alderson’s (1957) Marketing Behavior and
Executive Action explaining much about science, theory, and systems, but he
decided that the last three of his books were about executive decision-making in
marketing. According to Bartels (1988:178), ‘Alderson had a role in ‘marketing
management’. In the same year as Alderson’s , John Howard’s book (1957), titled
Marketing Management, emphasizing the elements from marketing mixwhixh are
called ‘decision’ areas: ‘product’, ‘marketing channel’, ‘price’, ‘promotion –
advertising’, ‘promotion – personal selling’, and ‘location’ decisions. This was
followed by Kelley and Lazer’s (1958) Managerial Marketing; a book about marketing
mix elements which is called‘strategic’ areas: ‘product’, ‘price’, ‘distribution channels’,
and ‘communications’. In his both books, the basic element from marketing mixis
what now called ‘place’. Gene McCarthy’s (1960) textbook, Basic Marketing: A
Managerial Approach, creating the marketing mix four P’s mnemonic for ‘product’,
‘price’, ‘promotion’, and ‘place’.

Kotler’s selling (1967) responded to that model, which is named the ‘fundamental
theorem of market share’, providing a logically coherent rationale for the marketing
mix. There are 2 essential concepts: First is the idea that a firm’s sales are a direct
response to changes in its marketing mix, ceteris paribus. The second idea is that a
firm’s market share responds directly to the effectiveness of its marketing mix and
inversely to the marketing mix of the industry (or direct competition).

As mentioned before, table 3.1 ‘school of thought’ fromservice marketing mix

concept, With the dicipline of status quoteritis approach, marketing mix is reviewed
according to the publication which reffering to 5 sub-diciplines of traditional and
modern marketing management: Consumer Marketing, Services Marketing,
Industrial Marketing, Retail Marketing, Relationship Marketing, Network
Marketing/Online Marketing (e-Marketing).

The Marketing Mix and the Consumer’s Marketing

Some weaknesses of Marketing Mix has caused some writers show that 4P frame
should not be used as a fundamental of customer marketing management. The
criticisms are now focused on three main aspects: (1) Internal orientation: lack of
customer orientation. Kotler (1984), Robins (1991), and Vignali Davies (1994)
Bennett (1997) and Schultz (2001) identified this as mix main limitation. (2), lack of
customer interaction: Doyle (1994), and Yudelson(1999) suggested that Mix ignores
the developing characteristic from customers who demand for higher value,
communication and transaction process. This allows better interaction, lowers the
number of customer loss and increases customer’s trust. (3), Lack of strategic
element: Ohmae (1982) Vignali and Davies (1994) suggested that the lack of
strategic content is its main weakness. Most writers suggested an alternative
temporary work frame or proposing a modification version, with new elements added
to traditional parameter.

The Marketing Mix and the Relationship Marketing

Some marketing mix limitations are: firstly, product orientation is bigger than
customer orientation (Lauterborm 1990, Rozenberg, Czepiel 1992). Explicit focus of
mix on internal process weakens customer feedback element and interaction as the
basic of building the relationship and retention. Secondly, one way orientation: no
interaction and personal communication considering the background and character
of mix as a mass marketing concept (Gummesson 1994,1997; Gronroos 1994; Gold
smith 1999). Third is that 4P frame is considered to be offensive rather than
collaborative (Patterson and Ward 2000). All writers suggest a new conceptual frame
where communication, personality interaction act as the essence.

The Marketing Mix and the Services Marketing

Two reasons for giving contribution to this development are: (1) Servicehas been the
main generator of economic events and substantial as the resource of company
income in the west after the economical industry era. (2) Service is already a part of
a product, as an element from augmentedproduct dimension (Kotler et al, 2001;.
Jobber 2001). All writers agreed about the specific characteristic from service
vs.tangibles and highlight the need for specific management attitudes when dealing
with services marketing issues.

The main feature of a key factor in services marketing from marketing of physical
products is human element, frequently include as a new parameter of services
marketing mix. (Booms and Bitner 1981; Cowell 1984; Heuvel 1993; Melewar and
Saunders 2000; Grove et al. 2000). Human Factor which is highlighted:the personal
nature of the services marketing; service providers play a double role in the
marketing. Interaction and quality often identified as 2 missing issues frome 4P
framework, there has been no special attention given to service marketing (Rushton
and Carson 1989; Fryar 1991; Beckwith 2001). The forming of one-to-one
communication and relationship is also a fundamental element from the services
marketing which is not included in 4Ps (Doyle 1994), English (2000). Many
researchers refused to apply the 4Ps as a single to design services marketing,
suggesting aditional elements from the Mix or substituting from different approach.

Marketing Mix and the Retail Marketing

The writers agreed that 4P does not provide the adequate platform for concepting
marketing activities in this domain. They suggested to change ‘mix’ with a new
concept or to add new elements. Personnel, presentation, and retail format are the
contributing factors to customer unique experience as the base of differentiation and
retention.

The Marketing Mix and the Industrial Marketing

Marketing Mix criticism from industrial marketing domain is concentrating to these

issues: (1), industrial marketing emphasis on colaboration and personal approach is
in contradiction to mass impersonal orientation and the character of orienting
acquisition from ‘mix’ (Turnbull, Ford and Cunningham 1996). Interdependency and
close relation between a seller and industrial customers are an important aspect in
industrial marketing. (2), Building a successful industrial connection needs value
creation for customers, something depends on the comprehension and delivering
value (Parasuraman 1998, Andersen and Narus 1999).

The Marketing Mix and E–Marketing

Issuefrom E-marketing and 4P role inside is: (1), Comparing criticism on "traditional"
marketing, writers argue that researcher and writer proportion seems to support 4P
as an E-Commerce marketing paradigm, even in a basic form, it is relatively high.
(Peattie 1997; O'Connor and Galvin 2000; Bhatt and Emdad 2001; Allen and
Fjermestad 2001). Other writers chose small transformation such as making a more
suitable work frame for internet environment (Aldridge etal, 1997;. Lawrenceetal,
2000). (2), Most writers agree to use new approaches (Mosley 1997, Evans and King
1999, Chaffeyetal 2000; Kambil and Galvin 2000, Schultz 2001, Constantinides
2002). Internal orientation, the lack of interactivities and personalization, the lack of
strategic elements and the lack of community building are some of the weaknesses
mentioned from Mix. With those weaknesses, we can develop a model of service
marketing mix. The model development of service marketing mix is on scheme 3.1
below :

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Model development on inspected topic from writers point of view.

Scheme 3.1Service Marketing Mix Model (Construct)
From the gap existing concepts and weaknesses / shortcomings of the concept of
service marketing mix, the author tries to design a model based on the construct
(scheme 3.1 above). To be positioning in the target market, the company did
servicemarketing mix strategy, this part of the course material inspiered from Prof.
Sucherly 2012. Are divided by 2, of the company (company oriented) then there 8PS
(product, price, place, promotion, process, people, physical evidence andproductivity
& quality), a concept based on Kotler 2009. In terms of the consumer (customer
oriented) there 8C (customer solution, customer cost, convenience, communication,
capabilities, caliber / champion, charisma / collateral and customer experience), 7C
of the concept of Stephen Newman & Khosro Jahdi 2009, while C is the eighth is
construct the author, of P is the eighth, Productivity & Quality is perceived as a
Customer Experience of customer oriented. From oriented company, the company
will execute company interaction orientation.
Company interaction orientation, customer interaction orientation, and interactive
interaction orientation are inspired by holistical marketing service model from Kotler
2009 sekaligus dengan melihat rangkuman kelemahan marketing mix menurut
6(enam) mazhab pada school of thought di atas, bahwa kelemahan terbesarnya
adalah kurangnya interaksi secara eksternal/dengan konsumen. Meanwhile
circumtances either in company oriented or in customer oriented are inspired by
Koichi Shimizu’s Compass Model in 2003 and 2009 on customer and circumtances
section.

4. Conclusions

Internal orientation from mix - the lack of market inputs explicitly in terms of the origin
of the concept. Mix was originally developed as a concept that is suitable for the
marketing of consumer products in the manufacturing sector of the U.S. mass-
oriented '60s. Lack of personalization ie massorientations-market of the Mix, can
also be traced in the original framework. Significant consumer (individualization,
reducing brand preference, value orientation, increasing sophistication, etc.).
important parameter for any theoretical development is the confidence of
practitioners in the marketing mix is important 4P features namely simplicity,
applicability and enrich it.

The weakness ofmarketing mixconcept according to marketing theoretical dicipline

is: (1), According toconsumer’s marketing : internal orientation, lack of customer
interaction and lack of strategic elements. (2), According to relationship marketing :
bigger product orientation, one way orientation, and a more offensive 4P to
colaborative character. (3), According to service marketing : service as the main
generator, service is a part of phisical product (augmentedproduct dimension),
human is the exeptional factor also interactionand quality frequently dissapear from
marketing mix. (4), According to retail marketing : mixadded by personnel,
presentation and customers experience. (5), According to industrial marketing:
personal approach and delivering value. (6), According to e-marketing : e-commerce
marketing, internal orientation, lack of interaction and personality and lack of
strategic elements.

References
Alipour, Mehrad et al, 2011, The Role of Service Marketing Mix And Its Impact On
Marketing Audit In Engineering And Technical Service Corporations, Global
Journal of Management And Business Research, Vol 11,Issue 6 Version 1.0,
hal 71-74
Al-share, Fathi Abdullah et al, 2011, Directors’ perception of the concept of
marketing mix and its role in activating the health care,Interdisiplinary Journal
of Contemporary Research In Business, Vol 3 No 8, hal 748
Bartels, Robert, 1951, Influences On The Development of Marketing Tought, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol XVI, No 1, hal 4
Bhasin, Hitesh, 2011, http://www.learnmarketing.net/servicemarketingmix.htm
Bellmunt, Teresa Vallet et al, 2005, The Rise And Fall of The Marketing Mix, The
Evolution of & Debate Surrounding The Concept, ESIC Market, Vol 05, hal
400-417
Borden, Neil H, 1984, The Concept of The Marketing Mix, Classic, Vol II, hal 9-11
Constantinides, E, 2006, The Marketing Mix Revisite:Towar The 21st Century
Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 22, hal 411-430
Dhiman, Anil Kumar et al, 2009, Services marketing mix in library & information
centres,ICAL Advocacy&Management, hal 457-458
Doroodgar, Mohammad Reza, Nazari Kamran, and Emami, Mostafa, 2012, The
Study of The Relation Between Marketing Mix And Attract Customers, Journal
of Basic And Applied Scientific Research, Vol 2 No 8, pp 7734-7740
Gajic, Jelena, 2012, Importance Of Marketing Mix In Higher Education Institution,
Singidunum Journal, Vol 9, No 1, hal 30-31
Ho Hsuan-Fu, et al, 2008, Marketing Mix Formulation for Higher Education,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol 22 No 4, hal 328-331
Ivy, Jonathan, 2008, A new marketing mix on higher education, International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol 22 No 4,hal 288-295
Johnson, Priya, 2012, Business Banking, www.anz.com/indonesia
Lin, Su Mei, 2011, Marketing Mix 7P And Performance Assessment of Western Fast
Food Industry In Taiwan:An Application by Associating Dematel And ANP,
African Journal of Bussiness Management, Vol 5 (26), pp 10634-10644
Morrison, Donald G et al, 2004, The Marketing Department In Management Science;
Its History, Contribution, and The Future, Inform, Vol 50,No 4, hal 427
Muala,Ayed Al et al, 2012, Assesing The Relationship Between Marketing Mix And
Loyalty Through Tourists Satisfaction In Jordan Curative Tourism, American
Academic&Scholarly Research Journal, Vol 4, No. 2, hal 2-6
Newman, Stephen et al, 2009,,Marketisation of Education : Marketing, Rhetoric,
And Reality, hal 1-9.
Rajh, Edo & Dozen, Durdana O, 2009, The Effects of Marketing Mix Elments On
Service Brand Equity, Original scientific paper, UDK 658.626:339.138
Rafiq, Mohammed & Ahmed, Pervaiz K, 1995, Using The 7Ps As A Generic
Marketing Mix: An Exploratory Survey of UK And European Marketing
Academics, Marketing Intelligence&Planning, Vol 13 No 9, pp 4-15
Rudd, Denis et al, 2008, Expanding marketing principles for the sale, Contemporary
Issues In Education Research, Vol 1 No 3,hal 44
Sarker, M A Hossain et al, 2012, InvestigatingTheImpact Of Marketing Mix Elements
On Tourists Satisfaction: An Empirical Study On East Lake, European Journal
of Business and Management, Vol 4, No 7, hal 274-276
Satria, 2008, http://id.shvoong.com/social-sciences/education/2172453-definisi-
service-marketing-mix-bauran/#ixzz2EGHFThXc
Shaw, Eric H et al, 2005, A History of School of Marketing Thought,
Sagepublication, Vol 5 No 3, hal 243-258,
Silverman, Steven N, 1995, An Historical Review And Modern Assessmnt of The
Marketing Mix Concept, 7thMarketing History Conference Proceedings, Vol
Vii, hal 27
Soedijati, Elisabeth Koes et al, 2011, The Impacts of Marketing Mix on Student
Choice, 2nd International Conference On Business And Economic Research
Procding, hal 2124-2126
Waterschoot , Walter van et al, 1992, The 4P Classification of The Marketing Mix
Revisited, Journal of Marketing, Vol 56, hal 88
Zeithaml, Valarie A, et al, 1985, Problems & Strategies In Service Marketing, Journal
of Marketing, Vol 49, hal 34
Wikipedia
Bussiness Dictionary