86874756

7/27/2019 86874756

1/20

L TA 3 - 4 / 1 2 p. 1 1 - 2 9

UOLEVI LEHTINEN and PASI MKINEN

Development possibilities of themajor marketing approaches

ABSTRACTgeneral purpose of this article is to develop marketing theory and practice. The objective of the

cle is to examine the development possibilit ies of marketing theory and practice by improving thety and use of major approaches of marketing i.e. mix marketing and relationship marketing. In

context, there principally are three different oppo rtunities to develop m arketing the ory and practice:development of marketing m ix, development of relationship marketing and combining these major

approaches. As we have seen many researchers have developed marketing mix approachesmore parameters. The risk of this - like adding more relationships - is that the approaches

become too complicated, more elements can be incorporated and controllability can suffer. Theof relationship marketing has also its challenges especially because relationship market-

still is a strongly developing area in marketing. Wh en combining these major approaches manyof marketing mix approach can be replaced w ith the help of relationship marketing ap-

and vice versa. A combining solution could be of the type of Lehtinen's RELMIX-mo del wherecombined and they are supporting each other. The results of all seve n empirical

seemed to prove that there are evident caps between the practice and separate theories ofmix and relationship marketing. They also seemed to confirm the vision of Lehtinen's studies

a lot of parallel use of both approaches, a significant use of approaches co mbined to samethe same time a firm need for more combining the marketing approaches, which is real-

practice in various ways.

UOLEVI LEHTINEN emeritus professori e-mail: uolevi. leht [email protected] i 1 1

7/27/2019 86874756

2/20

LTA 3-4/12 U . L E H T I N E N A N D P. M K I N E N

1 . BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES1 . 1 . BackgroundMarketing mix approach (sometimes identified with transaction approach or parameter approand relationship marketing (management) approach are generally considered as the majorproaches of marketing theory and practice. Many researchers claim that a paradigm shift iscurring from mix marketing toward relationship marketing (see e.g. Crnroos 1994). For a lotime m arketing has been moving to an interactive style wh ich encourages a dialogue betwthe deliverer and the customer (see already Lehtinen 1 983). The relationship approach to maing challenges many traditional cornerstones of marketing, such as the definition of markevariables, and the marketing department as a useful organizational solution.

However, some researchers (e.g. Lehtinen 1995 and M ller and H alinen 2000) have, argthat there is not yet any well developed theory of relationship marketing. The situation isabout the same. There is a changing variety of partial descriptions and theories focusing oncontent of the phenomena researchers have labelled relationship marketing (Payne 2006).

According to Lehtinen (2007) products must in any case be designed, priced, distribucomm unicated and sold, the staff must be chosen, trained and rewarded, the physical surroings must be looked after and the processes must be planned and implemented (7 Ps by Boand Bitner 1981 ). This means that mix approach can not disappear.

Relationship marketing and traditional mix marketing are not mutually exclusive and are not in unsolvable conflict with each other. More reasons for combining are presentedLehtinen (2011). Actually, the two major approaches have never been fully separated. Bothproaches have some strengths and weaknesses. Lehtinen (e.g. 2007 and 2011) suggest thatmany main weaknesses of parameter marketing can be replaced with the help of relationmarketing and parameter marketing is helpful as an operational level for the relationship maing. . .1.2. The objectives of the articleBoth the traditional mix approach and relationship approach have remained at the very centemarketing theory and practice: Therefore, we naturally start believing in the vitality of these jor marketing approaches, though approaches can be changed and developed. Naturally thare other approaches, too . (see e.g. Sheth, Gardner and Carrett 1 988)

The general purpose of this paper is to examine the development possibilities of marke

7/27/2019 86874756

3/20

DEVELO PMEN T POSSIB IL IT IES OF THE MA JOR M AR KE TIN G APPROACHES

1 . What are the development possibilities of marketing mix approach?2. What are the development possibilities of relationship marketing approach?3. W hat are the development possibilities of the new m arketing approach through com bin-

ing mix marketing and relationship marketing approaches?We can already assume that all these possibilities of development must be utilized to achieve

be only some development possibilities.

2 . DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES OF MIX MARKETING APPROACHESMarketing mix approaches and their challenges

Acc ording to the general belief, C ulliton (1948) was the first to w rite about the elements ofhich were 1 2. G radually mix became settled to the 4 Ps (McCarthy 1 960). The strength ofdeci-

2001 ). However, it is probable that business executives do not really view all 4 Ps as be-

In its marketing plan a company can define its own essentials in addition the product, price,

ameters of a firm should also be based on e.g. company, line of business and com petitive situ-Therefore, we cannot expect to find a generally optimal mix for any company (cf. Baker 1993).

Acc ording to Grnroos (1994) the 4 Ps may have been helpful from a management po int of

in com pet ition has become m ore organize d. Grnroos (1 994), however, said that 4 Ps are never

7/27/2019 86874756

4/20

L T A 3 - 4 / 1 2 U . L EH r iN E N A N D P. M K I N E N

to mix models. According to many researches (see e.g. Pattersson and Ward 2000, Constantini2005, M ller 200 6, Fakeideas 2008) mix m arketing have some comm on features: it is void of theoretical con tent; it works prim arily as a simp listic device focusing the

tention of management customer is seen as passive and customer con tact is moderate it does not mention relationship bu ilding , which has become a major marketing foc

or the experiences of the consumers produ ct is stated in the singular but most companies do not sell a product in isola t

M arketers sell produc t lines or brands, all interconnected in the mind of the consum the con cep tualiza tion o f the mix implies that marketers are the central element. But

is not the case. M arketing is meant to be 'customer-focused management' it does not take into conside ration the unique elements of services marketing short time-scale focus on a singe sale orienta tion on product and its features tend to be function oriented and output oriented quality is primarily the concern of production it mainly deal with the internal environment.Some of the weaknesses of the 4 Ps are domain specific: ignoring human factor, lack

strategic dimensions, offensive orientation and lack of interactivity. Two weaknesses, howevseem to be common. The approaches have internal orientation and there is lack of personalit ion. It does not take into account the interactions or relationships especially between the ctomer and seller. Its basic nature is mass marketing, not personalization (Constantinides 20Lehtinen 2008); It is also difficult to imaginate that any marketer would intentionally try to seeach customer only once (M ller 2006).

Relationship marketing supporters have been very critical as to the academic and practivalue of the 4 P "paradigm". Actually all authors reviewed by Constantinides (2006) propose nconceptual basis where interaction and com mu nication are central.2.2. The development of mix marketingEven with its subparameters 4 Ps have, however, been judged too simple for the realities of mketing. In order to deve lop m ix researchers have presented varying lists in wh ich the number aor type of marketing mix parameters are different.

7/27/2019 86874756

5/20

DEVELO PMEN T POSSIB IL IT IES OF THE MAJ OR M AR KE TING APPROACHES

(1981 ), however, suggested three extra elements to 4 P mix.

ng of the 4 Ps in the way they appropriately relate to both customer and exchange interaction.

ncluded in Constantinides (2006).Kotier (1990) proposed a new view of organisational performance and success based on

elationships, whereby the marketing mix approach is not replaced, but is instead repositioneds the toolbox for understanding all the significant players in a company's environm ent. He out-

lined the importance of the relationship approach to stakeholders.Lehtinen presented in his lecture notes since 1988 and Lehtinen and Jrvelin articles (1994

and b) a parameter list which includes, besides the aforementioned 7 Ps, the following param-ters/parameter groups: cooperation agreements, networks, strategic alliances, positioning, mar-

ket portfolio, counter purchases, supporting and aiding services, company image, green param-ters, marketing information system, and the interrelationships of parameters (e.g. quality/price,

product attributes/advertising).One creative solution in developing marketing mix and its parameters is the adding ofcompany-specific (unique, original) elements (lecture notes in 1985 and 1994 a by Lehtinen).Com pany-spec ific parameters often strengthen the existence of relationships and may solve manyof the problems concerning mix marketing (Lehtinen and Niinimki 2006). This kind of originalelements can be based on company's unique location, person, new business idea, some environ-mental challenges etc. Company-specific elements can create long term customer value andpromote long term customer relations. These elements can also promote repeat purchases andmoderate customer contacts or promote customer quality. Often the adding of parameters meansthe widening of mix to the direction of relationships marketing.

Internet gives somehow new marketing elements which have close analogs in the offlineworld, and yet from another perspective they are revolutionary and worthy of a new characteriza-tion into the e-marketing mix (Kalyanam and Mclntyre 2002). Kambil and Nunes (2000) haveproposed to the marketing of music new important online marketing elements which are com-munity bu ilding, original event programming, convenience and connectivity. There are differencesbetween the physical marketing and the online marketing, but still online marketing need market-ing mix parameters.

7/27/2019 86874756

6/20


TABLE7. Strengths and weaknesses of the 4 Ps an d 7 Fs

Strenghts

Weaknesses

7 PsMore comprehensiveMore detailedBroader perspectiveIncludes participants/people, physical evidenceand processesReferring to relationshipand servicesMore complicatedAd ditional elements arerelated to 4 PsControllability of thethree new elements

( cf. Mller 2006, Goi 2009)4 PsSimple and understandableEasy to memorizeGood pedagogic toolUseful conceptual frameworkAbility to adapt to various problemsMore prescriptive

Too simpleLacking participants, physicalevidence and processesStatic nature

The general problems of the widening mix are especially seen in the weaknesses of 7 PThe examination can become too complicated, controllability can suffer and even needless ements can be incorpo rated. In any case, add itional parameters are not easily com parable to origina l logic of 4 Ps.

16

3. DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES OF RELATIONSHIPMARKETING APPROACHES

3 . 1 . Relationship marketing approaches and their challengesThe term relationship marketing and its basic logic were launched by Leonard Berry and BarbaJackson in 1983. It was loosely based on in the earlier works of Levitt (1960), Bagozzi (1971978), Mancneil (1978), Arndt (1979), Day and Wensley (1983) and Levitt (1983) who emphsized the importance of a consumer centric focus to marketing practices and the fact tbat lonterm buyer- seller relationships are critical for firm longevity. It emphasizes the importancecustomer service and quality and developing a series of parameters with consumers (Levitt 198

Cummesson (1997) offered a 30 relationships a pproach. FHs approach defined marketingrelationships, networks and interactions. He does not see tbat relationship marketing and marking mix are mutually exclusive, but they support each other.The concept relationship marketing was strongly influenced by reengineering theory, wh i

7/27/2019 86874756

7/20

7/27/2019 86874756

8/20


customer experience at each touch-point where the customer and supplier interact (the muchannel integration process). There could also be other processes based on company's ostrengths and interest.

The nature and content of all processes.rnay vary between products, companies, linesbusiness and situations. Some other process (or operations or activity) may sometimes becoso vital that the company wishes to develop it alongside the basic processes. (Lehtinen 2008

Because the processes of relationship management developed by Payne (2006) are not wknown they are here described in principal as the main elements of relationship managemand in the connection of mix parameters so that the approaches are linked also in this resp(see.more Payne 2006 and 200 8). :3.2.1 . Strategy development process and marketing mix parametersIn relationship marketing, its own strategy development strategies are moving towards relationsstrategies (Rust and Thompson 2006). This approach has partly replaced the mix marketing aproach ideas where marketing strategies based on short term operations stressing sales and pmotions. Trad itionally relationship marketing strategies pointed out lon g term customer value along term customer relationships instead marketing mix based strategies pointed sales and promtions. ' . . .

Strategy developm ent process addresses wha t company wants to achieve, wh o are the ctomers and how should they be segmented. In strategy development process, determining business strategy and finally customer strategy is essential (Payne 2006). Following ideas of trelationship approach , company takes into account wha t kind o f value is provided for the custoers, what are possible channels and methods of interacting with the customers, how to colland use customer information and finally how to measure the performance assessment.

But marketing strategy needs to be linked to marketing mix parameters. By creating marketing strategy company still needs decide product strategy, pricing strategy, distributstrategy and communication strategy. For example, without product development or pricing itstill impossible to create value for the customers and make customer strategy. The CRM stratedevelopment process and strategy behind mix marketing approach are not separate even ittheory it sometimes seems to be so. .

3 . 2 . 2 . T h e v a l u e c r e a t i o n p r o c e s s a n d m a r k e t i n g m i x p a r a m e t e r s"The value creation process consist of three key elements: determining what value the compa

7/27/2019 86874756

9/20

D E V E L O P M E N T P O S S IB I L IT I E S O E - T H E M A J O R M A R K E T I N G A P P R O A C H E S

Value creation is two way process. An important question is what company receives fromits customers? One significant subquestion is how the custorner takes part of product develop-ment and production process. The other subquestions are how the company can utilize the in-

value? 'In value creation process the company has some important product decisions to make. It

has to decide how it full fills customer expectations. And then what are the ways of customerarticipation in product developm ent and improvement? W hat kind of pro duct a customer and aotential new customer need? Is there need for product customazion and how wide is the market

the customer segment? W hat is the qua lity of the product and is there need for service?oes the com petition situation need product differentiation?

The prod uct and its subparameters are not only company's marke ting parameter w hich givespany has also to make price dec isions, such as what is the price customer

in g to pay or are there any extra features customer are w illin g to pay m ore. The company

Without communication parameter customer does not know companies offerings. In com-

ulti-channel integration process takes outputs of the business strategy and value creation proc-

any ensures that the customer experiences are highly positive in those channels. In add ition

nt a single unified view of the customer (Payne 2006). The customer becomes a co-producerprocess.

One important question in value creation process and in multichannel integration process

7/27/2019 86874756

10/20


This process includes all forms communications. Multichannel integration process answtwo question : what are the best ways to get connected w ith the customers and how make the bcustomer experience with affordable cost. (Payne 2008)

Multichannel integration process needs marketing mix channel decisions (sales force, stordirect marketing, internet etc.) and communication decision so that customer knows about dferent channels where product or service is available. Pricing decisions not only depend on cobecause company must take care that the pricing decisions are in the line with the channel tyHere we can clearly see that two major approaches are not separate from each other.3 . 2 . 4 . T h e i n f o r m a t i o n m a n a g e m e n t p r o ce s s a n d m a r k e t i n g m i x p a r a m e t e rInformation management process is impo rtant for the other processes to prom ote customer vaby giving important information concerning customer, environment, competitors etc.

This process is concerned with two key activities: the collection and collation of custominformation from customer contact points and utilization of this information to construct compland current customer profiles. The information can be used to better the quality of the customexperience, thus con tribu ting to the value creation process. The process addresses two key qutions: how should the company organize inform ation on customers and how to use the informtion to improve marketing (Payne 2008). Customer feedback is also used to loop back to marketing process for bettering the marketing process.

The linking of the relationship approach to product planning or product design to a grextent increases the gravity of marketing research and probing as well as test marketing that gether bring about and follow through the whole innovation process. Customizing individproducts, mass customization, and the overall usage of customer oriented high touch prodparameter is important (Lehtinen 2011 ).

If a company has effective information management process, there will be relational marking mix: relational product features and parameters, relational marketing communication paraeters, relational pricing parameters, relational distribution solutions etc.3.2.5. The performance assessment process and market ing mix parametersThe purpose of performance assessment process is to ensure organization's aims. The proceinvolves two key issues. First, how could organization increase profits and shareholder value asecond, how should o rganization set standards, develop metrics, measure its results and impro_ its perfo rmance. (Payne 2006)

7/27/2019 86874756

11/20

D E V E L O P M E N T P O S S I B IL I TI E S OF T HE M A I O R M A R K E T I N G A P P R O A C H ES

thus focusing on bringing value to the customer, and assuring long term performance and service- all aspects of qua lity become major concerns. At the end the basic objectives of these two ap-proaches are not exclusive in the means of performance measurement.

3.3. Development of relationship marketingThere is still a definit iona l debate about relationship ma rketing. Some had argued that it is an oldconcept incorporated with existing schools of marketing thoughts and some see that it overlapswith so many marketing domains (services, channels, global and direct marketing) that it needsno separate identity (Seth and Parvatiyar 2002). Some see that it is its own paradigm (Grnroos1994). However, it is not clear whether relationship marketing is a unified paradigm. Harker(1999) identified at least 26 separate definitions of the relationship marketing. Because of thedebate about the relationship marketing approach it is possible only point some of the develop-ment challenges.

Relationship marketing is both the strategic approach and the practice of building relation-ships with existing customers and customer groups to promote customer loyalty (Payne 2006).That is one reason why it is difficult to build any whole picture of this approach.

One critism c once rning relationship marketing is that it is not suitable for relatively low valuegoods or services, consumer products and generic commodities. To solve those challenges ofrelationsh ip marketing it is possible to use modern inform ation, techno logy for example socialmedia. Social media gives to marketers a way to communicate with customers. It personalizesmarketer's product or service and helps to spread continually the message.

Also one solution to make relationship m arketing more appropriate is mass custom ization.The idea of mass customization is to create value to customers by creating customized productsw ith prod uction cost and price similar to mass-produced products. Mass customization is also away of bringing customers to the part of production process. (Crnroos 2007)

It is naturally possible to try to find a new division of activities which is better or clearer thanany already developed division. However, we believe that Payne's processes could be a suitablepoint of departure for this examinaton.

One new solution in developing relationship marketing is the adding company-specificparameters or processes (Lehtinen and Niinimki 2006). These often strengthen the customerrelationships and solve some of the challenges concerning relationship marketing (see e.g.Lehtinen and Jrvelin 1995 ) These company-specific elements (we could call them also originalor unique elements) can be built based on company's unique features, business models etc.

7/27/2019 86874756

12/20


approach by marketing mix (Lehtinen 2011 ).At the same time, co mbinin g can increase the CRtype use of it-analyses of customer data, wh ich betters the usab ility of the com bined approache

4. COMBINING THE MAJOR APPROACHES OF MARKETINGModern information technology, company-specific parameters and processes as well as macustomization can only partially solve the challenges facing marketing theory and practice.Wstill have some challenges w hich are not easy to solve by keeping relationship and m arketing mapproaches separate (Lehtinen 2011 ).

The distinctions between relationship marketing and marketing mix are not clear, parbecause successful relationship marketing is so complex and also because there are so maproblematic and hard to measure factors that determine what is appropriate to a situation, whethrelationship marketing, marketing mix, or something else Oackson 1985). On the other hanthere are subparameters of communication especially public relations, which are clearly conected with relationship marketing. According to Cummesson (2007) relationship marketirepresent a new marketing theory built upon relationships, interactions and networks. He pointethat mass marketing will continue but be less dominant.Lehtinen (2007, 2008b and 2011) prepresented that relationship marketing and traditionmix marketing are not m utually exclusive and they are not necessarily in conf lict w ith each othActually, the major marketing approaches have never been separate in practice (Lehtinen 2007Lehtinen also considers that e.g. many weaknesses of marketing mix approaches can be replacewith the help of relationship marketing approaches and vice versa when combining approache

Lehtinen (2007) built two phased approaches of combining. The first principal phase combining can be more or less unconscious. Combining basically happens because the majapproaches are never fully separated and, on the other hand, the approaches are often useparallelly that probably leads to some kind of unconscious combining. Unconscious and unsytematic combining and the parallel use of the approaches may be normal ways to the companito proceed when starting their combining work. Therefore Lehtinen sees that they describe t

, first princip al phase of com bin ing . We also believe that relationship m arketing elements that cbe added to the marketing m ix approach w ou ld fac ilitate mix approaches to show the true valof mix or at least takes relational effects into account in mix.

According to Lehtinen (2007) in the second principal phase of combining two major aproaches are combined more or less systematically, equally and consciously into a new sing

7/27/2019 86874756

13/20

D E V E L O P M E N T P O S S I B IL I TI E S O F T H E M A JO R M A R K E T I N G A P P R O A C H E S

etc.) are principally combined systematically, equally and consciously. Lehtinen (2007) did notinclude strategy development process into bis RELMIX model because he tried to create the modelof tactical level. However, he confessed the importance of strategic issues in many situations,even in c omb ined approaches. By com bining tw o approaches we can probably solve many chal-lenges facing both theories. (Lehtinen 2011)

. The RELMIX framework is matrix w ith the elements of the marketing mix approach on theX-axis and the processes of the relationship marketing (CRM) on the y-axis. The combining theelements of relationship and mix marketing approaches happens at the intersections of the pa-rameters and the processes. (Lehtinen 2011 )

Marketing parameters

Q .JE.

Feedbackinformation

ue creation orocessPerformance assesment processinformation management processMulti-ciiannel intearationF ft 1 process

2

7/27/2019 86874756

14/20


Lehtinen (2011 ) has made four empirical studies and utilized three seconclary studies. Tresults of all seven empirical studies seetried to prove that there are evjdent caps between thpractice manifested by empirical results and current theories manifested by separate theories marketing mix and relationship marketing. They also seemed to confirm the vision of his studthat there is a lot of p arallel use of both approaches, a significant use of approaches com bined same extend and at the same time a firm need for more combining the marketing approachewhich is realized in practice in various ways. In addition, the comments of the respondents aftfillin g questionnaire strongly supported the continuation of discussion on com bination the builing of combined frameworks (Lehtinen 2011 ).

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSIn EMAC 2008 the main theme was: Have scholars really specialized marketing.too much annarrowed it perspectives resulting in a failure to look at the bigger pictu re in theory and practiceThe answer to this question seems to be affirmative in many respects. This study gives some visioto broaden the way of thinking about different marketing approaches.

The general purpose of this paper is to examine development possibilities of marketitheory and practice. The objective of the paper was to examine opportunities in improving thusability and use of the major approaches of marketing i.e. mix marketing and relationship maketing. When we started believing in the vitality of major theories of marketing, there are threprincipal possibilities to develop marketing theory and practice.

First principal possibility is to develop marketing mix approach. The approach has internorientation, the lack of personalization, limited focus on environment and focus on single tranactions. Many researchers have developed the original 4 Ps by adding more extra parameterSometimes these additional parameters can be company-based or/and relationship-based. Hoever, still there are unsolved challenges.

The second principal possibility is to develop relationship marketing. One criticism concering relationship marketing is that it is not suitable for relatively low value products, consumproducts and generic commodities. Even using company based unique elements and/or modesocial media can strengthen the relationship orientation of marketing. In any case, relationshmarketing is still a strongly developing area in marketing. Especially it should be developed tactical level.The third principal development possibility is to combine fairly young relationship marketi

7/27/2019 86874756

15/20

DEVELO PMEN T POSSIB IL IT IES OF THE MAJ OR M AR KE TIN G APPROACHES

obvious that many weaknesses of marketing mix approach can be replaced with the help of re-lationship marketing approach and v ice versa when com bining approaches. The new and goodsolution could be of the type of Lehtinen's RELMIX framework where both approaches are com-bined and they are supporting each other.

The results proved clear separated theories of marketing. They also seemed to confirm thevision of Lehtinen's studies that there is a lot of parlleluse of both approaches, a significant useof approaches combined to same extend and at the same time a firm need for more combiningthe m arketing approaches.

The utilities of c om binin g the m ajor approaches cou ld be developed synergicly. Especially,this is possible if we first utilize the opportunities to develop whichever or both of the majormarketing approaches and then combine these developed approaches. It is a matter of taste ifwe call this the fourth possibility or not. In any case, we could and should proceed in theorybuilding and practice utilizing all opportunities to improve the usability of the major marketingapproaches.

Nowadays many trends and developments are changing marketing environment as well asmarketing mix and relationships marketing. Here we only hint to "social marketing" which con-tains relational but also mix elements like advertizing and delivery.

We stated before that there are caps between practice and current theories. By nature mar-keting is usually considered as applied science that should be largely based on the acts and needsof m arketing organisations (see however Lee and G reenley 2010) . Therefore, the caps betweenthe real marketing life and theories should be reduced by empirical and theoretical research. Thefuture of com bining work can also have some stimulating power in m arketing science generally.Because combining approaches represent a clearly new vision, we mainly examine combiningin the followin g comments.

In the real life companies need a broad knowledge of different approaches of marketing andan ability to use them in an integrated manner (Mller and Halinen 2000, Lehtinen 2011 ). Theresulting visions are not only theoretical approaches, but new approach helps also marketers tounderstand marketing more. This is important for all marketing decision makers. The ideas of thisstudy can be used in companies' marketing decision making and after that we really know thevalue of com binin g these approaches. Anyway, company cannot in real life avoid some com bin-ing. But when com binin g, different approaches suit for different com panies', situations, industries,competence of marketing people etc.In the future research and practice the most important issues in developing the combining

7/27/2019 86874756

16/20

LTA 3-4/12 U . L E H T I N E N A N D P. M A K I N E N

Finding answers to these questions requires a lot of creative effort. For exam ple, the careexam ination of the contents of the interactions of RELMIX (or a corresponding) framework isdemanding work to both the researchers and the marketing management of companies. Veimportant issues will be how combining work is done (positive witnesses) and how it should done (normative advices).

The combined approaches give an opportunity to reduce the weakness of other approachby using the strengths of other approach. The implem entation of com bined approaches takes timand work until new approaches are accepted among marketers.

If marketing m ix approaches are developed by adding more parameters, the approach wbe more co mp licate. The extra elements can be incorporated in 4 Ps and the three add itionelements (7 Ps) and the new approach will be less controllable (Coi 2009). Relationship marking is still a developing research area and there are e.g. plenty of definitions. However, the dvelopment work according to the style of Payne could be successful.

It is already stated that we should carefully consider whether there are applicable elemenin other marketing approaches (Sheth et al. 1988, Mller 2007 a) tbat might be beneficial to tcombination frameworks (Lehtinen 2011 ). This is not an easy wo rk but e.g. it can be a useful wto proceed.

One of the latest great developments conce rning relationship marketing is the service doinant logic. Vargo and Lusch (2004) anticipated that the emerging service centred dominant loof m arketing w ill have a substantial role in marketing thoug h. It has some potential to replace traditional goods centred paradigm. According to Vargo and Lusch (2004) the service centerdominant logic implies that value is defined by and co-created with the consumers rather thembedded in the products. Value for customers is created throughout the relationships with customers, in interactions between the customer and service provider (Grnroos 2000).When developing and applying models based on the service dominant logic, one must nforget the power of the concepts developed according to the goods-based models, where marking mix variables are still important. On the other hand, when applied in goods contexts tpower of service m arketing concepts and models must not dilu ted . (Grnroos 2 006 , Stauss 200

Many remarkable researchers (e.g. Grnroos 1994, Gummesson 1995) have claimed, thaparadigm shift is occurring from mix marketing to relationship marketing. But it can occur in long run so, that combined approaches could be the basis for the new paradigm.

Generally, we believe that the attempts to find the creative combination possibilitiesformer approaches would be a sensible way of theory building also in many other disciplin

7/27/2019 86874756

17/20

DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES OF THE MAIOR MARKETING APPROACHES

to combine compatible rational and behavioral approaches if there are no special preventivereasons. D

REFERENCESAtDRIDGE, ALICIA, FORCHT, KAREN AND PIERSON, JOAN (1997). Get Linked or Get Lost: MarketingStrategy for the Internet. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 7, No. 3,161 1 69.ARNDT, JOHAN (1979). Toward a concept of domesticated markets. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, No. 4,6975.BAGOZZI, RICHARD P. (1974). Marketing as an organized behavior system of exchange. Journal of Marketing,Vol. 38, No. 4, 7 7 - 8 1 .BAKER, MICHAEL |. (1993). Perspectives on Marketing Management, 3th Edition. John Wiley, Chichester.BERRY , LEONARD (1982). Bank Marketing Priorities in the United States. European Journal of MarketingV0LI6, No. 3, 236-245.BERRY, LEONARD (1995). Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing Interest, Emerging Prospective

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1 71-250.BOOMS, BERNHARD H. AND BITNER, MARY |. (1981). Marketing Strategies and Organization Structurestor Service Firms. In: Donelly, J and George, W.R., eds. Marketing of Services, Chigaco.BORDEN, NEIL H. (1964). The Concept of the Marketing Mix. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 4, No. 2,CHRISTOPHER, MARTIN AND PAYNE, ADRIAN AND PALLANTYNE, DAVID (1991) Relationship

Marketing. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.ONSTANTINIDES, EFTHYMIOS (2006). The Marketing Mix Revisited: Towards the 21 st Century MarketingJournal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, No. 3-4, 407-438. ' ' oULLITON, JAMES W. (1948). The Management of Marketing Costs. Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, Mass: Harvard L/niversity, Boston.

DAY, GEORG, S. AND WENSLEY, ROBIN (1983). Marketing Theory with a Strategic Orientation Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47, No. 4, 79-89.FAKEIDEAS (2008). Revision: Reviewing the Marketing Mix. http://fakeideas.co.uk/2008/03/07/revision-reviewing-the -marketing-mix.

CHAI (2009). A Review of Marketing Mix: 4 Ps or More?. International Journal of Marketing StudiesVol. 1, No. 1,2-15. 0 /CHRISTIAN (1994). QuoVadis, Marketing? Toward a Relationship Marketing Paradigm Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, 347-360.

(1995). Relationship Marketing: The Strategic Continuum. Journal of The AcademvMarketingScience, Vol. 23, No. 4, 252-254.(2000). Relationship Marketing: The Nordic School Perspective Handbook ofRelationship Marketing. Eds. Seth Jagdish and Paravatiyar Atul. Tousland Oaks.

(2006). On Defining Marketing: Finding a New Roadmap for Marketing MarketingTheory, Vol. 16, N0.4, 395-417. r- 0 5CHRISTIAN (2007). Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in ServiceCompetition, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons.

987). The New Marketing - Developing Long Term Interactive Relationships LoneRange Planning, Vol. 20, No. 4, 10-20. 00 1- e,(2007). Exit Services Marketing - Enter Service Marketing. The Journal of CustomerBehavior, Vol. 6, No. 2, 113-141.

7/27/2019 86874756

18/20


JACKSON, BARBARA (1985). Build customer relationship that cast. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, N6, 135-143.JOBBER, DAVID (2001 ). Principles and practice of marketing. Mc Gr aw -H ill, New York.KALYANAM, KIRTHI AND MCINTYRE, SHELBY (2002). The E-Marketing Mix:A Contr ibution of E-TailingWars. http://lsb.scu.edu/faculty/research/working_papers/pdf/e-marketing.pdf.

KAMBIL, AJIT AND NUNES, PAUL (2000). Internet M arketing: Lessons from the Field. http://www .accen tucom/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=_isc/iscrsearchnote_12.xml.KELLERMAN, BERT, J., GORDON, PETER, J. AND HEKMAT, EIROOZ (1995). Product and Pricing Courare Underrepresented in Undergraduate Marketing Curricula. Journal of Product & Brand ManagemeVol. 4, No. 1, 18-25.KOTLER, PHILIP (1967). Marketing Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.KOTLER, PHILIP (1990). Marketing Essentials, (later changed to Marketing-An Introduction). Prentice H

Englewood Cliffs.KOTLER, PH ILIP (1992). "It's Time for Total Marketing. Business Week Advance Executive Brief, 2.KOTLER, PHILIP AND AMSTORONG, GARY (1996). Principles of Marketing. Prentice Hall InternatioInc., Upper Saddle River.KOTLER, PHILIP A ND KELLER, KEVIN , LANE (2009). M arketing Managemient. Pearson Education, N ew JersLEE, NICK J. AND GREENLEY, GORDON E. (2010). TheT heorv-practice Div ide: Thoughts of The Editors Senior Advisory Board. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, N o .l , 5 -20 .LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (1983). Changes in Interpreting International Ma rketing. Lilketalou dellirien Aikakausk(The Finnish Journal of Business Economics), Vo l. 32, N o. 1, 94 -9 6.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (1996). Our Present State of Ignorance in Relationship Marketing, Asia-AustraMarketing Journal. Published also in the Third International Colloquium in Relationship MarketiMelbourne 1995. Vol. 4, N o .l , 4 3 - 5 1 .LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (2007). Combining Parameter and Relationship Marketing Approaches. TaloussuunnitOy, Helsinki, 1-29.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (2008 a). Parameter Marketing and its Development. ATINER Marketing ConferenAthens.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (2008 b). Mix Marketing and its Development Possibilities. In: Anttila, Maj and RjArto, eds. Fishing with Business Nets - Keeping Thoughts in the Ho rizo n, Helsink i Scool of EconomHelsinki.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (2011). Combining Mix and Relationship Marketing. The Marketing Review, Vol. No. 2, 117-136.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI (2012). Combining inTheory Building. Unpublished working paper, 1-15.

LEHTINEN, UOLEV I, AND JARVELIN, ANNE-MARI (1994a). "Abstractness of Services and NontraditioParameters," in Capitalising the Potentials of Globalization, Suleiman, Mohamed, and Erdener Kayneds. Penang.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI, AND JARVELIN, ANNE-MARI (1994b). "On the Implications of AbstractecnessGlob al Services Ma rketing," in European Institute for Advanced Studies of M anagement. Glob al Stratin the Service Industries, Brussels.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI AND JARVELIN , ANNE-MARI (1995). "Relationship Quality in Services". Proceediof Workshop on Quality Management in Services-V, Tilburg.LEHTINEN, UOLEVI AND NIINIMKI SATU (2006). Asiantuntijapalvelut: tuotteistamisen ja markkinoinsuunnittelu. (Knowledge-based services: The Planning of Producticizing and Marketing). WSOY, JyvsLEVITT, THEOD OR (1960). "Marke ting M yop ia". H arvard Business Review, Vo l. 38, No. 4, 4 5-5 6.LEVITT, THEOD OR (1983/198 6). The Marke ting Imag ination, New Expander Ed ition. Free Press, New YMCCARTHY, JEROME E. (1960). Basic Marketing, A Managerial Approach. IL: Richard D. Irwin.

7/27/2019 86874756

19/20

D E V E L O P M E N T P O S S I B IL I T IE S O F T H E M A JO R M A R K E T I N G A P P R O A CH E S

(2006). The Marketing Mix Revisited: Towards the 21st Century M arketing by EfthymiosConstantinides. Journal of Marketing M anagement,Vol. 22, No . 3, 43 9-4 50 .(2006). The Marketing M ix Revisited: Towards the 21 st Century M arketing by EfthymiosConstantinides. journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 22, No. 3, 439-450.

(2000). Relationship M arketing Theory: Its Roots and Directions.Journal of Marketing Management,Vol 16, No. 1-3, 29-54.(2000). Relationship Marketing and Management. HandbookServices Ma rketing and Manag ement, Sage Publications Inc.

(2006). Han dbook of CRM : Ach ieving Excellence in Customer Managem ent. Elsevier,Amsterdam.(2008). Handbook of CRM: Achieving Exellence in Customer Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

(2006). H ow does M arketing Strategy Change in aServic-based World. In Lusch, Robert F. and Vargo, Stephen L. (eds.). The Service Dominant Logic ofMarketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. Amo g, New York.JAGDISH N., GARDNER, DA VID M . AN D GARRETT, DENNIS, E. (1988). Marketing Theory: Evolutionand Evaluation. John Wile y & Sons, New York.JAGDISH N AND PARVATIYAR, ATUL (2002). Evolving Relationship Marketing into a Disipline. Journalof Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 1,3-16.

(2005). A Pyrric Victory: The Implications of an Unlimited Broadening of the Concept ofServices. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15, No. 2, 219-229.O, STEPHEN L. AND LUSCH , ROBERT E. ( 2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic For Marketingjournal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 2 , 1-1 7.

(2008). Service-dominant Logic: Continuing The Evolution,journa l of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 6, N o. 1 , 1 -10.(2001). A Framework for Customer Relationship Management. California ManagementReview, Vo l. 43, No. 2, 89-1 05. r- 0 6

(1999). Adapting McCarthy's Four Ps for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of MarketingEducation, Vol. 21 , N 0 .I , 60-6 7.

7/27/2019 86874756

20/20

Copyright of Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja is the property of Liiketaloustieteellinen Yhdistys Ry and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

86874756

Documents