从营销组合到关系营销营销范式的转变.docx

1、从营销组合到关系营销营销范式的转变标题：From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing原文：The marketing mix management paradigm has dominated marketing thought, research and practice since it was introduced almost 40 years ago. Today, this paradigm is beginning to lose its position.

2、New approaches have been emerging in marketing research. The globalization of business and the evolving recognition of the importance of customer retention and market economies and of customer relationship economics, among other trends, reinforce the change in Mainstream marketing. Relationship buil

3、ding and management, or what has been labeled relationship marketing, is one leading new .This article is based on an invited paper presented at the 1st International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1-3 August, 1993. A paradigm shift is clearly under wa

4、y. In services marketing, especially in Europe and Australia but to some extent also in North America, and in industrial marketing, especially in Europe, this paradigm shift has already taken place. Books published on services marketing and on industrial marketing as well as major research reports p

5、ublished are based on the relationship marketing paradigm. A major shift in the perception of the fundamentals of marketing is taking place. The shift is so dramatic that it can, no doubt, be described as a paradigm shift. Marketing researchers have been passionately convinced about the paradigmatic

6、 nature of marketing mix management and the Four P model. To challenge marketing mix management as the basic foundation for all marketing thinking has been as heretic as it was for Copernicus to proclaim that the earth moved. The purpose of this report is to discuss the nature and consequences of th

7、e dominating marketing paradigm of today, marketing mix management of the managerial school and how evolving trends in business and modern research into, for example, industrial marketing, services marketing and customer relationship economics demand a relationship-oriented approach to marketing. Re

8、lationship building and management are found to be an underlying facet in the research into these areas. Relationship marketing is suggested as one new marketing paradigm, and a number of consequences for marketing and management of a relationship-type marketing strategy is discussed based on the no

9、tion of a marketing strategy continuum. Finally, the possibility of building a general theory of marketing based on the relationship approach is examined. A further discussion of the nature of the relationship marketing paradigm is, however, beyond the scope of this report. Marketing the way most te

10、xtbooks treat it today was introduced around 1960. The concept of the marketing mix and the Four Ps of marketing product, price, place and promotion entered the marketing textbooks at that time. Quickly they also became treated as the unchallenged basic model of marketing, so totally overpowering pr

11、evious models and approaches, such as, the organic functionalist approach advocated by Wonre Alderson as well as other systems-oriented approaches and parameter theory developed by the Copenhagen School in Europe that these are hardly remembered, even with a footnote in most textbooks of today. Earl

12、ier approaches, such as the commodity, functional, geography-related regional and institutional schools have suffered a similar fate. Only a few models from these approaches have survived. American Marketing Association, in its most recent definition, states that “marketing is the process of plannin

13、g and executing the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchange and satisfy individual and organizational objectives”. Eventually the Four Ps of the marketing mix became an indisputable paradigm in academic research, the validity of which was taken

14、 for granted. For most marketing researchers in large parts of the academic world it seems to remain the marketing truth even today. Kent refers to the Four Ps of the marketing mix as “the holy quadrupleof the marketing faithwritten in tablets of stone”. For an academic researcher looking for tenure

15、 and promotion, to question it has been to stick out his or her neck too far. Prospective authors of textbooks, who suggest another organization than the Four P solution for their books, are quickly corrected by most publishers. As a result, empirical studies of what the key marketing variables are,

16、 and how they are perceived and used by marketing managers, have been neglected. Moreover, structure has been vastly favored over process considerations. In marketing education, teaching students how to use a toolbox has become the totally dominating task instead of discussing the meaning and conseq

17、uences of the marketing concept and the process nature of market relationships. Marketing in practice has to a large extent been turned into managing this toolbox instead of truly exploring the nature of the firms market relationships and genuinely catering to the real needs and desires of customers

18、. A paradigm like this has to be well founded by theoretical deduction and empirical research; otherwise much of marketing research is based on a loose foundation and the results of it questionable. The marketing mix developed from a notion of the marketer as a “mixer of ingredients”. The marketer p

19、lans various means of competition and blends them into a “marketing mix” so that a profit function is optimized, or rather satisfied. The “marketing mix”, concept was introduced by Neil Borden in the 1950s, and the mix of different means of competitions was soon labeled the Four Ps.The marketing mix

20、 is actually a list of categories of marketing variables and to begin with this way of defining or describing a phenomenon can never be considered a very valid one. A list never includes all relevant elements, it does not fit every situation, and it becomes obsolete. And indeed, marketing academics

21、every now and then offer additional 4Ps to the list, since they have found the standard “tablet of faith” too limited. It is, by the way, interesting to notice that since the Four Ps were definitely canonized sometime in the early 1970s, new items to the list almost exclusively have been in the form

22、 of 4Ps. Advocators of the marketing mix management paradigm have sometimes suggested that service should be added to the list of 4Ps .This would be disastrous, because it would isolate customer service as a marketing variable from the rest of the organization, just as has happened with the Four P m

23、arketing mix variables. It would effectively counteract all attempts to make customer service the responsibility of everyone and not of a separate department only. In fact, the Four Ps represent a significant oversimplification of Bordens original concept, which was a list of 12 elements not intende

24、d to be a definition at all. Moreover, the elements of this list would probably have to be reconsidered in any given situation. McCarthy either misunderstood the meaning of Bordens marketing mix, when he reformulated the original list in the shape of the rigid mnemonic of the Four Ps where no blendi

25、ng of the Ps is explicitly included, or his followers Misinterpreted McCarthys intentions. In many marketing textbooks organized around the marketing mix, such as Philip Kotlers well-known Marketing Management, the blending aspect and the need for integration of the Four Ps are discussed, even in de

26、pth, but such discussions are always limited owing to the fact that the model does not explicitly include an integrative dimension. In the 1950s in Europe, researchers within the so-called Copenhagen School approached marketing in a similar way to the notion of the marketing mix, based on the idea o

27、f action parameters presented in the 1930s by von Stackelberg. Arne Rasmussen and G.sta Mickwitz developed what became known as parameter theory, which was a dynamic marketing mix approach linked to the product life cycle and where the parameters were integrated by means of varying market elasticiti

28、es. Moreover, Mickwitz also stated that the demand side has to be connected to the supply side in a managerial marketing theory. This was done using an economic approach rather than a behavioural approach. Parameter theory was a much more developed model than the Four P version of the marketing mix

29、notion. Unfortunately, it never received enough international attention, and eventually it was overwhelmed by the Four Ps that were much easier to comprehend and teach. Today, the key aspects of parameter theory, dynamism and an integration of consumer behaviour and managerial decision making are po

30、inted out as important research topics .Probably Bordens original idea of a list of a large number of marketing mix ingredients that have to be reconsidered in every given situation was shortened for pedagogical reasons and because a more limited number of marketing variables seemed to fit typical s

31、ituations observed in the late 1950s and in the 1960s by the initiators of the short list of four standardized Ps. These typical situations can be described as involving consumer packaged goods in a North American environment with huge mass markets, a highly competitive distribution system and very

32、commercial mass media. However, in other markets the infrastructure is to varying degrees different and the products are only partly consumer packaged goods. Nevertheless the four Ps of the marketing mix have become the universal marketing model or even theory and an almost totally dominating paradi

33、gm for most academics, and they have had a tremendous impact on the practice of marketing as well. Is there any justification for this? Any marketing paradigm should be well set to fulfil the marketing concept and the notion that the firm is best off by designing and directing its activities according to the needs and desires of customers in chosen target