Marketing Science Institute Special Report 09-214

Strategic Marketing and Marketing: Domain, Definition,

Fundamental Issues, and Foundational Premises
Rajan Varadarajan

Copyright 2009 Rajan Varadarajan

MSI special reports are in draft form and are distributed online only for the benefit of MSI
corporate and academic members. Reports are not to be reproduced or published, in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission.
Strategic Marketing and Marketing Strategy: Domain, Definition, Fundamental Issues and Foundational

Premises

Rajan Varadarajan

Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Ford Chair in Marketing & E-Commerce

Texas A&M University

4112 TAMU

College Station

TX 77843-4112

[email protected]

Voice: 979 845 5809

Fax: 979 862 2811

October 29, 2009

1
 Strategic Marketing and Marketing Strategy: Domain, Definition, Fundamental Issues and Foundational

Premises

Abstract

This paper proposes a domain statement for strategic marketing as a field of study and delineates certain

issues fundamental to the field. It also proposes a definition for marketing strategy, the focal organizational

strategy construct of the field, and enumerates a number of foundational premises of marketing strategy. The

domain of strategic marketing encompasses the study of organizational, inter-organizational and environmental

phenomena concerned with the behaviors of organizations in the marketplace in the context of the creation,

communication and delivery of products that offer value to customers in exchanges with organizations and are of

major consequence from the standpoint of the long-term growth and performance of the organization. At the

broadest level, marketing strategy can be defined as an organization‘s integrated pattern of decisions that specify

its crucial choices concerning products, markets, marketing actions and marketing resources in the creation,

communication and/or delivery of products that offer value to customers in exchanges with the organization and

thereby enable the organization to achieve specific objectives. Chief among the issues that are fundamental to

strategic marketing as a field of study are the questions of how the marketing strategy of a business is influenced

by demand side factors and supply side factors.

Key Words: Strategic marketing, marketing strategy, competitive marketing strategy, market strategy

2
 Introduction

The evolution of strategic marketing as a field of study, over the past few decades, can be viewed as

a confluence of perspectives, paradigms, theories, concepts, frameworks, principles, methods, models and

metrics from a number of related fields of study, chief among them being marketing, strategic

management and industrial organization (IO) economics. Although the cumulative body of literature is

indicative of significant advances along a number of fronts (substantive, theoretical and methodological),

during almost every decade, marketing scholars have voiced concerns regarding the state of field (e.g.,

Wind and Robertson 1983; Day 1992; Reibstein, Day and Wind 2009). For instance, voicing concerns

over marketing‘s loss of influence in the academic discourse about strategy, Day (1992, p. 324) noted:

―Within academic circles, the contribution of marketing as an applied management discipline, to the

development, testing and dissemination of strategy theories and concepts has been marginalized during

the past decade.‖ In a recent guest editorial, Reibstein, Day and Wind (2009) note that the growing

balkanization of academic marketing into quantitative modeling and consumer behavior has diminished

research on strategic marketing issues.

In addition to the factors that Day (1992) attributes to the diminishing impact of research in the

field of strategic marketing and Reibstein, Day and Wind (2009) attribute to diminishing research on

strategic marketing issues, strategic marketing‘s identity crisis may be a contributing factor to both of the

above. For instance, an examination of marketing strategy literature spanning more than four decades is

indicative of diverse points of view concerning the conceptual domain of strategic marketing as a field of

study, and the definition of marketing strategy as an organizational strategy construct. Against this

backdrop, the primary objectives of this paper are to delineate the domain of strategic marketing as a field

of study, and propose a definition for marketing strategy as an organizational strategy construct.

Exploration of issues fundamental to the field of strategic marketing and enumeration of certain

foundational premises of marketing strategy constitute the secondary objectives of the paper. The

remainder of the paper is organized into four major sections that correspond to the above objectives.

3
These sections are preceded by a section devoted to elaboration of the rationale for focusing on the above

issues and are followed by a discussion section and a conclusion section.

In the management discipline, the term strategic management refers to the field of study, and corporate

strategy (strategy at the firm level in a multi-business firm) and business strategy (strategy at the business unit

level in a multi-business firm) are among the organizational strategy constructs that are the focus of the field.

However, in the marketing discipline, the terms strategic marketing and marketing strategy are used

interchangeably in reference to the field of study, and marketing strategy is also used in reference to the

organizational strategy construct that is the principal focus of the field. In the remainder of the paper, the term

strategic marketing is used in reference to the field of study and marketing strategy in reference to the

organizational strategy construct that is the principal focus of the field (except in instances where the term

marketing strategy is used to refer to the field of study in the sources that are cited).

Objectives and Rationale

Domain of Strategic Marketing as a Field of Study

The American Marketing Association (AMA) Marketing Strategy Special Interest Group (SIG), in its

recent call for nominations for the Mahajan Award for Lifetime Contributions to Marketing Strategy Research,

states the domain of marketing strategy research as follows: ―The domain of marketing strategy research is

broadly defined to include all firm-level strategic marketing issues, decisions, and problems‖ (ELMAR 2009).

Although the above does not constitute an official domain statement of the SIG, it nevertheless serves to highlight

the need for further debate and discussion on this issue among the community of marketing strategy educators,

researchers and practitioners1. First, the implications of broadly defining the domain of marketing strategy

research as ―includes all firm-level strategic marketing issues, decisions, and problems,‖ versus as ―includes

strategic marketing issues, decisions, and problems at all levels in a firm,‖ are vastly different from the standpoint

of questions that should be the focus of scholarly research and topics that should be covered in a marketing

strategy course. Second, defining the domain of marketing strategy research as including only firm-level strategic

marketing issues, decisions and problems is clearly at variance with the cumulative body of literature on strategic

marketing related topics that is published in marketing journals under the rubric of ―marketing strategy research.‖

4
Third, regardless of whether the domain of marketing strategy research is defined as including all firm-level

strategic marketing issues, or as including strategic marketing issues at all levels in a firm (as argued in this

paper), there is a need to clarify what distinguishes strategic marketing issues, decisions and problems from those

that are not strategic. Fourth, defining the domain of marketing strategy research as being concerned with

strategic marketing issues, decisions, and problems suffers from the problem of circularity. Against this backdrop,

the first objective of this paper is to delineate the domain of strategic marketing as a field of study.

Definition of Marketing Strategy

In 2004, the American Marketing Association (AMA) adopted the following as its official definition of

marketing (Marketing News 2004, p.1): ―Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for

creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that

benefit the organization and its stakeholders.‖ In 2007, the AMA adopted the following as its new official

definition of marketing (Marketing News 2008, p. 28): ―Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes

for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners,

and society at large.‖ These definitions were preceded during the past century by four other official definitions of

marketing that were adopted by the AMA in 1935, 1948, 1960 and 1985 (Gundlach 2007). A special section of

the Fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing was devoted to a series of articles focusing on

issues relating to the definition of marketing – articles advancing alternative definitions of marketing and critiques

and commentaries on extant definitions of marketing. While, over the years, the AMA has devoted considerable

thought and attention to revisiting and revising its official definition of marketing, definitions of related constructs

such as marketing strategy and marketing management have not received similar scrutiny. Against this backdrop,

a second objective of this paper is to provide a review and critique of extant definitions of marketing strategy and

propose a definition of marketing strategy.

The importance of the above objective is also highlighted by the diverse and contradictory points of view

evidenced in literature regarding the conceptual distinction between (1) marketing strategy and marketing tactics,

and (2) marketing strategy and marketing management. Consider for instance, the distinction between marketing

strategy and marketing tactics. An examination of journal articles and marketing textbooks (textbooks on

5
principles of marketing, marketing management and marketing strategy) reveals diverse points of view including

the following: (1) the marketing behaviors of firms in the realm of the 4Ps (product, promotion, price and

place/distribution) are characterized as marketing strategy in some sources and as marketing tactics in other

sources; in sources in the latter category, marketing behaviors pertaining to segmentation, target market selection

and positioning are considered as the domain of marketing strategy and behaviors pertaining to the 4Ps as the

domain of marketing tactics; (2) in yet other sources, some elements of the 4Ps are characterized as pertaining to

marketing strategy (product and place/distribution) and others as pertaining to marketing tactics (price and

promotion); and (3) in still other sources, certain marketing behaviors in the realm of each of the 4Ps are

characterized as marketing strategy (e.g., promotion—push versus pull strategy; price—market skimming price

strategy versus market penetration price strategy) and others as marketing tactics (e.g., promotion tactics and

pricing tactics). Three representative quotes (one each from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s) are presented next to

highlight this point.

In regard to the distinction between marketing management and marketing strategy, in an

editorial essay, Cunningham and Robertson (1983, p. 5), stated: ―As presented in marketing literature

today, marketing management is concerned with target market selection and the design of the marketing

program. The marketing management literature addresses issues at the level of the individual product or

brand.… Marketing strategy, on the other hand, addresses issues of gaining long run advantage at the

level of the firm or strategic business unit.‖ A potential problem with distinguishing between ―marketing

strategy‖ and ―marketing management‖ along the above lines is that at the most fundamental level, while

the former pertains to marketing behavior of organizations, the latter pertains to managing the marketing

behavior of organizations. However, both, an organization‘s decisions concerning target market selection

(choice of where to compete) and design of the marketing program (choice of how to compete) are

primarily concerned with its present and/or planned marketing behavior and not with managing

marketing behavior.

In regard to the distinction between marketing strategy and marketing tactics, Webster (1992,

p.10) states: ―To consider the new role of marketing within the evolving corporation, we must recognize

6
that marketing really operates at three distinct levels, reflecting three levels of strategy. These can be

defined as the corporate, business or SBU and functional or operating levels.… In addition to the three

levels of strategy, we can identify three distinct dimensions of marketing – marketing as culture,

marketing as strategy and marketing as tactics.… Marketing as strategy is the emphasis at the SBU level,

where the focus is on market segmentation, targeting, and positioning in defining how to compete in its

chosen businesses. At the operating level, marketing managers must focus on marketing tactics, the '4Ps'

of product, price, promotion, and place/distribution, the elements of the marketing mix.‖

In a more focused context (new product launch), Crawford and Di Benedetto (2008, p. 372) state: ―No

matter how new-to-the-world the product is, the firm should think of product commercialization in two sets of

decisions. Strategic launch decisions include both strategic platform decisions that set overall tones and

directions, and strategic action decisions that define to whom we are going to sell and how. Tactical launch

decisions are marketing mix decisions such as communication and promotion, distribution, and pricing that are

typically made after strategic launch decisions and define how the strategic decisions will be implemented‖

(italics and bold font in original source).

The characterization of marketing decisions pertaining to segmentation, target market selection and

positioning as ―strategic marketing decisions‖ and decisions that pertain to product, promotion, price and

distribution as ―tactical marketing decisions‖ is arbitrary and conceptually flawed. Some marketing decisions

made by organizations in every one of the above realms are bound to be strategic and others non-strategic. Also,

given the dynamic and evolving nature of the field, circumscribing the scope of strategic marketing decisions as

pertaining to specific issues (e.g., three -- segmentation, target market selection and positioning; seven --

segmentation, target market selection, positioning, product, promotion, price and distribution) is inherently

problematic. Drawing attention to the problem with the strategy versus tactics dichotomy, Mintzberg (1987b, p.

14) notes: ―The point is that these sorts of distinctions can be arbitrary and misleading, that labels should not be

used to imply that some issues are inevitably more important than others. … Thus there is good reason to drop the

word 'tactics' altogether and simply refer to issues as more or less 'strategic,' in other words, more or less

'important' in some context, whether as intended before acting or as realized after it.‖ In the remainder of the

7
paper, marketing decisions are broadly distinguished as strategic versus non-strategic (for simplicity of

exposition, more strategic versus less strategic marketing decisions are referred to as strategic versus non-strategic

marketing decisions) 2. Understandably, the characterization of marketing decisions as strategic versus non-

strategic (i.e., more versus less strategic) is essentially a transformation of an intrinsically continuous variable

(i.e., marketing decisions that are strategic to varying degrees) into a categorical variable.

Issues Fundamental to the Field of Strategic Marketing

Extant literature provides valuable insights into issues that are fundamental to marketing as a field of

study. For instance, Hunt (1983) describes marketing science as the behavioral science that seeks to

explain exchange relationships and focuses on four inter-related sets of fundamental explananda: (1) the

behaviors of buyers directed at consummating exchanges, (2) the behaviors of sellers directed at

consummating exchanges, (3) the institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating

exchanges, and (4) the consequences on society of the behaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellers, and

the institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges. Day and

Montgomery (1999) delineate the following as issues fundamental to the field of marketing: (1) How do

customers and consumers really behave? (2) How do markets function and evolve? (3) How do firms

relate to their markets? (4) What are the contributions of marketing to organizational performance and

societal welfare? Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) note that, ―how firms achieve and sustain competitive

advantage,‖ is the question that is fundamental to the field of strategic management. In a similar vein,

enumeration of certain issues that are fundamental to strategic marketing as a field of study constitutes a

third objective of this paper.

Foundational Premises of Marketing Strategy

Kotler (1997, p.xxxii) notes: ―Marketing is not like Euclidean geometry, a fixed system of concepts

and axioms. Rather, marketing is one of the most dynamic fields within the management arena. The

marketplace continuously throws out fresh challenges, and companies must respond. Therefore, it is not

surprising that new marketing ideas keep surfacing to meet the new marketplace challenges.‖ Similar

sentiments have also been voiced by other marketing scholars. For instance, Sheth and Sisodia (1999)

8
point out that due to the contextual nature of marketing as a field of study, in the face of major contextual

discontinuities, there is a need for a critical reassessment of the field‘s law-like generalizations. They note

that when one or more of the numerous contextual elements surrounding it (e.g., economic forces,

technological forces, societal norms, and public policy) change, it can have a significant impact on the

nature and scope of the discipline. Case in point is the impact of the Internet on marketing education,

practice and research. The nature and scope of the marketing discipline has been significantly impacted

by the large body of research published during the past decade that focuses on myriad facets of firm

behavior and customer behavior in an Internet-enabled market environment. Similarly, the current high

level of interest among marketing academics and practitioners in sustainability-related issues is destined

to have a significant impact on the nature and scope of the marketing discipline.

Notwithstanding the contextual nature of the field, the marketing discipline is not completely void of

generalizations that transcend different types of products (e.g., goods, services, ideas, experiences, and

places), markets (e.g., consumer markets and institutional markets), and time horizons (e.g., pre-Internet

and post-Internet). Against this backdrop, the fourth objective of this paper is to enumerate certain

foundational premises of marketing strategy.

Domain of Strategic Marketing

Any attempt to set limits to a field of intellectual endeavor is inherently futile. Whatever boundaries we

set will inevitably omit men whose work should be included. Yet when we stretch the boundaries to bring

these men and these works within the field, we inevitably incorporate some we otherwise would have

excluded. And what seems to us today firmly entrenched as part of our little community, may yesterday

have been an alien enclave and tomorrow may have set itself outside our walls as an independent

discipline trying to define its own boundaries.

… To define the limits of a field of inquiry may prove, in the long run, to be only a gesture, but

for a start, delimitation, however tentative, is indispensable. The danger is not too great if we keep in

mind that any boundaries we establish are an aid to understanding. (Inkeles 1964, p.1)

9
 Inkeles‘ above observations serve to highlight (1) the need for and the importance of delineating the

domain of any field of study, (2) the attendant challenges and limitations of any such endeavor, and (3) the need

for periodically revisiting the issue, given the evolving nature of any field of study. Against this backdrop, the

remainder of this section is organized as follows. First, the question of what distinguishes strategic marketing

decisions from those that are not strategic is addressed. Next, a representative list of broad streams of research that

provide a perspective into the evolution of the field of strategic marketing is presented. Third, a domain statement

for the field of strategic marketing is proposed. Fourth, a conceptual framework (Figure 1) that provides

additional insights into the proposed domain statement is presented.

Strategic Marketing Decisions: Some Distinguishing Characteristics

The word ―strategic‖ is one of the most extensively used (as well as overused and inappropriately used)

words across various business disciplines. A cursory examination of literature reveals its use in diverse contexts

such as the following: Strategic acquisitions, actions, activities, advantage, alliances, assets, …, behaviors,

branding, brands,…, capabilities, challenges, channels, competencies, customers, …, decisions, divestitures,

drivers, …, engagement, entrepreneurship, …, fit, flexibility, framework, …, groups, …, hedging, …,

innovations, insights, intent, issues, …, joint ventures, …, knowledge, …, leveraging, …, management, mandate,

markets, marketing, …, needs, networks, …, opportunities, …, parity, …, questions, …, resources, retreat, …,

skills, …, threats, tools, …, umbrella, …, value, and vulnerabilities. Amit and Schoemaker (1993, p. 36) define

strategic assets as ―a set of difficult to trade and imitate, scarce, appropriable and specialized resources and

capabilities that bestow a firm with a competitive advantage.‖ In reference to strategic capability, Teece, Pisano

and Shuen (1997; pp. 517-518) note that: ―To be strategic, a capability must be honed to a user need (so there is a

source of revenues), unique (so that products/services produced can be priced without too much regard to

competition) and difficult to replicate (so profits will not be competed away)‖. Reference to competitive

advantage in Amit and Schoemaker‘s definition of strategic assets, and to profits not being competed away in

Teece, Pisano and Shuen‘s conceptualization of strategic capabilities suggest that regardless of whether the focal

construct is strategic assets or strategic capabilities or strategic marketing decisions, they are potentially of major

consequence from the standpoint of an organization‘s long-term performance.

10
 Against this backdrop, the term strategic marketing decisions is used here to refer to an organization‘s

decisions in the realm of marketing that are of major consequence from the standpoint of its long-term

performance (survival, growth and profitability). While in the limit, it is conceivable that a strategic marketing

decision can also be of major consequence from the standpoint of an organization‘s long-term survival, by and

large, they are likely to be more consequential from the standpoint of an organization‘s long-term growth and

profitability. Chief among the other distinguishing characteristics of strategic marketing decisions that stem by

virtue of their implications for the long-term performance of an organization are the following. Strategic

marketing decisions:

entail resource commitments that are either irreversible or relatively difficult to reverse (see Ghemawat

1991)

entail resource commitments that are relatively larger in magnitude;

entail resource commitments that are made with a relatively longer term outlook;

entail resource commitments that are spread over a relatively longer time period;

entail resource commitments that are made with a relatively greater emphasis on the achievement of a

competitive cost and/or differentiation advantage;

entail tradeoffs (i.e., pursuing course of action ―A‖ implying that courses of action ―B‖, ―C‖ and ―D‖

must be foregone, in light of the relatively large resource outlays that pursuing any of these courses of

action would entail);

are made in the context of other strategic decisions, in light of inter-dependencies between them; and

are made at higher levels in an organization (e.g. the top management level -- the CEO and executives

directly reporting to the CEO), and/or at higher levels within the marketing function (e.g. the CMO and

executives directly reporting to the CMO).

Strategic marketing decisions, actions, activities and behaviors: Although the foregoing discussion is framed

in the context of an organization‘s marketing decisions, they also hold in regard to its marketing actions, activities

or behaviors. To elaborate, a cursory examination of marketing strategy and business strategy literature is

11
indicative of extensive reference to an organization‘s decisions, actions, activities and behaviors. For instance,

Mintzberg (1987a) points out that while a statement of strategy that is future focused is an explicit guide for

consistent future behavior of the firm, one that is past focused describes consistency in past behavior. Porter

(1996) views the essence of strategy as activities—a business‘ decision to perform different activities (choice of

activities to perform) and/or perform specific activities differently (the manner in which specific activities are

performed) relative to its competitors. He points out that competitive cost advantage is the result of a business‘

performing specific activities more efficiently than competitors, and competitive differentiation advantage is a

consequence of a business‘ choice of activities to perform and the manner in which they are performed. Day,

Weitz and Wensley (1990) note that marketing strategy focuses on marketing activities and decisions that are

related to building and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage. Within reason, the terms actions,

activities and behaviors can be used interchangeably. An organization‘s marketing decisions specify the

marketing actions or marketing activities or marketing behaviors to engage in (in the marketplace). While a

number of marketing related activities may occur within the boundaries of an organization (e.g., new product

development related activities), customers respond to and competitors react to an organization‘s marketing

actions, activities or behaviors in the marketplace (e.g., actions such as the distinctive features of a firm‘s product

offering, the channels through which the product is made available, and the price of the product offering). By and

large, an organization‘s strategic marketing decisions undergird its actions or behaviors in the marketplace.

However, they are also the basis for cessation of a current course of action or behavior in the marketplace by the

organization. Illustrative examples that provide insights into some of the distinguishing characteristics of strategic

marketing decisions are presented next.

Sizeable resource commitments that are either irreversible or relatively difficult to reverse: The

Boeing 787 Dreamliner (currently under development) and the recently launched Airbus 380 airplane by

EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, the European parent company of Airbus)

represent new product initiatives entailing multi-billion dollar (euro) resource outlays. These new product

decisions are reportedly based on different scenarios and assumptions about how the market for

commercial passenger aviation is likely to evolve. While the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a response to a

12
future scenario in which a growing proportion of international air travel will be point-to-point between

city-pairs, the Airbus 380 is a response to a future scenario in which a growing proportion of international

air travel will be between major international hub airports (at substantially lower costs per passenger

mile). When introduced, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is expected to be able to connect with nonstop flights

more pairs of cities worldwide than is possible with current airplanes. The 787 would be a relatively more

fuel-efficient plane that can be configured with a seating capacity between 200 to 290 passengers (an

aircraft with a capacity better suited for serving more international city pairs with nonstop flights). The

recently launched Airbus 380, on the other hand, can be configured with a seating capacity of up to 555

passengers for commercial aviation (an aircraft with a capacity better suited to serve international city

pairs that are major hub airports) (see Financial Times 2005). In addition, Airbus currently has under

development the Airbus 350 (scheduled for launch in 2013) to compete against the Boeing 787

Dreamliner. Given the long lead times involved in the development of new products such as the above,

and the large number of suppliers, sub-contractors and strategic alliance partners involved in design,

development, manufacturing and assembly, for all practical purposes they constitute irreversible strategic

marketing decisions. The above illustration also speaks to the pitfalls of arbitrary rules of thumb such as a

firm‘s decisions relating to segmentation, positioning and target marketing fall under the realm of

marketing strategy, and those relating to the 4Ps (including ―product‖ as in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner

and Airbus 380 entailing multi-billion dollar resource outlays) fall under the realm of marketing tactics.

Relatively larger resource commitments: During the 1990s, when dial-up Internet service was

commonplace, America Online's (AOL) strategy for acquisition of new customers was largely built

around a portfolio of sales promotion programs that offered consumers a free trial of its dial-up Internet

service (e.g., 30 days free trial offer; 1000 hours free trial offer). Most makes and models of new

computers that were marketed to individuals and households came preinstalled with the software needed

to use the free trial offer. The software, loaded on a disc, was also mailed directly to hundreds of

thousands of households, distributed as an insert along with newspapers and magazines, handed out to

travelers on commercial flights (along with the complimentary in-flight snack and beverage, a common

13
practice during the 1990s), and distributed in many other ways. Collectively, the numerous consumer

sales promotion programs employed by AOL to distribute several million discs via multiple distribution

vehicles in order to acquire new customers by offering a no risk, free trial of its dial-up Internet service

came to be characterized in the business press as an exemplar of ―carpet bombing‖ marketing strategy

(Kalakota and Robinson 2001). The above example also sheds insights into the pitfalls of arbitrary rules

of thumb such as that a firm‘s decisions relating to sales promotion fall under the realm of marketing

tactics.

Greater impact on performance of the firm over the long-term: Under certain conditions, even

seemingly straightforward decisions such as how much to spend on advertising, and whether to lower,

increase or maintain the current level of advertising expenditures can loom to a strategic marketing

decision that has a lasting impact on the fortunes of a firm. A case in point, in the late nineteen-twenties,

Kellogg and Post dominated the market for packaged cereal. However, in the aftermath of the Great

Depression, while Post cut back on its advertising, Kellogg doubled its advertising budget, moved

aggressively into radio advertising and introduced new brands. By 1933, even as the economy cratered,

Kellogg‘s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it emerged as the industry‘s dominant player, a

position that it continues to retain (see Suroweicki 2009).

Evolution of the Field of Strategic Marketing: An Overview

Strategic marketing as a field of study has evolved over almost half a century and continues to evolve. For

instance, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, highlighting the benefits to organizations of greater marketing

personnel involvement in charting the strategic direction of the firm (e.g., analysis, planning and strategy

formulation at the corporate and business unit levels), a number of marketing scholars (e.g., Day 1984; Wind

1982; Wind and Robertson 1983) called for a broader construal of the field. Given the boundary spanning nature

of the marketing function, it was argued that marketing personnel in organizations are likely to be the most

knowledgeable about the external environment, and, therefore, are equipped to play a major role in charting the

strategic direction of the firm. It is conceivable that at least some of the new research streams that emerged in the

field of strategic marketing during the past three decades are a consequence of such calls for a broader construal

14
of the domain of the field. An examination of extant marketing literature is indicative of a number of broad

research streams with a strategic focus, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Research focusing on marketing strategy related issues in the realms of product, price, promotion

and place (4Ps), and segmentation, target market selection and positioning (STP).

2. Research focusing on organizational level phenomena that influence marketing strategy in important ways

(e.g., corporate culture, organizational learning and knowledge management).

3. Research focusing on issues at the interface of corporate and marketing strategy (e.g., synergy and

horizontal acquisitions), business and marketing strategy (e.g., order of entry strategy and strategic

alliances), and corporate, business, and marketing strategy (e.g., multi-market competition; and financial

valuation of brands in the context of mergers and acquisitions).

4. Research focusing on strategy at the corporate level (e.g., diversification and divestitures) from the

perspective of how corporate strategy has an impact on and is impacted by marketing strategy, and the

strategic role of the marketing function in organizations at the corporate level.

5. Research focusing on strategy at the business unit level (e.g., generic competitive strategies) from the

perspective of how strategy at the business unit level influences and is influenced by marketing strategy,

and the strategic role of the marketing function in organizations at the business unit level (see Varadarajan

and Jayachandran 1999).

On the one hand, the future directions in which the field of strategic marketing might evolve, (1) as a

consequence of developments in the practice of marketing strategy that might shape the content and direction of

the field, and/or (2) by the directions in which researchers, individually and collectively, might take the field, is an

unknown. On the other hand, the boundaries of any proposed domain statement must be sufficiently broad to

encompass the current body of literature, as well as accommodate at least some of the future directions in which

the field might evolve. The proposed domain statement presented in the next section constitutes a concerted effort

to be responsive to the above issues.

Domain of Strategic Marketing as a Field of Study

15
 Building on extant literature and the foregoing overview of the evolution of the field of strategic

marketing, the following domain statement is proposed: The domain of strategic marketing encompasses the study

of organizational, inter-organizational and environmental phenomena concerned with the behaviors of

organizations in the marketplace in the context of the creation, communication and delivery of products that offer

value to customers in exchanges with organizations and are of major consequence from the standpoint of the

long-term growth and performance of the organization. The domain of strategic marketing also encompasses the

study of organizational, inter-organizational and environmental phenomena concerned with the general

management responsibilities of the marketing function in organizations that align with its boundary spanning

role. A brief elaboration of some of the considerations underlying the proposed domain statement follows.

Understanding, explaining and predicting the behavior of firms, broadly construed, is of enduring

interest to researchers in the fields of strategic marketing, strategic management and industrial

organizational economics. Of particular interest to strategic marketing as a field of study is the behavior

of organizations in the marketplace in their interactions with consumers, customers (both end use

customers and intermediate customers), competitors and other key external constituencies in the context

of the creation, communication and delivery of products that offer value to customers engaging in

exchanges (transactional and relational exchanges) with organizations. The creation, communication and

delivery of products that offer value to customers in an exchange setting is a key element of AMA‘s 2007

definition of marketing (Marketing News 2008), as well as a number of other definitions. At an earlier

point in time (e.g. 1960s, 1970s and 1980s), the scope of behaviors of organizations in the marketplace

would generally have been construed as meaning behaviors targeted at consumers, customers, competitors

and other external constituencies. In an Internet-enabled market environment, the scope of behaviors of

organizations in the marketplace also encompasses interactive behaviors between the organization and

specific external constituencies. The , the general management responsibilities of the marketing function

that align with its boundary spanning role encompasses activities such as monitoring and analysis of the

environment and strategy formulation at the corporate and business unit levels. For instance, Day (1984,

p.3) notes: ―As a general management responsibility, marketing embraces the interpretations of the

16
environment and the crucial choices of customers to serve, competitors to challenge, and the product

characteristics with which the business will compete.‖ A conceptual framework that provides additional

insights into the domain of strategic marketing as well as preliminary validation for the proposed domain

statement is presented in the next section.

Domain of Strategic Marketing: Representative Organizational, Inter-organizational and Environmental

Phenomena

Complementing the descriptive domain statement presented in the previous section, Figure 1

presents a figurative representation of the domain of strategic marketing. Here, the bidirectional links

from Box A to Boxes 1 through 10 serve to denote that issues pertaining to the bevaior of organizations in

the marketplace and the general management responsibilities of the marketing function in organizations

that align with its boundary spanning role are the principal concerns the field of strategic marketing. In an

attempt to highlight the role of theories, principles, concepts, methods, models, metrics, etc. in the study

of strategic marketing (describing, understanding, explaining and predicting phenomena of interest to the

field), these are also listed in Box A. In Boxes 1 to 10, a number of representative organizational, inter-

organizational and environmental phenomena are delineated. The bi-directional arrows shown in the

figure denote conceptual links and not directional relationships. For example, the bidirectional arrow

linking Box A and Box 3denotes that issues pertaining to the marketing strategy formulation process,

marketing strategy content, and marketing strategy implementation are among the phenomena that are the

focus of strategic marketing as a field of study. For purposes of simplicity of exposition, the conceptual

links are shown only in reference to Box A in the figure. For example, while the issues enumerated in

Box 3 (Marketing Strategy Context: Internal Organizational Environment and the External Environment)

are pertinent in the context of practically every one of the issues delineated in the other boxes ( Boxes 1

and 2 and boxes 1 6 to 10) they are not shown in the figure. A brief elaboration of two of the phenomena

delineated in the boxes (Box 2 and Box 9) follows.

Insert Figure 1 about Here

17
Marketing strategy behaviors. While certain aspects of firm behavior can be construed as specific to the

domains of corporate, business, and marketing strategy, certain other aspects of firm behavior span multiple

levels. Varadarajan and Clark (1994) provide an overview of the distinctive and overlapping domains of

corporate, business, and marketing strategy. Although the term ―firm behavior‖ is commonly used, it is decision-

makers in the firm who orchestrate its behavior in the marketplace. That is, decisions made by managers and their

subsequent execution manifest as a firm‘s marketing strategy behavior in the marketplace. For instance, in

reference to innovation strategy, Ahuja and Lampert (2001) draw attention to organizational pathologies

(managerial biases and inertia) that could inhibit breakthrough inventions. They include the familiarity trap

(favoring the familiar), the maturity trap (favoring the mature) and the propinquity trap (favoring the search for

solutions near to existing solutions). The role of factors such as managerial cognitions and biases on the behavior

of firms in the marketplace are subsumed under ―process‖ in the proposed framework. As noted earlier,

bidirectional links such as between Box 2 and Box 3 implied by the above are not shown in the figure.

In Figure 1, cooperative and collusive marketing strategy behaviors refer to marketing strategy behaviors

that are in accord with the prevailing legal and regulatory environment. While in certain instances, competitive,

cooperative and collusive behaviors can persist as distinct behaviors, in other instances, cooperative and collusive

behaviors are precursors to competitive marketing strategy behavior (e.g., alliances between sub-groups of

competitors manifesting as competition between alliances; signaling by competitors resulting in diminished

intensity of competition). In addition to competitive, cooperative, and collusive behaviors, Heil and Robertson

(1991) list conciliatory and confirmative behaviors under the rubric of behavior of firms. However, these are not

shown explicitly in Figure 1 in light of their conceptual overlap with cooperative and collusive behaviors,

respectively.

Intra-organizational vertical interfaces. Diversified firms (multi-business firms) do not compete against each

other; rather, individual businesses in the portfolios of multi-business firms compete in the marketplace (Porter

1987). However, the behaviors of multi-business firms at the corporate level (e.g., their diversification and

divestitures related behaviors) are often precursors to the behaviors of individual businesses in their portfolios in

the marketplace. Cases in point include the effects on the behavior of specific businesses in a firm‘s portfolio of

18
(1) economies of scope (cost and demand interdependencies between various businesses in a firm‘s portfolio) that

arise as a consequence of a firm‘s diversification into related businesses, and (2) economies of scale that arise as a

consequence of a firm‘s horizontal acquisitions and/or geographic market extension acquisitions of its competitors

in specific business domains.

Illustrative of the interdependencies between the corporate and marketing strategy behaviors of firms is

PepsiCo‘s initial diversification into the fast food business and subsequent divestiture of the business. Coca Cola

Inc. and PepsiCo have long dominated the carbonated beverages (soft drinks) business. Partly in response to

Coke‘s historic dominance of the institutional (restaurant) segment of the market, over a period of time, PepsiCo

diversified into the fast food restaurant business by acquiring a number of restaurant chains including Pizza Hut,

Taco Bell, and KFC. In addition to these restaurant chains serving as a captive market for its soft drinks, PepsiCo

envisioned that by learning the nuances and intricacies of serving institutional customers in the restaurant sector,

it would be able to enhance its competitive position in the institutional segment of the market for carbonated

beverages. To the contrary, some of PepsiCo‘s institutional customers such as Burger King perceived it as a

competitor rather than as a supplier/partner (a perception reportedly reinforced by Coca Cola Inc.‘s sales force),

and switched their allegiance to Coke‘s brands of carbonated beverages. The lower profitability of PepsiCo‘s

restaurant business, relative to its other businesses (carbonated beverages, fruit based beverages and salty snack

foods), coupled with the adverse impact on its relationship with institutional customers for its beverage business,

were reportedly among the major considerations behind PepsiCo‘s decision to spin-off its restaurant business as

an independent, publicly traded company (Yum! Brands Inc.).

Marketing Strategy: Definition

There was a hint of this new science in Socrates‘ maddening insistence on definitions, and in Plato‘s

constant refining of every concept. Aristotle‘s little treatise on definitions shows how his logic found

nourishment at this source. ―If you wish to converse with me,‖ said Voltaire, ―define your terms.‖ How

many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!

This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in a serious

19
 discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind;

but once done, it is half of any task. (Durant 1961, p.59)

Durant‘s (1961) above remarks invoking Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Voltaire highlight the importance

of precise definitions of constructs to any field of study. The definition of marketing strategy presented in this

section builds on extant conceptualizations of business strategy, marketing strategy and marketing. This is

preceded by a brief discussion on (1) the scope of alternative definitions of strategy (e.g., definitions whose scope

is limited to strategy content versus those encompassing content and purpose, or content, purpose and process),

and (2) the layers of marketing strategy (customer interfacing layer and precursor to the customer interfacing

layer).

Scope of Strategy Definitions

An examination of extant conceptualizations of strategy reveals that they range from narrow to broad in

scope. The scope of some are limited to strategy content (what is it), while others encompass content and purpose

(what is it and towards what end), and still others encompass content, purpose and process (what is it, towards

what end and how is it arrived at). Table 1 presents an overview of selected and representative conceptualizations

of business strategy and marketing strategy and the limitations of some of the conceptualizations. While

definitions that encompass both strategy content and purpose tend to be more pervasive, the justification for

definitions of marketing strategy whose scope is limited to content resides in the dictionary definition of definition

(an explanation or statement of the essential nature of anything).

Insert Table 1 about Here

An examination of marketing literature also reveals that the term ―marketing strategy‖ is used in

myriad contexts that differ in respect of the scope of marketing strategy content (from broad to narrow)

such as the following:

1. A vector of marketing decisions (or marketing actions, activities or behaviors) encompassing multiple

aspects of where to compete (e.g., markets to serve and market segments to target) and how to compete

(e.g., differentiation by product features, positioning, channels, etc.).

20
 2. A vector of marketing decisions encompassing numerous aspects of how to compete.

3. A vector of marketing decisions concerning certain aspects of how to compete (e.g., push strategy versus

pull strategy – pattern of allocation of resources among the advertising, personal selling, consumer sales

promotion and trade sales promotion elements of the promotion mix).

4. A marketing decision concerning a specific aspect of how to compete (e.g., market skimming price

strategy versus market penetration price strategy, positioning strategy, and branding strategy).

Marketing Strategy Layers: Customer Interfacing Layer versus Precursor to the Customer

Interfacing Layer

Table 2 provides an overview of representative constituent elements of a business‘ marketing

strategy grouped into two broad categories: (1) the customer interfacing layer, and (2) precursor to the

customer interfacing layer. The phrase ―customer interfacing layer of marketing strategy‖ is used here to

refer to an organization‘s marketing actions such as brand name, product attributes, price, distribution

intensity, advertising, and sales promotion that have the potential to engender affective, cognitive and/or

behavioral responses from customers. The phrase ―precursor to the customer interfacing layer of

marketing strategy‖ is used to refer to an organization‘s marketing decisions that are precursors to the

constituent elements of the customer interfacing layer of marketing strategy. As shown in Table 2, they

include marketing decisions such as an organization‘s choice of markets and market segments to serve,

order of entry into a market, and mode of entry into a market.

Consider for instance the question of ―how to enter a market.‖ Of the alternative entry strategies that may

be available to a business (internal development, acquisition and strategic alliance), under certain environmental

and organizational conditions, entering into a strategic alliance with another firm that possesses complementary

skills and resources might be the preferred alternative, in light of its greater potential to enable a firm to offer to

its customers a superior product offering relative to its competitors‘ product offerings. However, the response of

the customers is to the attributes of the superior product offering and not to the strategic alliance. Therefore, such

strategic marketing decisions are shown in Table 2 as comprising the precursor to the customer interfacing layer

of marketing strategy. Against this backdrop, a definition of marketing strategy is presented in the next section.

21
 Insert Table 2 about Here

Definition of Marketing Strategy

At the broadest level, marketing strategy can be defined as an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions that

specify its crucial choices concerning products, markets, marketing actions and marketing resources in the

creation, communication and/or delivery of products that offer value to customers in exchanges with the

organization and thereby enable the organization to achieve specific objectives. The proposed definition

constitutes a broad definition that encompasses virtually all of the strategic marketing issues delineated in Table 2.

For example, the term ―crucial choices concerning markets‖ in the proposed definition encompasses an

organization‘s strategic decisions pertaining to questions such as where to compete (markets to serve and market

segments to serve), when to enter a market, and how to enter a market.

In reference to a specific product offering of an organization, the above definition can be stated as

follows: Marketing strategy refers to an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions that specify its crucial

choices concerning markets to serve and market segments to target, marketing actions to take, and the allocation

of marketing resources among markets, market segments and marketing actions toward the creation,

communication and/or delivery of a product that offers value to customers in exchanges with the organization and

thereby enable the organization to achieve specific objectives.

While organizations are faced with the need to address issues relating to ―how to compete‖ on an ongoing

basis and make mid-course changes as appropriate, the question of ―where to compete‖ (choice markets to serve

and market segments to target) is an issue that is addressed relatively infrequently. Hence, in specific reference to

an existing product offering of an organization that is targeted at specific markets and market segments, the

proposed definition can be stated as follows: Marketing strategy refers to an organization’s integrated pattern of

decisions that specify its crucial choices concerning marketing actions to take, and the allocation of marketing

resources among markets, market segments and marketing actions toward the creation, communication and/or

delivery of a product that offers value to customers in exchanges with the organization and thereby enable the

organization to achieve specific objectives. A brief discussion of the rationale underlying the proposed definition

22
and elaboration of the key elements of the definition (the context in which specific key words and phrases are

used in the proposed definition) follows.

The official definition of marketing adopted by the AMA in 2007 (Marketing News 2008, p. 28) reads as

follows: ―Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and

exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.‖ Building on the

centrality to the definition of marketing of the creation, communication and delivery of products that offer value

to customers in an exchange, marketing strategy is conceptualized as an organization‘s crucial choices concerning

products, markets, marketing activities and marketing resources in the creation, communication and/or delivery of

products that offer value to customers in exchanges with the organization. Mintzberg (1987a) points out that a

realized strategy can emerge in response to an evolving situation, or it can be brought about deliberately, through

a process of formulation followed by implementation. The proposed definition is stated in the latter context (i.e.,

intended strategy).

In the proposed definitions, organization refers to both ―for-profit‖ and ―not-for-profit‖ organizations. In

the former context, from a unit of analysis perspective, it can either be the firm at large as in a single business

firm, an organizational sub-unit such as a strategic business unit in a multi-business firm, a product category

within a strategic business unit, a product within a product category, or a specific brand of a product. Integrated

pattern of decisions denotes that at the broadest level, marketing strategy entails making a multiplicity of

decisions that are inter-related and inter-dependent and must therefore be internally consistent. Crucial choices

refer to choices that are strategic in nature (a discussion on the defining characteristics of strategic marketing

decisions was presented in an earlier section). An integrated pattern of actions, activities or behaviors in the

marketplace logically follows from the integrated pattern of decisions that undergird them.

Marketing resources refers to all types of resources expended by an organization toward the creation,

communication and/or delivery of products that offer value to customers in transactional and relational exchanges

with the organization. They include financial resources expended toward specific marketing activities (e.g.,

advertising, personal selling, consumer sales promotion, trade sales promotion), the accumulated stock of

marketing infrastructure assets (e.g., logistics and physical distribution infrastructure, sales force), and the stock

23
of market-based relational assets (e.g., brand equity and channel equity). Although certain marketing strategy

decisions per se and in isolation (e.g., markets to serve and market segments to target, pricing and positioning)

may not entail expending marketing resources, acting on these decisions will necessarily entail expending

marketing resources on an array of marketing activities.

Organizational objectives is broadly construed to encompass (1) the facilitation of the achievement of

competitive positional advantage (cost and/or differentiation advantage), (2) the achievement of specific market

responses from customers (e.g., affect and behavior) and competitors (including inaction or non-response), and

(3) the achievement of specific marketplace performance objectives (e.g., market share, revenue, sales, sales

growth, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and creation of market-based relational assets and intellectual

assets), and financial performance objectives (e.g., profit, return on investment, market value creation). While an

organization‘s stock of market-based relational assets constitutes marketing resources that are available for

deployment in the marketplace, their creation falls within the realm of marketing strategy objectives. While an

organization‘s marketplace related intellectual assets (i.e., market knowledge and marketing knowledge) play an

important role in making effective marketing resource deployment decisions, per se, they do not constitute

marketing resources that can be deployed in the marketplace. The term and/or is used in the proposed definitions

to signify that the scope of a specific marketing strategy can either be broad, encompassing creation,

communication and delivery, or somewhat focused and limited. Of course, even in the latter context, the

implication is commensurate behaviors with respect to other elements of marketing strategy, given the integrated,

inter-dependent and multifaceted scope of the marketing strategy of an organization directed at entities in the

marketplace such as customers and competitors.

Strategic Marketing: Fundamental Issues

Fundamental issues are issues that (1) are enduring to a field of study, (2) distinguish a field of study from related

fields and contributing disciplines, and (3) are amenable to accommodating new insights and approaches (see:

Day and Montgomery 1999, p. 3).

Chief among the issues that are fundamental to the field of strategic marketing are:

24
1. What explains differences in the marketing behavior of competing businesses in the marketplace?

2. What explains differences in the marketplace and financial performance of competing brands/product

lines/businesses?

More generally, in the broader context of both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, the above

fundamental issues can be restated as follows:

A. What explains differences in the marketing behavior of organizations in the marketplace? That is, why do

organizations choose to behave the way they behave in the marketplace?

B. What explains differences in the marketplace performance of competing organizations?

A brief discussion on the rationale underlying the delineation of the above as among the issues fundamental to

strategic marketing follows.

While questions pertaining to the behavior of firms in the marketplace have been the focus of research in

industrial organization (IO), strategic management and strategic marketing, in both IO and strategic management,

this issue is examined largely from a supply side (industry structure) perspective. Unique to strategic marketing is

a dual focus, namely, marketing strategy being informed by both supply side and demand side considerations. To

elaborate, the following questions emerge from the broader question of ―what explains differences in the

marketing behaviors of competing businesses in the marketplace.‖

A. How is the marketing strategy of a business influenced by supply side factors? That is, how do (a) the structural

characteristics of the industry in which a business competes (e.g., industry growth rate, entry and exit barriers, the

characteristics of the focal business, competitors‘ characteristics and history of past behavior), (b) the

characteristics of the firm (e.g., distinctive skills and resources), and (c) the characteristics of the product offering

(e.g., tangibles-dominant versus intangibles-dominant products) influence its choice of marketing behaviors to

achieve specific organizational objectives?

B. How is the marketing strategy of a business influenced by demand side factors? That is, how do the

characteristics of a business‘ target customers (e.g., their attitudes, beliefs and preferences; number and size;

purchase frequency; sensitivity and responsiveness to various marketing instruments; and history of past

behavior) influence its choice of marketing behaviors to achieve specific organizational objectives?

25
 Meyer (1991, p. 828) notes that strategy has crystallized around one definitive research question: ―What

causes certain firms to outperform their competitors on a sustained basis?‖ The centrality of the above question

(which can be more broadly stated as: ―What explains performance differences between firms?‖) in reference to

marketing strategy is evidenced by a large body of research in marketing (Szymanski, Bharadwaj and Varadarajan

1993; Boulding and Staelin 1995). Schendel (1991) delineates the following as issues fundamental to strategy: (1)

Why do firms differ? (2) How do firms behave? (3) How does the policy making process affect policy outcomes?

(4) What is the role of the corporate headquarters in multi-business firms? (5) What explains international success

and failure of firms? A critical examination of the above questions suggests that only the first two questions are

truly fundamental. Consider for instance, the last of the above questions. The broader question of success or

failure of firms (i.e., what explains performance differences between firms?) subsumes their success and failure in

the international arena as well. Similarly, the policy making process and policy outcomes and role of the corporate

headquarters in multi-business firms (questions #3 and #4) are likely to impact ―how firms behave‖ and ―why do

firms differ‖ (differences in the behavior of firms as well as differences between competing firms).

In reference to the behavior of buyers and the behavior of sellers as fundamental explananda for marketing,

Hunt (1983, p. 13) enumerates the following as guiding research questions: (1) Why do which buyers purchase

what they do, where they do, when they do, and how they do? (2) Why do which sellers produce, price, promote

and distribute what they do, where they do, when they do, and how they do? Chief among the factors that

influence a seller‘s choice of specific behaviors (i.e., what a particular seller chooses to produce, and how the

seller chooses to price, promote and distribute what it produces), is the seller‘s knowledge of buyers (i.e., why do

which buyers purchase what they do, where they do, when they do, and how they do?). Highlighting the consumer

behavior underpinnings of marketing strategy, Keller (1993, pp.1-2) notes: ―… marketers need a more thorough

understanding of consumer behavior as a basis for making better strategic decisions about target market definition

and product positioning ...‖. Hence, the enumeration of ―How is the marketing strategy of an organization

influenced by demand side factors?‖ and ―How is the marketing strategy of an organization influenced by and

supply side factors?‖ as two distinct issues fundamental to strategic marketing as a field of study.

Marketing Strategy: Foundational Premises

26
 In sociology as well is in history, it is our major premises that we are most apt to leave unstated,

particularly when they are psychological. We leave them unstated not only because they are

obvious, but also because they are so obvious that we cannot bring ourselves to take them

seriously. (Homans 1964, p. 968)

In reference to the field of organizational science, Weick (1989) draws attention to Homans‘ above

remark concerning major premises in various fields of study often going unnoticed and unstated because

they seem simple and obvious. For the most part, the foundational premises of marketing strategy

enumerated in this section are also simple, straightforward and obvious. At the same time, they are

marketing strategy universals in the sense that they generalize across products, markets, and time

horizons. That is, they hold regardless of whether (1) the product in question is a good, service, idea,

experience, place, etc.; (2) the market in question is a business-to-consumer (B2C) market or a business-

to-business (B2B) market, an industrialized country market or an industrializing country market, a high

growth market or a low growth market, etc.; and (3) the time frame of reference is pre-Internet or post-

Internet.

1. A purpose of marketing strategy is to facilitate an organization achieve and sustain a competitive

advantage in the marketplace.

2. A purpose of marketing strategy is to create market-based relational assets and market- based

intellectual assets for the organization (see Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey 1998).

3. A purpose of marketing strategy is to enable an organization to establish and nurture mutually

beneficial exchange relationships with customers (see Bagozzi 1975).

4. A purpose of marketing strategy is to modify/influence/shape the affect, cognition and behaviors

of customers and consumers in ways that are conducive to their acquisition, possession and

consumption of specific product offerings of an organization (see Carpenter, Glazer and

Nakamoto 1997).

27
5. A purpose of marketing strategy is to identify and leverage new points of differentiation (see

McMillan and McGrath 1997).

6. A purpose of marketing strategy is to enhance the salience of non-price criteria vis-à-vis price or

vice-versa in buyers‘ choice decisions.

7. A business can enhance the importance of non-price criteria relative to price in the brand choice

decision process of buyers by segmenting the market into homogenous subgroups, developing

differentiated product offerings responsive to the needs of individual market segments, and

distinctively positioning its offerings relative to competitors‘ product offerings.

8. Differentiation implies heterogeneity in supply.

9. Heterogeneity in demand is not a necessary condition in order for a strategy of differentiation to

be effective in the marketplace. Heterogeneity in demand can either be a pre-existing state of the

marketplace, or a consequence of heterogeneity in supply and the marketing efforts of competing

businesses designed to stimulate heterogeneity in demand (see Dickson 1992).

10. The range of options available to a business for pursuing a strategy of differentiation

encompasses all non-price criteria that buyers either currently factor into the brand choice

decision process or can be influenced to factor into the brand choice decision process.

11. All else being equal, a business can enhance its financial performance through pursuit of a

strategy of differentiation when the incremental cost of differentiation per unit (i.e., cost per unit

amortized over the projected sales) is lower than the price premium that a unit of a differentiated

product will command in the marketplace relative to an undifferentiated product.

12. Holding all other factors constant, those dimensions of differentiation for which the incremental

cost of differentiation is lower than the incremental price premium that such differentiation is

likely to command in the marketplace constitute feasible avenues for differentiation.

13. A sustainable competitive cost advantage (being the lowest cost producer) is a necessary

condition in order for a business to be able to compete on the basis of price over the long-run.

28
 14. Competitive cost advantage does not imply being the lowest priced offering in the marketplace,

but possessing the ability to compete on price and constraining the ability of competitors from

competing on the basis of price.

15. In an industry, there will be more than one means (i.e., marketing strategy) to achieving a desired

end (i.e., superior organizational performance). Thus, different competitors in an industry will be

able to achieve and sustain comparable levels of superior performance by pursuing different

promotion strategies (e.g., push strategy versus pull strategy), pricing strategies (e.g., market

skimming price strategy versus market penetration price strategy), etc.

16. There will be differences in the marketing strategies (i.e., heterogeneity or diversity in marketing

strategy) pursued by competitors in an industry. The marketing strategies pursued by no two

competitors in an industry are likely to be identical. At the margin, there will be differences in the

strategies pursued.

Collectively, the first six premises constitute a departure from the view espoused in certain sources

that the purpose of marketing strategy is to enable a business to achieve and sustain a competitive

advantage (e.g., Day, Weitz and Wensley 1990). A number of considerations suggest that it is more

meaningful to view ―enabling or facilitating a business to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage‖ as

a purpose of marketing strategy, rather than as the purpose of marketing strategy. A large body of

marketing literature sheds light on the following as among some of the other key purposes of marketing

strategy: (a) creating market-based relational assets and market-based intellectual assets, (b) establishing

and nurturing mutually beneficial exchange relationships, and (c) modifying/influencing/shaping the

affect, cognition and behaviors of customers and consumers.

Ghoshal (1987, p. 428) notes that a general premise in the strategic management literature is that the

concept of strategy is meaningful only when the actions of one firm can affect the actions or performance of

another. Along similar lines, it makes sense to view the concept of marketing strategy as meaningful only when

the marketing actions or behaviors of an organization have an effect (are undertaken with the intent to have an

effect) on the affect, cognition and/or behavior of customers for specific product offerings of the organization.

29
They also have an effect on the actions and performance of an organization‘s competitors as a consequence of

their effect (or potential to have an effect) on the affect, cognition and/or behavior of customers for specific

product offerings.

As pointed out by Carpenter, Glazer and Nakamoto (1997), if consumer preferences and decision

making are context dependent, an important objective of marketing strategy is to create the context—

shape the competitive environment, and consequently, the structure of preferences and decision making.

Along similar lines, in their research focusing on consumer preference formation and pioneering

advantage, Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) highlight the importance of influencing consumers‘

preferences as a major objective of marketing strategy. When marketing strategy behavior conducive to

superior marketplace performance is viewed primarily from a supply side perspective (e.g., the

industry/market structure underpinnings of marketing strategy) to the exclusion of demand side

perspective (i.e., the customer behavior underpinnings of marketing strategy), one runs the risk of

narrowly circumscribing the purpose of marketing strategy.

In regard to premise # 16, heterogeneity in marketing strategy among competitors can be explained as a

consequence of heterogeneity in resources. Interestingly, Henderson (1983) in characterizing certain principles of

competition as universal, whether applied to biological or business competition, notes that if multiple competitors

coexist, then any given pair of competitors must differ from any other possible pair by a different combination of

characteristics or factors. Otherwise, two or more of the competitors would be nearly identical and as a

consequence would be conditionally unstable. For example, in a market for a frequently purchased product, the

market share leader is likely to pursue a promotion strategy characterized by relatively greater emphasis on the

pull elements of the promotion mix (advertising and consumer sales promotion) vis-à-vis the push elements of the

promotion mix (personal selling and trade sales promotion). On the other hand, a market share follower is likely

to pursue a promotion strategy characterized by relatively greater emphasis on the push elements of the promotion

mix (personal selling and trade sales promotion) vis-à-vis the pull elements of the promotion mix (advertising and

consumer sales promotion).

Discussion

30
 The first part of this section provides a brief discussion of certain caveats that should be borne in mind in

the context of the preceding sections pertaining to the four major objectives of the paper. In addition, potential

avenues for future research are briefly addressed with respect to some of the above. The latter part of the section

draws attention to a related issue and the need for action at the disciplinary level.

Domain of strategic marketing as a field of study: On the one hand, it can be argued that a broad consensus

among the community of strategy researchers in marketing in regard to a critical and foundational issue, such as

the conceptual domain of the field of strategic marketing, can be conducive to the advancement of the field. On

the other hand, the need for a shared consensus on this issue can also be questioned. For instance, Hunt (2002)

draws attention to Popper‘s (1959) observation that all definitions of disciplines are largely arbitrary in content,

and they primarily represent an agreement to focus attention on some problems, issues, and phenomena, to the

exclusion of others. Hunt also cautions that a major problem with narrowly circumscribing the appropriate subject

matter of a discipline is that it can seriously trammel research and other scientific inquiry and draws attention to

Kaplan‘s (1964, p. 70) characterization of the above problem as ―premature closure.‖

The conceptual domain of strategic marketing proposed in this paper represents the perspective of a marketing

strategy researcher, albeit, based on insights gleaned from a review of relevant literature. Extant literature

provides insights into other approaches that can be employed to gain insights into the conceptual domain of

strategic marketing as a field of study. For instance, Nag, Hambrick and Chen (2007) inductively derive a

consensus definition for the field of strategic management. For this purpose, they enlisted the participation of a

panel of strategic management scholars to rate the abstracts of 447 articles published in major management

journals. Each panelist was presented with a web-based survey that contained the titles and abstracts of 18

randomly generated articles from the pool of 447 articles. They were asked to rate the abstracts on a four point

scale (1: clearly not a strategic management article … 4: clearly a strategic management article). The authors

employed automated text analysis to identify the distinctive lexicon of the field of strategic management (a total

of 54 words that appeared appreciably more frequently in the abstracts of articles that were rated by the panel of

strategic management scholars as being on strategic management than in the abstracts of articles that were rated as

31
not being on strategic management), and in turn, derive an implicit consensual definition of the field, as held by

its members.

Eliciting the input of thought leaders in the field of strategic marketing and/or a more broad-based

representative sample of marketing strategy researchers and practitioners constitutes yet another avenue for

gaining insights into the shared consensus on the domain of the field. For instance, the responses to questions

such as the following can shed insights into the shared consensus on the domain of the field and issues

fundamental to it: (1) What do you view as the general domain of strategic marketing and the major substantive

areas within its domain? (2) Given your construal of the general domain of strategic marketing, what do you view

as some issues fundamental to this field? Phrase your responses in the form of questions (e.g., why do …; how do

…; what is …; what explains …; when does …; is …).

Definition of marketing strategy: Recent commentaries and critiques of AMA‘s 2004 definition of

marketing have focused on the implications (or lack thereof) of the definition for the role and

responsibility of marketing in society (Gundlach 2007), the implied neglect of moral responsibility by

professional bodies (Mick 2007) and failure to address major societal and public policy issues (Wilkie

and Moore 2007). Indeed, there may be merits to including ―value to society at large‖ in the definition of

marketing that is adopted by professional associations of marketing academics and/or practitioners.

However, in the spirit of the merits of multiple definitions of marketing strategy from differing

orientations, the definition of marketing strategy proposed in this paper do not delve into societal issues.

It should however be noted that a societal focus is implicit in the proposed definitions when employed in

the context of not-for-profit organizations (specifically, the purpose component of the definition). It is

also intrinsic to certain marketing strategies such as pertaining to cause-related marketing, green

marketing and green innovations (specifically, the content component of the definition).

On the one hand, given the centrality of marketing strategy to strategic marketing as a field of study,

multiple definitions from different orientations can be valuable to practitioners and researchers from the

standpoint of gaining better insights into a complex and dynamic field. For instance, Mintzberg (1987b, p. 11)

notes: ―Human nature insists on a definition for every concept. The field of strategic management cannot afford to

32
rely on a single definition of strategy, indeed the word has long been used implicitly in different ways even if it

has been traditionally defined formally in only one. Explicit recognition of multiple definitions can help

practitioners and researchers alike to maneuver through this difficult field.‖ On the other hand, Kinnear (1999,

p.113) notes: ―At the most elementary level, it is almost impossible to do high-quality research that builds the

state of knowledge without a set of agreed definitions.‖ Echoing a similar point of view, MacKenzie (2003) notes

that lack of attention to construct conceptualization (failure to adequately specify the conceptual meaning of the

study‘s focal constructs) can undermine a study as a consequence of its cascading adverse impact on construct

validity, statistical conclusion validity, and internal validity.

Issues fundamental to strategic marketing: A synthesis and critique of theories that researchers have used to

shed insights into questions that are fundamental to the field of strategic marketing and how are they connected to

each other constitutes a potential avenue for future research. Recent studies by Merwe, Berthon, Pitt and Barnes

(2007) and Brown and Dant (2009) provide insights for pursuing such research. For instance, Merwe et al. use

social network theory to identify the most influential theories in marketing and the linkages between them. They

distinguish among ten theories that have been influential in the field of marketing with reference to their intrinsic

capital, and ten theories that have been influential in the field with reference to their linkage capital.

As noted earlier, Day and Montgomery (1999) view as fundamental issues that (1) are enduring to a field

of study, (2) distinguish a field of study from related fields and contributing disciplines, and (3) are amenable to

accommodating new insights and approaches. In addition to the questions enumerated in an earlier section,

enumeration of other questions that are fundamental to the field of strategic marketing that meet the above

conditions constitutes a potential avenue for future research.

Foundational premises of marketing strategy: Researchers in marketing have focused on various

foundational issues such as marketing principles (Armstrong and Schultz 1992; Buzzell and Gale 1987),

premises (Hunt and Morgan 1995; Vargo and Lusch 2004), phenomena (Little 1979), and empirical

generalizations (Boulding and Staelin 1995; Reibstein and Farris 1995). In that tradition, certain

foundational premises of marketing strategy are presented in this paper. However, they are intended to be

33
representative. Compiling a more comprehensive and larger number of foundational premises of

marketing strategy is another potential avenue for future research.

The Confusing Vocabulary of the Field of Strategic Marketing: A Call for Action

Although the primary focus of this paper is on domain of strategic marketing as a field of study and the

issues fundamental to it, along with the definition of marketing strategy as an organizational strategy construct

and the foundational premises of marketing strategy, tangentially two other issues were highlighted: (1) the use of

different construct labels to refer to the same phenomenon (e.g., use of the terms marketing strategy and strategic

marketing to refer to the broader field of study); and (2) the use of the same construct label to refer to different

phenomena (e.g., use of the term marketing strategy in reference to the broader field of study as well as in

reference to a specific organizational strategy construct). A third contributing factor to the confusing vocabulary

of the field is the proliferation of new constructs; the contribution of some of them to enhancing our

understanding of the field is suspect. Consider for instance the following construct labels found in the strategic

marketing literature: (1) market strategy, marketing strategy, strategic marketing, strategic market planning,

strategic marketing planning, strategic market management and strategic marketing management; (2) customer

centric strategy, customer driven strategy, customer focused strategy, and customer oriented strategy; and (3)

customer strategy, customer management strategy, customer relationship strategy, customer relationship

management strategy, and customer lifetime value management strategy. Admittedly, literature provides extensive

evidence of researchers providing precise definitions of new constructs that are proposed, clearly articulating how

they are conceptually distinct from related constructs, and making available in the public domain valid and

reliable scales for measuring them. At the same time, it is not uncommon for new constructs to be introduced to

the field without offering precise definitions, without clearly articulating the conceptual distinction between

newly proposed constructs and related constructs already in vogue in the literature, and without describing how

the newly proposed constructs contribute to enhancing our understanding of issues germane to the field of

marketing.

Needless to say, the above problem is not unique to the field of strategic marketing. It is also evident in other

subfields within marketing as well as in other business disciplines. Consider for instance the partial listing of

34
innovation related terms gleaned from the literature summarized in Table 3. Notwithstanding the importance of

innovation to the growth, profitability and survival of organizations, and the attendant high level of interest

among business consultants, educators and practitioners on myriad innovation related issues, definitional

ambiguities and potential conceptual overlap are relevant issues that merit attention. Given the accumulated body

of literature in various specialized fields of study in marketing, the time may be ripe for professional associations

and special interest groups affiliated with professional associations to assume a leadership role in addressing such

issues.

Insert Table 3 about Here

Conclusion

The advancement of marketing strategy, as a field of study, has benefited from a number of seminal

conceptual and empirical contributions during the past four decades. In this vein, it is hoped that further dialogue

and debate on the perspectives presented here regarding the domain of strategic marketing as a field of study and

the issues fundamental to it, and the definition of marketing strategy as an organizational construct and its

foundational premises, would lead to refinements and the emergence of a broad consensus on certain issues and

competing perspectives on other issues.

35
Endnotes
1
Personal correspondence with the current co-chairs (Rajdeep Grewal and Raj Venkatesan) and the immediate

past co-chairs (Venkatesh Shankar and Satish Jayachandran) of the American Marketing Association Marketing

Strategy Special Interest Group.

2
As might be noted, there are scholarly journals such as the Strategic Management Journal and Journal of

Strategic Marketing, but none such as Tactical Management Journal and Journal of Tactical Marketing.

Countless educational institutions, worldwide, offer courses on marketing strategy. However, it is doubtful as to

whether any offer courses explicitly labeled as ―marketing tactics.‖ A number of marketing academicians identify

themselves as specialized in the field of marketing strategy. However, it is doubtful as to whether any identify

themselves as specialized in marketing tactics. The American Marketing Association Marketing Strategy Special

Interest Group is one of the largest special interest groups, but there isn‘t a Marketing Tactics Special Interest

Group. Most journals in marketing list only ―marketing strategy‖ as a category under which manuscripts can be

submitted for review and publication consideration, and use only ―marketing strategy‖ as a category for indexing

articles published in the journal.

36
 References

Abell, D. F. (1980). Defining the business: The starting point of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how

established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (June-July), 521-

543.

Armstrong, J. S., & Schultz, R. L. (1992). Principles involving marketing policies: An empirical assessment.

Marketing Letters, 4(3), 253-265.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32-39.

Barney, J. (1996), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Boulding, W., & Staelin, R. (1995). Identifying generalizable effects of strategic actions on firm performance:

The case of demand-side returns to R&D spending. Marketing Science, Special Issue on Empirical

Generalizations in Marketing, 14 (3, Part 2 of 2), G222-G236.

Brown, J. R., & Dant, R.P. (2009). The theoretical domains of retailing research: A retrospective. Journal of

Retailing, 85(2), 113-128.

Buzzell, R. D., & Gale B. T. (1987). The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. New York, NY:

The Free Press.

Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of

Marketing Research, XXVI (August), 285-298.

Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto K. (1997). Toward a new concept of competitive advantage. In S.

Gregory, S. Carpenter, R. Glazer, & K. Nakamoto, (Eds.), Readings on Market-Driving Strategies:

Towards a New Theory of Competitive Advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cravens, D. W. (2000). Strategic Marketing, 6th edition. Sydney: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Crawford, M., & Di Benedetto, A. (2008). New Products Management, 9th edition. McGraw Hill/Irwin.

Cunningham, W. H., & Robertson, T. S. (1983). From the editor. Journal of Marketing, 47 (Spring), 5-6.

37
Day, G. S. (1984). Strategic Market Planning: The Pursuit of Competitive Advantage. St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Co.

Day, G. S. (1990). Market-Driven Strategy. New York: The Free Press.

----- (1992). Marketing‘s contribution to the strategy dialogue. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20

(Fall), 323-330.

Day, G. S., Weitz, B., & Wensley, R. (Eds.). (1990). The Interface of Marketing and Strategy. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63

(Special Issue), 3-13.

Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing, 56 (1), 69-83.

Durant, W. (1961). The Story of Philosophy. New York: Pocket Books.

ELMAR (2009). ―2009 Mahajan Award for Lifetime Contributions to Marketing Strategy Research,‖ http://ama-

academics.communityzero.com/elmar?go=t990773

Financial Times (2005). The big gamble: Airbus rolls out its new weapon in its battle with Boeing,‖ Financial

Times (January 17), p. 11.

Ghemawat, P. (1991). Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy. New York, NY: Free Press

Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8 (September-

October), 425-440.

Gundlach, G. T. (2007). The American Marketing Association‘s 2004 definition of marketing: Perspectives on its

implications for scholarship and the role and responsibility of marketing in society. Journal of Public

Policy and Marketing, 26 (Fall), 243-250.

Heil, O., & Robertson, T. S. (1991). Toward a theory of competitive market signaling. Strategic Management

Journal, 12(6), 403-418.

Henderson, B. D. (1983). The anatomy of competition. Journal of Marketing, 47(Spring), 7-11.

Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. E. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Co.

38
Homans, G. C. (1964). Contemporary theory in sociology. In R. E. L. Faris, (Ed.), Handbook of Modern

Sociology (951-977). Chicago: Rand McNally,.

Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47

(Fall), 9-17.

Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. Armonk, NY: M.

E. Sharpe Inc.

Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing,

59 (April), 1-15.

Inkeles, A. (1964). What is Sociology? An Introduction to the Discipline and Profession. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Jain, S. C. (2000). Marketing Planning & Strategy, 6th edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College

Publishing.

Kalakota, R., & Robinson, M. (2001). e-Business 2.0: Roadmap for Success, 2nd edition. Boston: Addison-

Wesley Professional.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of

Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.

Kinnear, T. C. (1999). A perspective on how firms relate to markets. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue),

112-114.

Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 9th edition. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Little, J. D. C. (1979). Aggregate advertising models: The state of the art. Operations Research, 27 (July-August),

629-667.

MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 31 (Summer), 323-326.

39
MacMillan, I.C., & McGrath, R.G. (1997). Discovering new points of differentiation. Harvard Business Review,

(July-August), 133-138.

Marketing News (2004). AMA adopts new definition of marketing. Marketing News, 38 (September 15), 1.

Marketing News (2008). Marketing defined. Marketing News, 42 (January 15), 28-29.

Merwe, R. V., Berthon, P., Pitt, L., & Barnes, B. (2007). Identifying ‗theory networks‘: Identifying pivotal

theories in marketing and their characteristics. Journal of Marketing Management. 23(3-4), 181-206.

Meyer, A. D. (1991). What is strategy‘s distinctive competence? Journal of Management, 17 (1), 821-833.

Mick, D. G. (2007). The end(s) of marketing and the neglect of moral responsibility by the American Marketing

Association. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26 (Fall), 289-292.

Mintzberg, H. (1987a). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65 (July-August), 66-75.

Mintzberg, H. (1987b). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, 30 (Fall),

11-24.

Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a

consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (September), 935-955.

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson and Co.

Porter, M. E. (1987). From competitive advantage to competitive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65 (May-

June), 43-59.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74 (November-December), 61-78.

Reibstein, D. J., & Farris, P. W. (1995). Market share and distribution: A generalization, speculation, and some

implications. Marketing Science, Special Issue on Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, 14 (3, Part 2

of 2), G190-G202.

----, Day, G., & Wind, J. (2009). Guest editorial: Is marketing losing its way? Journal of Marketing, 73 (July), 1-

3.

Schendel, D. E. (1991). Editor‘s comments on winter special issue. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter

Special Issue), 1-3.

40
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1999). Revisiting marketing‘s lawlike generalizations. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 27 (Winter), 71-87.

Slater, S. F., & Olson, E.M. (2001). Marketing‘s contribution to the implementation of business strategy: An

empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (November), 1055-1067.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework

for analysis,‖ Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 2-18.

Suroweicki, J. (2009). Hanging tough. The New Yorker, (April 20), 35.

Szymanski, D. M., Bharadwaj, S.G., & Varadarajan, R. (1993). An analysis of the market share-profitability

relationship. Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 1-18.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic

Management Journal, 18 (August), 509-533.

Varadarajan, R., & Clark, T. (1994). Delineating the scope of corporate, business and marketing strategy. Journal

of Business Research, 31 (October-November), 93-105.

Varadarajan, R., & Jayachandran, S., (1999). Marketing strategy: An assessment of the state of the field and

outlook. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (Spring), 120-143.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68

(January), 1-17.

Walker, O. C., Mullins, J. W., Boyd, H. W., & Larreche, J-C. (2006). Marketing Strategy: A Decision Focused

Approach, 5th edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Webster, Fredrick E., Jr. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56

(October), 1-17.

Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14

(October), 516-531.

Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2007). What does the definition of marketing tell us about ourselves? Journal of

Public Policy and Marketing, 26 (Fall), 269-276.

Wind, Y. (1982). Marketing and corporate strategy. The Wharton Magazine, 6 (Summer), 38-45.

41
Wind, Y., & Robertson, T. S. (1983). Marketing strategy: New direction for theory and research. Journal of

Marketing, 47 (Spring), 12-25.

42
 Figure 1
Domain of the Field of Strategic Marketing: Representative Organizational, Inter-organizational and Environmental Phenomena1

1. Marketing Strategy Scope 10. Intra-Organizational Horizontal Interfaces

• Organizational Scope3 A1. Principal Concerns: • Marketing Strategy ↔ R&D Strategy
• Market Scope4 Issues Pertaining To • Marketing Strategy ↔ Manufacturing Strategy
• Behaviors of • …
Organizations in the
2. Marketing Strategy Behaviors
Marketplace2
• Competitive Behavior
• General Management
• Cooperative Behavior
Responsibilities of 9. Intra-Organizational Vertical Interfaces
• Collusive Behavior
Marketing in • Distinctive and overlapping domains of marketing
Organizations (e.g. strategy, business strategy and corporate strategy
3. Marketing Strategy Context: Role of Marketing in • Influence of business and corporate strategy on
Internal and External Strategy Formulation marketing strategy
Environment at the Corporate and • Influence of marketing strategy on business and
Organizational Environment Business Unit Levels) corporate strategy
• Market Orientation A2. Study of: • Locus of decision making for marketing strategy
• Organizational Culture and Describing, • …
Climate Understanding,
• Organizational Learning Explaining and
•Market and Marketing Knowledge Predicting 8. Inter-Organizational Horizontal Interfaces
Management • Theories, Principles, • Strategic Marketing Alliances
•Web 1.0, 2.0, … Technologies Concepts, … • Multi-point (multi-market and multi-product)
• Sustainable Business Practices • Methods, Metrics, competition
•Corporate Social Responsibility Models, Tools, • …
•… Techniques, …

4. Marketing Strategy Process5,6 7. Inter-Organizational Vertical Interfaces

Strategy Formulation Process  • Marketing Strategy ↔ Cooperation and
Strategy Content  Coordination with Suppliers
Strategy Implementation 6. Marketing Strategy • Marketing Strategy ↔ Cooperation and
Relationships Coordination with Intermediate Customers (Channel
• Antecedents (Drivers) Members)
5. Core Marketing Processes7 • Consequences • …
• Value Creation (Outcomes)
• Value Communication • Moderators
• Value Delivery • Mediators
 Figure 1
Domain of the Field of Strategic Marketing: Representative Organizational, Inter-organizational and Environmental Phenomena
(Contd.)

1 The issues delineated in the figure are only representative of the domain of strategic marketing as a field of study, and do not constitute
either an extensive or comprehensive mapping of the domain of the field.
2 At an earlier point in time (e.g. 1960s, 1970s, 1980s), the scope of behaviors of organizations in the marketplace would generally have
been construed to mean behaviors targeted at consumers, customers, competitors and other external constituencies. In an Internet-
enabled market environment, the scope of behaviors of organizations in the marketplace also encompasses interactive behaviors.
Between the organization and specific external constituencies.
3 Organizational Scope of Marketing Strategy: Firm, business unit, product class, product category, brand, etc.
4Market Scope of Marketing Strategy: Geographic market scope, market types scope and market segments scope

Geographic Market Scope: Global, multi-country, country, region of a country, etc.

Market Types Scope: Business-to business market, business-to-consumer market, business-to-business and business-to consumer
markets, etc.
Market Segments Scope: All market segments, subset of market segments, specific market segment, etc.
5Although for ease of exposition, the marketing strategy process is shown as a linear sequence, in reality, it as an iterative process. For
example, firms routinely make changes in strategy content in the aftermath the outcomes of implementation.
6Strategy Content in Box 4 is the same as “Behaviors in the Marketplace” in Box A and “Marketing Strategy Behaviors” in Box 2.
7 Also see Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey (1999) for a discussion on core business processes that create value for customers – product
development management process, supply chain management process and customer relationship management process.
 Table 1
Representative Conceptualizations of Business Strategy and Marketing Strategy
Conceptualization of Business Strategy Remarks

• A business’ competitive strategy specifies how it intends to • On the one hand, explicit specification of the principal
compete in the markets it chooses to serve. Strategies are dimensions of business strategy (as arena, advantage, access
directional statements (rather than step-by-step plans of and activities) provides clarity. On the other hand, a potential
action) that specify an integrated pattern of choices relating concern with a closed specification is whether it
to arena (markets to serve and customer segments to target), comprehensively captures the scope of the focal construct.
advantage (positioning that differentiates the business from
its competitors), access (communication and distribution
channels to use to reach the markets) and activities
(appropriate scale and scope of activities to be performed).
These choices are highly interdependent (see: Day 1990, pp.
5-6).

• The essence of strategy is in the activities – a business’ • Consider the following adaptation of Porter’s (1996)
decision to perform different activities (choice of activities conceptualization as a working definition of marketing
to perform) and/or specific activities differently (manner of strategy: “Marketing strategy refers to a business’ choice of
performance of specific activities), relative to its marketing activities to perform and the manner in which
competitors. Competitive cost advantage is the result of a specific marketing activities are to be performed.” From the
business performing specific activities more efficiently than standpoint of action implications for marketing practice and
competitors, and competitive differentiation advantage is a operationalization for purposes of research, the usefulness of
consequence of a business’ choice of activities to perform such a definition is very limited.
and the manner in which they are performed (Porter 1996).

• The matching of organizational competencies with the • Definition highlights the importance of “fit” as an essential
opportunities and risks created by environmental change in element of strategy (the matching of organizational
ways that will be both effective and efficient over the time competencies with the opportunities and risks created by
such resources will be deployed (Hofer and Schendel 1978). environmental change).
 Table 1 (Continued)
Representative Conceptualizations of Business Strategy and Marketing Strategy
Conceptualization of Business Strategy Remarks
• Strategy refers to the fundamental pattern of present and • Consider the following adaptation of Hofer and Schendel’s
planned resource deployments and environmental interactions (1978) and Barney’s (1996) conceptualization of strategy as a
that indicates how the organization will achieve its objectives working definition of marketing strategy: “Marketing strategy
(Hofer and Schendel 1978, p. 25). refers to a business’ fundamental pattern or deployment of
• Strategy refers to the pattern of resource allocation that marketing resources in its interactions with customers and
enables firms to maintain or improve their performance competitors for the purpose of achieving specific
(Barney 1996, p. 26). organizational objectives.” A potential shortcoming of such a
definition is that only certain marketing strategy behaviors
imply different patterns of deployment of marketing resources
across marketing mix elements. For instance, “push” versus
“pull” strategy imply different patterns of deployment of
marketing resources across advertising, consumer sales
promotion, personal selling and trade sales promotion.
However, certain other marketing behaviors (e.g., the
positioning of a product offering and its pricing) do not entail
the deployment of marketing resources, other than the market-
based intellectual assets underlying the decisions.
Understandably, given the integrated and interdependent
nature of the marketing decisions that collectively constitute a
business’ marketing strategy, the positioning of a product
offering will impact on the choice and quantity of attributes
that the product if designed to offer to customers, its pricing,
manner of advertising, etc.

Conceptualization of Marketing Strategy Remarks

• “Marketing strategy is a set of integrated decisions and • While the first definition is open ended (a set of integrated
actions by which a business expects to achieve it marketing decisions and actions), the second definition explicitly
objectives and meet the value requirements of its customers.” specifies the principal dimensions of marketing strategy
(Slater and Olson 2001, p. 1056) (market segmentation, targeting, positioning, product, price,
“Marketing strategy is concerned with decisions relating to promotion and distribution) . As noted earlier, a potential
market segmentation and targeting, and the development of a concern with a closed specification is whether it
positioning strategy based on product, price, promotion and comprehensively captures the scope of the focal construct.
distribution decisions.” (Slater and Olson 2001, p. 1056)
 Table 1 (Continued)
Representative Conceptualizations of Business Strategy and Marketing Strategy
Conceptualization of Marketing Strategy Remarks

• Marketing activities and decisions related to building and • The section of the paper titled, “Foundational Premises of
maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage (Day, Weitz Marketing Strategy,” provides a discussion on the limitations
and Wensley 1990). of viewing achieving and maintaining a sustainable
competitive advantage as the purpose of marketing strategy,
rather than as one of the purposes of marketing strategy.
• The analysis, strategy development, and implementation
activities pertaining to developing a vision about the • Illustrative of a definition of marketing strategy
market(s) of interest to the organization, selecting market encompassing content, purpose, process and implementation.
target strategies, setting objectives, and developing,
The term “strategy development” is used to define marketing
implementing, and managing the program positioning
strategies designed to meet the value requirements of strategy.
customers in each target market (Cravens 2000, p. 31).
• Contrary to certain conceptualizations, that view strategy as
• The primary focus of marketing strategy is the effective the pattern of allocation of resources (Schendel and Hofer
allocation and coordination of marketing resources and 1978; Barney 1996), Walker et al. (2006), conceptualize
activities to realize the firm’s objectives within a specific marketing strategy as effective allocation and coordination
product-market. (see: Walker, Mullins, Boyd, Larreche 2006, of marketing resources and activities. Conceptualizing
p. 11). strategy as encompassing both allocation of resources and
coordination of activities is particularly appropriate from the
standpoint of marketing strategy, since while certain
elements of marketing strategy imply a pattern of allocation
of marketing resources (e.g. push versus pull strategy),
others (e.g., positioning and pricing) do not per se entail
resource allocation. Effectiveness of resource allocation
however is a measure of the quality of strategy rather than
strategy per se.
• An endeavor by a corporation to differentiate itself
positively from its competitors, using its relative competitive
strengths to better satisfy customers in a given • Although marketing strategy entails positive differentiation
environmental setting (Jain 2000, p. 24). from competitors by leveraging an organization’s strengths
relative to its competitors, the scope of marketing strategy is
much broader than implied by the proposed definition.
 Table 2
Marketing Strategy Layers: Customer Interfacing and Customer Non-interfacing Layers1
A. Customer Interfacing Layer
Strategic Marketing Issue Illustrative Marketing Strategy Constructs and Representative Decisions
Where to compete?2 Target Market Strategy
Market(s) to serve and market segment(s) to serve

How to compete? Brand Strategy

Single brand strategy versus multi-brand strategy

Branding Strategy
Introduction of a new product (entry into a new product category) with an existing brand name in the firm’s brand
portfolio versus with a new brand name

Channel Strategy
Single versus multi-channel strategy
Online versus online and offline

Distribution (intensity) Strategy

Intensive versus selective versus exclusive distribution

Positioning Strategy
Positioning of a firm’s product offering relative to the positioning of its competitors’ product offerings
Positioning of a firm’s offerings in individual market segments relative to the positioning of its offerings in the other
market segments

Pricing Strategy
Market penetration price strategy versus market skimming price strategy

Product Line Strategy

Broad versus narrow product line

Promotion Strategy
Predominantly push strategy versus predominantly pull strategy [Pattern of allocation of promotion effort toward
advertising and consumer sales promotion (pull elements of the promotion mix) versus trade sales promotion and
personal selling (push elements of the promotion mix)]
 Table 2 (Continued)
How to compete in individual country markets? Multinational Marketing Strategy / Global Competitive Marketing Strategy
Standardization of specific competitive marketing variables (e.g. positioning, branding) across country markets versus
partial standardization / partial adaptation across country markets versus adaptation to individual country markets

B. Customer Non-interfacing Layer

Strategic Marketing Issue Illustrative Marketing Strategy Constructs and Representative Decisions
Where to compete and how to compete? 2,3 Business Scope Strategy
Customer groups to serve (Markets and market segments to serve)
Customer functions to serve (Customer needs to satisfy)
Technologies to utilize (Abell 1980)
Stages of the value added system to participate in (Day 1990, p. 27)

Product-market Coverage Strategy

Single product-market concentration versus market specialization versus product specialization versus selective
product-market specialization versus full product-market coverage (Abell 1980)

What is the overarching strategy? Market driving strategy (shaping / influencing / modifying the market environment) versus market driven strategy
(adaptively responding to the market environment)

Primary demand stimulation strategy (increasing the size of the market for a product) versus selective demand
stimulation strategy (increasing the firm’s share of the market)

When to enter a product-market? Order of Market Entry / Market Entry Timing Strategy
First-mover vs. early follower vs. late entry

Product Launch (Rollout) Strategy Across Country Markets

Simultaneous entry into major country markets (Sprinkler model)
Sequential entry into major country markets (Waterfall / Cascade model)

How to enter a product-market? Market Entry Strategy

Internal development versus acquisition versus joint venture / strategic alliance

How to exit a product-market? Market Exit Strategy

Spin-off versus sell-off versus phase out
 Table 2 (Continued)

Customer Non-interfacing Layer

Strategic Marketing Issue Illustrative Marketing Strategy Constructs and Representative Decisions
What should be the relative emphasis on Relative Emphasis on Product-Market Growth Strategies
alternative growth strategies? Relative emphasis on market penetration strategy (promoting present products in present markets), market development
strategy (promoting present products in new markets), and product development strategy (developing new products for
present markets)

Relative Emphasis on Innovation Strategies

Relative emphasis on radical innovations versus incremental innovations

Relative Emphasis on New Product Development Strategies

Relative emphasis on development of variety extension new products , replacement new products, competitive
substitute new products , new to the firm new products, and new to the world new products.

Relative Emphasis on Retaining Present Customers versus Acquiring New Customers

Greater emphasis on retaining present customers (defensive strategy) versus greater emphasis on acquiring new
customers (offensive strategy )

CRM Strategy
Relative emphasis on a portfolio of marketing programs for, respectively, acquiring new customers, retaining present
customers, recapturing lost customers, reactivating dormant customers, enhancing the profitability and/or revenue
streams of relationships with present customers, etc.

1The strategic marketing issues, marketing strategy constructs and key decisions delineated in the table are only representative and do not constitute either an extensive or a
comprehensive list.
2 The proposed schema broadly distinguishes between two broad layers of marketing strategy – the customer interfacing layer and the customer non-interfacing layer
(precursors to the customer interfacing layer). In the table, the question of which customers groups to serve (where to compete – markets to serve and market segments
to serve) is listed under both categories. Alternatively, this could be considered as a layer of marketing strategy, distinct from both the customer interfacing layer and the
customer non-interfacing layer.
3The nature of issues pertaining to “how to compete” listed here (customer functions to serve, technologies to utilize and stages of value added to compete in) are at a higher

level of aggregation compared those listed under “how to compete” in section “A” (i.e. under customer interfacing layer of marketing strategy).
 Table 3
The Innovation Lexicon: An Overview1
• Administrative Innovation
• Architectural Innovation
• Big Bang Innovation
• Big “I” Innovation Small “I” Innovation2
• Borderless Innovation
• Bottom Up Innovation Top Down Innovation
• Breakthrough Innovation -- Market Breakthrough Innovation, Technological Breakthrough Innovation
• Business Model Innovation
• Catalytic Innovation
• Commercial Innovation Social Innovation
• Continuous Innovation Discontinuous Innovation
• Derivative Innovation
• Disruptive Innovation
• Distributed Innovation
• End-user Innovation
• Entrepreneurial Innovation
• Evolutionary Innovation Revolutionary Innovation
• Exploitative Innovation Exploratory Innovation
• Frugal Innovation (Innovation for the Base of the Pyramid Markets)
• Game-changing Innovation
• Green Innovation (Sustainable Innovation)
• Hybrid Innovation
• Imitative Innovation
• Incremental Innovation Radical Innovation
• Internet Innovation (Internet-enabled Innovation, E-Commerce Innovation, Digital Innovation)
• Leapfrog Innovation
• Market Driving Innovation Market Driven Innovation
• Marketing Innovation – Advertising Innovation, Channel Innovation, Distribution Innovation, Packaging Innovation, … Pricing Innovation
• Modular Innovation
• New-to-the-world Innovation (New Market Creating Innovation) New-to-the-firm Innovation (New Market Entry Innovation)
• Open Source Innovation
• Organic Innovation
• Organizational Innovation
• Policy Innovation
• Process Innovation (Marketing Process Innovation, …) Product Innovation (Goods Innovation, Services Innovation, …)
• Rapid Innovation
• Strategic Innovation Tactical Innovation
• Technical Innovation
• Technological Innovation (Technovation)
• Transformational Innovation (Market Transforming Innovation)
• Trickle Up Innovation Trickle Down Innovation
1Intended to be representative and does not constitute a comprehensive list
2Contrasts such as Big “I” Innovation versus Small “I” Innovation are shown in separate columns