MARIT. POL. MGMT.

, APRIL–JUNE 2005
VOL. 32, NO. 2, 67–87

Marketing management at the world’s major ports

JULIÁN PANDO*, ANDRES ARAUJO and

FRANCISCO JAVIER MAQUEDA
Department of Finances Economy II, The University of the Basque
Country, UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain

Recent technological developments in maritime transport, particularly in con-

tainer shipping and larger vessels, are having major repercussions at ports the
world over. The latest wave of innovations has increased the level of competition
in maritime transport, in particular in port activities. Shippers have many more
alternatives available, something that tends to increase the hinterland of each
port, precisely by reducing captive hinterlands. Ports are now generally moving
towards formulas in which private initiative has a bigger role to play. Increases in
competition combined with growth in private initiatives highlight the usefulness
of marketing tools in two ways. Externally, because they help to achieve through-
puts from remote points of origin and destination, and internally, by aiding the
proper coordination of business and organizational activity at a commercial port.
The present paper is a transversal study of the current situation of marketing and
quality tools at major ports, including the opinions of a range of port commercial
and marketing managers. We have also tried to describe the differentiated
groups to be found at ports, as a useful methodology for identifying the nearest
competition or ports with similar characteristics.

1. Introduction and research objectives

Increased competition between types of transport, plus the processes of liberalization
and deregulation undertaken in most countries, have helped to increase efficiency in
transport and to ensure that transport services are closer to customer requirements.
For most users, the range of transport alternatives has broadened considerably.
Ports have a big role to play in maritime goods transport, which is responsible for
much of international trade. Sea transport is used for 70% of the European Union’s
foreign trade [1, p. 25] and for 40% of trade within the EU itself [2, p. 6].
Larger vessels and the use of containers have led to the ongoing transformation of
both ports and maritime transport. Apart from the need to improve infrastructures,
the kind of services offered and actual port organization should all be analysed if
new vessel and intermodal transport requirements are to be satisfied.
Besides being a major link in the transport chain, ports are clearly an important
factor for shippers looking for logistics services adapted to new integral port-to-port
transport management requirements.
The needs of transport customers have changed with respect to what traditionally
was the search of a low price, to a greater development and greater complexity of the

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: egppagaj@bs.ehu.es

Maritime Policy & Management ISSN 0308–8839 print/ISSN 1464–5254 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/03088830500097414
68 J. Pando et al.

characteristics of transport services. A transport customer more and more looks for
a better service and fitter to his needs, with ‘just-in-time’ systems, complementary
services of transformation, or transport systems in particular conditions.
Higher levels of efficiency in road haulage and road infrastructures and connec-
tions are also helping to sharpen competition between ports. Shippers have a range
of transport alternatives offering different conditions as regards time, cost and risk,
which is leading to the gradual disappearance or reduction of zones of influence or
captive markets.
From the development of intermodal transport and the increase of competence,
ports must improve their services and they should also extend them in order to have
a greater relation and power within the global logistic chain.
A customer perceives a port as a unique company, and values its global perform-
ance without worrying about its internal operation, in which several companies
take part. Therefore, ports must be understood as an integrated company of services
aimed at goods and ships, since it has a common customer, and besides, he or she
assesses a port as a whole. However, several aspects have restrained commercial
ports from marketing development, among others, low competitiveness in some
traffic (captive traffic) and the existence of multiple companies in the port, each
one with their own objectives.
In addition to their relations with customers, ports must consider their relations
with other ports, other means of transport and different organizations, mainly with
local administrations because of their influence in the provision of infrastructures,
accesses and logistic development zones.
As a result, ports must develop an analysis process that shows who decides in the
use of the port for each type of load that determines its needs and, from that analysis,
they must try to increase the customer dependency and its commitment with the
logistic system in which the port is included. The development of ports to transport
containers is an example of the importance of this aspect, whose growth is very fast
in some cases, aspect no justified by hinterland specific. The port of Gioia Taurus
in Italy grew from 16 TEUs to 2,253 TEUs, increasing 244.4% between years 1995
and 1999, being placed among the main ports in containers traffic in the world
[3, p. 360].
In the face of greater competition, ports have to take advantage of all the poten-
tial marketing management offers. Developing an efficient marketing strategy for
the entire port community is one of the ways ports can meet the demands of the
new situation. Establishing a general port marketing frame is therefore of great
interest.
Our research seeks to obtain a measure of the present situation and future
prospects for the management of marketing and quality systems at major Spanish
and world ports.

2. Methodology
To this end, we performed an empirical study based on surveys addressed to mar-
keting managers and directors at the main Spanish and world ports. These surveys
were then used to evaluate how they employed quality and marketing tools.
Basically descriptive in approach, the research was designed to provide a clear
picture of port marketing, management and quality systems. It was also conceived as
an exploratory report, using a series of open questions to obtain marketing
management opinions on systems to be used in the future and the risks they entailed.
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 69

It is also a co-relational study employing a hypothetical, deductive methodology

seeking to identify relations between classification and survey variables. The
Principal Component Analysis was used to classify ports into groups with similar
characteristics concerning the variables analysed with a view to classifying and
comparing them. Our idea was that this transversal study could be followed up by
similar reports in the future to analyse the way the main indicators studied here have
developed.
The principal justification for the study is the scarcity of similar initiatives in the
literature on commercial ports. Studies of ports have generally concentrated on
measuring port performance and productivity (see [4, 5] and for Spanish ports [6]),
and on specific investigations into the shipper’s needs, and port and transport
selection criteria (see, for example, [7, p. 48]). Among the general studies looking
at management and strategy in port areas are Ojala [8] for Finnish ports (the article
is a theoretical review of the concepts of port management and strategy, with prac-
tical applications focused on Finland’s ports), the study published by the American
Port Authority Association [9, pp. 171–193]1, or the one produced by the
International Association of Ports [10]. Empirical studies on port marketing include
one by Denis [11], which gathers data on the development of the commercial area at
some French ports (Le Havre, Marseilles, Dunkirk, Nantes, Bourdeaux and Rouen)
through structured interviews with top commercial area management. However, as
this is really a qualitative review limited to a few ports, we believe our study fills
an important gap in the studies on commercial ports throughout the world.

3. Hypothesis
The activities of businesses in developed countries looking for new manufacturing
zones increase international goods transport requirements. However, as we have
already noted, the more developed countries have hinterlands with more internal
competition due to improvements in transport systems and infrastructures. We pos-
ited the possibility of differences existing in the level of adoption of marketing,
quality and communications strategies between ports in developed countries and
the rest. The first hypothesis to test is:
H1: Marketing, quality and communications systems are more highly developed at
European and North America ports (the more developed countries) than in the rest.
Ports are differentiated by factors such as who has ultimate control, or the role
of the Port Authority in port ownership and activity. Although many authors have
discussed the variety of types of ports (landlord port, tool port or operating port) no
studies indicate any relation between these classifications and management variables.
However, in the described situation of increased competition, the public authorities
are arguing for a greater level of privatization of port services, which may suggest
that private ports or ones with non-national governments are more developed as
regards marketing and quality tools (ports depending on local or regional adminis-
trations may have more business-like management, as such authorities manage fewer
ports). We therefore propose analysing the possible relations between these factors
and marketing activities.
H2: Private ports or ports with local or regional governments have more dev-
eloped marketing, quality and communications activities than ports with national
governments.
70 J. Pando et al.

Another of the trends observed is a movement towards tool port formulas, which
suggests that marketing activities are more highly developed at these ports than at
operating or landlord ports. The hypothesis to test here therefore is:
H3: Marketing, quality and communications are more highly developed at tool ports
than at landlord or operating ports.
Changes in the location of major businesses and the ongoing march of globaliza-
tion lead to growth in the number of transfers on short routes, largely as a result of
the increase in the size of vessels and the centralization of goods at the main ports.
This development also leads to the division of ports into different categories: hub
ports, transoceanic ports, feeder ports and cabotage ports. The greater geographical
scope of the first two may well be thought to have some effect on the development
of marketing tools. This empirical study will therefore explore the possibility of
differences existing between these ports as regards their marketing activities.
H4: Marketing, quality and communications activities are more highly developed at
hub and transoceanic ports than at feeder or cabotage ports.
Many ports are also becoming increasingly specialized, a development that
prompts us to ask whether higher levels of specialization lead to more developed
marketing. We also look at the hypothesis according to which the size of a port
affects marketing activities.
H5: Greater levels of specialization at a port are linked to more developed marketing,
quality and communications systems.
H6: Ports with greater throughput levels have more marketing, quality and
communications resources.
As noted in the introduction, competition at ports is increasing, a development
that is diminishing captive hinterlands. As a result we needed to analyse the relation
between a larger hinterland and more developed marketing systems.
H7: The larger the hinterland, the more developed the marketing, quality and commu-
nications systems.
The above hypotheses are general, as the idea in each one is to analyse the relation
between the variable identified and marketing, quality and communications systems,
i.e. with each variable from the survey concerning these aspects.
The study itself was performed in several stages between March and July 2001
in co-operation with the Port Authority of Bilbao. Two studies were in fact involved,
one for Spanish ports of general interest and another for the main international
ports. We used ordinary post and e-mail, looking at 27 port authorities of general
interest Spanish ports in the first case and the database of the 100 ports with greatest
container throughput in 1999 for the second [12]. All Spanish ports and 45 of the
100 international ports replied. Tables 1 and 2 list the ports taking part in the study
and the main technical data for each one.
Port authorities of general interest ports in Spain are: B. Algeciras,
Barcelona, Bilbao, Tarragona, Valencia, Gijón, Huelva, Cartagena, S. C. Tenerife,
Las Palmas, La Coruña, Baleares, Castellón, Almerı́a-Motril, Ferrol-San
Ciprián, Santander, B. Cadiz, Sevilla, Pasajes, Avilés, Málaga, Vigo, Alicante,
Ceuta, Marı́n-Pontevedra, Vilagarcı́a and Melilla.
Once the surveys had been returned, the variables were coded and the data
gathered using the SPSS 10.0 statistical program for Windows.
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 71

Table 1. Classification of the 45 ports that replied to the survey of the 100 ports in the world
with largest container throughput (1999).
Ranking Port Country

1 Hong Kong Hong Kong

2 Singapore Singapore
3 Kaohsiung Taiwan
4 Rotterdam Holland
9 Hamburg Germany
12 Dubai United Arab Emirates
13 New York/New Jersey USA
16 Tokyo Japan
18 Gioia Tauro Italy
24 Algeciras Spain
25 Laem Chabang Thailand
27 Keelung Taiwan
28 Oakland USA
29 Nagoya Japon
31 Seattle USA
34 Virginia USA
37 Tacoma USA
38 Barcelona Spain
42 Colon Panama
43 Valencia Spain
50 Bangkok Thailand
51 Marsaxlokk Malta
53 Jedddah Saudi Arabia
54 Montreal Canada
56 Sydney Australia
57 Southampton United Kingdom
59 La Spezia Italy
61 Bruges Belgium
62 Savannah USA
63 Haifa Israel
66 Jacksonville USA
69 Dalian China
72 Las Palmas Spain
73 Goteborg Sweden
79 Johore Malaysia
82 Liverpool United Kingdom
83 Mumbai India
87 Thamesport United Kingdom
88 Veracruz Mexico
90 Halifax Canada
91 Dublin Ireland
92 Ashdod Israel
95 Dammam Saudi Arabia
99 Bilbao Spain
100 Callao Peru

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis
4.1.1. Spanish ports The majority of ports in Spain are landlord ports specializing
largely in bulks. Most have hinterlands of less than 500 kilometres.
72 J. Pando et al.

Table 2. Technical data of study.

Study Spanish ports Study world ports

Type of study Quantitative Quantitative

Study technique Postal survey Postal survey
Universe 27 Port Authorities at Port Authorities at the 100 ports
Spanish ports in the world with greatest container
of general interest throughout
Scope Spain The world
Sample method Census The census, with 45 replying out of 100.
Person surveyed Marketing or commercial Marketing or commercial manager
manager
Margin of error – 10.89% with a level
of confidence of 95%1
Date of field work June to August 2001 March to August 2001
Note: 1. Although not planned as a random sample, we note the error as a reference.

Twenty-four of the 27 ports surveyed stated that their management and planning
departments produced formal plans. Planning at these ports mainly focused on
infrastructures (85%) and port services (96%).
Nine of the 27 ports (33%) have an organization encompassing marketing as a
whole: Bilbao, Algeciras, Barcelona, Tarragona, Valencia, Vigo, Ceuta, Cadiz and
Alicante. The port authority coordinates this organisation in Valencia, Cadiz and
Vigo, while coordination is performed jointly at Barcelona, Tarragona, Bilbao and
Alicante.
A commercial department exists in the port authorities at most of the 27 ports
(21 out of 27). The largest percentages of the communications budget are allocated
to public relations (35.6%), press advertising (25.4%) and publications (15.1%).
Twenty-one survey answers identified commercial visits as the essential marketing
tool for a port, with public relations in second place (13 of those polled) and trade
fairs in third place (six of those polled). Most believed that in future all the organ-
izations at a port would have to share responsibility for marketing. They identified
the need for competition and internal co-ordination at a port as the main obstacle
to the future development of marketing.
ISO 9000 (59.3%) is the most frequently implemented quality tool followed by
quality models (ten refer to the EFQM excellence model) and benchmarking.
We crossed the classification variables with the questions asked. Here it was clear
that ranking, location and having a larger hinterland were positive influences on the
use of marketing and communication tools. In this respect, the Mediterranean ports
were more developed than ports in northern and southern Spain.

4.1.2. International ports Twenty-one international ports are what are known as
landlord ports, making the largest group in this category, followed by the group of
14 operating ports. As a result of the types of ports analysed, the majority were hub
and transoceanic ports. Specialization levels are also high, although in this case, and
as a consequence of the database used, such specialization concentrates largely on
container traffic. This can also be seen from the fact that most of the ports studied
had quite extensive hinterlands.
Forty-three of the 45 ports declared that they planned formally; 32 (71.1%)
planned systematically. At the majority of these ports, executive management or
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 73

the planning department were responsible for the planning function. The features
analysed most were infrastructures (86%) and port services (82%), although a high
percentage (73%) also look closely at competition and demand (68%), which points
to greater external orientation than is the case at Spanish ports.
Only 33% of ports polled declared they had an organization responsible for the
common marketing of the port, a figure similar to the one obtained for Spanish
ports. Co-ordination is a joint concern or is performed by the port authority or
similar body.
Seventy-nine per cent of these port authorities have a commercial department.
The largest percentages of the communications budget go to press advertising
(25.3%), publications (21.1%), public relations (19%) and commercial visits (18%).
Forty-nine per cent of survey answers identified commercial visits as an essential
marketing tool for any port, with 32.6% opting for communications and 25.6% for
public relations. According to 51.3% of the answers, port authorities should take the
lead as regards the modes of organizing marketing in the future, 20.5% feel it should
be a joint process and 7.7% believe this should be an individual concern. At Spanish
ports, opinion is heavily weighted in favour of joint management, while at inter-
national ports the majority opinion focuses on the port authority as the leader of
such organization.
Commercial managers at Spanish and international ports considered that internal
competition and internal co-ordination at the port were the main problems for the
development of marketing in the future. These managers think that unit of action of
all the companies within a port and a smaller positioning to the internal competence
favours the development of marketing in a commercial port.
At international ports ISO 9000 certification was the most implemented
quality tool (47.6%) followed by benchmarking (40.5%) and process analysis of
re-engineering (33.3%).
Table 3 shows that 46.2% of the European or North American ports have a
common organization of the marketing of the port, whereas in the rest of ports
only 16.7%. Hypothesis test shows this difference as significant. Therefore we
confirmed H1 for the existence of common port marketing.
We also confirmed H2 in the sense that ports with national governments analyse
the competition less and use client databases less than ports with other kinds of
governing regimes. Table 4 shows that analysis of the competition is 55% in the
first and 90.9% in the latter. On the other hand, only 38.1% use data bases of clients
in the first while in the latter it is 72.7% (see table 5).

Table 3. Development of countries and existence of common port marketing.

Existence of common port marketing
No Yes Total

Europe and North America 14 12 26

53.8% 46.2% 100.0%
Asia, Oceania, and Central and South America 15 3 18
83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Total 29 15 44
65.9% 34.1% 100.0%
74 J. Pando et al.

Table 4. Type of government * competence analysis.

Competence analysis
No Yes Total

National government 9 11 20
45.0% 55.0% 100.0%
Others 2 20 22
9.1% 90.9% 100.0%
Total 11 31 42
26.2% 73.8% 100.0%

Table 5. Type of government * use client databases.

Use client databases
No Yes Total

National government 13 8 21
61.9% 38.1% 100.0%
Others 6 16 22
27.3% 72.7% 100.0%
Total 19 24 43
44.2% 55.8% 100.0%

Table 6. Specialization * SWOT analysis use.

SWOT analysis use
No Yes Total

One good less than 50% 10 8 18

55.6% 44.4% 100.0%
One good more than 50% 5 16 21
23.8% 76.2% 100.0%
Total 15 24 39
38.5% 61.5% 100.0%

Lack of data prevented us from contrasting hypotheses H3 and H4. We were able
to confirm H5 only for the use of SWOT analysis in management. Table 6 indicates
the differences between ports more specialized in goods and those less specialized.
These differences are significant in hypothesis test.
Although lack of data prevented us from confirming H6, certain differences are
observable that may be analysed in future research.
Finally, the relation between classification variables and the questions asked
showed that as hinterlands become larger, analysis of political factors and demand
increases, as does the use of sector journals and intranet systems. Commercial man-
agers at ports with larger hinterlands defend a greater role for communication in
marketing. Data showing the relation between hinterland and factors described can
be seen in the following tables (tables 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 75

Table 7. Hinterland * analysis of political factors.

Analysis of political factors
No Yes Total

Less than 500 km 17 3 20

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
More than 500 km 11 12 23
47.8% 52.2% 100.0%
Total 28 15 43
65.1% 34.9% 100.0%

Table 8. Hinterland * demand analysis.

Demand analysis
No Yes Total

Less than 500 km 10 10 20

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
More than 500 km 4 19 23
17.4% 82.6% 100.0%
Total 14 29 43
32.6% 67.4% 100.0%

Table 9. Hinterland * use of sector journals.

Use of sector journals
No Yes Total

Less than 500 km 15 5 20

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
More than 500 km 7 15 22
31.8% 68.2% 100.0%
Total 22 20 42
52.4% 47.6% 100.0%

Table 10. Hinterland * intranet systems.

Intranet systems
No Yes Total

Less than 500 km 13 7 20

65.0% 35.0% 100.0%
More than 500 km 7 14 21
33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
Total 20 21 41
48.8% 51.2% 100.0%
76 J. Pando et al.

Table 11. Hinterland * role for communication in marketing.

Role for communication in marketing
No Yes Total

Less than 500 km 17 3 20

85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
More than 500 km 12 10 22
54.5% 45.5% 100.0%
Total 29 13 42
69.0% 31.0% 100.0%

Table 12. Spanish ports.

1 Valencia 15 Las Palmas
2 Vilagarcia 16 Melilla
3 Huelva 17 Almeria Motril
4 Aviles 18 Ferrol-San Ciprian
5 Gijon 19 Vigo
6 Castellon 20 A Coruna
7 Tarragona 21 Bilbao
8 Tenerife 22 Cartagena
9 Pasajes 23 Ceuta
10 Barcelona 24 Sevilla
11 Marin 25 Balaeres
12 Cadiz 26 Malaga
13 Algeciras 27 Alicante
14 Santander

Of ports with greater hinterland, 52.2% analyse the political factors while it is
only 15% in the rest of the ports.
With respect to the demand analysis, we can also see that in ports of greater
hinterland the proportion of those that take care of this factor is considerably
greater.
Only 25% of ports of smaller hinterland uses sectorial journals, while this
percentage is 68.2% in ports of greater hinterland.
In the following table we can also see, that the intranet is a tool much more used
at ports with greater hinterland.
Finally, a greater number of managers at commercial ports port with greater
hinterland grant an important role to the communication in marketing that a
commercial port must develop.
Therefore we confirm H7 since, the bigger the hinterland, the greater the use made
of marketing and communication tools.

4.2. Multivariant analysis for comparing ports

4.2.1. Groups of ports From the data obtained in the study we grouped ports with
similar features together. This analysis enables ports to study their position through
the series of factors studied and evaluated by their own management. This approach
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 77

may also help to identify ports with similar characteristics for joint benchmarking
projects.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to create a summary set of vari-
ables along a series of axes, thereby facilitating global comparison of the ports
in question. The advantage over other techniques such as cluster analysis is that it
allows us to classify ports and compare them on the basis of the axes created
[13, pp. 171–177).
The ports chosen are given at the beginning of the paper. For Spain we have the
27 port authorities for general interest ports and we analyse 34 of the 100 largest
international container ports.

4.2.2. Spanish ports Table 12 shows the number assigned to the 27 port authorities
at general interest ports. Nine variables were selected:
(1) general ranking
(2) % containers
(3) % general merchandise
(4) % liquid bulk
(5) % solid bulk
(6) specialization
(7) hinterland
(8) number of people in commercial department
(9) people working in organization
Table 13 shows the average values and typical deviation of the variables used for
the analysis. It can be highlighted that the number of people in the commercial
department is low. The number of people who work in a common organization of
port marketing is also low. In addition, in this last variable, variance is high because
there are different types of organizations and some of recent creation.
Table 14 shows what percentage of information for each variable is gathered for
the analysis. The percentage is high, particularly in the ranking and merchandise
proportion variables. The lowest percentage is referred to specialization and hinter-
land, although its value is acceptable. As we can observe, for all the variables the
value is greater than 0.5.
Table 15 shows the percentage of variance explained for each axis or component,
and the accumulated percentage of that variance. Taking the first three variables,

Table 13. Descriptive statistics.

Media Typical deviation N of analysis

% containers 15.2296 17.48418 27

% general merchandise 22.2144 16.87401 27
% liquid bulk 28.6093 25.88907 27
% solid bulk 35.3111 25.64233 27
ESPE2 1.63 0.492 27
HINTER2 1.81 0.622 27
Number of people in commercial department 244 1,928 27
People working in organization 1,4815 3,26250 27
78 J. Pando et al.

Table 14. Common points.

Initial Extraction

Ranking general 1.000 0.861

% containers 1.000 0.803
% general merchandise 1.000 0.790
% liquid bulk 1.000 0.854
% solid bulk 1,000 0.815
ESPE2 1,000 0.584
HINTER2 1,000 0.653
Number of people in commercial department 1,000 0.715
People working in organization 1,000 0.744
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.

75.7% of total variance is explained. We are going to make the analysis with these
three factors, selecting those with selfvalue greater than one.
The rotated component matrix (table 16) enables us to interpret the components
in question using the correlation with the initial variables (tables 17 and 18).
The first component relates positively to ranking, with the number of people in
the commercial department and the percentage of liquid bulk and negatively to the
percentage of general merchandise. We could call this axis the ‘size factor’.
The second component relates positively to the percentage of containers and
negatively to the percentage of solid bulk and specialization. We might call this
axis the ‘specialization factor’. Specialization at Spanish ports is more related to
solid bulk than containers, which in general are non-predominating traffic.
The last component, relating positively to hinterland (its main relation) may be
termed the ‘hinterland factor’.
We show the first two axes in the first map (figure 1), which has four groups
of ports. One includes the ports of Algeciras (13), Barcelona (10), Las Palmas (15),
Tenerife (8) and Valencia (1), as large ports with low specialization levels and a large
percentage of containers.
A second group of ports comprises Bilbao (21), Castellón (6), Tarragona (7),
Cartagena (22), Huelva (3), La Coruña (20) and Gijón (5), all relatively large
ports specializing more in solid bulk than in containers.
Another group is formed by the ports of Almeria-Motril (17), Ferrol-San Ciprian
(18), Santander (14), Seville (24), Avilés (4), Pasajes (9) and Málaga (26), all medium
or small ports specializing in solid bulk.
The fourth group of ports comprises Ceuta (23), Baleares (25), Vigo (19), Cadiz
(12), Vilagarcı́a (2), Alicante (27), Marı́n (11) and Melilla (16), mostly small
ports, but less specialized than the previous ones and with a greater proportion of
containers.
The second map (figure 2) shows the first axis or component (already analysed)
and the third; the third component refers to the hinterland of ports as indicated.
Once again the ports of Algeciras (13), Barcelona (10) and Valencia (1) appear in
positions close to each other, as ports with large hinterlands. The ports of Tenerife
(8) and Las Palmas (15) were displaced to the left because of their smaller hinter-
lands. The ports of Bilbao (21), Castellón (6), Tarragona (7), Cartagena (22), Huelva
(3), La Coruña (20) and Gijón (5) are once again positioned close together with
smaller hinterlands. The remaining ports are more scattered, making up two groups.
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports
Table 15. Total variance explained.
Sums of saturations Sums of saturations
Initial autovalues to extraction squared to rotation squared
Component Total % of variance accumulated % Total % of variance accumulated % Total % of variance accumulated %

1 3,133 34.807 34.807 3,133 34.807 34.807 2,944 32.717 32,717

2 2,336 25.960 60.766 2,336 25.960 60.766 2,350 26.111 58,827
3 1,351 15.009 75.776 1,351 15.009 75.776 1,525 16.949 75,776
4 695 7.724 83.500
5 608 6.750 90.250
6 413 4.594 94.844
7 331 3.676 98.520
8 117 1.305 99.826
9 1,567E 02 0.174 100.000
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.

79
80 J. Pando et al.
2.0
13
1.5 7
322 21
6 10
20
1.0
5

0.5
1 8
15
factor 1

0.0 17 18
24
14
23
25
-0.5 4
26 9 19
12
-1.0 2
27

-1.5 11
16

-2.0
-2 -1 0 1 2

factor 2

Figure 1. Differentiated groups to be found at ports in Spain (factors 1 and 2).

2.0
13
1.5 7
3 22 21
6 10
20
1.0
5

0.5
8 1
15
factor 1

0.0 18 17
24
14
23 25
-0.5 4
9 19 12
26
-1.0 2
27

-1.5 11
16

-2.0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3

factor 3

Figure 2. Differentiated groups to be found at ports in Spain (factors 1 and 3).

 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 81

Table 16. Rotated components matrix.

Component
1 2 3

Ranking general 0.899 0.102 0.203

% general merchandise 0.806 0.365 80.699E-02
Number of people in commercial department 0.782 0.216 0.238
% liquid bulk 0.753 4.008E-02 0.534
% solid bulk 0.292 0.821 0.237
% containers 2.063E-02 0.819 0.365
ESPE2 0.207 0.735 3.658E-02
HINTER2 5.777E-02 3.256E-02 0.806
People working in organization 419 522 544
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax Standardization with
Kaiser.
a
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Table 17. Coefficient matrix for calculating scores in components.

Components
1 2 3

Ranking general 0.303 0.018 0.115

% containers 0.034 0.326 0.153
% general merchandise 0.295 0.191 0.028
% liquid bulk 0.266 0.049 0.384
% solid bulk 0.068 0.388 0.266
ESPE2 0.103 0.346 0.111
HINTER2 0.010 0.114 0.559
Number of people in commercial department 0.257 0.035 0.127
People working in organization 0.114 0.153 0.306
Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax Standardisation with
Kaiser. Component scores.

Table 18. Descriptive statistics.

Mean Typical deviation N of analysis

Ranking in containers 49.18 30.423 34

% containers 49.75 23.50 34
ESPEC2 1.21 0.479 34
HINTER2 2.35 0.812 34
People working in organization 4.88 16.145 34
Number of people in commercial department 9.09 20.690 34

One group has medium to medium-large hinterlands, such as the ports of

Almeria-Motril (17), Santander (14), Seville (24), Avilés (4), Málaga (26), Pasajes
(9), Vigo (19), Cadiz (12), Alicante (27) and Marı́n (11); the other group has small
hinterlands and includes the ports of Melilla (16), Vilagarcı́a (2), Ceuta (23), Baleares
(25), Ferrol-San Ciprian (18), Las Palmas (15) and Tenerife (8).
82 J. Pando et al.

Table 19. Common points.

Initial Extraction

Ranking in containers 1.000 0.769

% containers 1.000 0.725
ESPEC2 1.000 0.506
HINTER2 1.000 0.745
People working in organization 1.000 0.540
Number of people in commercial department 1.000 0.823
Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

4.2.3. International ports The same analysis was performed for the international
ports that replied to our survey. We received a response from 45 of the 100 largest
ports in terms of container throughput. Of these we have 34 complete survey returns
for the variables used. In this case the variables are ranking in containers (a variable
taken to establish the population), the percentage of containers, specialization,
hinterland, the people working in the joint marketing organization and the people
working in the Port Authority commercial department. Due to heterogeneity of the
analyzed ports, variance of these two last variables are high.
Table 19 shows what percentage of the information for each variable is gathered
by the analysis. This percentage is high for the number of people in commercial
department, ranking, percentage of containers and hinterland variables, with a lower
score for the specialization and people working in organization variables. In all cases
the value is greater than 0.5.
The percentage of variance explained by the first three axes or components is
26.98%, 22.28% and 19.20% respectively (see table 20). The accumulated percentage
of the variance taking the first three variables is 68.475% of total variance. For the
later analysis we selected previously, these three first components using the criterion
of selfvalue greater than 1.
As we have pointed out, the rotated component matrix (table 21) permits an
interpretation of these components based on the correlation with the initial variables
(table 22). The first component relates negatively to ranking and positively to the
percentage of containers. The two variables do not move in the same direction, i.e.
larger ports combine containers with other kinds of throughput to a greater extent
than smaller ports (in reference to those 100), where their proportion of container
traffic is higher. We may also call this axis the ‘orientation towards container factor’.
The second axis relates positively to the number of people working in common
port marketing organization and negatively to specialization. We relate this axis to
the ‘marketing vs specialization factor’. The third axis relates positively to the hinter-
land and negatively to the number of people working in the commercial department.
We need to remember that at many ports the number of people in Port Authority
commercial departments is explained by the lack of a single, common port marketing
organization. This axis is the ‘hinterland factor’.
With regard to the first factor, a certain continuity is observable in the position
the ports occupy. However, as the chart in figure 3 shows, we distinguished three
groups of ports, A, B and C. Group A includes the ports of Oakland (6), Gioia
Tauro (9), Tokyo (33), Southampton (39), Hong Kong (3), Singapore (13), Seattle
(25), Dalian (7), Hamburg (26), Dubai (42) and Tacoma (11). These ports are
most oriented towards container throughput in their general services strategy.
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 83

2.0
6
9 33
38
1.5
A
3 13 37 42
1.0 26
25
11
0.5 232
31
101
factor 1

40
12
0.0 16 21 B

18 41
-0.5 22
19 45 14
34
32
-1.0 15 4
30 8
C
20
-1.5
43
-2.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

factor 2

Figure 3. Differentiated groups to be found at ports in the world (factors 1 and 2).

Gioia Tauro (Italy), Tokyo (Japan), Oakland (US), Bangkok (Thailand) and Laem
Chabang (Thailand) are examples of ports where containers account for between
90% and 100% of their traffic.
Group B includes the ports of Valencia (2), Rotterdam (23), Colon (40), New
York/New Jersey (10), Algeciras (31), Jacksonville (12), La Spezia (16) and Sydney
(21). Some of these ports, such as Rotterdam, New York/New Jersey and Algeciras,
are among the leading world ports in containers. However, as they are in zones with
major hinterlands, they receive high levels of goods traffic generated by the zones.
So their percentages of containers are high but do not predominate within total
throughput levels.
Finally, group C includes the ports of Montreal (18), Savannah (41), Bruges (22),
Gotenburg (14), Haifa (19), Las Palmas (45), Veracruz (34), Callao (32), Halifax (4),
Mumbai (8), Johore (30), Ashdod (20), Liverpool (15) and Bilbao (43). Group C
ports do not focus activity on containers and usually have more general traffic, often
coming from the demand generated by their nearest hinterland.
As regards the second factor, the majority of ports are grouped around average
values, in particular the ports of Montreal (18) and Savannah (41) due, in their view,
to their common port marketing organizations, where a lot more people work than
is the case at other ports.
For the third factor, the port of Dubai (42) is different from the rest. One reason
is the high number of people (120) working in the commercial department in
comparison to other ports. Even so the number is high precisely because of the
lack of a common marketing organization at the port.
 84
Table 20. Total variance explained.
Initial autovalues Sums of saturations to extraction squared Sums of saturations to rotation squared
Component Total % of variance accumulated % Total % of variance accumulated % Total % of variance accumulated %

J. Pando et al.
1 1.619 26.984 26.984 1.619 26.984 26.984 1.578 26.295 26.295
2 1.337 22.285 49.270 1.337 22.285 49.270 1.277 21.282 47.577
3 1.152 19.205 68.475 1.152 19.205 68.475 1.254 20.898 68.475
4 0.869 14.488 82.963
5 0.604 10.064 93.027
6 0.418 6.973 100.000
Extraction method: Principal component analysis.
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 85

Table 21. Rotated component matrix.

Components
1 2 3

Ranking in containers 0.874 2.750E-02 6.299E-02

% containers 0.850 3.654E-02 4.342E-02
People working in organization 0.134 0.721 4.470E-02
ESPEC2 0.119 0.698 6.238E-02
Number of people in commercial department 0.151 0.259 0.856
HINTER2 0.192 0.447 0.713
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax Standardization with
Kaiser.
a Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

Table 22. Coefficient matrix for calculating component scores.

Components
1 2 3

Ranking in containers 0.559 0.071 0.035

% containers 0.541 0.025 0.047
ESPEC2 0.033 0.550 0.088
HINTER2 0.108 0.302 0.549
People working in organization 0.129 0.577 0.008
Number of people in commercial department 0.067 0.245 0.699
Extraction method: Principal xomponent Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax Standardization with
Kaiser. Component scores.

5. Conclusions
As we confirmed through our first hypothesis, a greater percentage of ports in
European and North American countries have a common marketing organization.
Spanish ports also tend to analyse the competition and use the client databases less
than ports with other kinds of governing systems. Greater specialization has only
been linked to a greater use of SWOT analysis in management. We also found that
the larger the hinterland, the greater the use made of marketing and communication
tools.
The fact that there is a direct relationship between hinterland size and the use of
marketing tools confirms the idea that marketing appears when competition
increases, which is what happens when the hinterland grows. To the extent that
the hinterland of most ports is increasing, competition is also on the increase,
which will in turn lead to an increase in marketing activities.
The conclusions of the empirical study suggest that joint marketing at commercial
ports is still relatively undeveloped, as are quality systems based on the co-ordination
of all the firms involved. Nevertheless, marketing executive opinion does defend
these factors as decisive for the future of commercial ports.
The last part of the paper posits a working methodology for ports that we con-
sider particularly useful for establishing the set of ports similar to a particular port
studied, thereby facilitating subsequent monitoring, research and benchmarking
processes. The specific characteristics of competition between commercial ports
86 J. Pando et al.

2.0
6
9 33
38
1.5
3 13
42 37
1.0 26
25
11
0.5 2
23
31 10 1
factor 1

40
12
0.0 16 21

41 18
-0.5 22
4519 14
3234
-1.0 4 15
30 8
20
-1.5
43
-2.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

factor 3
Figure 4. Differentiated groups to be found at ports in the world (factors 1 and 3).

makes benchmarking practices suitable and applicable, as ports in remote areas can
be found that do not entail mutual competition for any throughput. A commercial
port’s identification of the set of ports with a similar multivariable profile should
provide the basis for the development of business co-operation.

Note
1. For this study, 66 ports in the western hemisphere were consulted (North and
South Atlantic, Gulf, North and South Pacific, Great Lakes, Canada and Latin
America) to establish the most important external strategic keys facing ports.

References
1. Carlier, M., 2003, El transporte marı´timo en Europa (Melilla XXI Semana de Estudios
del Mar, September).
2. Puertos del Estado, 2002, Boletı´n de información mensual, May, 95, 6.
3. Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL), 2000, Shipping Statistics
Yearbook 2000 (Bremen: ISL).
4. De Monie, G., 1988, Medición y evaluación del rendimiento y de la productividad de los
puertos (New York: Monografı́as de la UNCTAD sobre gestión de puertos, no. 6).
5. Casas, F., 1995, Eficacia portuaria y transporte marı́timo. Información Comercial
Española. Boletı´n Económico, 2460–2461, 65–71.
6. De Rus, G., Trujillo, L., Tovar, B., Gonzalez, M. and Roman, C., 1995, La compe-
titividad de los puertos españoles (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria University, September).
 Marketing management at the world’s major ports 87

7. Mester, B., 1991, Marketing from the Port’s Point of View (Bremen: Port Management
Textbook, vol. 3, Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics).
8. Ojala, L., 1991, Strategic Management of Port Operations (Turku: Center for Maritime
Studies University).
9. Enriquez Agos, F., 1993, El plan estrate´gico. Un instrumento para la planificación
portuaria (Valencia: Instituto Portuario de Estudios y Cooperación, Autoridad
Portuaria de Valencia).
10. International Association of Ports and Harbors, 1991, Ports’ Perception Towards
Future (España, January, 1991, 17 Biennial Conference of the International Association
of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), May).
11. Denis, F., 1990, Le marketing portuaire (Paris: Universite de Paris I, Pantheon-
Sorbonne).
12. Puertos Delestado, 2000, Boletı́n de Información Mensual, August–September, 77,
40–41.
13. Tongzon, J. L., 1995, Systematizing international benchmarking for ports. Maritime
Policy and Management, 22(2), 171–177.