2009/

...................................

..

.



)(20
.
)
(
.

.

.

Abstract:

This study deals with Influence marketing Environment in strategic

marketing planning. It concentrates one section of management levels in
the studies company. Which is that of administrative managers.

/ / /
2009 / 3 /12
)(97

...................................

2009/

The objective of the research is to attempt to study and analyses

influence marketing Environment in strategic marketing planning. The
study aims at achieving anumber of applicable goals depending on two
major hypotheses .
I made of a questionnaire in collecting the data and information
relating to the study , which was distributed to sample of (20) department
manager heads of sections. States company of leather Industries. In order
to process the data I resorted to many statistical methods such as
arithmetic means , the standard deviation and the slope.
The statistical methods have shown a number of results the most
obvious of which may be the presence of amoral influence marketing
Environment in strategic marketing planning as to the discussion of the
results, the practical study has put emphasis on the attention required for
both the marketing Environment and those strategic marketing planning.

) .2002

.(19

)(

).(2006:7

) (P.E.S.T

)Political

)Economical

) Technological( ).(Nowell, 2001:1

)(98

)Social

...................................

2009/

"

" .

) (14
) (20 ) (%50

)(99

...................................

2009/

:
-:

.


.





-:
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

-:

-:
-1 .
-2
.
-3 .
-4
.
-:
-1
.
)(100

...................................

2009/

-2 .
-3
.

-:

) (Lancaster, 1998:26 )
( .

) (Kotler, 2000 ) (2003 , }
) ({.
.

)(Lancaster, 1998:26) (1
)(101

...................................

2009/

-:

.
:
:
.
:
.
:
.
:
.

-:

.
-1 : .
-2 : .
-3 :
.
-4 :
) F (.
-5 :

.

)(102

...................................

2009/

: :

) (40 ) (20
) (%50 :


= =


20
= = %50
40

.

:
/

-1 :

" -:


) . .(31 :2003
Kotler "

) . ( Kotler , 1997: 8

) (
) ( .



.
)(103

...................................

2009/

).(72 :2002

)
( ) Lancaster,
.(1998 : 19



.

-2 :

:
*
*
*
*
).(Kotler, 2000: 74

. :

.






.

).(Lancaster & Reynold, 1998: 22



)(104

...................................

2009/

) .(44 :2003

. :

.



.



)
.(63 :1998
) (

. :

:


) .(41 :2003

:
.
.



.
) .(43 :2003
)(105

...................................

2009/

. :

.

) Pitt & Lei,
.(1996: 17




.

):1998
.(63

.(Kotler , 1997: 8) .

. :

)
.(63 :1996

.
) -:.(98 :1998
: .



.
: .


)(106

...................................

2009/

.
:


.

-1

-:
.
-:

) ..(25 -19 :2000




).(Stanton, etal, 1997: 52

* * *
* * * .

-:

%10

-1
-2

)(107

...................................

2009/

). (Stanton, etal: 1997: 54-55

-2 :

3510 25
.


) Stanton, etal,
.(1997: 56

)
.(28 2002

- :

)(

)
( ).(Stanton, 1997: 56

- :

- .

).(29 2002

)(108

...................................

2009/

)(2

Source : (Lancaster & Reynolds, 1998 : 310).
-:
)(109

...................................

2009/

* *
* .

)
(

.

.
).(Stanton & Reynold, 1997: 57
-:
) ( .
) ( .
) %12( .
) ( ) (55 :1994





.(Kotler, 2000: 302) .

.

-3 -:

)
) (


.
:
)(110

...................................

2009/

-
- ) Kotler,
.(2000:50-55
.
) (3
) .(16-15 :2003

)(3

) (16 :2003

- -:

.

)(111

...................................

2009/

) Stanton
.(& Reynolds, 1997:59



) .(17 :2003

- :

) (
) (Ups
)
(
)) (Ps7 .(17 :2003
.

.

.(Cravens, 2000: 193) .
.


( Stanton, etal, 1997:59) .

)(112

...................................

2009/

).(Crevens, 2000: 194

) .(18 :2003

:

:
-1 .

) (1
) (2.7
) (0.470 ) (% 70
) (%30 .

-2 .

) (2
) (2.450
) (0.604 ) (%5 ) (%50
) (%45 .
) (1 )(N= 20

7-1

* = 2

)(3
%

14
%70

)(2
%

6
%30

)(113

)(1
%

*
2.700

0.470

...................................

2009/

) (2 )(N= 20

14-8

)(3
%

10
%50

* = 2

)(2
%

9
%45

)(3
%

1
%5

*
2.450

0.604

/ .

.

.

) (f
) (0.207) (0.156) (0.420 ) (f )(0.05
) (1.18 ) (4.41

) (3

.
) (3
)(N=20

1
2
3

* f
0.420
0.156
0.207

R. sq
0.023
0.009
0.011

0.525
0.697
0.655

* f ) (0.05 )4.41 =(1.18

:
.
) (f
(9.522) ,(9.255) ,(14.846) (14.846) : ) (f
) (0.05 ) (1.18 ) (4.41

.
)(114

...................................

2009/

.
) (4
)(N= 20

* f

1
2
3
4

14.846
14.846
9.255
9.522

R. sq
0.452
0.452
0.340
0.346

* f ) (0.05 )4.41 =(1.18

0.001
0.001
0.007
0.006

:
:

.

-1 .
-2 .

-1 .
-

.

-
) (

)
(.

-
.

)(115

...................................

2009/

-
.

-
) (.

-2 .

:

-
.

-
.

-
.

/
.1
)

(.

.2
.

.3
) ( .
.4
.

)(116

...................................

2009/

/
-1

-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8

.1992

.1998

.1996

.1997

.2002

.1994

.2003
.1998

1) Cravens, Strategic Marketing, sixth edition, Irwin MCGraw- Hill,

2000.
2) Hill, Charles, Johnes, eareth, Strategic Management, 5th. Ed. 2001.
3) Kotler, Marketing Management, the millennium ed. Prentice- Hall.
INC. 2000.
4) Johnson, Gerry, Scholes, Kevan, Exploring Corporate Strategy, 4th.
Ed., Prentice Hall, New York , 1997.
5) Stanton, et. al., Marketing, 11th.,ed. Irwin, MCGraw- Hill, 1997.
6) Pitts, Robert, Lei, David, Strategig Management Building and
sustaining competitive advantage, west Publishing company, New
York, 1996.
7) Lancaster & Reynold, marketing, first published macmillion press
Ltd, 11th.ed., 1998.

-1 / .2005 -2003 /
-2 .Marketing / 5034 DM 2006/2/3
)(117

...................................

2009/

3- David, 2001, http//www.David Nowell, 2001, MCGraw- Hill Ryerson

Limited All Rights Reserved.

/
...

* ))
(( ) ( / .

-1
-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

:
* .56 :1997
* .63 :1998
* .63 1996
*

Lancaster, 1998: 20- 22

* Hill, 2001 : 82
)(118

...................................

2009/

-8
-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15

-16

:
*

Stanton, 1997 : 5

* 18 -17 :2003

*Cravens, 2000 : 193- 194

................................................................
.........................................
.................

)(119