In a demanding, competing world, all that a passing customer would expect from a Fast Food Service Firm would be to accurately implement customers' orders and complete business transactions - a totaly transactional business approach.
In view of my personal experiences at the Solonos (downtown Athens) retailing outlet of Gregory’s Food Service Group, the three front-line employees serve customers in an unpredictable, customer-oriented approach. This exceptional customer service turns to a differential advantage for regular passing by customers that turn to loyal and commited simply because they are served on a "first name basis", with a smile, accuracy and speed.
Well done guys!!
Keep on showing some people how to implement expensive marketing strategies well.
I quote from their web site: "As a company, we rely on our customers and that is why we must appreciate their current and future needs, satisfy their demands and meet their expectations". www.gregorys.gr.
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Monday 30 January 2012
Product-market coverage strategies
Would the adoption and implementation of competitive product-market coverage strategies reflect on modification of a sound Marketing-mix of an organization? Obviously yes.
For example an organization that adopts and further implements an Undifferentiated product-market coverage strategy chooses to ignore market segments and goes after the whole market with one offer. The "One size fits all"–focuses on what is common between buyers, rather than what is different.
On the other hand, a firm that follows a Concentrated product-market coverage strategy goes after a large share of one or a few markets. Practicaly, this happens when a firm has experience or expertise in Marketing product-services to these segments.
Finally, a firm selects and implements a Differentiated product-market coverage strategy when Marketing management decides to target several market segments and designs separate offers for each. Typically, this product-market coverage strategy creates a stronger position with each market segment and more sales than Undifferentiated Marketing which is broader and more vague.
For example an organization that adopts and further implements an Undifferentiated product-market coverage strategy chooses to ignore market segments and goes after the whole market with one offer. The "One size fits all"–focuses on what is common between buyers, rather than what is different.
On the other hand, a firm that follows a Concentrated product-market coverage strategy goes after a large share of one or a few markets. Practicaly, this happens when a firm has experience or expertise in Marketing product-services to these segments.
Finally, a firm selects and implements a Differentiated product-market coverage strategy when Marketing management decides to target several market segments and designs separate offers for each. Typically, this product-market coverage strategy creates a stronger position with each market segment and more sales than Undifferentiated Marketing which is broader and more vague.
Saturday 28 January 2012
What is Positioning or Brand Positioning?
Positioning reflectes on the choice of target market (where the company wishes to compete) and differential advantage (how the company wishes to compete) Jobber, 2007.
In my undertanding positioning is a cognitive, continuous and systematic perceptual process. In this view, Marketing management (as a clear ideological perspective) works intensively to connect - differentiate the product/service to the understanding of the customer (see previous posts in competitive differentiation). Obviously, such a dynamic process involves much more than product or even better brand positioning. A combination (e.g. a refreshing coctail) of four initially parameters are amongst some of the criteria by which consumers distinguish a difference between competing offerings.
A) Product differentiation
B) Services differentiation
C) Human Resources differentiation
D) Image differentiation
Tuesday 24 January 2012
Marketing Strategy implementation
Essentially, until the implementation process reaches a satisfactory level (e.g. in terms of accomplishing performance standards) a Marketing strategy remains a plan not an operational reality. This particular observation led Gummesson (1974) to conclude that the ability and strength to execute a decision is more crucial for success than even the underlying analysis.
A review of the pertinent literature is indicative of an undue bias toward formulation almost to the neglect of implementation (Noble, 1999; Noble and Mokwa, 1999; Piercy, 1989; Walker and Ruekert, 1987).
Bonoma and Crittenden (1988) attribute this literature imbalance to a long held, misguided assumption among both academics and practitioners that Marketing Strategy implementation inevitably supersedes formulation provided the plan displays analytical sophistication. Second, what empirical evidence there is overwhelmingly suggests that implementation in practice is fraught with difficulties and generally falls short of expectations (e.g. Nutt, 1983). This is neatly captured by Meldrum (1996, pp. 30), who states, “One of the concerns about marketing as a management discipline is the inability of organizations to put into practice the policies devised in its name”. It is interesting to note that poor implementation is a long outstanding concern first brought to light by early writers (e.g. Barksdale and Darden, 1971; Felton, 1959) with Churchman (1975) aptly labeling it “the implementation problem”.
How can we improve Marketing Strategy implementation?
A) Development and Support of effective internal as well as external communication patterns may well reduce barriers and reduce dysfunctionalities and conflicts.
B) Skilled and Competent Implementers (for example, sales-reps who can eventually justify relationship excellence standards).
C) Organizational Redesign (for example, modification of strategic orientation in parallel to adoption of customer-oriented Marketing infrastructures).
D) Design and implementation of innovative internal Marketing programs / practices, targeted at key groups in the company, alliance partner companies, and other influencers.
A review of the pertinent literature is indicative of an undue bias toward formulation almost to the neglect of implementation (Noble, 1999; Noble and Mokwa, 1999; Piercy, 1989; Walker and Ruekert, 1987).
Bonoma and Crittenden (1988) attribute this literature imbalance to a long held, misguided assumption among both academics and practitioners that Marketing Strategy implementation inevitably supersedes formulation provided the plan displays analytical sophistication. Second, what empirical evidence there is overwhelmingly suggests that implementation in practice is fraught with difficulties and generally falls short of expectations (e.g. Nutt, 1983). This is neatly captured by Meldrum (1996, pp. 30), who states, “One of the concerns about marketing as a management discipline is the inability of organizations to put into practice the policies devised in its name”. It is interesting to note that poor implementation is a long outstanding concern first brought to light by early writers (e.g. Barksdale and Darden, 1971; Felton, 1959) with Churchman (1975) aptly labeling it “the implementation problem”.
How can we improve Marketing Strategy implementation?
A) Development and Support of effective internal as well as external communication patterns may well reduce barriers and reduce dysfunctionalities and conflicts.
B) Skilled and Competent Implementers (for example, sales-reps who can eventually justify relationship excellence standards).
C) Organizational Redesign (for example, modification of strategic orientation in parallel to adoption of customer-oriented Marketing infrastructures).
D) Design and implementation of innovative internal Marketing programs / practices, targeted at key groups in the company, alliance partner companies, and other influencers.
Monday 23 January 2012
The Value Delivery Process
Marketing is the process of Value Exchange. Value actually represents the exchange of tangible goods, services, ideas, time and maybe other intangibles between buyers and sellers. In fact, the key to a successful exchange is that each party has some value desired by the other. This has got an impact on the entire Marketing Concepts' philosophy design and implementation.
Building and enhancing strong Buyer-Seller Business Relationships is a strong part - coeffiecient of the Value Delivery Process. Most pragmatically, the Value Delivery Process is a Strategic Marketing approach that differentiates a customer-oriented organization from the traditional brand making and selling.
The Value Delivery Process brakes into three distinct phases:
A) Choosing the value where Marketing Management does its own “homework marketing” before any product exists (e.g. market segmentation, targeting and positioning as the essence of the first phase of strategic marketing.
B) Providing the value where Marketing Management decide the marketing mix criteria (For example, Marketing tactics) that will provide a strong competitive and thus a differential advantage (see previous posts).
C) Communicating the value where Marketing Management decides on the actual implementation process - utilization of the Sales Force, Sales Promotion , Advertising and other integrated communication tools.
There is though a differentiated Marketing approach into Value creation and substantiation of a differential advantage and this has got an impact upon Vargo and Lusch's academic work. Drawing on Vargo and Lusch (2004) and their Service–Dominant logic, “value is the outcome of co-creation between suppliers and customers”. They even stated that the customer is always a co-producer who participates in value creation through co-production. However, because they considered production a concept that is not in accordance with an inherent service logic (Vargo, 2008), they later replaced this statement with the expression “customers are always co-creators of value” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Other academics such as Grönroos (2008) and Ravald, (2010) in recent academic publications argue the specific Service-Dominant logic approach and ask for roles clarification of the different actors who participate in value creation on the ground “that the knowledge on how value is created, by whom and for whom is scarce”.
Vargo et al., (2008, pp. 146) acknowledging the issue claimed, “The roles of producers and consumers in a Goods-Dominant logic are distinct, whereas they in a Service-Dominant logic perspective are not”. In a recent article on the Service-Dominant logic, Vargo et al., (2008, pp.147) address this important feature of research on value creation as they suggest “...each instance of value creation is unique to and can only be assessed from the perspective of an individual service system...”. In full accordance with a Service-Dominant logic view, value is not created and delivered by the supplier, but emerges during usage in the customer’s process of value creation (Grönroos, 2006, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Gummesson, 2007).
This very last remark highlights the significance of Knowledge Workers' (e.g. Sales-Reps) contribution into the effective implementation of Marketing Strategies.
Building and enhancing strong Buyer-Seller Business Relationships is a strong part - coeffiecient of the Value Delivery Process. Most pragmatically, the Value Delivery Process is a Strategic Marketing approach that differentiates a customer-oriented organization from the traditional brand making and selling.
The Value Delivery Process brakes into three distinct phases:
A) Choosing the value where Marketing Management does its own “homework marketing” before any product exists (e.g. market segmentation, targeting and positioning as the essence of the first phase of strategic marketing.
B) Providing the value where Marketing Management decide the marketing mix criteria (For example, Marketing tactics) that will provide a strong competitive and thus a differential advantage (see previous posts).
C) Communicating the value where Marketing Management decides on the actual implementation process - utilization of the Sales Force, Sales Promotion , Advertising and other integrated communication tools.
There is though a differentiated Marketing approach into Value creation and substantiation of a differential advantage and this has got an impact upon Vargo and Lusch's academic work. Drawing on Vargo and Lusch (2004) and their Service–Dominant logic, “value is the outcome of co-creation between suppliers and customers”. They even stated that the customer is always a co-producer who participates in value creation through co-production. However, because they considered production a concept that is not in accordance with an inherent service logic (Vargo, 2008), they later replaced this statement with the expression “customers are always co-creators of value” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Other academics such as Grönroos (2008) and Ravald, (2010) in recent academic publications argue the specific Service-Dominant logic approach and ask for roles clarification of the different actors who participate in value creation on the ground “that the knowledge on how value is created, by whom and for whom is scarce”.
Vargo et al., (2008, pp. 146) acknowledging the issue claimed, “The roles of producers and consumers in a Goods-Dominant logic are distinct, whereas they in a Service-Dominant logic perspective are not”. In a recent article on the Service-Dominant logic, Vargo et al., (2008, pp.147) address this important feature of research on value creation as they suggest “...each instance of value creation is unique to and can only be assessed from the perspective of an individual service system...”. In full accordance with a Service-Dominant logic view, value is not created and delivered by the supplier, but emerges during usage in the customer’s process of value creation (Grönroos, 2006, 2008; Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Gummesson, 2007).
This very last remark highlights the significance of Knowledge Workers' (e.g. Sales-Reps) contribution into the effective implementation of Marketing Strategies.
Sunday 22 January 2012
Saturday 21 January 2012
Lambda: Marketing an “Ultra-Premium” Olive Oil
“Too many brands were claiming the extra virgin olive oil description but were not of special quality. I love olive oil and I wanted to do something more, to create and reinvent the way people view it,” says Giorgos Kolliopoulos who developed Lambda according to "The Olive Oil Times" through his luxury food and beverage company Speiron, based in Athens, Greece. Available since 2007, Lambda remains the priciest ultra premium labeled brand on the market, consistently maintaining benchmark qualities that rate better than extra virgin standards.
From a theoretical point of view, a brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. American Marketing Association
Clearly, a strategic brand perspective requires Marketing managers to be clear about what role brands play for the company in creating customer and share-holder value.
FOR BUYERS, BRANDS CAN:
1) Reduce customer search costs by identifying products quickly and accurately,
2) Reduce the buyer’s perceived risk by providing an assurance of quality and consistency (which may then be transferred to new products),
3) Reduce the social and psychological risks associated with owning and using the “wrong” product by providing psychological rewards for purchasing brands that symbolize status and prestige.
Marketing Science Institute Report No. 97-422, 1997
FOR SELLERS, BRANDS CAN FACILITATE:
1) Repeat purchases that enhance the company’s financial performance because the brand enables the customer to identify and re-identify the product compared to alternatives,
2) The introduction of new products, because the customer is familiar with the brand from previous buying experience,
3) Promotional effectiveness by providing a point of focus, premium pricing by creating a basic level of differentiation compared to competitors,
4) Market segmentation by communicating a coherent message to the target audience, telling them for whom the brand is intended and for whom it is not,
5) Brand loyalty, of particular importance in product categories where loyal buying is an important feature of buying behavior.
Marketing Science Institute Report No. 97-422, 1997
From a theoretical point of view, a brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. American Marketing Association
Clearly, a strategic brand perspective requires Marketing managers to be clear about what role brands play for the company in creating customer and share-holder value.
FOR BUYERS, BRANDS CAN:
1) Reduce customer search costs by identifying products quickly and accurately,
2) Reduce the buyer’s perceived risk by providing an assurance of quality and consistency (which may then be transferred to new products),
3) Reduce the social and psychological risks associated with owning and using the “wrong” product by providing psychological rewards for purchasing brands that symbolize status and prestige.
Marketing Science Institute Report No. 97-422, 1997
FOR SELLERS, BRANDS CAN FACILITATE:
1) Repeat purchases that enhance the company’s financial performance because the brand enables the customer to identify and re-identify the product compared to alternatives,
2) The introduction of new products, because the customer is familiar with the brand from previous buying experience,
3) Promotional effectiveness by providing a point of focus, premium pricing by creating a basic level of differentiation compared to competitors,
4) Market segmentation by communicating a coherent message to the target audience, telling them for whom the brand is intended and for whom it is not,
5) Brand loyalty, of particular importance in product categories where loyal buying is an important feature of buying behavior.
Marketing Science Institute Report No. 97-422, 1997
Friday 20 January 2012
Defining Strategies and Interdepartmental Organizational Alignment
It is useful for the development of the discussion to share definitions on Strategies and Interdepartmental Organizational Alignment:
A strategy is therefore a fundamental pattern of present and planned objectives, resource deployments, and interactions of an organization with markets, competitors, and other environmental factors (Kerin et. al., 1990). At a rather similar pace Walker et. al.,(2003) contend that a strategy should specify:
1)What objectives to be accomplished,
2)Where exactly to focus (which industries and product-markets) and
3)How to allocate resources and activities to each product-market in meeting environmental opportunities and threats and gain a competitive advantage.
Walker et. al. (2003) further contemplate five major components of a well-developed strategy as critical in Marketing strategy implementation:
1) Scope reflecting to the breadth of corporate strategic domain (e.g. vision, mission). For example, corporate scope reflects on the number and type of served industries, available product lines, and market segments a firm competes or plans to enter.
2) Goals and Objectives. For example, performance oriented dimensions - Marketing Numerics.
3) Resource deployment in effectively and efficiently allocating financial and human resources.
4) Identification of a sustainable competitive advantage (see previous post).
5) Development of Interdepartmental Organizational Synergies.
Given the recasting of successful Marketing in terms of services and relationships excellence, and the key role played by service providers it becomes necessary to bring ideas from a number of disciplines (for example, Marketing, Operations and HRM together)– without successfully ‘aligning’ strategy and implementation, services and relational quality will be impaired and therefore potential for competitive advantage lost.
Labovitz and Rosansky (1997, pp.5) defined alignment “as both a noun and a verb – a state of being and a set of actions . . . alignment . . . refers to the integration of key systems and processes and responses to changes in the external environment”. Often the concept of alignment when used in business is referred to as strategic fit (Smaczny, 2001), strategic match (Mintzberg et al., 1998), or simply the interface between two things (van der Zee and De Jong, 1999). In fact, Beal and Yasai-Ardekani (2000, pp. 735) identified alignment as “moderation, mediation, profile deviation, gestalts, covariation, and matching”.
A strategy is therefore a fundamental pattern of present and planned objectives, resource deployments, and interactions of an organization with markets, competitors, and other environmental factors (Kerin et. al., 1990). At a rather similar pace Walker et. al.,(2003) contend that a strategy should specify:
1)What objectives to be accomplished,
2)Where exactly to focus (which industries and product-markets) and
3)How to allocate resources and activities to each product-market in meeting environmental opportunities and threats and gain a competitive advantage.
Walker et. al. (2003) further contemplate five major components of a well-developed strategy as critical in Marketing strategy implementation:
1) Scope reflecting to the breadth of corporate strategic domain (e.g. vision, mission). For example, corporate scope reflects on the number and type of served industries, available product lines, and market segments a firm competes or plans to enter.
2) Goals and Objectives. For example, performance oriented dimensions - Marketing Numerics.
3) Resource deployment in effectively and efficiently allocating financial and human resources.
4) Identification of a sustainable competitive advantage (see previous post).
5) Development of Interdepartmental Organizational Synergies.
Given the recasting of successful Marketing in terms of services and relationships excellence, and the key role played by service providers it becomes necessary to bring ideas from a number of disciplines (for example, Marketing, Operations and HRM together)– without successfully ‘aligning’ strategy and implementation, services and relational quality will be impaired and therefore potential for competitive advantage lost.
Labovitz and Rosansky (1997, pp.5) defined alignment “as both a noun and a verb – a state of being and a set of actions . . . alignment . . . refers to the integration of key systems and processes and responses to changes in the external environment”. Often the concept of alignment when used in business is referred to as strategic fit (Smaczny, 2001), strategic match (Mintzberg et al., 1998), or simply the interface between two things (van der Zee and De Jong, 1999). In fact, Beal and Yasai-Ardekani (2000, pp. 735) identified alignment as “moderation, mediation, profile deviation, gestalts, covariation, and matching”.
Thursday 19 January 2012
Marketing strategies and objectives
A) Build Marketing Strategy
The Marketing objective in a Build Marketing strategy is to increase sales and market share. This is a rather aggresive, relatively expensive however dynamic Marketing business approach aiming at growth markets. In this sense, an organization that incorporates a Build Marketing strategy focuses at increasing sales and establish its competitive position position in the market (e.g. development of market share). A Build Marketing approach is also desirable in mature markets where there are exploitable competitive weaknesses and hence exploitable corporate strengths.
B) Hold Marketing Strategy
The Marketing objective in a Hold Marketing strategy is to maintain market share. This is the case of a market leader firm in a mature or declining market. An organization can also apply Hold marketing strategy in a growth market where the costs incurred by trying to build market share outweigh the benefits.
C) Harvest Marketing Strategy
The Marketing objective in a Harvest Marketing strategy is to maximise profits whilst sales and market share are falling. This is the case of a firm that has decided to reduce promotional budgets, rationalize product line and possibly increase prices in maximizing profit margins. Such a firm obviouly neeeds a loyal core customer base (e.g. see development of loyalty schemes) as well as better use of financial and human resources. Indeed, "no money to waste" may be the slogan of the firm. This is a Marketing strategy suitable for recession times.
D) Divest Marketing strategy
The Marketing objective in a Divest Marketing strategy is to drop or sell the product out of its entire product portfolio. There is obviously poor performance and inappropriate fit with the rest of the product family. It is hard to make such Marketing decisions but there is only one reality: Sales at a Profit Reality
The Marketing objective in a Build Marketing strategy is to increase sales and market share. This is a rather aggresive, relatively expensive however dynamic Marketing business approach aiming at growth markets. In this sense, an organization that incorporates a Build Marketing strategy focuses at increasing sales and establish its competitive position position in the market (e.g. development of market share). A Build Marketing approach is also desirable in mature markets where there are exploitable competitive weaknesses and hence exploitable corporate strengths.
B) Hold Marketing Strategy
The Marketing objective in a Hold Marketing strategy is to maintain market share. This is the case of a market leader firm in a mature or declining market. An organization can also apply Hold marketing strategy in a growth market where the costs incurred by trying to build market share outweigh the benefits.
C) Harvest Marketing Strategy
The Marketing objective in a Harvest Marketing strategy is to maximise profits whilst sales and market share are falling. This is the case of a firm that has decided to reduce promotional budgets, rationalize product line and possibly increase prices in maximizing profit margins. Such a firm obviouly neeeds a loyal core customer base (e.g. see development of loyalty schemes) as well as better use of financial and human resources. Indeed, "no money to waste" may be the slogan of the firm. This is a Marketing strategy suitable for recession times.
D) Divest Marketing strategy
The Marketing objective in a Divest Marketing strategy is to drop or sell the product out of its entire product portfolio. There is obviously poor performance and inappropriate fit with the rest of the product family. It is hard to make such Marketing decisions but there is only one reality: Sales at a Profit Reality
Tuesday 17 January 2012
Competitive Advantage Versus Differential Advantage
How Marketing Management of a competitive firm accomplishes a long-term competitive advantage?
Does the concept of Differential Advantage reflect on Marketing creativity and brand substantiation?
The answers to these two generic Marketing questions can be facilitated by defining the two terms:
Competitive Advantage is an advantage over competitors gained by offering consumers greater value, either through lower prices or by providing more benefits that justify higher prices.
Differential Advantage means a Competitive Advantage that customers perceive as creating superior value with respect to competition.
Conceptually, the essence of Marketing Management is to build and sustain Differential Advantage through advanced Brand Management, close customer relationships and upgraded service quality standards.
Damian Giannakis
Does the concept of Differential Advantage reflect on Marketing creativity and brand substantiation?
The answers to these two generic Marketing questions can be facilitated by defining the two terms:
Competitive Advantage is an advantage over competitors gained by offering consumers greater value, either through lower prices or by providing more benefits that justify higher prices.
Differential Advantage means a Competitive Advantage that customers perceive as creating superior value with respect to competition.
Conceptually, the essence of Marketing Management is to build and sustain Differential Advantage through advanced Brand Management, close customer relationships and upgraded service quality standards.
Damian Giannakis
Sunday 15 January 2012
Personal Views
There are strong debates whether the design and implementation of Direct Marketing applications and practices are beneficial or not for the business purposes of customer-oriented firms. In my understanding, Direct Marketing practices can only be beneficial to both customer and organization, if they result as an outcome of an organized and systematic Relationship Marketing Service-Dominant process (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Most fundamentally, Direct Marketing can produce measurable -thus worthy- outcomes under the following conditions:
B) Organized Relationship Management corporate approach to 1st year specific customer groups (e.g. customers with shared characteristics / needs). Such a Relationship Management approach involves three distinct stages:
A) Sequencial Selling to existing customer groups. In this case, Marketing Management has processed customers' data in CRM and Data Mining systems to conclude on segmentation criteria, thus targeting specific "product/service solutions" to satisfy specific, existing customer group needs (e.g customer retention tools).
B) Organized Relationship Management corporate approach to 1st year specific customer groups (e.g. customers with shared characteristics / needs). Such a Relationship Management approach involves three distinct stages:
- The "First-Moment activities". Organization encourages the dynamic interaction between sales-reps and customers, investing into a long-term business-customer relationship (e.g. customer acquisition).
- Development and application of sound Customer Segmentation Criteria. Marketing Management launches Welcome and Building Relationship cross-selling activities to enhance and maintain a holistic Relationship Management approach (e.g. Customer Activation).
- Initiation of Direct Marketing campaigns. These campaings should involve sequential direct marketing activities and event management - preferably from the front-line employees, that have already been in contact with the customer / group.
Damian Giannakis, 2010
Saturday 14 January 2012
Thursday 12 January 2012
Reforming Marketing Practice (2)
Getting the line from the previous posts, it seems that Marketing Management within a customer-oriented firm (as previously defined) is differentiated to Marketing Management position within a Transactional-oriented firm.
The literature indicates that Marketing Management in the transaction context is primarily concerned with the product and achieving organisational objectives that emphasise product profitability (Coviello et al., 1997; Webster, 1992). In this circumstance, Marketing focuses on achieving profit maximisation that revolves around the application of the firm’s resources to markets, customers and products in the most efficient and cost effective manner. As Webster (1992, p. 6)though comments, “there is no need to consider people or social processes when the units of analysis are products, price, costs, firms and transactions”.
However, in a customer-oriented firm, Marketing Management would adopt and further implement a Relationship Marketing business approach into markets as the means of sustaining a competitive advantage.
This is in essence to establish, maintain and enhance relationships with customers and other parties at a profit so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is done by a mutual exchange and fulfillment of promises. (Bennett, 1996; Brodie et al.,1997; Grönroos, 1989; 1990; 1994; 1997 in Ravald and Grönroos, 1996; Gummesson, 1994; Hunt, 1997; Robicheaux and Coleman, 1994; Storbacka, 1997)
A set of critical questions need to be further analyzed and discussed: What are the roles, skills and competences of the Product Manager into a Relationship Marketing Management business environment?
What is needed in order that a Relationship Marketer (within a customer-oriented firm) find corporate space for inter-departmental optimum cooperation?
Damian Giannakis
The literature indicates that Marketing Management in the transaction context is primarily concerned with the product and achieving organisational objectives that emphasise product profitability (Coviello et al., 1997; Webster, 1992). In this circumstance, Marketing focuses on achieving profit maximisation that revolves around the application of the firm’s resources to markets, customers and products in the most efficient and cost effective manner. As Webster (1992, p. 6)though comments, “there is no need to consider people or social processes when the units of analysis are products, price, costs, firms and transactions”.
However, in a customer-oriented firm, Marketing Management would adopt and further implement a Relationship Marketing business approach into markets as the means of sustaining a competitive advantage.
This is in essence to establish, maintain and enhance relationships with customers and other parties at a profit so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is done by a mutual exchange and fulfillment of promises. (Bennett, 1996; Brodie et al.,1997; Grönroos, 1989; 1990; 1994; 1997 in Ravald and Grönroos, 1996; Gummesson, 1994; Hunt, 1997; Robicheaux and Coleman, 1994; Storbacka, 1997)
A set of critical questions need to be further analyzed and discussed: What are the roles, skills and competences of the Product Manager into a Relationship Marketing Management business environment?
What is needed in order that a Relationship Marketer (within a customer-oriented firm) find corporate space for inter-departmental optimum cooperation?
Damian Giannakis
Tuesday 10 January 2012
How to Reform Marketing?
An optimum Marketing, Business approach into a saturated product environment reflects on the achievement of corporate goals through meeting and hence exceeding customer needs better than the competition.
This competitive, customer-focused Marketing approach can be effective through:
A) A definite, unbiased Customer Strategic Orientation where corporate activities are focused upon providing customer satisfaction.
B) An integrated, accumulated business effort where the fulfillment of corporate goals is the core job of everyone in the organization (see internal Marketing applications and practices) and not just through a "silo", product management business approach.
Most fundamentally, an interdepartmental, aligned Marketing effort reflects on line managers' professional development of required skills and competences such as: creativity, problem solving, communication and entrepreneurial orientation.
C) Goal Achievement. The corporate belief that organizational strategic and operational goals can be achieved through long-term, customer satisfaction and upgraded relationship quality standards.
Damian Giannakis
This competitive, customer-focused Marketing approach can be effective through:
A) A definite, unbiased Customer Strategic Orientation where corporate activities are focused upon providing customer satisfaction.
B) An integrated, accumulated business effort where the fulfillment of corporate goals is the core job of everyone in the organization (see internal Marketing applications and practices) and not just through a "silo", product management business approach.
Most fundamentally, an interdepartmental, aligned Marketing effort reflects on line managers' professional development of required skills and competences such as: creativity, problem solving, communication and entrepreneurial orientation.
C) Goal Achievement. The corporate belief that organizational strategic and operational goals can be achieved through long-term, customer satisfaction and upgraded relationship quality standards.
Damian Giannakis
Sunday 8 January 2012
Reforming Marketing Practice (1)
In the competitive business world, Marketing has undergone various organizational modifications. In this direction, Marketing has developed from the traditional Transactional business approach to Customer-oriented approach in generating sound values for the customer and develop a sound and sustainable competitive advantage for the organization.
In reforming Marketing practice the American Marketing Association (2007)produced the following definition: "Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large".
This definition adopted a distinct Customer-oriented perspective and moved away from the former AMA (2004) definition : "Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders".
Marketing is thus regarded as an "activity" instead of a "function". Marketing "activity" is positioned as a broader perspective in a company/organization, and not just as a single functional department, providing long-term value rather than narrowly an exchange of money (short-term) for the benefit of the shareholder/organization.
This newer Marketing business approach reflects on the impact/role of talented people-marketers in best Marketing implementation practices. Most pragmatically, the role of human resources of an organization that adopts the new Marketing definition as its core business focus, becomes strategically imperative.
In reforming Marketing practice the American Marketing Association (2007)produced the following definition: "Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large".
This definition adopted a distinct Customer-oriented perspective and moved away from the former AMA (2004) definition : "Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders".
Marketing is thus regarded as an "activity" instead of a "function". Marketing "activity" is positioned as a broader perspective in a company/organization, and not just as a single functional department, providing long-term value rather than narrowly an exchange of money (short-term) for the benefit of the shareholder/organization.
This newer Marketing business approach reflects on the impact/role of talented people-marketers in best Marketing implementation practices. Most pragmatically, the role of human resources of an organization that adopts the new Marketing definition as its core business focus, becomes strategically imperative.
Friday 6 January 2012
Implementation of Marketing theory
"One of the concerns about Marketing as a management discipline is the inability of organizations to put into practice the policies devised in its name". Meldrum (1996, pp. 30)
Critical issues in implementing marketing
Critical issues in implementing marketing
Thinking Marketing
Hi fellow marketers,
This is a new blog with the following purposes:
a) Explore values and concepts in Marketing and ideally in Relationship Marketing
b) Explore the possibilities of cross - functional alignment as a corporate competitive advantage
c) Support social network argumentation regarding marketing best practices
Talk to you soon
Damian Giannakis
This is a new blog with the following purposes:
a) Explore values and concepts in Marketing and ideally in Relationship Marketing
b) Explore the possibilities of cross - functional alignment as a corporate competitive advantage
c) Support social network argumentation regarding marketing best practices
Talk to you soon
Damian Giannakis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)