Application of the marketing mix

INTRODUCTION

The marketing mix is among the most widely accepted marketing concepts in the world
of business (McCarthy 1960; Bartels 1983; Shapiro 1985). However, over the years the
marketing mix has come under intense scrutiny from both academics of the marketing
discipline and practitioners alike. This feeling was captured by Constantinides when he
stated:

“Few topics of the commercial theory have so intensively inspired as well as divided the
marketing academia as the 4Ps Marketing Mix framework” (Constantinides, 2006: p.407)

This essay aims to critically assess the relevance of the marketing mix for the current
marketing approaches. To accomplish this, an overview of the marketing mix is given.
This is followed by an exploration of some of the contemporary approaches to
marketing which will lead to a consideration of the arguments in support of the
marketing mix and the criticisms against it. Finally, in the light of the arguments and
criticisms the relevance of the marketing mix for contemporary approaches to marketing
will be appraised.

OVERVIEW OF THE MARKETING MIX

The marketing mix can be defined as the controllable and tactical marketing tools that
the firm combines to achieve the desired response in its target market. It comprises all
the measures the firm can employ to stimulate the demand for its goods and/or services
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2008). The ultimate goal of any firm is to create a product or
service that will be perceived as unique in the eyes of prospective consumers so that
they will prefer it to other competing brands. In creating this unique selling proposition
(USP), the marketers can blend four basic ingredients in a number of different ways to
obtain different results. These four ingredients are usually referred to as the 4Ps and
comprise- product, price, place (distribution) and promotion (Baker, 2007).

Costantinides (2006) and Gronroos (1994) trace the origin of the marketing mix to the
1960s when Neil Borden identified twelve controllable marketing components that
would yield profit if properly managed. Borden considered the marketing mix to be a
concise, realistic and vivid expression of the admixture of the marketing ingredients,
techniques and processes chosen by a marketing manager to create a marketing plan
(Banting and Ross, 1973; Waterschoot and Van den Bulte, 1992). It was later reduced to
four factors by Jerome McCarthy (McCarthy, 1964 cited in Constantinides, 2006) and this
simplified version became the most widely accepted definition of the marketing mix
(Judd, 2002). The “4Ps” marketing mix commanded utmost respect in the minds of both
marketing scholars and practitioners for decades that in the words of Gronroos (1994)
and Kent (1986) it was considered heresy to challenge its position as the basic
foundation of all marketing thinking. This belief strongly reinforces the dominance of
the marketing mix during this period and suggests that there was a need for a theory
that could be applied for the solution of most marketing management issues.

According to Harker and Egan (2006) certain economic conditions contributed to the
perceived superiority of the marketing mix paradigm. Harker and Egan (2006) opine that
a key feature of the United States domestic market after the Second World War was
homogeneity of products which resulted in increased demand for standardised
consumer products and the rise of the USA as the dominant marketing culture. The
demand, notwithstanding, there was need to ensure that consumption matched output
(Packard, 1957 cited in Harker and Egan, 2006). Thus, a formal and reliable marketing
approach was required to provide this fit (O’Malley and Patterson, 1998). The popularity
and dominance of the marketing mix paradigm was further enhanced by its simplicity
and ease of communication (Waterschoot and Van den Bulte 1992; Constantinides,
2006; Harker and Egan, 2006).

From the above submission, it can be argued that the marketing mix paradigm was
borne out of necessity- a necessity for a simple, realistic and reliable framework that
could be applied for the solution of general and specific marketing problems that arose
in that era. Considering the under-developed marketing structure and knowledge gap
that existed at that time, the formulation of the 4Ps marketing mix paradigm could not
have come at a better time. Thus, it goes without saying that the relevance of its
application to the transactional marketing approach- the primary approach to marketing
in the 20th century-is indubitable.

However, due to the shortcomings of the transactional approach to marketing, there

was the need for a paradigm shift from a product-oriented approach to one that
focused on the customer. Thus, the academia and marketing practitioners began to
question the efficacy of the marketing mix framework as the answer to all marketing
problems. The 4Ps were considered too narrow to adequately address the many aspects
of marketing management and laid excessive emphasis on the product and processes
with little or no thought for the customer. The increased sophistication of customers
and the dynamic nature of the business environment meant that organisations had to
adapt regularly to the changes that occur in the environment or risk losing market share
with the consequence of possible liquidation. This situation led to the emergence of
several modern marketing approaches that shifted attention from the product to the
customer thereby ushering in the era of market orientation.

Some of the contemporary approaches to marketing that emerged as a response to the

continuous evolution of the business environment include Relationship marketing,
Interaction marketing and Network marketing (Constantinides, 2006; Coviello et al,
1997; Gronroos, 1997). These modern approaches demanded a re-thinking of the
marketing process in order to achieve effective and efficient implementation. Based on
this need for a re-definition of the marketing process, it was inevitable that the
marketing mix paradigm would come up for debate with regards to the relevance of its
application to the aforementioned marketing approaches.

Relationship marketing involves the development and maintenance of mutually

satisfying exchange relations with customers and other parties at a profit, so that the
objectives of all the parties are realised (Gronroos, 1994; Baker, 2007, Coviello et al,
1997). The implication of this viewpoint is that every organisation must cooperate with
other parties within its business environment and beyond in order to achieve its ultimate
aim. The 21st century market is replete with opportunities and challenges that were
relatively unknown in the 20th century. To harness the opportunities and overcome the
challenges effectively and efficiently entails building up a long-term relationship with
the customers and all other stakeholders that directly or indirectly influence an
organisation’s operations. This situation suggests that certain changes would have to
occur in the organisation’s overall business processes, especially the marketing
processes, to ensure a seamless implementation of relationship marketing.

Gronroos (1994), Gummesson (1994, 1997) and Goldsmith (1999) argue that firms
practising a transactional marketing approach stand to benefit most from a traditional
marketing mix approach because of the absence of personal interactions with their
customers and emphasis on mass markets. However, the marketing mix tends to be
restrictive for a relation-oriented firm. The most significant customer interactions from a
marketing success perspective are outside the scope of the marketing mix and
marketing specialists. The customer decides whether to maintain business relations with
a firm based on the effect of his/her contacts with the people, technology, and
operations and other non-marketing functions. This position is supported by Ailawadi et
al (2001) who doubt the impact of promotion and advertising as marketing tools for
customer retention. This proposition suggests that the customer’s interactions with any
firm transcends the marketing functions and includes all indirect transactions with the
non-marketing functions within the firm. Relationship marketing advocates the inclusion
of all the functional units in any organisation towards creating value for the customer.
The effective and efficient implementation of this customer-oriented approach requires
that certain critical changes occur within the organisation. These requisite changes will
cut across the whole organisation, but will focus more on the marketing functions
because of the direct and frequent interactions with the customers. The change in the
marketing functions will lead to a complete shift or modifications in the methods tools
adopted by the organisation in creating value for the customer. This, invariably, would
necessitate a review of the organisation’s marketing mix. Such reviews have surfaced in
Kotler’s redefinition of the 4Ps to the 4Cs namely, customer solution, customer cost,
convenience and communication (Kotler et al., 1999 cited in Kruger et al., 2003 and
Ashcroft and Hoey 1999). This redefinition suggests a shift from the era of product-
orientation to customer-orientation which is the essence of relationship marketing.
However, it also suggests that the marketing mix is still relevant but there is need for
some modification to suit the dynamic marketing environment. Judd (2002) proposes an
expansion of the 4Ps marketing mix by including the employees of any organisation as
the fifth “P”. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that the employees are an integral
part of any organisation. They are the point of contact between the organisation and its
customers. However, like Kotler’s 4Cs, this proposed expansion of the 4Ps to 5Ps also
points to the relevance of the marketing mix, but with some modification to suit
appropriate markets. This argument is supported by Groonroos (1994) when he opines
that relationships do not operate in isolation. Relationships function in combination with
the other marketing tools already in operation within a given organisation in order to
successfully create value for both the customer and the organisation. The application of
the traditional marketing mix elements of product, price, promotion and place would be
necessary at some point in the interactions between the customer and the organisation.
This standpoint implies that, notwithstanding the criticisms of the traditional marketing
mix paradigm, its elements still contribute in one way or the other in the effective
implementation of the relationship marketing approach.

Criticism of the marketing mix has also arisen in the area of social marketing. Murphy et
al., (1978) argue that the implementation of certain marketing strategies is unethical
especially in the area of packaging, promotion, price and distribution channels. This
argument tends to suggest that the marketing mix is responsible for the unethical
practices that may occur during implementation. However, responsibility for the
implementation of the marketing mix is within the purview of the marketing and non-
marketing functional units within the organisation. They are responsible for any
unethical practices that may occur in the course of implementing the marketing
strategies and not the marketing mix.

Also, the marketing mix has been applied by social marketing in the public health sector.
Montoya et al, (2005), Pirani and Reizes (2005) and Grier and Bryant (2005) agree that
the application of the marketing mix is essential in the role of social marketing in public
health. The elements are combined in different ways to bring about the desired change
in the target market.

Attempts have been made to incorporate the marketing mix theory into other non-
marketing sectors. Lees-Marshment (2001) suggests that political parties have adopted
a “marketing-orientation” with significant electoral success. Lloyd (2003) suggests the
application of the marketing mix to the political arena by recommending the
development of a political marketing mix that comprises five components namely,
services offering, representation, accommodation, investment and outcome. The
implication of the aforementioned suggestions is that the marketing mix can contribute
enormously to the smooth operation of political parties in particular, and the
government in general.

CONCLUSION

Though the marketing mix has been criticised as being too narrow and product-
oriented, it is still relevant in contemporary marketing approaches. As has been
discussed above, there is need for some modifications in the mix portfolio. Redefinition
of the marketing mix does not reduce its relevance; it only serves to shift its focus to the
modern trends in the market place. Also, the relevance of the marketing mix is
reinforced by its application to non-marketing sectors such as politics and the public
health sector. This shift suggests that with the right modifications, the marketing mix
can be applied in any area of human endeavour.

REFERENCES

 Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D.R. and Neslin, S.A. (2001), “Market response to a major
policy change in the marketing mix: learning from Procter & Gamble’s value
pricing strategy”. Journal of Marketing, Vol.65, No.1, pp.44-61.
 Ashcroft, L. and Hoey, C. (2001), PR, marketing and the Internet: implications for
information professionals. Library Management, Vol.22, No. 1/2, pp.68-74.
 Banting, P.M. and Ross, E.M. (1973), The marketing mix: a Canadian perspective.
Journal of Marketing Science, Vol.1, No.1, pp.1-11.
 Bartels, R. (1983), “The development of marketing thought”. Ohio: Grid
Publishing.
 Constantinides, E. (2006), The marketing mix revisited: towards the 21st century
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.22, pp.407-438.
 Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J. and Munro, H.J. (1997), “Understanding contemporary
marketing: development of a classification scheme. Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol.13, No.6, pp.501-522.
 Goldsmith, R. (1999), “The personalised marketplace: beyond the 4Ps”. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, pp.178-185.
 Grier, S. and Bryant C.A. (2005), “Social marketing in public health”. Annual Review
Public Health, Vol.26, pp.319-339.
 Gronroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a
paradigm shift in marketing. Management Decision, Vol.32, N0.2, pp.4-20.
 Gronroos, C. (1997). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a
paradigm shift in marketing. Management Decision, Vol.35, No.4, pp.322-339.
 Gummesson, E. (1994). Making relationship marketing operational. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.5, No.5, pp.5-20.
 Gummesson, J. (1997). “Relationship marketing as a paradigm shift: some
conclusions from the 30R approach”. Management Decision, Vol.35, No.4,
pp.267-272.
 Harker, M. and Egan J. (2006), The past, present and future of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.22, pp.215-242.
 Judd, V. (2002). Achieving a customer orientation using “people-power”, the “5th
P”. European Journal of Marketing, Vol.37, No. 10, pp.1301-1313.
 Kent, R.A. (1986). “Faith in the 4P’s: an alternative”. Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol.2, No.2, pp.145-154.
 Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. and Wong V. (1999), Principles of marketing.
London: Prentice Hall.
 Kotler, P. and Armstrong G. (2008), Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
 Kruger, C.C., Lu, N. and Swatman, P.M.C. (2003), “Success factors for online music
marketing- e-transformation: from the four P’s to the four C’s”, pp. 1-16.
 Lees-Marshment, J. (2001), The marriage of politics and marketing. political
studies, Vol.49, 692-713.
 Lloyd, J. (2003), “Square peg, round hole? Can marketing-based concepts such as
the ‘product’ and the ‘marketing mix’ have a useful role in the political arena?”.
pp. 1-24.
 McCarthy, E. (1960), Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Illinois: Irwin.
 Montoya, J. A., Kent, C. K., Rotblatt, H., Mccright, J., Kerndt, P. R., and Klausner, J.
D. (2005), Social marketing campaign significantly associated with increases in
syphilis testing among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco. Sexually
Transmitted Diseases, Vol.32, No.7, pp.395-399.
 Murphy, P. E., Laczniak, G. R. and Lusch, R. F. (1978). Ethical guidelines for
business and social marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
Vol.6, No.3, pp.195-205.
 O’ Malley, L. and Patterson, M. (1998). Vanishing point: the mix management
paradigm re-viewed. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, pp.829-851.
 Pirani, S. and Reizes, T. (2005). The turning point social marketing national
excellence collaboration: integrating social marketing into routine public health
practice. Journal of Public Health Management, Vol.11, No.2, pp.131-138.
 Shapiro, B. (1985). “Rejuvenating the marketing mix”. Havard Business Review, pp.
28-34.
 Van Waterschoot, W. and Van den Bulte, C. (1992). “The 4P classification of the
marketing mix revisited”. Journal of Marketing, Vol.56, No.4, pp.83-93.