This paper organizes the semantics jungle of marketing strategy approaches, terms and concepts into a logically coherent framework. The paper takes the form of an intensive literature review tracing the three streams of marketing strategy terms and concepts from their roots in the literatures of early marketing management, managerial economics and corporate management to the present. By systematically following the evolutionary development of major contributions to strategic marketing thought the framework offers conceptual and practical value.
Original Description:
Original Title
Marketing Strategy - From the Origin of the Concept to the Development of a Conceptual Framework
This paper organizes the semantics jungle of marketing strategy approaches, terms and concepts into a logically coherent framework. The paper takes the form of an intensive literature review tracing the three streams of marketing strategy terms and concepts from their roots in the literatures of early marketing management, managerial economics and corporate management to the present. By systematically following the evolutionary development of major contributions to strategic marketing thought the framework offers conceptual and practical value.
This paper organizes the semantics jungle of marketing strategy approaches, terms and concepts into a logically coherent framework. The paper takes the form of an intensive literature review tracing the three streams of marketing strategy terms and concepts from their roots in the literatures of early marketing management, managerial economics and corporate management to the present. By systematically following the evolutionary development of major contributions to strategic marketing thought the framework offers conceptual and practical value.
development of a conceptual framework Eric H. Shaw Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to organize the semantics jungle of marketing strategy approaches, terms and concepts into a logically coherent framework using the history of marketing thought to inform current marketing research and practice. Design/methodology/approach The paper takes the form of an intensive literature review tracing the three streams of marketing strategy terms and concepts from their roots in the literatures of early marketing management, managerial economics and corporate management to the present. Findings Along with marketing ideas, strategy concepts from managerial economics and from corporate management were absorbed directly into the corpus of strategic marketing thought. These three streams of research have converged into the current state of marketing strategy an eclectic mixture of both complementary and conicting strategic approaches, terms and concepts. By systematically following the evolutionary development of major contributions to strategic marketing thought and by redening terms and rening concepts the various approaches to strategy can be integrated into a comprehensive conceptual framework for organizing and choosing among individual marketing strategies. Originality/value The framework offers conceptual and practical value. It provides a researcher with a consistent set of terms and concepts to build upon. The framework also provides a strategic toolkit for the marketing manager, based upon organizational and environmental conditions, to choose from among the feasible alternatives the most effective marketing strategy to achieve managements goal(s). Keywords Historyof marketingthought, Business strategy, Marketingstrategy, Management strategy, Marketing management strategy, Strategic marketing, Segmentation, Targeting, Marketing mix Paper type Research paper Using an appropriate marketing strategy is a critical element for business success. Choosing an effective strategy requires knowledge of what various alternative marketing strategies exist and understanding how they work under varying environmental and organizational conditions. To nd the answers, several fundamental questions guide this research: when and where did the notion of marketing strategy originate? Who are the key scholars who developed the basic strategic terms and concepts? What is the current state of marketing strategy? Why did strategic terms and concepts become so inconsistent and contradictory? How can a marketing strategy be improved? The purpose of this article in addressing these questions is to use the history of marketing thought to inform current marketing research and practice. Developments in marketing thought are used to organize the various isolated strategic approaches into a logically coherent framework. The construction of such a framework allows a manager, based on internal and external The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-750X.htm JHRM 4,1 30 Journal of Historical Research in Marketing Vol. 4 No. 1, 2012 pp. 30-55 qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 1755-750X DOI 10.1108/17557501211195055 conditions, to choose the most effective strategy from among the feasible alternatives to attain marketing managements goal(s). The term strategy is derived from the ancient Greek word strathghma pronounced strate gema (Liddell and Scott, 1871, p. 653) meaning the act of a general, esp[ecially] a stratagem, [or] piece of generalship. The word strategy was used by the military since ancient times, and practitioners have long employed the concept of business strategies without using the term. The generalizability of the strategy concept from the military to business was rst noted by Xenophon of Athens (a contemporary of Plato), who was a mediocre philosopher, but renowned historian, and legendary general. In a dialogue, Xenophon (1832, pp. 560-562) credits Socrates with observing that analogous to the general of an army, the businessman must also efciently allocate resources and effectively organize activities, i.e. employ a stratagem, to achieve his goal whether victory or prot. Without using the term strategy, probably the rst recognized marketing stratagem to achieve protability buy cheape, sell deare was criticized in Catholic England as early as the thirteenth century (St Thomas of Aquinas, 1274), Protestant Europe in the sixteenth century (Luther, 1524), and Puritan America as early as the seventeenth (Keayne, 1653). Xenophons strategic analogy went largely unnoticed, however, until the middle of the twentieth century when the term marketing strategy made its historic debut. Compared to the practice of marketing, which goes back thousands of years ( Jones and Shaw, 2002), the academic discipline of marketing emerged much more recently, starting around the turn of the twentieth century in the US (Bartels, 1988). Following (and citing) Frederick Winslow Taylors (1903, 1911) inuential work on scientic management, which discussed efciently organizing manufacturing tasks for mass production, Shaw (1914, 1916) described the problem of efciently organizing marketing functions for mass distribution. There are some suggestions of incipient discussions of marketing strategy prior to the 1950s; for example, Rosenbergs (1978) The Roots of Marketing Strategy: A Collection of Pre-1950 Readings, which range from 1903 to 1946. Despite the title, however, neither the term nor the concept of marketing strategy appears in any of the forty readings. The problem is that like many authors, Rosenberg (1978, p. 2), equates marketing strategy with marketing management, which in turn is usually equated with marketing. These terms are not synonymous. Marketing covers an entire discipline that contains both micro (e.g. marketing management, buyer behavior and consumer psychology) and macro (e.g. industry, distribution channels and aggregate marketing system) perspectives ( Jones and Shaw, 2002; Wilkie and Moore, 2002). One micro perspective is marketing management, which includes planning among several other areas. Planning involves establishing goals and developing marketing strategy; a strategy being the chosen means to achieve the goal. Similarly, the term strategy does not appear in Usuis (2008) The Development of Marketing Management: The Case of the USA c. 1910-1940, covering roughly the same time period as Rosenberg, because strategy, per se, was not discussed by the pioneers of marketing thought. There are virtually no discussions using the term strategy in the early marketing periodical literature and nearly none in the Marketing Principles texts, which generally were more macro in orientation (Bartels, 1988; Wilkie and Moore, 2002; Sheth et al., 1988; Shaw and Jones, 2005) than the now popular Marketing strategy 31 managerial approach. Perhaps, the closest the early marketing pioneers came to the concept marketing strategy, was a denition of marketing management, originally used as a synonym for sales management, by Lyon (1926, p. 3) as the continuous task of re-planning the marketing activities of a business to meet constantly changing conditions within and without the enterprise. Probably the strongest evidence for the post 1950s origins of the strategy concept in the marketing literature is found in the work of Bartels, one of marketings leading historians, who catalogued virtually every US marketing textbook to 1961. There is only a single reference to marketing strategy in the index of Bartels (1962) earlier work, which cites Lyons (1926) book Salesmen in Marketing Strategy; however, with the addition of a chapter on marketing management in his later versions (Bartels, 1976, 1988) the term marketing strategy appears more frequently. This later emergence of the term provides strong evidence that strategy is associated with developments in marketing management that occurred in the 1960s and thereafter. Although the more common term that developed is marketing strategy, it is sometimes called marketing management strategy (Usui, 2008, p. 1). It should also be noted that strategy in management, marketings sister discipline, followed a parallel development. Like marketing, management also emerged as a business discipline at the turn of the twentieth century with the development of Taylors Scientic Management. Also paralleling marketing, aside from a few isolated mentions of the term strategy prior to the 1960s (e.g. Simon, 1947; Drucker, 1954; March and Simon, 1958), the concept was initially eshed out in Chandlers (1962) work on Strategy and Structure, and some basic strategies were developed by Ansoff (1965) in Corporate Strategy. Like Bartels in marketing, Chandler (1969, p. 237) in management noted: It has only been in the past 15 years [mid-1950s] that strategy has found its way [from the military] into business literature. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, however, that the terminology evolved from business policy (Learned et al., 1965) to business policy and strategy (Cannon, 1968; Schendel and Hatten, 1972) to business strategy then corporate strategy or strategic management (Schendel and Hofer, 1979). With few exceptions, the earliest academic approaches to history of marketing strategy thinking are found in the 1950s literature of both managerial economics (e.g. Dean, 1951; Forrester, 1959) and marketing management (Alderson chapter in Alexander et al., 1953; Smith, 1956; Borden, 1957). These strategic concepts were absorbed into the emerging marketing management school of thought in the late 1950s and early 1960s (e.g. Kelley and Lazer, 1958; McCarthy, 1960; Davis, 1961). Subsequently, corporate strategy concepts developed in the mid-1960s (e.g. Ansoff, 1965; Learned et al., 1965), were also incorporated piecemeal into the marketing management textbooks of the late 1960s (e.g. Kotler, 1967; McCarthy, 1960). As more recent strategic concepts and approaches were introduced in the 1970s (e.g. Henderson, 1970, 1973) and 1980s (Porter, 1980, 1985, 1990), they too were added bit by bit to the marketing textbooks of the times (e.g. in updated editions of Kotler and McCarthy). This has produced a semantic jungle of strategy terms, obscuring and almost obliterating the development of improved strategic concepts, resulting in multiple conicting approaches to marketing management strategy. Thus, the present state of marketing strategy knowledge is inconsistent at best and incoherent at worst. The current work seeks to organize the numerous isolated approaches to marketing strategy into a single logically coherent framework. Systematically organizing JHRM 4,1 32 strategic approaches, terms and concepts is possible because the meaning of marketing strategy offers one of the few bright spots of consistency in the literature. Following Wroe Aldersons (1937, 1957) work on segmentation and differentiation, Alfred Oxenfeldt (1958, p. 267) dened marketing strategy in two parts: (1) denition of target markets and (2) the composition of a marketing mix. Oxenfeldt worked with Aldersons consulting rm and was heavily inuenced by him. These two parts of a marketing strategy are fundamental because customer targets represent the demand side of the market (see Robinson, 1933) on one hand, and the marketing mix represents the supply side of the market (see Chamberlin, 1933) on the other. Over the decades, subsequent marketing thinkers have continually embraced this two-part denition (McCarthy, 1960; Kotler, 1967; Enis, 1974; Lazer and Culley, 1983; Cravens, 1987; Czepiel, 1992; Kerin and Peterson, 1993; Boone and Kurtz, 1998; Kotler and Keller, 2009, etc.), and there are no apparent challenges or disagreements with it in the marketing literature. Despite general concurrence over the denition of marketing strategy, there is little agreement about specic strategic terms or concepts. Terms used synonymously by some researchers have different denitions in the work of others, and occasionally in the same authors own work at a later date; not infrequently, terms are used without a clearly expressed meaning. Difculties arise over the meaning of even the most basic marketing strategies. For example, Dickson and Ginter (1987, p. 1) write: Despite the pervasive use of the terms market segmentation and product differentiation there [is] considerable misunderstanding about their meaning and use. [Further, these two strategies have not] been consistently described and well understood [and] a review of 16 contemporary marketing textbooks reveals considerable confusion (Dickson and Ginter, 1987, p. 1). And segmentation and differentiation represent two of the oldest and most central strategies in the marketing literature. In addition to the semantics jungle, another problem is that the sources of early marketing strategy concepts are seldom referenced in the marketing literature making it difcult to follow the evolution of strategy concepts from their origin to the present. And yet, because complexity arises over time from simplicity (Simon, 1968), it is necessary to trace the history of strategy concepts from their beginning to understand how we arrived at the present state of disarray and attempt to bring order out of the chaos. Along with the idiosyncratic usage of terms, and the sketchy origin and development of many strategic concepts, a more fundamental problem is the lack of an underlying framework for marketing strategy. While there have been several alternative approaches to describe various marketing strategies, some approaches are borrowed whole and unchanged from corporate management strategy without regard to how well the concepts might t into marketing strategy. For example, of two popular approaches to corporate strategy, by Ansoff and Porter, one or the other is found in almost all marketing management and marketing strategy textbooks, but seldom are both discussed in the same book. One of the earliest approaches to corporate strategy was Ansoffs (1957, 1965) growth strategies, which is found in many marketing management textbooks (e.g. McCarthy, 1978; Lazer and Culley, 1983; Kerin and Peterson, 2004). Another corporate strategy approach was Porters (1980, Marketing strategy 33 1985, 1990) generic strategies, also found in many marketing management texts (e.g. Cravens, 1987; Czepiel, 1992; Boone and Kurtz, 1998). Kotler and Keller (2003) is one of the few marketing writers to describe both Ansoff and Porters approaches to corporate strategy; however, he treats growth (Ansoff, 1965; Porter, 1985) and generic (Kotler and Keller, 2003) strategies independently and makes no attempt at reconciling the incongruities between them. No doubt useful in developing corporate strategy for which they were originally intended, and which encompasses a broader perspective than marketing strategies, both the growth and generic approaches to corporate strategy create some inconsistencies when applied directly to marketing strategy. Not only have these strategic approaches been treated independently without attempting to relate them to each other in the marketing literature, but neither has been integrated with early strategic marketing thought, discussed shortly. The organization of this project is to sort through the early marketing and later corporate strategy literature to: . nd the original sources of marketing strategy concepts; . sort-out inconsistent strategy terminology; and . redene and reorganize strategic terms and concepts into an integrated conceptual framework for managing marketing strategy. In effect, this would provide a toolkit of feasible strategies from which a marketing manager could choose the strategy deemed most effective to achieve a desired goal. Early marketing strategy concepts Before marketing strategy developed as an off-shoot of marketing management in the 1970s, even before marketing management emerged as a school of thought in the 1960s to replace the traditional approaches to marketing (Bartels, 1988; Sheth et al., 1988; Shaw and Jones, 2005), a few isolated concepts were developed in the 1950s literature that form the core of modern marketing strategy. These seminal concepts include: Bordens (1957, 1964) expression of the marketing mix, Smiths (1956) development of product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies, Deans (1951) conception of skimming and penetration as alternative pricing (that he extended to the whole marketing mix) strategies, and Forresters (1959) description of the product life cycle (PLC). Bordens marketing mix In his classic Harvard Business Review (HBR) article of the marketing mix, Borden (1964) credits James Culliton in 1948 with describing the marketing executive as a decider and a mixer of ingredients. This led Borden, in the early 1950s, to the insight that what this mixer of ingredients was deciding upon was a marketing mix. McCarthy (1960, p. 52) acknowledges Frey (1956), The Effective Marketing Mix, with producing the rst marketing mix checklist, consisting of more than a dozen items. Subsequently, in an obscure unpublished working paper, Borden (1957) produced a marketing mix checklist with 12 sections containing more than two-dozen subsections. With dozens of items, the marketing mix might well have remained an obscure concept, but instead took off when McCarthy (1960) reduced Frey and Bordens JHRM 4,1 34 laundry lists to the now common 4 Ps mnemonic: product, price, promotion and place (making the notion simple enough for professors to remember). With McCarthys (1960) simplication and popularization of the marketing mix, virtually every subsequent marketing management textbook has been organized around the four Ps. Not surprisingly, as the variables most easily controlled by marketing managers, the majority of strategies discussed in the following sections involve either adding or subtracting various ingredients to the marketing mix. Smiths differentiation and segmentation strategies In one of the earliest uses of the term marketing strategy, in a very inuential Journal of Marketing article, Smith (1956) described two basic marketing strategies: product differentiation and market segmentation. Although there are no references in his article, Smith was clearly following Aldersons prior use of the terms product differentiation and market segmentation (see Alderson, 1937, article and subsequent chapter in Alexander et al., 1940). Smith worked with Alderson as an associate in the consulting rm of Alderson and Sessions, from June 1952 until its demise in 1958, and like most marketing academics, was strongly inuenced by Aldersons thinking. Indeed, it is reported that Alderson gave his notes on segmentation to Wendell Smith to write up [. . .] to become [Smiths] award winning article (Wooliscroft et al., 2005, p. 18). In product differentiation, according to Smith (1956, p. 5), a rm tries bending the will of demand to the will of supply. That is, distinguishing or differentiating some aspect(s) of its marketing mix from those of competitors, in a mass market or large segment, where customer preferences are relatively homogeneous (or heterogeneity is ignored, Hunt, 2011, p. 80), in an attempt to shift its aggregate demand curve to the left (greater quantity sold for a given price) and make it more inelastic (less amenable to substitutes). With segmentation, a rm recognizes that it faces multiple demand curves, because customer preferences are heterogeneous, and focuses on serving one or more specic target segments within the overall market. A comparison of these two approaches is illustrated in Figure 1. Ultimately, as Oxenfeldt (1958) observed, strategies in marketing must emphasize either targeting customer segments (the demand side of the market) or differentiating the marketing mix (the supply side of the market). Figure 1. Differentiation and segmentation Marketing strategy 35 Smiths use of product differentiation followed Chamberlins (1933) monopolistic competition. Chamberlins work in competitive theory also provided the basis for Aldersons (1937, 1957) competition for differential advantage, Clarks (1940) workable competition and (Clark, 1961) dynamic competition, Porters (1985) sustainable competitive advantage, and Hunt and Morgans (1995) Comparative [later resource] advantage theory of competition. The idea of a product differentiation strategy is to position one rms brand as different from competition in the minds of its customers, when supply and demand are relatively homogeneous (or the rm chooses to ignore heterogeneity). Product differences are used in a broad sense, according to Chamberlin (1933, p. 71), and refer to an alteration in the quality of the product itself technical changes, a new design or better materials; it may mean a new package or container, it may mean more prompt or courteous service, a different way of doing business, or perhaps a different location. Thus differentiation can be real, i.e. based on physical product characteristics or lower price, or perceived, i.e. based on a prestige image, a familiar jingle or a recognizable logo (Alderson, 1965). Because any one or any combination of marketing mix elements can be used to differentiate a brand, it is probably more accurate to change the terminology from product to marketing mix differentiation, or simply differentiation. The term market segmentation was introduced into marketing by Alderson (1937) in an article that was later expanded into a book chapter (Alexander et al., 1940), because of his recognition of heterogeneity in supply and demand. Segmentation was based on the work of Robinson (1933, p. 187) who conceptualized the division of markets into sub-markets [. . .] with the highest price being charged in the least elastic market, and the lowest price in the most elastic market. It was not until Smiths (1956) work, however, that the segmentation concept was fully developed and popularized in the marketing literature. Market segmentation may be dened as subdividing a heterogeneous market into more homogeneous subgroups based on some common customer characteristics, such as age, location, time of purchase or purchase frequency. Segmentation strategy has been expanded into several forms, such as niche, multi-segment and across-the-board targeting strategies (Alderson, 1957; Kotler, 1980; McCarthy, 1978). In distinguishing between these alternative strategies, Smith (1956, p. 5) described a product differentiation strategy as attempting to secure a layer of the market cake, whereas market segmentation strives to secure one or more wedge-shaped pieces. This treatment of differentiation and segmentation is broadly consistent with two recent discussions of marketings intellectual heritage that also purport to provide a better understanding (Hunt, 2011) and clarication [. . .] over the fundamental marketing concepts: product differentiation and market segmentation (Pirog and Smith, 2011). For the present discussion, segmentation and differentiation offer the rm alternative marketing strategies. Aiming to serve a small subset of customers especially well, a segmentation strategy represents a rie approach aiming a distinct marketing mix at each targeted segment (from niche to across-the-board) that the rm serves (Perreault et al., 2006). Alternatively, aiming to satisfy most customers reasonably well, in a differentiation strategy the rm designs a mix that stands out from competition and uses a shotgun approach pointed at the mass market (or large customer segment). JHRM 4,1 36 Deans skimming and penetration strategies Some of the earliest types of marketing strategy were proposed by Joel Dean. In a 1950 article, and then in his classic textbook, Managerial Economics, there is a section titled: Policies for pioneer pricing. Dean (1951, p. 419) writes: The strategic decision in pricing is the choice between: (1) a policy of initial high prices that skim the cream of demand; and (2) a policy of low prices from the outset serving as an active agent for market penetration. With skimming, a rm introduces a product with a high price and after milking the least price sensitive segment, gradually reduces price, in a stepwise fashion, tapping effective demand at each price level. Price skimming works because different customers have differing social status needs, incomes and price sensitivities; and those with high income or low price sensitivity, for example, can be viewed as a homogeneous segment within the overall heterogeneous market. Notice how Deans price skimming strategy exploits Robinsons (1933) emphasis on differing customer segments having differing elasticities of demand. By capturing consumer surplus (i.e. the excess of what customers are willing to pay above what they actually pay), price skimming generates greater revenue than a price penetration strategy, discussed next (see Figure 2). The alternative introductory pricing strategy is to rapidly penetrate the market. With penetration pricing a rm continues its initial low price from introduction to rapidly capture sales and market share, but with lower prot margins than skimming. Although revenues are lower, penetration provides a barrier to entry because competitors are less attracted to a market with reduced protability. Not limited to just the price P of the marketing mix, Dean also considered the impact of varying degrees of promotional expenditures on these alternative pricing strategies. He recognized the advantage of combining high promotional expenditures with low price to even more rapidly penetrate the market than using either marketing mix ingredient alone. Dean also appreciated that fewer promotional dollars but greater targeting effort were Figure 2. Price skimming and penetration pricing Marketing strategy 37 necessary in skimming, which generates slower penetration but higher prot margins. We shall see that price skimming is often used in a niche segmentation strategy, while a penetration pricing strategy can be extended to the entire marketing mix by adding product quality and distribution intensity to pricing and promotion. Although Dean was an economist, his pioneer pricing strategies were transported into the earliest marketing management textbooks, including: Howards (1957) Marketing Management: Analysis and Decision, Kelly and Lazers (1958) Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, McCarthys (1960), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, and Kotlers (1967) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. Skimming and penetration pricing strategies are still found in almost all modern marketing management and marketing strategy textbooks, almost always without attribution. The life cycle of skimming and penetration pricing strategies, by one of marketings most inuential authors, Philip Kotler in his Marketing Management textbooks from 1967 to 2009, provides a useful illustration of the ebb and ow of these strategy concepts over more than four decades. In his 1967 and 1972 editions Kotler summarizes Deans version of pioneer pricing strategies in a couple of paragraphs. In his 1976 edition Kotler juxtaposes high and low prices against high and low promotion expenditures to create a two by two matrix named: introductory marketing strategies (Kotler, 1976, p. 235). Although the concepts remain the same (fast and slow penetration versus fast and slow skimming), the terminology is rened in his 1980 edition. The discussion remains unchanged through subsequent editions of Kotlers textbooks until the 2000 edition where the matrix is eliminated and the discussion again reduced to a few paragraphs of the newly termed market-penetration pricing and market-skimming pricing (Kotler, 2000, p. 458). By the 2003 edition, all references to fast and slow aspects are purged. This may be due to the difculty of nding real world applications of fast-skimming and slow-penetration, because skimming is inherently gradual to skim the cream of each successive segment and penetration is inherently rapid to forestall competition. Kotler and (now co-author) Kellers two short paragraph discussions of penetration and skimming strategies remain the same in the 2006 and 2009 editions. This example shows the difculty in anchoring strategic terms and concepts without a well-grounded conceptual framework. Forresters product life cycle (PLC) The PLC does not offer marketing strategies, per se; rather it provides an overarching framework from which to choose among various strategic alternatives. One of the earliest discussions of the PLC in marketing is found in Alderson and Sessions consulting newsletter: Cost and Prot Outlook (Alderson, 1951, p. 1). Here Alderson only identies three stages in his elongated S shaped sales curve: establishment, expansion and stabilization. At about the same time, Dean (1951, p. 422) mentions products going through a ve stage life cycle analogous to human development: before birth, at birth, childhood, adulthood, or senescence. Another ve stage model was developed by Jones (1957), who includes introduction, growth, maturity, saturation and decline stages. Subsequently Wasson (1960, 1974) discussed still another ve stage PLC model, which in addition to introduction and decline includes a JHRM 4,1 38 competitive turbulence stage between growth and maturity (common with high technology products). Different terms but similar concepts. Perhaps the earliest version of the PLC curve, using stages followed today, appears in a Harvard Business Review (HBR) article by Forrester (1959). His work popularized the familiar elongated S shaped sales curve with the now common four stages: introduction, growth, maturity and decline (see Figure 3). Forrester used the PLC to model the impact of advertising on sales using his computer simulation Industrial Dynamics. Obviously, sales are impacted by all the ingredients in the marketing mix. It is difcult to say who deserves priority of claim. Alderson and Dean produced three and ve stage versions of the PLC. When interviewed by Muhs (1985), Forrester said several PLC concepts were already in the literature; whereas Conrad thought he had originated at least some of the ideas (Muhs, 1985). Because Forresters version has survived in its original form to the present, this version is, somewhat arbitrarily, regarded as the archetype of the PLC. The basic idea of the PLC is that sales, the dependant variable, follows an elongated S shaped curve that is a function of a number of customer variables (e.g. size of market, rate of growth, rate of replacement) and competitor variables (e.g. number of competitors, barriers to entry, marketing mix effort). All of these variables are captured by time, which is a proxy for all independent variables. Although, there are many variations (see Lazer and Shaw, 1986), the life cycle starts when a new product is introduced into the market. Sales start out slowly as customers rst become aware of the new product and then develop a desire for it. If a sufcient number of customers adopt the new product, the pioneers success attracts competition. New competitors entering the market create the rapid growth stage of the PLC because increased competition creates greater product variation and lower prices, along with heavier advertising and more extensive distribution. The combined industrys marketing mix efforts fuel positive word of mouth as customers feel compelled to keep up with the Joneses. During the rapid growth stage, sales sooner or later reach an inection point where demand shifts from increasing at an accelerating Figure 3. Product life cycle Marketing strategy 39 rate to increasing at a decelerating pace due to a shift in the ratio of new purchases to replacement buying. The excess capacity caused by a slowing growth rate accounts for Wassons (1974) competitive turbulence stage. As sales approach the market potential (i.e. most customers who want the product already own it), sales growth slows to acquisitions for replenishing stock and for newly formed households. In reaction, competitive marketing mixes and market shares often stabilize as well and the product enters the maturity stage of the life cycle. Eventually the product starts losing its customer base, usually to another new product, and sales go into the decline stage, as only laggards (who eventually die out) remain in the market buying the old product. It should be noted that decline and divestment is not necessarily inevitable, as products reach maturity they may be recycled into another growth phase. For more than a century, the Gillette Company has been successful in forestalling maturity and decline by continuously recycling growth of its razor and blade life cycle by engineering new and improved brand extensions (e.g. safety razor, blue blade, stainless steel blade, Technomatic, Atra, Trac II twin blade system, Sensor, Mach 3 three blade system, Fusion ve blade system). With Levitts (1965) classic HBR article: Exploit the product life cycle, the PLC entered the rapid growth stage of its own life cycle. Subsequently, numerous literature reviews and meta-analyses have appeared summarizing the extant PLC literature and analyzing its strengths and weaknesses (e.g. Buzzell, 1966; Dhalla and Yuspeh, 1976; Polli and Cook, 1969; Smallwood, 1973); with one of the most comprehensive analyses in a book by Wasson (1974) and a special section in the Journal of Marketing guest edited by Day (1981). The PLC has both supporters and critics. The notion that successful products go through sequenced stages of a life cycle over time is supported by the PLCs heavily researched theoretical complement the diffusion of innovation (Lazer and Shaw, 1986). Sales, the dependent variable in the PLC is mirrored by the ip side of the coin consumer acceptance (or purchase), the dependent variable in the diffusion of innovation literature (Rogers, 1962). The major criticism of the PLC as a theory is predicting the timing of transitions from one stage to the next (Hunt, 2010). Transitional predictions need not detain us, however, because for purposes of the present research the PLC is used in its role as a classication system, with each stage indicating several available strategies. Specifying a given stage is easily determined empirically by plotting sales over time. Given that a product can even loosely be identied with a particular stage of the PLC points the manager to a choice of several alternative marketing strategies, discussed shortly. Forrester was an economist, but his concept of the PLC was reproduced in the earliest marketing management textbooks, including: Kelley and Lazer (1958), McCarthy (1960), and Kotler (1967). The PLC is still found in almost all modern marketing management and strategy textbooks, but hardly any give a citation. In contrast to the lack of citations for marketing strategy concepts, surprisingly, almost all corporate management strategies, other than SWOT, are well referenced in the marketing literature. Corporate strategy concepts The strategic concepts discussed so far (the marketing mix, skimming and penetration, differentiation and segmentation, and the PLC), were created by economists and JHRM 4,1 40 marketing scholars and gained popularity in early marketing management textbooks. The following strategic concepts, Andrews SWOT, Ansoffs growth strategies, Porters generic strategies, and Hendersons product portfolio model, were developed for corporate management, not marketing management. Because marketing strategy is a major component of corporate strategy there is overlap, but these two areas are not isomorphic. Nevertheless, corporate strategy concepts have been shoehorned intact into subsequent generations of marketing textbooks from the 1970s and 1980s to the present. It is largely shoehorning of borrowed concepts that has created the present state of isolated bits and pieces of marketing strategy rather than the development of an overarching conceptual framework. Andrews SWOT analysis Although widely used in marketing strategy, SWOT (also known as TOWS) Analysis originated in corporate strategy. The SWOT concept, if not the acronym, is the work of Kenneth R. Andrews who is credited with writing the text portion of the classic: Business Policy: Text and Cases (Learned et al., 1965). For Andrews, strategy emerges from aligning environmental opportunity with corporate capability; he writes: In deciding what strategy should be [. . .] its principal subactivities include (1) identifying opportunities and threats in the companys environment [. . .] and (2) appraising the companys strengths and weaknesses. The strategic alternative which results (is) a matching of opportunity and corporate capability (Learned et al., 1965, p. 20). Interestingly, this matching of external circumstances with internal conditions was anticipated by Alderson (1957, p. 357) who also spoke of matching opportunity with effort where Aldersons (1957, pp. 361-364) effort was dened almost synonymously with Andrews capability. It is difcult to know if Andrews at Harvard was inuenced by marketings dominant thinker, Alderson at MIT at the time, and later Wharton, who was also one of Americas leading business consultants. Even though Andrews does not identify any actual strategic alternative which results from SWOT analysis, like the PLC, these two approaches provide the critical factors to consider in determining the most effective strategic choice. The key internal factors affecting strategy, from the marketing perspective, involve the availability and application of marketing mix resources (Aldersons effort); and some of the crucial external factors include market size, potential, rate of growth, and competitors (as also described in the PLC). SWOT analysis, as will be shown, also provides the main foundational concepts for growth share type product portfolio matrices. Since marketing strategy, by denition (Oxenfeldt, 1958), involves choosing target segments and a marketing mix, many of the following approaches to corporate strategy also emphasize one or the other of these fundamental marketing strategy concepts. Next we examine the genesis of approaches to corporate strategy that have come to dominate the marketing textbook literature, then reorienting them to t marketing strategy by breaking down and modifying the concepts where necessary, and nally modernizing the terminology and rebuilding the concepts into a framework for marketing strategy. Ansoffs growth strategies The most well-known, and least often attributed, aspect of Igor Ansoffs Growth Strategies in the marketing literature is the termproduct-market. The product-market Marketing strategy 41 concept results from Ansoff juxtaposing new and existing products with new and existing markets in a two by two matrix, as shown in Figure 4. Ansoffs (1957, p. 114) original HBR paper establishing the two by two product-market matrix was preceded by an HBR article three months earlier with almost identical concepts by Johnson and Jones (1957, p. 52). These authors developed a three by three matrix based on technological (product) newness and market newness ranging from existing products to new products. One of Ansoffs cells used the identical term diversication found in Johnson and Jones; while two of the cells used nearly identical terminology: product extension versus Ansoffs product development, and market extension versus Ansoffs market development. Although not cited (citations of earlier work were rare in business periodicals prior to the 1950s), Ansoff (1957) would certainly have been familiar with the earlier article and his work clearly renes and extends some of Johnson and Joness (1957) ideas. Useful as the model may be for corporate strategy, there are several problems with Ansoffs (1957, 1965) product-market matrix from a marketing perspective. For marketing, there are two problematic and two useful cells in Ansoffs matrix. In the case of an existing product and an existing market, Ansoff suggests a penetration strategy. However, there is no meaningful information provided about how to actually use this strategy to penetrate the market. For example, Ansoff (1957, p. 114) says: Market penetration is an effort to increase company sales without departing from an original product-market strategy. In a similar vein Ansoff (1965, pp. 109-110) states: Marketing penetration denotes a growth direction through the increase of market share for the present product-market. This begs the question: what should the strategist do to generate sales or market share growth without departing from an original product-market strategy? Sales and market share are goals, but what are the specics of a penetration strategy to attain them? In answer to the question, Ansoff is silent, as are most subsequent marketing Figure 4. Growth strategies JHRM 4,1 42 writers. Aside from the strategys lack of specicity, there is a glaring inconsistency that has apparently escaped notice in the marketing literature. It will be recalled that Dean (1951) regarded a penetration strategy as introducing a new product into a new market (and he specied the strategy as employing low price and high promotion to rapidly build sales and gain market share). This presents a contradiction in the use of the term penetration, because Ansoffs strategy involves an existing product in an existing market rather than a new product in a new market. As will be shown, a penetration strategy may be used with either new or existing products in either new or existing markets; and as Dean proposed, a penetration strategy involves the aggressive use of a combination of marketing mix elements. Another problem with the matrix involves strategic level. Ansoff regarded a diversication strategy (i.e. new product and new market) as a major departure from a rms current operations that involved mergers and acquisitions. In this case, corporate diversication is a top-level business strategy that is seldom made by a marketing manager. On the other hand, if a diversication strategy is taken to mean the introduction of a new product to a new customer segment, at the marketing management level, then it is simply a form of segmentation strategy, discussed next. There are two particularly useful components in Ansoffs growth strategies. Market development, according to Ansoffs (1957, p. 114), is a strategy in which the company attempts to adapt its present product line to new [market segments]. Essentially, the rm expands its sales by adding new customer segments (irrespective of whether the product is old or new). The market development concept will be retained in its expanded form, but following Smith (1956) renamed a segment expansion strategy. Segment expansion may take several forms (Kotler, 1980; McCarthy, 1981), such as a multi-segment strategy (targeting several segments each with their own marketing mix), or an across-the-board segment strategy (aiming a different marketing mix at each customer segment in a market). The other useful growth strategy is Ansoffs product development strategy, in which new models, styles, or colors are added to the product line. Kerin and Peterson (1978, pp. 123-124) proposed replacing product development with their more relevant term offering development; arguing that the former is limited to products and the latter includes both products and services. Both development terms could stand improvement. The product development term is limited and the offering development term is awkward. A more modern term without baggage, that also parallels a segment expansion strategy, is a brand expansion strategy. One should also realize that both growth strategies segment expansion and brand expansion, build upon Smiths (1956) original two marketing strategies: segmentation and differentiation. As shown next, Smiths strategic alternatives also provide the conceptual underpinning for Porters generic strategies. Porters generic strategies Starting with a two by one matrix, Porters (1980) work has undergone a series of modications (Porter, 1985, 1990) to arrive at a two by two matrix that juxtaposes low cost and uniqueness with industry-wide and narrow target segments (see Figure 5). Porters matrix, like Ansoffs, was developed for corporate strategy, hence it also has pros and cons for marketing strategy. One of the main weaknesses of Porters generic strategies from the marketing perspective is the concept of low cost leadership. Marketing strategy 43 Having a lower cost has two alternative implications: either higher prot margins or lower prices. Higher prot margin is the implication resulting from lower cost that Porter (1985, p. 13) apparently had in mind: If a rm can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership, then it will be an above-average performer in its industry provided it can command prices at or near the industry average. Signicant for corporate strategy because it produces greater prots, Porters advantage of a lower cost provides almost no value for the marketing strategist. An average price may avoid being a marketing weakness, but it certainly is not a marketing strength. It is only the second implication, when a low cost advantage is translated into a price below competition that it becomes a strength the marketing strategist nds valuable. A lower price than competition is a strength because below market pricing is a form of differentiating one brand offering from another, as surely as a prestige product, unique service, trademark, logo, promotional jingle, distribution outlet, or any other marketing mix element(s) that make one brand stand out from the pack in the minds of potential or actual customer segments. Thus, juxtaposing low cost (almost always used synonymously but mistakenly with low price by marketing students) versus differentiation (with non-price marketing mix ingredients) carries more baggage than benet, since price is one element of the marketing mix, and any element can serve as the basis for a differential or competitive advantage. Simply, it is illogical to exclude price as a type of differential advantage. In Chamberlins (1933, p. 56) words: Differentiation (occurs) if any signicant basis exists for distinguishing the goods of one seller from those of another. As Porter (1985, p. 14), himself, notes: In a differentiation strategy a rm seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimensions that are widely valued by buyers. Low price is obviously a dimension widely valued by many buyers. Therefore, to complete the syllogism, low price is an element of a differentiation strategy. Figure 5. Generic strategies JHRM 4,1 44 There is another marketing issue with Porters matrix, the dichotomy between industry wide and narrowtarget strategies. An industry wide strategy, better known in the marketing literature as a mass market strategy (i.e. a single marketing mix for all customers in the market) is most relevant for large rms with strong nancial resources offering a standardized commodity. Porters narrow target segment, commonly known in marketing as a niche strategy (targeting a narrowly dened customer segment with a tailored marketing mix), is often a necessity for a smaller rm with strong marketing skills but limited nancial capability. However, Porters matrix does not recognize several alternative marketing strategies sandwiched between these two. In between a mass market and a niche strategy, there are a variety of segment expansion strategies (e.g. multi-segment or across-the-board, as previously discussed). Thus, all variations of Porters generic strategies, except cost leadership, may also be derived from Smiths (1956) core marketing strategies: differentiation and segmentation. BCGs growth-share portfolio matrix Based on his work with experience curves (that also provides the rationale for Porters low cost leadership strategy), the growth-share matrix was originally created by Bruce D. Henderson, CEO of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 1968 (according to BCG history). Throughout the 1970s, Henderson expanded upon the concept in a series of short (one to three page) articles in the BCG newsletter titled Perspectives (Henderson, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1976a, b). Tremendously popular among large multi-product rms, the BCG portfolio matrix was popularized in the marketing literature by Day (1977). By the early 1980s, there were more than a dozen portfolio models, relating environmental opportunities to organizational strengths (e.g. General Electrics 3 3 market attractiveness business strength matrix, Shell Chemicals 3 3 business prospects company capabilities directional policy matrix, Arthur D. Littles 4 5 industry maturity competitive position table). All portfolio models focus on some variation mostly in terminology of a rms competitive strengths and market growth opportunities (see Andrews SWOT). Either because it was the rst mover, or the least complicated, or it offered the most colorful terminology (e.g. cash cows and dogs), the BCG 2 2 market growth market share matrix dominates the product portfolio literature (see Figure 6). Products in various cells of the growth-share matrix are directly related to stages in the product life cycle. Question marks are introduced into the market with the potential for growth. If their sales growth actualizes their potential, question marks become stars. With a slowing growth rate stars mature into cash cows; and as growth declines, cows turn into dogs. For question marks and stars, found in the early stages of the PLC, a number of introductory and growth strategies have previously been mentioned and are further discussed below. In the maturity and decline stages of the PLC, three additional marketing mix strategies emerge from portfolio models maintenance, harvesting, and divesting. Although the concepts were being used by rms long before the terms were developed (Kotler, 1965), portfolio models rationalize these strategies and make them more explicit. In early to mid-maturity, when sales growth is slowing, the BCG suggests a maintenance strategy in which a rm holds or maintains its marketing mix effort at current expenditure levels. In mid to late maturity, when sales growth begins turning negative, a harvesting strategy (see Kotlers, 1978, discussion) is recommended Marketing strategy 45 where the rm reduces its marketing mix expenditures anticipating a less than proportional reduction in sales. As the market continues declining, at some point a divesting strategy becomes necessary. The marketing mix is reduced to zero and the brand removed from the market. Framework for marketing strategy Having followed the literature and dissected marketing strategy terms, this section integrates the concepts into a framework that identies alternative marketing strategies at different stages of the PLC and under various SWOT conditions. The framework is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Framework for marketing strategy Figure 6. Growth share matrix JHRM 4,1 46 Figure 7 shows the stage in the industry or market life cycle that a particular marketing strategy becomes viable for a pioneer or followers, and ends when the strategy is no longer a realistic alternative. The various marketing strategies in each stage of the PLC are described below. Market introduction strategies At introduction, the marketing strategist has two principle strategies to choose from: penetration or niche. A penetration strategy (Dean, 1951; Ansoff, 1965) emphasizes an aggressive marketing mix for a mass market or a large segment of the market. As the term has been developed in this research, a penetration strategy is not limited to a current product in a current market (Ansoff) or just a low introductory price (Dean). A penetration strategy involves using the marketing mix aggressively. Although every mix element need not be aggressive, a penetration strategy should include some combination of a no-frills product, minimal service, low price, high promotional expenditures and intensive distribution effort. A penetration strategy, following Andrews SWOT, is ideal for large rms with strong nancial resources facing a large and growing market, price sensitive customers with minimal brand awareness or preference, many potential competitors and few barriers to entry. A penetration strategy will work from the introduction into the growth stage and perhaps as late as the early maturity stage of the PLC. As an offering approaches maturity, however, high marketing mix expenditures cannot be sustained as sales growth slows and marginal costs rise more rapidly than marginal revenue. Alternatively, a niche strategy (Kotler, 1980; Porter, 1980; McCarthy, 1981) focuses on a narrowly dened customer segment and is ideal for smaller rms with limited resources. The niche strategy expands Porters focus (Porter, 1980) or narrow target segment (Porter, 1990) strategy and incorporates Deans (1951) price skimming but from the angle of a market segments price sensitivity. Although a segmentation-oriented strategy, the marketing mix aimed at a niche is largely dictated by company and market considerations. With the niche strategy (Alderson, 1957; confusingly termed concentrated segmentation by Kotler, 1976) a rm targets a narrowly dened customer segment. The marketing mix typically involves a custom tailored product offering, a high price, and given the small-sized customer base, promotional expenditures are focused and thereby relatively low, with selective or exclusive distribution coverage. This strategy works well in smaller segments requiring higher prot margins to compensate for lack of sales volume, when customers are insensitive to price, can easily be made aware of the brand with minimal promotional effort, and the rm can create some barriers to entry resulting in few direct competitors. The niche strategy can be highly protable, even in very small segments, because it combines high price with low marketing mix expenditures (Kotler, 1980). This strategy has the added virtue of allowing pin-point timing. A niche strategy does not require a lot of set-up and breakdown time, effort or money, allowing a rm to move in and out of the market quickly. Taking advantage of windows of opportunity (Abell, 1978), a niche is therefore potentially protable at virtually any stage of the life cycle from introduction to decline. For example, the General Pencil Company (GPC) founded in 1889, produced a high quality lead pencil (once the standard bearer of the ubiquitous No. 2 pencil), but since pencils have become a throw-away, even single-use product, GPC was unable to compete with cheap imports Marketing strategy 47 on price. Facing a declining market, for a commodity type product, GPC found their niche artists and illustrators who required a harder more durable lead in their pencil and were willing to pay a premium price for a higher quality product. Market growth strategies In the early growth stage, the marketing manager may choose from two additional strategic alternatives: segment expansion (Smith, Ansoff) or brand expansion (Borden, Ansoff, Kerin and Peterson, 1978). In segment expansion, the strategist adds new targets (each with their own marketing mixes) to the market segments already served. A classic example was Toyotas Crown automobile entering the US market in 1956 with a niche strategy a single marketing mix targeted at a single segment economy conscious sub-compact auto buyers. After gaining a toehold in the market, it used segment expansion to go beyond its niche, offering brands for multiple segments, including the sub-compact, compact, mid-size, large size and sports-car segments. Ultimately targeting across-the-board, it aimed a marketing mix at virtually all auto and small truck market segments, and even developed the separate Lexus brand to target the luxury auto segment. Although also a form of segment expansion, it is useful to separate geographics from other forms of segmentation, such as demographics, psycho-graphics, sociographics, and behavioral characteristics. In geographic expansion, rms shift their sights from local, to regional, to national, to international, to global customer targets. This strategy is increasingly used when growth slows down as local (or domestic) markets approach maturity. Similar to expanding segments, another strategic alternative in the growth stage involves brand expansion. This strategy adds new products or variations to the line, offering the customer segment more choice, or it provides additional services, such as delivery or gift wrapping, to offer customers greater value. During the late growth stage, sales are still growing rapidly, but hit an inection point where they shift from increasing at an accelerating rate to increasing at a de-accelerating rate. In markets growing very rapidly, this shift in the rate of growth often produces a competitive turbulence (Wasson, 1974), in which an industry shake-out occurs, because of excess capacity. During this turbulence another strategy is often called for a differentiation strategy. If not used in late growth, as rms jockey for advantage, then differentiation is often employed in the maturity stage, discussed next. Market maturity strategies In maturity, sales growth slows, stabilizes and starts to decline. In early maturity, it is common to employ a maintenance strategy (BCG), where the rm maintains or holds a stable marketing mix. This is common in oligopoly industries, where a small number of rms hold a large share of the market. Satised with maintaining their market share and milking prots, these rms prefer not to rock the boat. If rms can preserve a rough equilibrium, a maintenance strategy could work until sales decline to meet costs. But maintenance is a rather passive strategy subject to a shake-up by an aggressive competitor. If a rm wants to shufe the deck, differentiation offers an aggressive but affordable strategy in maturity (Smith, Porter). It involves a rm using one or more elements of the marketing mix to enhance purchase value for its customers. For JHRM 4,1 48 example, product quality could be improved, price lowered to offer greater economy, upscale advertising media employed to create more brand prestige or distribution outlets added to provide greater customer convenience. Although aggressive, differentiation is far less forceful and far less expensive than a penetration strategy. Because it involves more marketing mix nesse and need not be expensive, a differentiation strategy could work at virtually any stage of the life cycle, from growth into decline. As a rm moves further along the maturity curve, a harvesting strategy (Henderson, 1970; Kotler, 1978) becomes an option if not a necessity. Typically, as a market shifts from early to late maturity, a maintenance strategy evolves into a harvesting strategy. In harvesting, marketing mix effort is reduced following the declining sales, and the brand remains a cash cow as long as the cost reductions are more than (or at least) proportional to the declining sales. Market decline strategies At some point the decline in sales approaches and then begins to exceed costs. And not just accounting costs, there are hidden costs as well; as Kotler (1965, p. 109) observed: No nancial accounting can adequately convey all the hidden costs. At some point, with declining sales and rising costs, a harvesting strategy becomes unprotable and a divesting strategy necessary. Although if a rm is one of the last men standing it may remain a protable survivor (Kotler, 1997) in the market, if most of the competition has dropped out, if there are a sufcient number of laggards with purchasing power and a desire to buy lingering in the market, and if the costs of serving these remaining customers stays low. This is essentially an extreme harvesting strategy. Non-lter cigarettes or double edge razor blades provide examples of how a few competitors have survived in slowly declining markets. Eventually, as customers die out, marketing mix expenditures decline to zero and the brand is removed from the market. Summary and conclusion This research has shown that the history can provide a powerful guide to understanding how simplicity evolves over time into complexity, in general, and how marketing strategy terms and concepts could arrive at their current state of confusion, in particular. It also shows how the history of marketing thought can provide a useful guide for current marketing practice. The literature was examined to nd the original sources of strategic concepts, to sort-out inconsistent terminology, to integrate isolated strategic approaches, and to create a broad spectrum framework that could serve as a strategic marketing toolkit for understanding and applying marketing management strategies. As was shown, many strategic marketing approaches are interrelated. BCG type growth-share portfolio matrices are built on SWOT Analysis. Strengths and weaknesses affect a rms market share, and opportunities and threats affect a market segments growth. SWOT Analysis, in turn, is built on the marketing mix as a basis for determining strengths and weaknesses; and customer segments provide a basis for determining opportunities and threats. Deans penetration strategy is related to the marketing mix, while his skimming strategy is related to segmentation the two element of marketing Marketing strategy 49 strategy discussed by Oxenfeldt. As well, both growth and generic strategies are largely based on market segmentation and differentiation as discussed by Smith. Ansoffs brand development and Porters differentiation strategies are based on the marketing mix; and Ansoffs market development and Porters industry-wide and narrow segment strategies are based on segmentation. In the conceptual framework presented here, two structural approaches to strategy offer guidance in choosing among strategic alternatives: the PLC ( Jones, 1957; Forrester, 1959; Wasson, 1974) describing and classifying the stages sales pass through over time, and SWOT Analysis (Learned et al., 1965) depicting how sales can be increased by aligning conditions inside and outside the rm. Fundamentally, there are two main sources of individual marketing strategies: customers and marketing mixes (Oxenfeldt, 1958). Alternative customer strategies involve either mass marketing, a single marketing mix for everyone, or targeting segments, with an individual marketing mix for each segment (Smith, 1956). Alternative segmentation strategies usually start with targeting a single segment, from a small niche (Kotler, 1980; Porter, 1980) to a large single segment of the market (McCarthy, 1981). A single segment strategy will sometimes grow into expansion strategies targeting multiple-segments and could ultimately involve targeting all segments in an across-the-board strategy (Kotler, 1980; McCarthy, 1981). Alternative marketing mix strategies include penetration (Dean, 1951; Ansoff, 1965), brand expansion (Ansoff, 1965; Kerin and Peterson, 1978), differentiation (Smith, 1956; Porter, 1980; Kotler, 1980), maintenance (Henderson, 1976b), harvesting (Henderson, 1976b; Kotler, 1978) and divesting (Kotler, 1965; Henderson, 1970). The framework presented here is both conceptual and practical. This framework provides a researcher a consistent and logically coherent set of marketing strategy terms and concepts to build upon. This framework, based on the stage of the life cycle and the alignment of organizational strengths with environmental opportunities, allows the marketing strategist to choose, from among the various segmentation and marketing mix strategic alternatives, discussed above, the most effective strategy for achieving the marketing managers goal(s). Future research should focus on honing these strategic concepts and developing additional strategies to incorporate into the framework. References Abell, D.F. (1978), Strategic windows, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, July, pp. 21-6. Alexander, R.S., Surface, F.M., Elder, R.F. and Alderson, W. (1940), Marketing, Ginn and Co., New York, NY. Alexander, R.S., Surface, F.M. and Alderson, W. (1953), Marketing, Ginn and Co., New York, NY. Alderson, W. (1937), A marketing view of competition, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 98-9. Alderson, W. (1951), Product growth cycle, Cost and Prot Outlook, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-4. Alderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Alderson, W. (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Ansoff, H.I. (1957), Strategies for diversication, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 113-24. Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. JHRM 4,1 50 Bartels, R. (1962), The Development of Marketing Thought, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Bartels, R. (1976), The History of Marketing Thought, 2nd ed., Grid, Columbus, OH. Bartels, R. (1988), The History of Marketing Thought, 3rd ed., Publishing Horizons, Columbus, OH. Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1998), Contemporary Marketing, Dryden Press, Philadelphia, PA. Borden, N.H. (1957), Note on concept of the marketing mix, in Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W. (Eds), Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Borden, N.H. (1964), The concept of the marketing mix, Journal of Advertising Research, June, pp. 2-7. Buzzell, R. (1966), Competitive behavior and product life cycles, in Wright, J. and Goldsucker, J. (Eds), New Ideas for Successful Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Cannon, J.T. (1968), Business Strategy and Policy, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY. Chamberlin, E.H. (1933), Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and Structure, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Chandler, A. (1969), Top Management Planning, Macmillan, New York, NY. Clark, J.M. (1940), Toward a concept of workable competition, American Economic Review, Vol. 30, June, pp. 241-56. Clark, J.M. (1961), Competition as a Dynamic Process, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Cravens, D.W. (1987), Strategic Marketing, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Czepiel, J.A. (1992), Competitive Marketing Strategy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Day, G.S. (1977), Diagnosing the product portfolio, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 29-38. Day, G.S. (1981), Introduction to special section: the product life cycle: analysis and application issues, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 60-7. Davis, K.R. (1961), Marketing Management, Ronald Press, New York, NY. Dean, J. (1951), Managerial Economics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Dhalla, N.K. and Yuspeh, S. (1976), Forget the product life cycle concept!, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 102-10. Dickson, P.R. and Ginter, J.L. (1987), Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 1-10. Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Enis, B.M. (1974), Marketing Principles: The Management Process, Goodyear Publishing, Pacic Palisades, CA. Frey, A.W. (1956), The Effective Marketing Mix, Amos Tuck Business School, Hanover, NH. Forrester, J.W. (1959), Advertising: a problem in industrial dynamics, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 100-10. Henderson, B.D. (1970), The product portfolio, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, p. 1. Henderson, B.D. (1972), Cash traps, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA. Henderson, B.D. (1973), The experience curve reviewed IV, the growth-share matrix, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA. Marketing strategy 51 Henderson, B.D. (1976a), The star of the portfolio, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA. Henderson, B.D. (1976b), Anatomy of a cash cow, Perspectives, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA. Howard, J. (1957), Marketing Management, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Hunt, S.D. (2010), Marketing Theory, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. Hunt, S.D. (2011), The theory of monopolistic competition, marketings intellectual history, and the product differentiation versus market segmentation controversy, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 73-84. Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), The comparative advantage theory of competition, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April, pp. 1-15. Johnson, S.C. and Jones, C. (1957), How to organize for new products, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 49-62. Jones, C. (1957), Product development from the managerial point of view, in Clewett, R.L. (Ed.), Marketings Role in Scientic Management, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Jones, D.G.B. and Shaw, E.H. (2002), A history of marketing thought, in Weitz, B.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 39-66. Keayne, R. (1653/1970) in Bailyn, B. (Ed.), The Apologia of Robert Keayne, Peter Smith Publisher, Glouster, MA. Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W. (1958), Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (1978), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (1993), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kerin, R. and Peterson, R. (2004), Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1965), Phasing out weak products, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 107-18. Kotler, P. (1967), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1976), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1978), Harvesting strategies for weak products, Business Horizons, August, pp. 15-22. Kotler, P. (1980), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2009), Marketing Management, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Lazer, W. and Culley, J.D. (1983), Marketing Management: Foundations and Concepts, Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA, pp. 461-73. Lazer, W. and Shaw, E.H. (1986), The product life cycle, in Buell, V. (Ed.), Handbook of Modern Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. JHRM 4,1 52 Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R. and Guth, W.D. (1965), Business Policy: Text and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Levitt, T. (1965), Exploit the product life cycle, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 81-94. Liddell, G. and Scott, R. (18711957), Greek-English Lexicon [Abridged], Oxford University Press, Oxford. Luther, M. (15241957), Trade and usury, in Tappert, T.G. (Ed.), Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 86-91. Lyon, L.S. (1926), Salesmen in Marketing Strategy, Macmillan, New York, NY. McCarthy, E.J. (1960), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. McCarthy, E.J. (1978), Basic Marketing: a Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. McCarthy, E.J. (1981), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, John Wiley, New York, NY. Muhs, W.F. (1985), The product life cycle concept: origin and early antecedents, in Hollander, S.C. and Nevett, T. (Eds), Marketing in the Long Run, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Historical Research in Marketing, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, pp. 413-9. Oxenfeldt, A.R. (1958), The formulation of a market strategy, in Kelley, E.J. and Lazer, W. (Eds), Managerial Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL, pp. 264-71. Perreault, W.D. Jr, Cannon, J.P. and McCarthy, E.J. (2006), Basic Marketing, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY. Pirog, S.F. III and Smith, M.F. (2011), Giving voice to marketings intellectual heritage, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-75. Polli, R. and Cook, V. (1969), Validity of the product life cycle, Journal of Business, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 385-400. Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York, NY. Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York, NY. Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York, NY. Robinson, J. (1933), The Economics of Imperfect Competition, MacMillan and Company, London. Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY. Rosenberg, L.J. (1978), The Roots of Marketing Strategy: A Collection of Pre-1950 Readings, Arno Press, New York, NY. Schendel, D.E. and Hatten, K.J. (1972), Business policy or strategic management: a broader view for an emerging discipline, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, pp. 99-102. Schendel, D.E. and Hofer, C.W. (1979), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, Little Brown & Company, New York, NY. Shaw, A.W. (1914), Scientic management in business, in Bertrand Thompson, C. (Ed.), Scientic Management: A Collection of The More Signicant Articles, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Shaw, A.W. (1916), An Approach to Business Problems, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Marketing strategy 53 Shaw, E.H. and Jones, D.G.B. (2005), A history of schools of marketing thought, Marketing Theory, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 239-81. Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D. (1988), Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Simon, H.A. (1947), Administrative Behavior, Free Press, New York, NY. Simon, H.A. (1968), The architecture of complexity, General Systems Annual, Vol. XI, pp. 3-12. Smallwood, J.E. (1973), The product life cycle: a key to successful strategic marketing planning, MSU Business Topics, Winter, pp. 29-35. Smith, W.R. (1956), Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20, July, pp. 3-8. St Thomas of Aquinas (1274/1951), On fraud committed in buying and selling, Summa Theologica, Part II, Qu. 77, in Monroe, A.E. (Ed.), Early Economic Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 51-78. Taylor, F.W. (1903), Shop Management, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY. Taylor, F.W. (1911), Scientic Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Usui, K. (2008), The Development of Marketing Management: The Case of the USA c. 1910-1940, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot. Wasson, C.R. (1960), What is new about new products?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, July, pp. 52-6. Wasson, C.R. (1974), Dynamic Competitive Strategy and Product Life Cycles, Challenge Books, St Charles, IL. Wilkie, W.L. and Moore, E.S. (2002), Marketings relationship to society, in Weitz, B.A. and Wensley, R. (Eds), Handbook of Marketing, Sage, London, pp. 9-38. Wooliscroft, B., Tamilia, R.D. and Shapiro, S.J. (2005), A Twenty-First Century Guide to Aldersonian Marketing Thought, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. Further reading Anderson, C.H. and Vincze, J.W. (2000), Strategic Marketing Management, Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA. Bartels, R. (1941), Marketing literature: development and appraisal, PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Boone, L.E. (2006), Contemporary Marketing, Thompson South-Western, Mason, OH. Kotler, P. (1972), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1984), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2003), Marketing Management, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. JHRM 4,1 54 Patel, P. and Younger, M. (1978), A frame of reference for strategy development, Long Range Planning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 6-12. Qualls, W., Olshavsky, R. and Michaels, R. (1981), Shortening the PLC an empirical test, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 76-80. Robinson, S.J.Q., Hichens, R.E. and Wade, D.P. (1978), The directional policy matrix tool for strategic planning, Long Range Planning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 8-15. Wilkie, W.L. (2003), Scholarly research in marketing: exploring the four eras of thought development, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 22, Fall, pp. 116-46. Xenophon (1832), Memoirs of Socrates, The Whole Works of Xenophon, Jones & Co., London, translated by A. Cooper, E. Spelman, W. Smith, and S. Fielding, rst published 415BCE. About the author Eric H. Shaw is Professor of Marketing at Florida Atlantic University. He teaches PhD seminars in the history of marketing thought and the development of marketing theory, which are also his major research interests. Other research areas include: marketing strategy, decision making, conceptualizing and measuring macromarketing system performance, and the study of general and complex adaptive systems. Dr Shaw has published numerous articles, book chapters and monographs, and he serves on a number of editorial review boards. Eric H. Shaw can be contacted at: shaw@fau.edu Marketing strategy 55 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints