Marketing strategy

Marketing strategy is an organization's promotional efforts to allocate its resources across a wide range of platforms and channels to increase its sales and achieve sustainable competitive advantage within its corresponding market.^[1]

Strategic marketing emerged in the 1970s and 80s as a distinct field of study, branching out of strategic management. Marketing strategy highlights the role of marketing as a link between the organization and its customers, leveraging the combination of resources and capabilities within an organization to achieve a competitive advantage (Cacciolatti & Lee, 2016).^[2]

Marketing management versus marketing strategy

The distinction between "strategic" and "managerial" marketing is used to distinguish "two phases having different goals and based on different conceptual tools. Strategic marketing mainly concerns the choice of policies aimed at improving the competitive position of the firm, taking account of the challenges and opportunities proposed by the competitive environment. On the other hand, managerial marketing is focused on the implementation of specific targets."^{[excessive quote][3]} Marketing strategy is about "lofty visions translated into less lofty and practical goals [while marketing management] is where we start to get our hands dirty and make plans for things to happen."^{[excessive quote][4]} Marketing strategy is sometimes called higher-order planning because it sets out the broad direction and provides guidance and structure for the marketing program.

Further information: Alliance marketing

Marketing Management is a combined effort of strategies on how a business can launch its products and services. On the other hand, Marketing strategy is the combination of many processes where the business owner or marketer can attract potential customers via several channels. It can be through offline channels or online channels.

Marketing Strategy Examples - 1. Pricing Strategy 2. Customer Service process 3. GTM (Go-To-Market) Strategy 4. Packaging 5. Market Mapping and Distribution Reach 6. Channel Management 7. Budgeting

Marketing Management Examples - 1. Launch & Promotion 2. Launch Mode - Offline & Online 3. Campaign Management 4. Budget for the promotional plan 5. Advertisement Strategy

These are a few examples to understand the basics.

History

Marketing scholars have suggested that strategic marketing arose in the late 1970s and its origins can be understood in terms of a distinct evolutionary path:^{[5][6]: 50–56 [7]}

Budgeting Control (also known as scientific management)

Further information: Scientific management

Date: From the late 19th century

Key Thinkers: Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Henry L. Gantt, Harrington Emerson

Key Ideas: Emphasis on quantification and scientific modeling, reduce work to the smallest possible units and assign work to specialists, exercise control through rigid managerial hierarchies, standardize inputs to reduce variation, and defects and control costs, use quantitative forecasting methods to predict any changes.^[8]

Long-range Planning

Date: From the 1950s

Key Thinkers: Herbert A. Simon

Key Ideas: The managerial focus was to anticipate growth and manage operations in an increasingly complex business world.^[9]

Strategic Planning (also known as corporate planning)

Date: From the 1960s

Key Thinkers: Michael Porter

Key Ideas: Organizations must find the right fit within an industry structure; advantage derives from industry concentration and market power; firms should strive to achieve a monopoly or quasi-monopoly; successful firms should be able to erect barriers to entry.

Strategic Marketing Management A business's overall game plan for reaching prospective consumers and turning them into customers of the products or services the business provides.

Date: from the late 1970s

Key thinkers: R. Buzzell and B. Gale

Key Ideas: Each business is unique and there can be no formula for achieving competitive advantage; firms should adopt a flexible planning and review process that aims to cope with strategic surprises and rapidly developing threats; management's focus is on how to deliver superior customer value; highlights the key role of marketing as the link between customers and the organization.

Resource-based view (also known as resource-advantage theory)

Date: From the mid-1990s

Key Thinkers: Jay B. Barney, George S. Day, Gary Hamel, Shelby D. Hunt, G. Hooley and C.K. Prahalad

Key Ideas: The firm's resources are financial, legal, human, organizational, informational, and relational; resources are heterogeneous and imperfectly mobile, management's key task is to understand and organize resources for sustainable competitive advantage.^[10]

Overview

 

The strategic gap

Marketing strategy involves mapping out the company's direction for the forthcoming planning period, whether that be three, five, or ten years. It involves undertaking a 360° review of the firm and its operating environment to identify new business opportunities that the firm could potentially leverage for competitive advantage. Strategic planning can also reveal market threats that the firm may need to consider for long-term sustainability.^[11] Strategic planning makes no assumptions about the firm continuing to offer the same products to the same customers in the future. Instead, it is concerned with identifying the business opportunities that are likely to be successful and evaluating the firm's capacity to leverage such opportunities. It seeks to identify the strategic gap, which is the difference between where a firm is currently situated (the strategic reality or inadvertent strategy) and where it should be situated for sustainable, long-term growth (the strategic intent or deliberate strategy).^[12]

Strategic planning seeks to address three deceptively simple questions, specifically:^[6]: 34

• Where are we now? (Situation analysis)
• What business should we be in? (Vision and mission)
• How should we get there? (Strategies, plans, goals, and objectives)

A fourth question may be added to the list, namely 'How do we know when we got there?' Due to the increasing need for accountability, many marketing organizations use a variety of metrics to track strategic performance, allowing for corrective action to be taken as required. On the surface, strategic planning seeks to address three simple questions, however, the research and analysis involved in strategic planning are very sophisticated and require a great deal of skill and judgment.^{[citation needed]}

Tools and techniques

Strategic analysis is designed to address the first strategic question, "Where are we now?" ^[6]: 34 Traditional market research is less useful for strategic marketing because the analyst is not seeking insights about customer attitudes and preferences. Instead, strategic analysts are seeking insights about the firm's operating environment to identify possible future scenarios, opportunities, and threats.^{[citation needed]}

 

The BCG Matrix is just one of the many analytical techniques used by strategic analysts as a means of evaluating the performance of the firm's current stable of brands.

 

Perceptual mapping assists analysts to evaluate the competitive performance of brands.

 

A product evolutionary cycle helps to envision future directions for product development.

 

Porter's five forces

Mintzberg suggests that the top planners spend most of their time engaged in analysis and are concerned with industry or competitive analyses as well as internal studies, including the use of computer models to analyze trends in the organization.^[13] Strategic planners use a variety of research tools and analytical techniques, depending on the environment complexity and the firm's goals. Fletcher and Bensoussan, for instance, have identified some 200 qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques regularly used by strategic analysts^[14] while a recent publication suggests that 72 techniques are essential.^[15] No optimal technique can be identified as useful across all situations or problems. Determining which technique to use in any given situation rests with the skill of the analyst. The choice of tool depends on a variety of factors including: data availability; the nature of the marketing problem; the objective or purpose, the analyst's skill level as well as other constraints such as time or motivation.^[16]

The most commonly used tools and techniques include:^[15]

Research methods

• Environmental scanning^[17]
• Marketing intelligence (also known as competitive intelligence)^[14][18][19]
• Futures research^[20]

Analytical techniques

• Brand Development Index (BDI)/ Category development index (CDI)^{[21]: 31–35}
• Brand/ Category penetration ^{[21]: 17-66}
• Benchmarking^[22]
• Blind spots analysis^[23]
• Functional capability and resource analysis^[24]
• Impact analysis^{[25]: 79–81}
• Counterfactual analysis^[26]
• Demand analysis^[27]
• Emerging Issues Analysis^[28]
• Experience curve analysis^[29]
• Gap analysis
• Herfindahl index^[21]: 1-16
• Industry Analysis (also known as Porter's five forces analysis)^{[25]: 139-140 [25]: 88-94 [30]: 368–382}
• Management profiling
• Market segmentation analysis^[31]
• Market share analysis
• Perceptual mapping^[32]
• PEST analysis and its variants including PESTLE, STEEPLED and STEER (PEST is occasionally known as Six Segment Analysis)
• Portfolio analysis, such as BCG growth-share matrix or GE business screen matrix^{[25]: 38-39  [25]: 361-376}
• Precursor Analysis or Evolutionary analysis^[33]
• Product life cycle analysis and S-curve analysis (also known as technology life cycle or hype cycle analysis)
• Product evolutionary cycle analysis^[34][35]
• Scenario analysis^{[25]: 81-83}
• Segment Share Analysis
• Situation analysis^[6]: 80
• Strategic Group Analysis^[6]: 82
• SWOT analysis^[36]
• Trend Analysis^{[25]: 143-145 [37]}
• Value chain analysis^{[25]: 142-143 [38]}

Vision and mission statements

The vision and mission address the second central question, 'Where are we going?' At the conclusion of the research and analysis stage, the firm will typically review its vision statement, mission statement and, if necessary, devise a new vision and mission for the outlook period. At this stage, the firm will also devise a generic competitive strategy as the basis for maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage for the forthcoming planning period.^{[citation needed]}

A vision statement is a realistic, long-term future scenario for the organization. (Vision statements should not be confused with slogans or mottos.)^[39] A vision statement is designed to present a realistic long-term future scenario for the organization. It is a "clearly articulated statement of the business scope." A strong vision statement typically includes the following:^[40]

• Competitive scope
• Market scope
• Geographic scope
• Vertical scope

Some scholars^[who?] point out the market visioning is a skill or competency that encapsulates the planners' capacity "to link advanced technologies to market opportunities of the future, and to do so through a shared understanding of a given product market.^[41]

A mission statement is a clear and concise statement of the organization's reason for being and its scope of operations,^[42] while the generic strategy outlines how the company intends to achieve both its vision and mission.^[43]

Mission statements should include detailed information and must be more than a simple motherhood statement.^[44] A mission statement typically includes the following:^[42]

 

This mission statement might be described as a "motherhood statement" because it lacks sufficient detail to be meaningful.

• Specification of target customers
• Identification of principal products or services offered
• Specification of the geographic scope of operations
• Identification of core technologies and/or core capabilities
• An outline of the firm's commitment to long-term survival, growth and profitability
• An outline of the key elements in the company's philosophy and core values
• Identification of the company's desired public image

Generic competitive strategy

The generic competitive strategy outlines the fundamental basis for obtaining a sustainable competitive advantage within a category. Firms can normally trace their competitive position to one of three factors:^[45]

• Superior skills (e.g. coordination of individual specialists, created through the interplay of investment in training and professional development, work and learning)
• Superior resources (e.g. patents, trade-mark protection, specialized physical assets and relationships with suppliers and distribution infrastructure.)
• Superior position (the products or services offered, the market segments served, and the extent to which the product-market can be isolated from direct competition.)

It is essential that the internal analysis provide a frank and open evaluation of the firm's superiority in terms of skills, resources or market position since this will provide the basis for competing over the forthcoming planning period. For this reason, some companies engage external consultants, often advertising or marketing agencies, to provide an independent assessment of the firm's capabilities and resources.^{[citation needed]}

Porter approach

Further information: Porter's generic strategies

 

Porter's Three Generic Strategies

In 1980, Michael Porter developed an approach to strategy formulation that proved to be extremely popular with both scholars and practitioners. The approach became known as the positioning school because of its emphasis on locating a defensible competitive position within an industry or sector. In this approach, strategy formulation consists of three key strands of thinking: analysis of the five forces to determine the sources of competitive advantage; the selection of one of three possible positions which leverage the advantage and the value chain to implement the strategy.^[46] In this approach, the strategic choices involve decisions about whether to compete for a share of the total market or for a specific target group (competitive scope) and whether to compete on costs or product differences (competitive advantage). This type of thinking leads to three generic strategies:^{[30][38]: 12}

• Cost leadership – the firm targets the mass market and attempts to be the lowest-cost producer in the market
• Differentiation – the firm targets the mass market and tries to maintain unique points of product difference perceived as desirable by customers and for which they are prepared to pay premium prices
• Focus – the firm does not compete for head to head, but instead selects a narrow target market and focuses its efforts on satisfying the needs of that segment

According to Porter, these strategies are mutually exclusive and the firm must select one approach to the exclusion of all others.^[38]: 12 Firms that try to be all things to all people can present a confusing market position which ultimately leads to below-average returns. Any ambiguity about the firm's approach is a recipe for "strategic mediocrity" and any firm that tries to pursue two approaches simultaneously is said to be "stuck in the middle" and destined for failure.^[47]

Porter's approach was the dominant paradigm throughout the 1980s. However, the approach has attracted considerable criticism. One important criticism is that it is possible to identify successful companies that pursue a hybrid strategy – such as low-cost positions and differentiated positions simultaneously. Toyota is a classic example of this hybrid approach.^[46] Other scholars point to the simplistic nature of the analysis and the overly prescriptive nature of the strategic choices which limits strategies to just three options. Yet others point to research showing that many practitioners find the approach to be overly theoretical and not applicable to their business.^[48]

Resource-based view (RBV)

Further information: Resource-based view

During the 1990s, the resource-based view (also known as the resource-advantage theory) of the firm became the dominant paradigm. It is an interdisciplinary approach that represents a substantial shift in thinking.^[49] It focuses attention on an organization's internal resources as a means of organizing processes and obtaining a competitive advantage. The resource-based view suggests that organizations must develop unique, firm-specific core competencies that will allow them to outperform competitors by doing things differently and in a superior manner.^[50]

Barney stated that for resources to hold potential as sources of sustainable competitive advantage, they should be valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable.^[51] A key insight arising from the resource-based view is that not all resources are of equal importance nor possess the potential to become a source of sustainable competitive advantage.^[49] The sustainability of any competitive advantage depends on the extent to which resources can be imitated or substituted.^[8] Barney and others point out that understanding the causal relationship between the sources of advantage and successful strategies can be very difficult in practice.^[51] Barney uses the term "causally ambiguous" which he describes as a situation when "the link between the resources controlled by the firm and the firm's sustained competitive advantage is not understood or understood only very imperfectly". Thus, a great deal of managerial effort must be invested in identifying, understanding, and classifying core competencies. In addition, management must invest in organizational learning to develop and maintain key resources and competencies.

Market Based Resources include:^[52][53][54]

• Organizational culture e.g. market orientation, research orientation, culture of innovation, etc.
• Assets e.g. brands, Mktg IS, databases, etc.
• Capabilities (or competencies) e.g. market sensing, marketing research, relationships, know-how, tacit knowledge, etc.

After more than two decades of advancements in marketing strategy and in the resource-based view paradigm, Cacciolatti & Lee (2016) proposed a novel resource-advantage theory based framework that builds on those organizational capabilities that are relevant to marketing strategy and shows how they have an effect on firm performance.^[55] The capabilities-performance model proposed by Cacciolatti & Lee (2016) illustrates the mechanism whereby market orientation, strategic orientation, and organizational power moderate the capabilities-performance relationship.^[56] Such a logic of analysis was implicit in the original formulation of RA theory and although it was taken into consideration by several scholars,^[57][58] it has never been articulated explicitly and tested empirically.

In the resource-based view, strategists select the strategy or competitive position that best exploits the internal resources and capabilities relative to external opportunities. Given that strategic resources represent a complex network of inter-related assets and capabilities, organizations can adopt many possible competitive positions. Although scholars debate the precise categories of competitive positions that are used, there is general agreement, within the literature, that the resource-based view is much more flexible than Porter's prescriptive approach to strategy formulation.

Hooley et al., suggest the following classification of competitive positions:^[59]

• Price positioning
• Quality positioning
• Innovation positioning
• Service positioning
• Benefit positioning
• Tailored positioning (one-to-one marketing)

Other approaches

The choice of competitive strategy often depends on a variety of factors including: the firm's market position relative to rival firms,^[60] the stage of the product life cycle.^[61] A well-established firm in a mature market will likely have a different strategy than a start-up.

Growth strategies

Growth of a business is critical for business success. A firm may grow by developing the market or by developing new products. The Ansoff product and market growth matrix illustrates the two broad dimensions for achieving growth. The Ansoff matrix identifies four specific growth strategies: market penetration, product development, market development and diversification.^[62]

 

The Ansoff Product/market Growth Matrix

Market penetration involves selling existing products to existing consumers. This is a conservative, low risk approach since the product is already on the established market.^[62]

Product development is the introduction of a new product to existing customers. This can include modifications to an already existing market which can create a product that has more appeal.^[62]

Market development involves the selling of existing products to new customers in order to identify and build a new clientele base. This can include new geographical markets, new distribution channels, and different pricing policies that bring the product price within the competence of new market segments.

Diversification is the riskiest area for a business. This is where a new product is sold to a new market.^[63] There are two type of Diversification; horizontal and vertical. Horizontal diversification focuses more on the product(s) where the business is knowledgeable, whereas vertical diversification focuses more on the introduction of new product into new markets, where the business could have less knowledge of the new market.^[64]

Horizontal integration

Further information: Horizontal integration

A horizontal integration strategy may be indicated in fast-changing work environments as well as providing a broad knowledge base for the business and employees.^[65] A benefit of horizontal diversification is that it is an open platform for a business to expand and build away from the already existing market.^[64]

High levels of horizontal integration lead to high levels of communication within the business. Another benefit of using this strategy is that it leads to a larger market for merged businesses, and it is easier to build good reputations for a business when using this strategy.^[66] A disadvantage of using a diversification strategy is that the benefits could take a while to start showing, which could lead the business to believe that the strategy in ineffective.^[64] Another disadvantage or risk is, it has been shown that using the horizontal diversification method has become harmful for stock value, but using the vertical diversification had the best effects.^[67]

A disadvantage of using the horizontal integration strategy is that this limits and restricts the field of interest that the business.^[64] Horizontal integration can affect a business's reputation, especially after a merge has happened between two or more businesses. There are three main benefits to a business's reputation after a merge. A larger business helps the reputation and increases the severity of the punishment. As well as the merge of information after a merge has happened, this increases the knowledge of the business and marketing area they are focused on. The last benefit is more opportunities for deviation to occur in merged businesses rather than independent businesses.^[66]

Vertical integration

Further information: Vertical integration

Vertical integration is when business is expanded through the vertical production line on one business. An example of a vertically integrated business could be Apple. Apple owns all their own software, hardware, designs and operating systems instead of relying on other businesses to supply these.^[68] By having a highly vertically integrated business this creates different economies therefore creating a positive performance for the business.^[69] Vertical integration is seen as a business controlling the inputs of supplies and outputs of products as well as the distribution of the final product.^[69] Some benefits of using a Vertical integration strategy is that costs may be reduced because of the reducing transaction costs which include finding, selling, monitoring, contracting and negotiating with other firms. Also by decreasing outside businesses input it will increase the efficient use of inputs into the business. Another benefit of vertical integration is that it improves the exchange of information through the different stages of the production line.^[69] Some competitive advantages could include; avoiding foreclosures, improving the business marketing intelligence, and opens up opportunities to create different products for the market.^[70] Some disadvantages of using a Vertical Integration Strategy include the internal costs for the business and the need for overhead costs. Also if the business is not well organized and fully equipped and prepared the business will struggle using this strategy. There are also competitive disadvantages as well, which include; creates barriers for the business, and loses access to information from suppliers and distributors.^[70]

Market position and strategy

In terms of market position, firms may be classified as market leaders, market challengers, market followers or market nichers.^[71][72]

 

Market position and strategic implications

Market leader: The market leader dominates the market by objective measure of market share. Their overall posture is defensive because they have more to lose. Their objectives are to reinforce their prominent position through the use of PR to develop corporate image and to block competitors brand for brand, matching distribution through tactics such as the use of "fighting" brands, pre-emptive strikes, use of regulation to block competitors and even to spread rumours about competitors. Market leaders may adopt unconventional or unexpected approaches to building growth and their tactical responses are likely to include: product proliferation; diversification; multi-branding; erecting barriers to entry; vertical and horizontal integration and corporate acquisitions.

Market challenger: The market challenger holds the second highest market share in the category, following closely behind the dominant player. Their market posture is generally offensive because they have less to lose and more to gain by taking risks. They will compete head to head with the market leader in an effort to grow market share. Their overall strategy is to gain market share through product, packaging and service innovations; new market development and redefinition of the product to broaden its scope and their position within it.

Market follower: Followers are generally content to play second fiddle. They rarely invest in R & D and tend to wait for market leaders to develop innovative products and subsequently adopt a “me-too” approach. Their market posture is typically neutral. Their strategy is to maintain their market position by maintaining existing customers and capturing a fair share of any new segments. They tend to maintain profits by controlling costs.

Market nicher: The market nicher occupies a small niche in the market in order to avoid head to head competition. Their objective is to build strong ties with the customer base and develop strong loyalty with existing customers. Their market posture is generally neutral. Their strategy is to develop and build the segment and protect it from erosion. Tactically, nichers are likely to improve the product or service offering, leverage cross-selling opportunities, offer value for money and build relationships through superior after-direct sales service, service quality and other related value-adding activities.

Most firms carry out strategic planning every 3– 5 years and treat the process as a means of checking whether the company is on track to achieve its vision and mission.^[71] Ideally, strategies are both dynamic and interactive, partially planned and partially unplanned. Strategies are broad in their scope in order to enable a firm to react to unforeseen developments while trying to keep focused on a specific pathway. A key aspect of marketing strategy is to keep marketing consistent with a company's overarching mission statement.^[73]

Strategies often specify how to adjust the marketing mix; firms can use tools such as Marketing Mix Modeling to help them decide how to allocate scarce resources, as well as how to allocate funds across a portfolio of brands. In addition, firms can conduct analyses of performance, customer analysis, competitor analysis, and target market analysis.^{[citation needed]}

Entry strategies

Further information: Market entry strategy

Marketing strategies may differ depending on the unique situation of the individual business. According to Lieberman and Montgomery, every entrant into a market – whether it is new or not – is classified under a Market Pioneer, Close Follower or a Late follower^[74]

Pioneers

Market pioneers are known to often open a new market to consumers based on a major innovation.^[75] They emphasize these product developments, and in a significant number of cases, studies have shown that early entrants – or pioneers – into a market have serious market-share advantages above all those who enter later.^[76] Pioneers have the first-mover advantage, and in order to have this advantage, business’ must ensure they have at least one or more of three primary sources: Technological Leadership, Preemption of Assets or Buyer Switching Costs.^[74] Technological Leadership means gaining an advantage through either Research and Development or the “learning curve”.^[74] This lets a business use the research and development stage as a key point of selling due to primary research of a new or developed product. Preemption of Assets can help gain an advantage through acquiring scarce assets within a certain market, allowing the first-mover to be able to have control of existing assets rather than those that are created through new technology.^[74] Thus allowing pre-existing information to be used and a lower risk when first entering a new market. By being a first entrant, it is easy to avoid higher switching costs compared to later entrants. For example, those who enter later would have to invest more expenditure in order to encourage customers away from early entrants.^[74] However, while Market Pioneers may have the “highest probability of engaging in product development”^[77] and lower switching costs, to have the first-mover advantage, it can be more expensive due to product innovation being more costly than product imitation. It has been found that while Pioneers in both consumer goods and industrial markets have gained “significant sales advantages”,^[78] they incur larger disadvantages cost-wise.

Close followers

Being market pioneer can, more often than not, attract entrepreneurs and/or investors depending on the benefits of the market. If there is an upside potential and the ability to have a stable market share, many businesses would start to follow in the footsteps of these pioneers. These are more commonly known as Close Followers. These entrants into the market can also be seen as challengers to the Market Pioneers and the Late Followers. This is because early followers are more than likely to invest a significant amount in Product Research and Development than later entrants.^[77] By doing this, it allows businesses to find weaknesses in the products produced before, thus leading to improvements and expansion on the aforementioned product. Therefore, it could also lead to customer preference, which is essential in market success.^[79] Due to the nature of early followers and the research time being later than Market Pioneers, different development strategies are used as opposed to those who entered the market in the beginning,^[77] and the same is applied to those who are Late Followers in the market. By having a different strategy, it allows the followers to create their own unique selling point and perhaps target a different audience in comparison to that of the Market Pioneers. Early following into a market can often be encouraged by an established business’ product that is “threatened or has industry-specific supporting assets”.^[80]

Late entrants

Those who follow after the Close Followers are known as the Late Entrants. While being a Late Entrant can seem very daunting, there are some perks to being a latecomer. For example, Late Entrants have the ability to learn from those who are already in the market or have previously entered.^[80] Late Followers have the advantage of learning from their early competitors and improving the benefits or reducing the total costs. This allows them to create a strategy that could essentially mean gaining market share and most importantly, staying in the market. In addition to this, markets evolve, leading to consumers wanting improvements and advancements on products.^[81] Late Followers have the advantage of catching the shifts in customer needs and wants towards the products.^[74] When bearing in mind customer preference, customer value has a significant influence. Customer value means taking into account the investment of customers as well as the brand or product.^[82] It is created through the “perceptions of benefits” and the “total cost of ownership”.^[82] On the other hand, if the needs and wants of consumers have only slightly altered, Late Followers could have a cost advantage over early entrants due to the use of product imitation.^[77] However, if a business is switching markets, this could take the cost advantage away due to the expense of changing markets for the business. Late Entry into a market does not necessarily mean there is a disadvantage when it comes to market share, it depends on how the marketing mix is adopted and the performance of the business.^[83] If the marketing mix is not used correctly – despite the entrant time – the business will gain little to no advantages, potentially missing out on a significant opportunity.^{[citation needed]}

The differentiated strategy

Further information: Marketing Mix Modeling

The customized target strategy

Further information: Strategy dynamics

The requirements of individual customer markets are unique, and their purchases sufficient to make viable the design of a new marketing mix for each customer.

If a company adopts this type of market strategy, a separate marketing mix is to be designed for each customer.^[84]

Specific marketing mixes can be developed to appeal to most of the segments when market segmentation reveals several potential targets.^[85]

Developing marketing goals and objectives

Whereas the vision and mission provide the framework, the "goals define targets within the mission, which, when achieved, should move the organization toward the performance of that mission."^[86] Goals are broad primary outcomes whereas, objectives are measurable steps taken to achieve a goal or strategy.^[87] In strategic planning, it is important for managers to translate the overall strategy into goals and objectives. Goals are designed to inspire action and focus attention on specific desired outcomes. Objectives, on the other hand, are used to measure an organization's performance on specific dimensions, thereby providing the organization with feedback on how well it is achieving its goals and strategies.

Managers typically establish objectives using the balanced scorecard approach. This means that objectives do not include desired financial outcomes exclusively, but also specify measures of performance for customers (e.g. satisfaction, loyalty, repeat patronage), internal processes (e.g., employee satisfaction, productivity) and innovation and improvement activities.^[88]

After setting the goals marketing strategy or marketing plan should be developed. The marketing strategy plan provides an outline of the specific actions to be taken over time to achieve the objectives. Plans can be extended to cover many years, with sub-plans for each year. Plans usually involve monitoring, to assess progress, and prepare for contingencies if problems arise. Simultaneous such as customer lifetime value models can be used to help marketers conduct "what-if" analyses to forecast what potential scenarios arising from possible actions, and to gauge how specific actions might affect such variables as the revenue-per-customer and the churn rate.

Strategy typologies

Developing competitive strategy requires significant judgement and is based on a deep understanding of the firm's current situation, its past history and its operating environment. No heuristics have yet been developed to assist strategists choose the optimal strategic direction. Nevertheless, some researchers and scholars have sought to classify broad groups of strategy approaches that might serve as broad frameworks for thinking about suitable choices.

Strategy types

In 2003, Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow, based on an in-depth cross-industry study of a sample of large corporations, proposed a detailed scheme using four categories:^[89][90]

• Prospectors: proactively seek to locate and exploit new market opportunities
• Analyzers: are very innovative in their product-market choices; tend to follow prospectors into new markets; often introduce new or improved product designs. This type of organisation works in two types of market, one generally stable, one subject to more change
• Defenders: are relatively cautious in their initiatives; seek to seal off a portion of the market which they can defend against competitive incursions; often market highest quality offerings and position as a quality leader
• Reactors: tend to vacillate in their responses to environmental changes and are generally the least profitable organizations

Marketing strategy

Marketing warfare strategies are competitor-centered strategies drawn from analogies with the field of military science. Warfare strategies were popular in the 1980s, but interest in this approach has waned in the new era of relationship marketing. An increased awareness of the distinctions between business and military cultures also raises questions about the extent to which this type of analogy is useful.^[91] In spite of its limitations, the typology of marketing warfare strategies is useful for predicting and understanding competitor responses.

In the 1980s, Kotler and Singh developed a typology of marketing warfare strategies:^[92]

• Frontal attack: where an aggressor goes head to head for the same market segments on an offer by offer, price by price basis; normally used by a market challenger against a more dominant player
• Flanking attack: attacking an organization on its weakest front; used by market challengers
• Bypass attack: bypassing the market leader by attacking smaller, more vulnerable target organizations in order to broaden the aggressor's resource base
• Encirclement attack: attacking a dominant player on all fronts
• Guerilla warfare: sporadic, unexpected attacks using both conventional and unconventional means to attack a rival; normally practiced by smaller players against the market leader

Relationship between the marketing strategy and the marketing mix

Marketing strategy and marketing mix are related elements of a comprehensive marketing plan. While marketing strategy is aligned with setting the direction of a company or product/service line, the marketing mix is majorly tactical in nature and is employed to carry out the overall marketing strategy. The 4P's of the marketing mix (Price, Product, Place and Promotion) represent the tools that marketers can leverage while defining their marketing strategy to create a marketing plan.^[93] Accuracy of marketing mix impacts success of overall marketing strategy. The 4P's of marketing should in tune with brand's core message.

See also

• Asymmetric competition
• Brand management
• Business model
• Business triage
• Conditional rebate
• Corporate anniversary
• Customer engagement
• First-mover advantage
• Marketing
• Market segmentation
• Multi-domestic strategy
• Networks in marketing
• Pricing strategies
• Right-time marketing
• Strategic planning
• Social media

References

1. Baker, Michael John (2008). The Strategic Marketing Plan Audit (2nd ed.). Cambridge Strategy Publications Limited. p. 3. ISBN 9781902433998. OCLC 699890791. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
2. Cacciolatti, Luca; Lee, Soo Hee (2016-12-01). "Revisiting the relationship between marketing capabilities and firm performance: The moderating role of market orientation, marketing strategy and organizational power". Journal of Business Research. 69 (12): 5597–5610. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.067. ISSN 0148-2963.
3. Volpato, Giuseppe; Stocchetti, Andrea (January 2009). "Old and new approaches to marketing. The quest of their epistemological roots" (PDF). The Proceedings of 10th International Conference Marketing Trends: 34. (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-14. Retrieved 2021-05-06 – via Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
4. Dann, Stephen; Dann, Susan (2011). E-marketing: theory and application. China: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 109. ISBN 9780230203969. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
5. Brown, Linden (1997). Competitive Marketing Strategy: Dynamic Manoeuvring for Competitive Position (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Nelson. ISBN 9780170088916. OCLC 85970362. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
6. West, Douglas; Ford, John; Ibrahim, Essam (2010). Strategic Marketing: Creating Competitive Advantage (illustrated ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199556601. OCLC 751667438. from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
7. Schnaars, Steven P. (1998). "Chapter 2: A Brief History of Marketing Strategy". Marketing Strategy (illustrated, revised ed.). New York City: Simon & Schuster. pp. 18–29. ISBN 9780684831916. OCLC 749880452.
8. Lowson, Robert H. (August 1, 2003). "The nature of an operations strategy: combining strategic decisions from the resource‐based and market‐driven viewpoints". Management Decision. Emerald Group Publishing. 41 (6): 538–549. doi:10.1108/00251740310485181. ISSN 0025-1747 – via emerald insight.
9. Pacios, Ana R. (August 1, 2004). "Strategic plans and long‐range plans: is there a difference?" (PDF). Library Management. 25 (6/7): 259–269. doi:10.1108/01435120410547913. hdl:10016/4610. ISSN 0143-5124. (PDF) from the original on December 2, 2020. Retrieved May 5, 2021 – via emerald insight.
10. Hunt, Shelby D.; Derozier, Caroline (January 1, 2004). "The normative imperatives of business and marketing strategy: grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory" (PDF). Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing. 19 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1108/08858620410516709. ISSN 0885-8624. (PDF) from the original on January 25, 2020. Retrieved May 5, 2021 – via emerald insight.
11. Frates, Janice; Sharp, Seena (2005). "Using Business Intelligence to Discover New Market Opportunities" (PDF). Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. Strategic and Competitive Intelligence Professionals. 3 (1): 16–28. (PDF) from the original on October 24, 2020. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
12. Kerzner, Harold (2002). Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project Management. New York City: Wiley. pp. 6–8. ISBN 9780471436645. OCLC 975073743.
13. Mintzberg, Henry (January 1994). "The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning". Harvard Business Review. from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
14. Fleisher, Craig S.; Bensoussan, Babette E. (2003). Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition. Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780131918726. OCLC 987093026. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
15. Aghazadeh, Hashem (2016). "Business, Market, and Competitive Analysis (BMCA) Tools and Techniques". Principles of Marketology. Vol. 1. New York City: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 187–247. doi:10.1057/9781137379320_6. ISBN 978-1-349-67788-7. OCLC 988674923.
16. Bendle, Neil; Farris, Paul; Pfeifer, Phillip; Reibstein, David (2010). "Metrics that Matter - to Marketing Managers". Marketing ZFP. 32 (JRM 1): 18–23. doi:10.15358/0344-1369-2010-JRM-1-18. eISSN 0344-1369. ISSN 0344-1369.
17. Fahey, Liam; King, William R.; Narayanan, Vadake K. (February 1981). "Environmental scanning and forecasting in strategic planning—The state of the art". Long Range Planning. 14 (1): 32–39. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(81)90148-5. ISSN 0024-6301 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
18. Fleisher, Craig S.; Bensoussan, Babette E. (2007). Business and Competitive Analysis: Effective Application of New and Classic Methods (illustrated, reprint ed.). Indianapolis: FT Press. ISBN 9780131873667. OCLC 964634729. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
19. Slater, Stanley F.; Narver, John C. (December 2000). "Intelligence generation and superior customer value". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 28 (120): 120–127. doi:10.1177/0092070300281011. S2CID 167409129 – via Springer Nature.
20. Berkhout, Frans; Hertin, Julia (March 2002). "Foresight futures scenarios: Developing and applying a participative strategic planning tool". Greener Management International. Greenleaf Publishing: 37–52. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2002.sp.00005. from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
21. Farris, Paul W.; Bendle, Neil T.; Pfeifer, Phillip Edward; Reibstein, David J. (August 21, 2015). Marketing Metrics: The Manager's Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN 9780134086125. OCLC 1005342246. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
22. Vorhies, Douglas W.; Morgan, Neil A. (January 1, 2005). "Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage". Journal of Marketing. 69 (1): 80–94. doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.1.80.55505. S2CID 167846037 – via SAGE Publishing.
23. Fleisher, Craig S.; Bensoussan, Babette E. (2003). Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition (2, illustrated ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780131918726. OCLC 987093026. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
24. Blanco, Sylvie; Caron-Fasan, Marie-Laurence; Lesca, Humbert (January 2003). "Developing Capabilities to Create Collective Intelligence within Organizations". Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. 1 (1): 80–92. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021 – via ResearchGate.
25. Aaker, David A.; Mills, Michael (May 6, 2005). Strategic Marketing Management (Pacific Rim ed.). Australia: Wiley. ISBN 9780470805060. OCLC 60743670. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
26. Booth, Charles (February 1, 2003). "Does history matter in strategy? The possibilities and problems of counterfactual analysis". Management Decision. 41 (1): 96–104. doi:10.1108/00251740310445545. ISSN 0025-1747 – via emerald insight.
27. Kadiyali, Vrinda; Sudhir, K.; Rao, Vithala R. (2001). "Structural analysis of competitive behavior: New Empirical Industrial Organization methods in marketing". International Journal of Research in Marketing. 18 (1–2): 161–186. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.202.7401. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00031-3. ISSN 0167-8116 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
28. Terranova, Debbie (February 2008). "Navigating by the Stars: Using Futures Methodologies to Create a Preferred Vision for the Workforce, a Case Study". Journal of Futures Studies. 12 (3): 31–44. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.390.8341.
29. Hall, Graham; Howell, Sydney (1985). "The experience curve from the economist's perspective". Strategic Management Journal. 6 (3): 197–212. doi:10.1002/smj.4250060302.
30. Porter, Michael Eugene (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (27, illustrated, reprint ed.). New York City: Free Press. pp. 368–382. ISBN 9780029253601. OCLC 505050650. from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
31. Dickson, Peter R.; Ginter, James L. (April 1987). "Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy". Journal of Marketing. SAGE Publishing. 51 (2): 1–10. doi:10.2307/1251125. JSTOR 1251125.
32. McDonald, M. and Leppard, J., Marketing By Matrix, 100 Practical Ways to Improve Your Strategic and Tactical Marketing, Lincolnwood, Ill., NTC, 1993
33. Foxall, Gordon R.; Fawn, John R. (April 1992). "An evolutionary model of technological innovation as a strategic management process". Technovation. 12 (3): 191–202. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(92)90035-G. ISSN 0166-4972 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
34. Lambkin, Mary; Day, George S. (July 1989). "Evolutionary Processes in Competitive Markets: Beyond the Product Life Cycle". Journal of Marketing. 53 (3): 4–20. doi:10.2307/1251339. ISSN 0022-2429. JSTOR 1251339.
35. Tellis, Gerard J.; Crawford, C. Merle (1981). "An Evolutionary Approach to Product Growth Theory". Journal of Marketing. SAGE Publishing. 45 (4): 125–132. doi:10.2307/1251480. hdl:2027.42/36195. ISSN 0022-2429. JSTOR 1251480.
36. Helms, Marilyn M.; Nixon, Judy (August 10, 2010). "Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade". Journal of Strategy and Management. 3 (3): 215–251. doi:10.1108/17554251011064837. ISSN 1755-425X – via emerald insight.
37. Farkash, Omer (April 21, 2021). "Marketing Strategy: The Secret behind the World's Top Brands". Mayple. from the original on May 3, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
38. Porter, Michael Eugene (2008). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (2nd ed.). Riverside: Free Press. ISBN 9781416595847. OCLC 1000453944. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
39. Lucas, James R (February 1998). "Anatomy of a Vision Statement". Management Review. American Management Association. 87 (2): 22–26.
40. Aaker, David A. (July 26, 2001). Strategic Market Management (6th ed.). Wiley. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780471415725. OCLC 963663563. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
41. Reid, Susan; de Brentani, Ulrike (February 2015). "The Impact Of Market Vision On Early Success With Lead Users: The Case For Radically New, High-Tech Products". ResearchGate (Conference Paper). from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
42. Pearce, John A.; David, Fred (May 1, 1987). "Corporate Mission Statements: The Bottom Line". Academy of Management Perspectives. Academy of Management. 1 (2): 109–115. doi:10.5465/ame.1987.4275821.
43. Campbell‐Hunt, Colin (January 6, 2000). "What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis". Strategic Management Journal. New York City: Wiley. 21 (2): 127–154. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200002)21:2<127::AID-SMJ75>3.0.CO;2-1. ISSN 0143-2095. OCLC 1057955036.
44. Pierce, Elizabeth M. (January 2004). "Developing, Implementing and Monitoring an Information Product Quality Strategy" (PDF). Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information Quality: 13–26. (PDF) from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
45. Brian Quinn, James; Mintzberg, Henry; James, Robert M. (1988). "The Evaluation of Business Strategy". The strategy process: concepts, contexts, and cases. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780138508920. OCLC 15411432. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
46. Stonehouse, George; Snowdon, Brian (September 1, 2007). "Competitive Advantage Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness". Journal of Management Inquiry. SAGE Publishing. 16 (3): 256–273. doi:10.1177/1056492607306333. S2CID 154727887 – via SAGE journals.
47. Godfrey, Richard David (Dec 14, 2015). Strategic Management: A Critical Introduction (illustrated ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781317812715. OCLC 1081418508. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
48. De Kare-Silver, Michael (1997). "The Inadequacies of Existing Strategy Models". Strategy in Crisis: why business urgently needs a completely new approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 37–57. doi:10.1057/9780230378117_4. ISBN 978-1-349-39982-6. OCLC 231730163.
49. Fahy, John; Smithee, Alan (1999). "Strategic Marketing and the Resource Based View of the Firm" (PDF). Academy of Marketing Science Review. 1999 (10): 1–20. (PDF) from the original on 2019-02-14. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
50. Prahalad, C. K.; Hamel, Gary (May 1, 1990). "The Core Competence of the Corporation". Harvard Business Review. 68 (3): 79–91. SSRN 1505251. from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
51. Barney, Jay (March 1, 1991). "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage". Journal of Management. SAGE Publishing. 17 (1): 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108. S2CID 220588334 – via SAGE journals.
52. Day, George S.; Wensley, Robin (April 1, 1988). "Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority". Journal of Marketing. 52 (2): 1–20. doi:10.1177/002224298805200201. S2CID 167741530 – via SAGE journals.
53. Day, George S. (October 1994). "The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations". Journal of Marketing. American Marketing Association. 58 (4): 37–52. doi:10.2307/1251915. ISSN 0022-2429. JSTOR 1251915.
54. Hooley, Graham; Greenley, Gordon; Fahy, John; Cadogan, John (February 1, 2001). "Market-focused Resources, Competitive Positioning and Firm Performance". Journal of Marketing Management. Routledge. 17 (5–6): 503–520. doi:10.1362/026725701323366908. S2CID 168120105 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
55. Cacciolatti, Luca; Lee, Soo Hee (2016-12-01). "Revisiting the relationship between marketing capabilities and firm performance: The moderating role of market orientation, marketing strategy and organisational power". Journal of Business Research. 69 (12): 5597–5610. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.067. ISSN 0148-2963.
56. Cacciolatti, Luca; Lee, Soo Hee (2016-12-01). "Revisiting the relationship between marketing capabilities and firm performance: The moderating role of market orientation, marketing strategy and organisational power". Journal of Business Research. 69 (12): 5597–5610. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.067. ISSN 0148-2963.
57. Moorman, Christine; Rust, Roland T. (1999-10-01). "The Role of Marketing". Journal of Marketing. 63 (4_suppl1): 180–197. doi:10.1177/00222429990634s117. ISSN 0022-2429. S2CID 16834677.
58. Verhoef, Peter C.; Leeflang, Peter S.H. (2009-03-01). "Understanding the Marketing Department's Influence within the Firm". Journal of Marketing. 73 (2): 14–37. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.2.14. ISSN 0022-2429. S2CID 17362111.
59. Hooley, Graham; Broderick, Amanda; Möller, Kristian (1998). "Competitive positioning and the resource-based view of the firm". Journal of Strategic Marketing. Routledge. 6 (2): 97–116. doi:10.1080/09652549800000003 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
60. Burns, Alvin C. (1 April 1986). "Generating Marketing Strategy Priorities Based on Relative Competitive Position". Journal of Consumer Marketing. 3 (4): 49–56. doi:10.1108/eb008179. ISSN 0736-3761 – via emerald insight.
61. Swan, John E.; Rink, David R. (January–February 1982). "Fitting market strategy to varying product life cycles". Business Horizons. 25 (1): 72–76. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(82)90048-9. ISSN 0007-6813 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
62. "A Guide to the Ansoff Product Market Growth Matrix". Ansoff Matrix. from the original on April 14, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
63. Haq, Farooq; Wong, H.; Jackson, J. (2008). "Applying Ansoff's growth strategy matrix to consumer segments and typologies in spiritual tourism". (PDF) from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
64. Ansoff, H. Igor (1957). "Strategies for Diversification". Harvard Business Review. 35 (5): 113–124. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021 – via ResearchGate.
65. Teixeira, Koufteros, X. A., Peng, X. D., Rafael; Koufteros, Xenophon; Xiaosong, David; Peng, Xiaosong (June 2012). "Organizational Structure, Integration, and Manufacturing Performance: a Conceptual Model and Propositions". Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management. 5 (1): 69–81. doi:10.12660/joscmv5n1p70-81. ISSN 1984-3046. from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
66. Cai, Hongbin; Obara, Ichiro (March 14, 2008). "Firm Reputation and Horizontal Integration" (PDF). The RAND Journal of Economics. EBSCO Information Services. 40 (2): 340–363. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2009.00068.x. ISSN 0741-6261. OCLC 469889135. S2CID 7451124. (PDF) from the original on May 10, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2016.
67. Pozzi, Carlo; Vassilopoulos, Philippe (2007). "The Impact of Vertical Integration and Horizontal Diversification on the Value of Energy Firms". The Econometrics of Energy Systems. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 225–253. doi:10.1057/9780230626317_11. ISBN 978-1-349-54149-2. OCLC 907659545. S2CID 10109769.
68. Isaksen, John R.; Dreyer, Bent; Grønhaug, Kjell (2010). "The Impact of Measurements and Industry" (PDF). University of Tromsø. (PDF) from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
69. Katie, Joseph (2013-03-26). A Report on Horizontal and Vertical Business Integration. GRIN Verlag. ISBN 978-3-656-39600-0.
70. Harrigan, Kathryn Rudie (October 1984). "Formulating Vertical Integration Strategies". Academy of Management Review. Academy of Management. 9 (4): 638–652. doi:10.2307/258487. ISSN 0363-7425. JSTOR 258487.
71. Aaker, David A. (2008). Strategic market management (8th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. ISBN 9780470056233. OCLC 1158781992. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
72. Pride, William M; Ferrell, O. C (2008). Marketing: concepts and strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618977956. OCLC 921047670.
73. Baker, Michael (2008). The Strategic Marketing Plan Audit. Cambridge Strategy Publications Limited. p. 27. ISBN 9781902433998. OCLC 699890791. from the original on 2021-05-06. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
74. Lieberman, Marvin B.; Montgomery, David B. (December 1998). "First-Mover (Dis)Advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Resource-Based View". Strategic Management Journal. Wiley. 19 (12): 1111–1125. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.618.1542. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998120)19:12<1111::AID-SMJ21>3.0.CO;2-W. ISSN 0143-2095.
75. Farris, Paul W.; Moore, Michael J. (4 November 2004). The Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy Project: Retrospect and Prospects (illustrated ed.). New York City: Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780521840538. OCLC 910197190. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
76. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy; Gurumurthy, Ragu (1998). "Market Entry Strategies: Pioneers versus Late Arrivals". Strategy and Business (12): 74–84. ISSN 1083-706X. from the original on 2017-01-13. Retrieved 2017-01-12.
77. Robinson, William T.; Chiang, Jeongwen (2002). "Product development strategies for established market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants". Strategic Management Journal. Wiley. 23 (9): 855–866. doi:10.1002/smj.257. ISSN 0143-2095.
78. Boulding, William; Christen, Markus (October 1, 2001). "First-Mover Disadvantage". Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard College. 79 (9): 20–21. ISSN 0017-8012. OCLC 926222109. from the original on February 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
79. Fifield, Paul (Sep 10, 2008). Marketing Strategy Masterclass. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781136379468. OCLC 1223559009. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
80. Robinson, William T.; Fornell, Claes; Sullivan, Mary (November 1992). "Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than later entrants?". Strategic Management Journal. 13 (8): 609–624. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130804. ISSN 0143-2095.
81. Haleblian, Jerayr (John); McNamara, Gerry; Kolev, Kalin; Dykes, Bernadine J. (September 2012). "Exploring firm characteristics that differentiate leaders from followers in industry merger waves: a competitive dynamics perspective". Strategic Management Journal. Wiley. 33 (9): 1037–1052. doi:10.1002/smj.1961. ISSN 0143-2095.
82. Christopher, M. (1 March 1996). "From brand values to customer value". Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science. Emerald Group Publishing. 2 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000000007. ISSN 1355-2538 – via emerald insight.
83. Wilkie, Dean C. H.; Johnson, Lester W.; White, Lesley (2015). "Overcoming late entry: the importance of entry position, inferences and market leadership". Journal of Marketing Management. Routledge. 31 (3–4): 424. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2014.981567. OCLC 907598529. S2CID 167691483 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
84. Pride, William M.; Ferrell, O. C. (January 11, 2016). Foundations of Marketing (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage. ISBN 9781305405769. OCLC 948733474. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
85. Fahy, John; Jobber, David (2015). Foundations of Marketing (5th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Education. p. 128. ISBN 9780077167950. OCLC 1090129732. from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
86. Sawyer, George C. (March 6, 1986). Designing Strategy: A How-To Book for Managers (illustrated ed.). Wiley. p. 5. ISBN 9780471816829. OCLC 1026612842. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
87. Belicove, Mikal E. (September 27, 2013). "Understanding Goals, Strategy, Objectives And Tactics In The Age Of Social". Forbes. from the original on April 21, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021.
88. Kaplan, S. and Norton, D. P., "Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work," in Focusing Your Organization on Strategy—with the Balanced Scorecard, [Harvard Business Review Collection], 2nd edition, 1993
89. Kulzick, R. S., Miles and Snow: Organizational Types, published 2000, accessed 13 November 2021
90. Miles, Raymond E.; Snow, Charles Curtis (2003). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780804748407. OCLC 837621829.
91. Laufer, Daniel (December 15, 2010). "Marketing Warfare Strategies". Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Oxford: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem01061. ISBN 9781405161787. OCLC 718515800.
92. Kotler, Philip; Singh, Ravi (1981). "Marketing Warfare in the 1980s". Journal of Business Strategy. 1 (3): 30–41.
93. Goi, Chai Lee (May 2009). "A Review of Marketing Mix: 4Ps or More?". International Journal of Marketing Studies. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 1 (1): 2–15. doi:10.5539/ijms.v1n1p2. ISSN 1918-719X. OCLC 1033969798. from the original on 2019-12-05. Retrieved 2021-05-06.

Further reading

• Laermer, Richard; Simmons, Mark, Punk Marketing, New York: Harper Collins, 2007 ISBN 978-0-06-115110-1 (Review of the book by Marilyn Scrizzi, in Journal of Consumer Marketing 24(7), 2007)

External links

•   Media related to Marketing strategy at Wikimedia Commons