Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CITATIONS READS
23 8,166
1 author:
Eric H. Shaw
Florida Atlantic University
44 PUBLICATIONS 563 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Eric H. Shaw on 10 November 2014.
JHRM
4,1 Marketing strategy
From the origin of the concept to the
development of a conceptual framework
30 Eric H. Shaw
Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to organize the semantics jungle of marketing strategy
approaches, terms and concepts into a logically coherent framework using the history of marketing
thought to inform current marketing research and practice.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of an intensive literature review
tracing the three streams of marketing strategy terms and concepts from their roots in the literatures
of early marketing management, managerial economics and corporate management to the present.
Findings – Along with marketing ideas, strategy concepts from managerial economics and from
corporate management were absorbed directly into the corpus of strategic marketing thought. These
three streams of research have converged into the current state of marketing strategy – an eclectic
mixture of both complementary and conflicting strategic approaches, terms and concepts. By
systematically following the evolutionary development of major contributions to strategic marketing
thought and by redefining terms and refining concepts the various approaches to strategy can be
integrated into a comprehensive conceptual framework for organizing and choosing among individual
marketing strategies.
Originality/value – The framework offers conceptual and practical value. It provides a researcher
with a consistent set of terms and concepts to build upon. The framework also provides a strategic
toolkit for the marketing manager, based upon organizational and environmental conditions, to choose
from among the feasible alternatives the most effective marketing strategy to achieve management’s
goal(s).
Keywords History of marketing thought, Business strategy, Marketing strategy, Management strategy,
Marketing management strategy, Strategic marketing, Segmentation, Targeting, Marketing mix
Paper type Research paper
In effect, this would provide a toolkit of feasible strategies from which a marketing
manager could choose the strategy deemed most effective to achieve a desired goal.
Figure 1.
Differentiation and
segmentation
JHRM Smith’s use of product differentiation followed Chamberlin’s (1933) “monopolistic
4,1 competition.” Chamberlin’s work in competitive theory also provided the basis for
Alderson’s (1937, 1957) “competition for differential advantage,” Clark’s (1940)
“workable competition” and (Clark, 1961) “dynamic competition,” Porter’s (1985)
“sustainable competitive advantage,” and Hunt and Morgan’s (1995) “Comparative
[later resource] advantage theory of competition.”
36 The idea of a product differentiation strategy is to position one firm’s brand as
different from competition in the minds of its customers, when supply and demand are
relatively homogeneous (or the firm chooses to ignore heterogeneity). Product
differences are used in a broad sense, according to Chamberlin (1933, p. 71), and refer
“to an alteration in the quality of the product itself – technical changes, a new design or
better materials; it may mean a new package or container, it may mean more prompt or
courteous service, a different way of doing business, or perhaps a different location.”
Thus differentiation can be “real,” i.e. based on physical product characteristics or
lower price, or “perceived,” i.e. based on a prestige image, a familiar jingle or a
recognizable logo (Alderson, 1965). Because any one or any combination of marketing
mix elements can be used to differentiate a brand, it is probably more accurate to
change the terminology from “product” to “marketing mix differentiation,” or simply
“differentiation.”
The term market segmentation was introduced into marketing by Alderson (1937)
in an article that was later expanded into a book chapter (Alexander et al., 1940),
because of his recognition of heterogeneity in supply and demand. Segmentation was
based on the work of Robinson (1933, p. 187) who conceptualized the division of
markets into “sub-markets [. . .] with the highest price being charged in the least elastic
market, and the lowest price in the most elastic market.” It was not until Smith’s (1956)
work, however, that the segmentation concept was fully developed and popularized in
the marketing literature. Market segmentation may be defined as subdividing a
heterogeneous market into more homogeneous subgroups based on some common
customer characteristics, such as age, location, time of purchase or purchase frequency.
Segmentation strategy has been expanded into several forms, such as niche,
multi-segment and across-the-board targeting strategies (Alderson, 1957; Kotler, 1980;
McCarthy, 1978). In distinguishing between these alternative strategies, Smith (1956, p.
5) described a product differentiation strategy as attempting “to secure a layer of the
market cake, whereas market segmentation strives to secure one or more
wedge-shaped pieces.”
This treatment of differentiation and segmentation is broadly consistent with two
recent discussions of marketing’s intellectual heritage that also purport to provide
“a better understanding” (Hunt, 2011) and “clarification [. . .] over the fundamental
marketing concepts: “product differentiation and market segmentation” (Pirog and
Smith, 2011). For the present discussion, segmentation and differentiation offer the
firm “alternative” marketing strategies. Aiming to serve a small subset of customers
especially well, a segmentation strategy represents a rifle approach aiming a distinct
marketing mix at each targeted segment (from niche to across-the-board) that the firm
serves (Perreault et al., 2006). Alternatively, aiming to satisfy most customers
reasonably well, in a differentiation strategy the firm designs a mix that stands out
from competition and uses a shotgun approach pointed at the mass market (or large
customer segment).
Dean’s “skimming and penetration strategies” Marketing
Some of the earliest types of marketing strategy were proposed by Joel Dean. In a 1950 strategy
article, and then in his classic textbook, Managerial Economics, there is a section titled:
“Policies for pioneer pricing.” Dean (1951, p. 419) writes:
The strategic decision in pricing is the choice between: (1) a policy of initial high prices that
skim the cream of demand; and (2) a policy of low prices from the outset serving as an active
agent for market penetration. 37
With skimming, a firm introduces a product with a high price and after milking the
least price sensitive segment, gradually reduces price, in a stepwise fashion, tapping
effective demand at each price level. Price skimming works because different
customers have differing social status needs, incomes and price sensitivities; and those
with high income or low price sensitivity, for example, can be viewed as a
homogeneous segment within the overall heterogeneous market. Notice how Dean’s
price skimming strategy exploits Robinson’s (1933) emphasis on differing customer
segments having differing elasticities of demand. By capturing consumer surplus
(i.e. the excess of what customers are willing to pay above what they actually pay),
price skimming generates greater revenue than a price penetration strategy, discussed
next (see Figure 2).
The alternative introductory pricing strategy is to rapidly penetrate the market.
With penetration pricing a firm continues its initial low price from introduction to
rapidly capture sales and market share, but with lower profit margins than skimming.
Although revenues are lower, penetration provides a barrier to entry because
competitors are less attracted to a market with reduced profitability. Not limited to just
the price “P” of the marketing mix, Dean also considered the impact of varying degrees
of promotional expenditures on these alternative pricing strategies. He recognized the
advantage of combining high promotional expenditures with low price to even more
rapidly penetrate the market than using either marketing mix ingredient alone. Dean
also appreciated that fewer promotional dollars but greater targeting effort were
Figure 2.
Price skimming and
penetration pricing
JHRM necessary in skimming, which generates slower penetration but higher profit margins.
4,1 We shall see that price skimming is often used in a niche segmentation strategy, while
a penetration pricing strategy can be extended to the entire marketing mix by adding
product quality and distribution intensity to pricing and promotion.
Although Dean was an economist, his pioneer pricing strategies were transported
into the earliest marketing management textbooks, including: Howard’s (1957)
38 Marketing Management: Analysis and Decision, Kelly and Lazer’s (1958) Managerial
Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, McCarthy’s (1960), Basic Marketing:
A Managerial Approach, and Kotler’s (1967) Marketing Management: Analysis,
Planning and Control. Skimming and penetration pricing strategies are still found in
almost all modern marketing management and marketing strategy textbooks, almost
always without attribution.
The life cycle of skimming and penetration pricing strategies, by one of marketing’s
most influential authors, Philip Kotler in his Marketing Management textbooks from
1967 to 2009, provides a useful illustration of the ebb and flow of these strategy
concepts over more than four decades. In his 1967 and 1972 editions Kotler summarizes
Dean’s version of pioneer pricing strategies in a couple of paragraphs. In his 1976
edition Kotler juxtaposes high and low prices against high and low promotion
expenditures to create a two by two matrix named: “introductory marketing strategies”
(Kotler, 1976, p. 235). Although the concepts remain the same (fast and slow
penetration versus fast and slow skimming), the terminology is refined in his 1980
edition. The discussion remains unchanged through subsequent editions of Kotler’s
textbooks until the 2000 edition where the matrix is eliminated and the discussion
again reduced to a few paragraphs of the newly termed “market-penetration pricing”
and “market-skimming pricing” (Kotler, 2000, p. 458). By the 2003 edition, all
references to “fast and slow” aspects are purged. This may be due to the difficulty of
finding real world applications of “fast-skimming” and “slow-penetration,” because
skimming is inherently gradual to skim the cream of each successive segment and
penetration is inherently rapid to forestall competition. Kotler and (now co-author)
Keller’s two short paragraph discussions of penetration and skimming strategies
remain the same in the 2006 and 2009 editions. This example shows the difficulty in
anchoring strategic terms and concepts without a well-grounded conceptual
framework.
Figure 3.
Product life cycle
JHRM rate to increasing at a decelerating pace due to a shift in the ratio of new purchases to
4,1 replacement buying.
The excess capacity caused by a slowing growth rate accounts for Wasson’s (1974)
competitive turbulence stage. As sales approach the market potential (i.e. most
customers who want the product already own it), sales growth slows to acquisitions for
replenishing stock and for newly formed households. In reaction, competitive
40 marketing mixes and market shares often stabilize as well and the product enters the
maturity stage of the life cycle. Eventually the product starts losing its customer base,
usually to another new product, and sales go into the decline stage, as only laggards
(who eventually die out) remain in the market buying the old product. It should be
noted that decline and divestment is not necessarily inevitable, as products reach
maturity they may be recycled into another growth phase. For more than a century, the
Gillette Company has been successful in forestalling maturity and decline by
continuously recycling growth of its razor and blade life cycle by engineering new and
improved brand extensions (e.g. safety razor, blue blade, stainless steel blade,
Technomatic, Atra, Trac II twin blade system, Sensor, Mach 3 three blade system,
Fusion five blade system).
With Levitt’s (1965) classic HBR article: “Exploit the product life cycle,” the PLC
entered the rapid growth stage of its own life cycle. Subsequently, numerous literature
reviews and meta-analyses have appeared summarizing the extant PLC literature and
analyzing its strengths and weaknesses (e.g. Buzzell, 1966; Dhalla and Yuspeh, 1976;
Polli and Cook, 1969; Smallwood, 1973); with one of the most comprehensive analyses
in a book by Wasson (1974) and a special section in the Journal of Marketing guest
edited by Day (1981). The PLC has both supporters and critics.
The notion that successful products go through sequenced stages of a life cycle over
time is supported by the PLC’s heavily researched theoretical complement –
the diffusion of innovation (Lazer and Shaw, 1986). Sales, the dependent variable in the
PLC is mirrored by – the flip side of the coin – consumer acceptance (or purchase), the
dependent variable in the diffusion of innovation literature (Rogers, 1962). The major
criticism of the PLC as a theory is predicting the timing of transitions from one stage to
the next (Hunt, 2010). Transitional predictions need not detain us, however, because for
purposes of the present research the PLC is used in its role as a classification system,
with each stage indicating several available strategies. Specifying a given stage is
easily determined empirically by plotting sales over time. Given that a product can
even loosely be identified with a particular stage of the PLC points the manager to a
choice of several alternative marketing strategies, discussed shortly.
Forrester was an economist, but his concept of the PLC was reproduced in the
earliest marketing management textbooks, including: Kelley and Lazer (1958),
McCarthy (1960), and Kotler (1967). The PLC is still found in almost all modern
marketing management and strategy textbooks, but hardly any give a citation. In
contrast to the lack of citations for marketing strategy concepts, surprisingly, almost
all corporate management strategies, other than SWOT, are well referenced in the
marketing literature.
Figure 4.
Growth strategies
writers. Aside from the strategy’s lack of specificity, there is a glaring inconsistency Marketing
that has apparently escaped notice in the marketing literature. strategy
It will be recalled that Dean (1951) regarded a penetration strategy as introducing a
new product into a new market (and he specified the strategy as employing low price
and high promotion to rapidly build sales and gain market share). This presents a
contradiction in the use of the term “penetration,” because Ansoff’s strategy involves
an existing product in an existing market rather than a new product in a new market. 43
As will be shown, a penetration strategy may be used with either new or existing
products in either new or existing markets; and as Dean proposed, a penetration
strategy involves the aggressive use of a combination of marketing mix elements.
Another problem with the matrix involves strategic level. Ansoff regarded a
diversification strategy (i.e. new product and new market) as a major departure from a
firm’s current operations that involved mergers and acquisitions. In this case,
corporate diversification is a top-level business strategy that is seldom made by a
marketing manager. On the other hand, if a diversification strategy is taken to mean
the introduction of a new product to a new customer segment, at the marketing
management level, then it is simply a form of segmentation strategy, discussed next.
There are two particularly useful components in Ansoff’s growth strategies.
“Market development,” according to Ansoff’s (1957, p. 114), “is a strategy in which the
company attempts to adapt its present product line to new [market segments].”
Essentially, the firm expands its sales by adding new customer segments (irrespective
of whether the product is old or new). The market development concept will be retained
in its expanded form, but following Smith (1956) renamed a “segment expansion
strategy.” Segment expansion may take several forms (Kotler, 1980; McCarthy, 1981),
such as a multi-segment strategy (targeting several segments each with their own
marketing mix), or an across-the-board segment strategy (aiming a different marketing
mix at each customer segment in a market).
The other useful growth strategy is Ansoff’s “product development strategy,” in
which new models, styles, or colors are added to the product line. Kerin and Peterson
(1978, pp. 123-124) proposed replacing “product development” with their more relevant
term “offering development;” arguing that the former is limited to products and the
latter includes both products and services. Both development terms could stand
improvement. The product development term is limited and the offering development
term is awkward. A more modern term without baggage, that also parallels a segment
expansion strategy, is a “brand expansion strategy.”
One should also realize that both growth strategies “segment expansion” and
“brand expansion,” build upon Smith’s (1956) original two marketing strategies:
“segmentation” and “differentiation.’ As shown next, Smith’s strategic alternatives
also provide the conceptual underpinning for Porter’s generic strategies.
44
Figure 5.
Generic strategies
Having a lower cost has two alternative implications: either higher profit margins or
lower prices. Higher profit margin is the implication resulting from lower cost that
Porter (1985, p. 13) apparently had in mind:
If a firm can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership, then it will be an above-average
performer in its industry provided it can command prices at or near the industry average.
Significant for corporate strategy because it produces greater profits, Porter’s
advantage of a lower cost provides almost no value for the marketing strategist. An
average price may avoid being a marketing weakness, but it certainly is not a
marketing strength. It is only the second implication, when a low cost advantage is
translated into a price below competition that it becomes a strength the marketing
strategist finds valuable.
A lower price than competition is a strength because below market pricing is a form
of differentiating one brand offering from another, as surely as a prestige product,
unique service, trademark, logo, promotional jingle, distribution outlet, or any other
marketing mix element(s) that make one brand stand out from the pack in the minds of
potential or actual customer segments. Thus, juxtaposing low cost (almost always used
synonymously but mistakenly with low price by marketing students) versus
differentiation (with non-price marketing mix ingredients) carries more baggage than
benefit, since price is one element of the marketing mix, and any element can serve as
the basis for a differential or competitive advantage. Simply, it is illogical to exclude
price as a type of differential advantage. In Chamberlin’s (1933, p. 56) words:
Differentiation (occurs) if any significant basis exists for distinguishing the goods of one
seller from those of another.
As Porter (1985, p. 14), himself, notes:
In a differentiation strategy a firm seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimensions
that are widely valued by buyers.
Low price is obviously a dimension widely valued by many buyers. Therefore, to
complete the syllogism, low price is an element of a differentiation strategy.
There is another marketing issue with Porter’s matrix, the dichotomy between Marketing
“industry wide” and “narrow target” strategies. An industry wide strategy, better known strategy
in the marketing literature as a mass market strategy (i.e. a single marketing mix for all
customers in the market) is most relevant for large firms with strong financial resources
offering a standardized commodity. Porter’s “narrow target segment,” commonly known
in marketing as a “niche strategy” (targeting a narrowly defined customer segment with
a tailored marketing mix), is often a necessity for a smaller firm with strong marketing 45
skills but limited financial capability. However, Porter’s matrix does not recognize
several alternative marketing strategies sandwiched between these two. In between a
mass market and a niche strategy, there are a variety of segment expansion strategies
(e.g. multi-segment or across-the-board, as previously discussed). Thus, all variations of
Porter’s generic strategies, except cost leadership, may also be derived from Smith’s
(1956) core marketing strategies: differentiation and segmentation.
46
Figure 6.
Growth – share matrix
where the firm reduces its marketing mix expenditures anticipating a less than
proportional reduction in sales. As the market continues declining, at some point a
“divesting strategy” becomes necessary. The marketing mix is reduced to zero and the
brand removed from the market.
Figure 7.
Framework for marketing
strategy
Figure 7 shows the stage in the industry or market life cycle that a particular Marketing
marketing strategy becomes viable for a pioneer or followers, and ends when the strategy
strategy is no longer a realistic alternative. The various marketing strategies in each
stage of the PLC are described below.
References
Abell, D.F. (1978), “Strategic windows”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, July, pp. 21-6.
Alexander, R.S., Surface, F.M., Elder, R.F. and Alderson, W. (1940), Marketing, Ginn and Co.,
New York, NY.
Alexander, R.S., Surface, F.M. and Alderson, W. (1953), Marketing, Ginn and Co., New York, NY.
Alderson, W. (1937), “A marketing view of competition”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 98-9.
Alderson, W. (1951), “Product growth cycle”, Cost and Profit Outlook, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-4.
Alderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Alderson, W. (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Ansoff, H.I. (1957), “Strategies for diversification”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 113-24.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Bartels, R. (1962), The Development of Marketing Thought, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Marketing
Bartels, R. (1976), The History of Marketing Thought, 2nd ed., Grid, Columbus, OH. strategy
Bartels, R. (1988), The History of Marketing Thought, 3rd ed., Publishing Horizons, Columbus,
OH.
Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1998), Contemporary Marketing, Dryden Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Borden, N.H. (1957), “Note on concept of the marketing mix”, in Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W. (Eds),
Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
51
Borden, N.H. (1964), “The concept of the marketing mix”, Journal of Advertising Research, June,
pp. 2-7.
Buzzell, R. (1966), “Competitive behavior and product life cycles”, in Wright, J. and Goldsucker, J.
(Eds), New Ideas for Successful Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Cannon, J.T. (1968), Business Strategy and Policy, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.
Chamberlin, E.H. (1933), Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and Structure, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
Chandler, A. (1969), Top Management Planning, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Clark, J.M. (1940), “Toward a concept of workable competition”, American Economic Review,
Vol. 30, June, pp. 241-56.
Clark, J.M. (1961), Competition as a Dynamic Process, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Cravens, D.W. (1987), Strategic Marketing, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Czepiel, J.A. (1992), Competitive Marketing Strategy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Day, G.S. (1977), “Diagnosing the product portfolio”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 29-38.
Day, G.S. (1981), “Introduction to special section: the product life cycle: analysis and application
issues”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 60-7.
Davis, K.R. (1961), Marketing Management, Ronald Press, New York, NY.
Dean, J. (1951), Managerial Economics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dhalla, N.K. and Yuspeh, S. (1976), “Forget the product life cycle concept!”, Harvard Business
Review, January-February, pp. 102-10.
Dickson, P.R. and Ginter, J.L. (1987), “Market segmentation, product differentiation, and
marketing strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 1-10.
Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Enis, B.M. (1974), Marketing Principles: The Management Process, Goodyear Publishing, Pacific
Palisades, CA.
Frey, A.W. (1956), The Effective Marketing Mix, Amos Tuck Business School, Hanover, NH.
Forrester, J.W. (1959), “Advertising: a problem in industrial dynamics”, Harvard Business
Review, March-April, pp. 100-10.
Henderson, B.D. (1970), “The product portfolio”, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston,
MA, p. 1.
Henderson, B.D. (1972), “Cash traps”, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA.
Henderson, B.D. (1973), “The experience curve reviewed IV, the growth-share matrix”,
Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA.
JHRM Henderson, B.D. (1976a), “The star of the portfolio”, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group,
Boston, MA.
4,1
Henderson, B.D. (1976b), “Anatomy of a cash cow”, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group,
Boston, MA.
Howard, J. (1957), Marketing Management, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Hunt, S.D. (2010), Marketing Theory, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
52 Hunt, S.D. (2011), “The theory of monopolistic competition, marketing’s intellectual history, and
the product differentiation versus market segmentation controversy”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), “The comparative advantage theory of competition”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 1-15.
Johnson, S.C. and Jones, C. (1957), “How to organize for new products”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 49-62.
Jones, C. (1957), “Product development from the managerial point of view”, in Clewett, R.L. (Ed.),
Marketing’s Role in Scientific Management, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Jones, D.G.B. and Shaw, E.H. (2002), “A history of marketing thought”, in Weitz, B.A. (Ed.),
Handbook of Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 39-66.
Keayne, R. (1653/1970) in Bailyn, B. (Ed.), The Apologia of Robert Keayne, Peter Smith Publisher,
Glouster, MA.
Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W. (1958), Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (1978), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (1993), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (2004), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1965), “Phasing out weak products”, Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 107-18.
Kotler, P. (1967), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1976), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1978), “Harvesting strategies for weak products”, Business Horizons, August,
pp. 15-22.
Kotler, P. (1980), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2009), Marketing Management, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Lazer, W. and Culley, J.D. (1983), Marketing Management: Foundations and Concepts, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 461-73.
Lazer, W. and Shaw, E.H. (1986), “The product life cycle”, in Buell, V. (Ed.), Handbook of Modern
Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R. and Guth, W.D. (1965), Business Policy: Text and Marketing
Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
strategy
Levitt, T. (1965), “Exploit the product life cycle”, Harvard Business Review, November-December,
pp. 81-94.
Liddell, G. and Scott, R. (18711957), Greek-English Lexicon [Abridged], Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Luther, M. (15241957), “Trade and usury”, in Tappert, T.G. (Ed.), Selected Writings of Martin 53
Luther, Vol. 3, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 86-91.
Lyon, L.S. (1926), Salesmen in Marketing Strategy, Macmillan, New York, NY.
McCarthy, E.J. (1960), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
McCarthy, E.J. (1978), Basic Marketing: a Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
McCarthy, E.J. (1981), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Muhs, W.F. (1985), “The product life cycle concept: origin and early antecedents”, in Hollander,
S.C. and Nevett, T. (Eds), Marketing in the Long Run, Proceedings of the Second Workshop
on Historical Research in Marketing, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI,
pp. 413-9.
Oxenfeldt, A.R. (1958), “The formulation of a market strategy”, in Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W.
(Eds), Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL, pp. 264-71.
Perreault, W.D. Jr, Cannon, J.P. and McCarthy, E.J. (2006), Basic Marketing, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
New York, NY.
Pirog, S.F. III and Smith, M.F. (2011), “Giving voice to marketing’s intellectual heritage”, Journal
of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-75.
Polli, R. and Cook, V. (1969), “Validity of the product life cycle”, Journal of Business, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 385-400.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Robinson, J. (1933), The Economics of Imperfect Competition, MacMillan and Company, London.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rosenberg, L.J. (1978), The Roots of Marketing Strategy: A Collection of Pre-1950 Readings, Arno
Press, New York, NY.
Schendel, D.E. and Hatten, K.J. (1972), “Business policy or strategic management: a broader view
for an emerging discipline”, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, pp. 99-102.
Schendel, D.E. and Hofer, C.W. (1979), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and
Planning, Little Brown & Company, New York, NY.
Shaw, A.W. (1914), “Scientific management in business”, in Bertrand Thompson, C. (Ed.),
Scientific Management: A Collection of The More Significant Articles, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA.
Shaw, A.W. (1916), An Approach to Business Problems, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
JHRM Shaw, E.H. and Jones, D.G.B. (2005), “A history of schools of marketing thought”, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 239-81.
4,1 Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D. (1988), Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation,
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Simon, H.A. (1947), Administrative Behavior, Free Press, New York, NY.
Simon, H.A. (1968), “The architecture of complexity”, General Systems Annual, Vol. XI, pp. 3-12.
54 Smallwood, J.E. (1973), “The product life cycle: a key to successful strategic marketing planning”,
MSU Business Topics, Winter, pp. 29-35.
Smith, W.R. (1956), “Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing
strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20, July, pp. 3-8.
St Thomas of Aquinas (1274/1951), “On fraud committed in buying and selling”, Summa
Theologica, Part II, Qu. 77, in Monroe, A.E. (Ed.), Early Economic Thought, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 51-78.
Taylor, F.W. (1903), Shop Management, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
NY.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Usui, K. (2008), The Development of Marketing Management: The Case of the USA c. 1910-1940,
Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Wasson, C.R. (1960), “What is ‘new’ about new products?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, July,
pp. 52-6.
Wasson, C.R. (1974), Dynamic Competitive Strategy and Product Life Cycles, Challenge Books,
St Charles, IL.
Wilkie, W.L. and Moore, E.S. (2002), “Marketing’s relationship to society”, in Weitz, B.A. and
Wensley, R. (Eds), Handbook of Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 9-38.
Wooliscroft, B., Tamilia, R.D. and Shapiro, S.J. (2005), A Twenty-First Century Guide to
Aldersonian Marketing Thought, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Further reading
Anderson, C.H. and Vincze, J.W. (2000), Strategic Marketing Management, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, MA.
Bartels, R. (1941), “Marketing literature: development and appraisal”, PhD dissertation, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH.
Boone, L.E. (2006), Contemporary Marketing, Thompson South-Western, Mason, OH.
Kotler, P. (1972), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1984), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2003), Marketing Management, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Patel, P. and Younger, M. (1978), “A frame of reference for strategy development”, Long Range Marketing
Planning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Qualls, W., Olshavsky, R. and Michaels, R. (1981), “Shortening the PLC – an empirical test”,
strategy
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 76-80.
Robinson, S.J.Q., Hichens, R.E. and Wade, D.P. (1978), “The directional policy matrix – tool for
strategic planning”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 8-15.
Wilkie, W.L. (2003), “Scholarly research in marketing: exploring the four eras of thought 55
development”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 22, Fall, pp. 116-46.
Xenophon (1832), “Memoirs of Socrates”, The Whole Works of Xenophon, Jones & Co., London,
translated by A. Cooper, E. Spelman, W. Smith, and S. Fielding, first published 415BCE.