The Life of P
Grönroos (1994) states that the concept of the marketing mix is still controlling marketing field both theoretically and practically, fourty years after its establisment. In 1964 McCarthy has first used that concept - and mediatly so called '4 Ps' of today - to define then the marketing process from A to Z (Sinh, 2013). AMA (American Marketing Association) defines marketing recently as “the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchange and satisfy individual and organizational objectives” (Grönroos, 1994).
New approaches have always been emerging in marketing research. During the decade 4 Ps also know as the marketing mix, have always been criticised by several studies. However, it remains as a main framework for tackling marketing problems.
According to Palmer (2004) the term marketing mix is a conceptual framework rather than science. It is a set of tools in large scale for marketing managers in order to satisfy their consumers and their needs. Thus with this set they can build up their plans and strategies and achieve their goals.
What makes the marketing mix so popular and powerful is that; it definitely simplifies the decision making process and briefly draws borders for marketers to take action. Thus, that makes 4 Ps referral tools in the era.
As Goi cited (2009) from Van Waterschoot the Marketing Mix serves also as “as a creator of differentiation” besides its dominance in marketing theory and practice (Grönroos, 1994) since its introduction. Goi highlights also Kent's comparision of the marketing to Christianty and marketing mix to its doctrines. It was almost that effective, as all other religions and beliefs.
Sinh (2003) lays emphasis on two main benefits of marketing mix. Firstly the job of marketing managers will be perceived as an exchange process of benefits. The firm's / the brand's competitive strengths benefits will be exchanged within the marketing mix against others' benefits. Also the marketing mix “helps to reveal another dimension of the marketing manager’s job” and that is the second main benefit.
However, changes in industries, development on distribution technologies, globalization of markets and new organizational understandings has persuaded marketing professionals and scholar to explore new fields and theoritical approaches. As a result, numbers of academic studies added more Ps into the marketing mix and this is broadening the scope of marketing.
As Goi (2009) cites Booms & Bitner suggested 7 Ps in 1980 instead of four. These new Ps were participants, physical evidence and process. Goi also cites that Kotler came up with political power and public opinion and MaGrath came up with personnel, process management and physical facilities.
In 1987 Judd came up with another new P, which is people (Goi, 2009). According to Goi (2009), Vignalis and Davis propounded an S - service - for the mix next to the Ps. Finally in 1999 Goldsmith claimed for a marketing mix consisted of following Ps: “Product, price, place, promotion, participants, physical evidence, process and personalisation” (Goi, 2009).
As Sinh (2003) explained the 4 Ps model has certain limits of itself within. Sinh states that this model sees only from the viewpoint of the marketer and all the affiliations related to them. So mainly it does not include all of the affiliations between the consumer and the seller.
As Maclaren et al. (2010) refers to Grönroos, marketing mix only includes assumed one-shot actions of marketing. Moreover as Maclaren et al. refers to Kotler, marketing main ambition should be loyality, experience and satisfaction of the customer. And these only could be based on continuous and repetitive actions.
The concept of 4 Ps also criticised by being production-oriented. It was very useful for defining the marketing concept while the pyhsical products were the main commodities of the economy. Thus, besides being relevant with marketing management perspective; marketing mix concept was not customer-oriented, however this lead the mix to face with the need of consumers perspective and added several Cs and Es to it:
As Goi (2009) cites from Lauterborn (1990) all variables must be seen from the viewpoint of the consumer. So there should be customer solution instead of product, customer instead of price, convenience instead of place and communication instead of promotion. The 4 Cs model can be achieved in this way.
As Constantinides (2006) pointed out the Marketing Mix does not include the real compenent of marketing; customers. It only deals with itself within itself. Customers are only passively included but they are not included with their true nature, as an active subject with their motivations and impulses. Constantinides pointed out that the Marketing Mix also abandoned the theory.
Constantinides says that the Mix is not good enough to identificate the marketing actions.
Thus, the paradigm “relationship marketing” which basically focused on a long-term relationship and transactions between brands and the customer came to scene. Because the mix assumes primarily independent exchanges between marketers and their customers, is silent about the potential buyer-seller interaction and relationships.
As Goi (2009) cites from the Fakeideas blog, The Marketing Mix is product oriented and not adaptable to service sector. Also the article reminds that most of the firms own more than one brandname for a certain product. It could be possible that related products of the same firm are sold through the same market.
The Marketing Mix is not just product oriented, it is also single product oriented and does not applicable for the previous reasons to the most of the firms, too. Additionally the Marketing Mix does not include 'relationship building' and it is not 'customer-focused' as Goi (2009) mentioned.
Sources:
Adler E. (2013) “Here's Why 'The Internet Of Things' Will Be Huge, And Drive Tremendous Value For People And Businesses” Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-in-the-internet-of-things-2013-10#ixzz2sq2kU3SD
Chaouchi, H. (2010), "The Internet of Things Connecting Objects to the Web", STE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Constantinides, E. (2006), “The Marketing Mix revisited: Towards the 21st Century Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, 22(3-4), 407-438.
David L. (2013), Contemporary Marketing, 14th Edition Kurtz, 010, 2008 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning
Goi, C. L. (2009), “A review of marketing mix: 4Ps or more?”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 1(1).
Google (2011), ZMOT: “Winning the Zero Moment of Truth” http://v1.zeromomentoftruth.com/google-zmot.pdf
Google (2012), “Zero Moment of Truth Handbook” http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/2012-zmot-handbook.html
Grönroos, C. (1994), “From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing”, Asia- Australia Marketing Journal, 2(1), 9-29.
The IoT Council, http://www.theinternetofthings.eu
Kotler, P. Kartajaya, H. Setiawan, I. (2010), “Marketing 3.0 From Products to Customer to the Human Spirit”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lauterborn, B. (1990), New Marketing Litany: Four Ps Passé: C-Words Tak Over. Advertising Age, 61(41), 26.
Maclaren, P., Saren M., Stern, B., Tadajewski, M. (2010), “The SAGE Handbook of Marketing Theory”, 155, Sage Publications Ltd.
Sinh, N. H. (2013) “The Fall of the Marketing Mix: A Paradigm Shift Needed?” Hồ Chí Minh City Open University, Số 12 (22) - Tháng 09-10/2013 PHÁT TRIỂN & HỘI NHẬP
Tasner, M. (2010) “Marketing in the Moment: The Practical Guide to Using Web 3.0 Marketing to Reach Your Customers First”, Pearson Education, Inc.
