استراتژی بازاریابی و سیستم اندازه گیری عملکرد بازاریابی : بررسی رابطه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2889||2010||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 8550 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : European Management Journal, Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2010, Pages 139–152
Though marketing performance measurement has long been a concern for literature and companies, the relationship between marketing strategy and marketing performance measurement system (MPMS) design is a substantially uncovered topic. This paper endorses Coviello et al. [Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J. and Munro, H. J. (1997) Understanding contemporary marketing: Development of a classification scheme. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 501–522.] classification scheme for marketing strategies and draws from literature a conceptual framework about the managerial levers for MPMS design (marketing performances, measures and control system), aiming to explore the possible existence and the nature of the marketing strategy–MPMS relationship. The study is carried out with a multiple case study approach in seven Italian organizations. The outcomes show that companies pursuing different marketing strategies adopt different MPMS, and the authors explore the impact of some contextual elements possibly impacting on the relationship, discussing their role in the glance of existing literature. The results have suggested some managerial implications.
Marketing performance measurement has long been a main concern in marketing literature and a core, troubled issue in companies. Nonetheless, since the seminal works on marketing productivity analysis, the academician and managerial domains have seldom generated essential new knowledge on the topic (e.g. O’Sullivan and Abela, 2007). Though a strong effort has been devoted to the development of punctual measures better suited to assess the evolving relevant performances in response to the emerging marketing paradigms, marketing performance measurement system (MPMS) design still remains a widely uncovered topic (Clark, 1999). In particular, and quite surprisingly, substantially no studies have analyzed whether and how MPMS design should be adapted to the specificities of company’s (marketing) strategy, so that the current knowledge about the marketing strategy–MPMS relationship is extremely scarce. In this paper, we aim at contributing to the construction of a theory on the topic by exploring the possible relationship between marketing strategy and some of the main MPMS design variables (performances assessed, measures adopted and control system implemented). In this respect, we introduce the results of seven in-depth case studies from companies adopting different marketing strategies. In the following, we will briefly summarize the state-of-the-art literature on marketing performance measurement in order to introduce the research framework. Then, we will illustrate the empirical exercise by presenting the methodology adopted. Next, after having briefly introduced the companies involved in the study and summarized the findings, we will discuss the outcomes in the light of the state-of-the-art literature. Finally, we will draw managerial implications of the study and the conclusions.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper explores the issue of the relationship between marketing strategy and MPMS design. In particular, it draws from extant literature three clusters of marketing strategies and it analyzes the relevant MPM system characteristics for all of which through a multiple case study analysis in order to outline possible peculiar approaches to MPM. The results of the empirical investigation show that the three clusters of companies indeed tend to adopt MPM systems significantly different the one from the others: RMCs firms consider marketing as a multifunctional process of interaction with the customers, thus as an investment centre. As a result its performances are multidimensional, assessed through multiple financial and non-financial, input and output measures, and they are considered strategic for achieving the long term corporate targets, as well as for assessing the meeting with the short term goals. On the opposite side, TMCs consider marketing as a function and as an expense centre, and mainly focus on aggregate input and output financial performances, such as turnover and compliance to marketing budgets (determined according to an incremental approach). Consequently, the information gathered in the MPM process is scarcely relevant, and it is generally misused in strategic decision-making. TRCs show a co-presence of the main traits of TMCs and RMCs’ MPM systems. They demonstrate both a high focus on the marketing implications on supply-chain, and a high effort in pursuing marketing accountability, and in general they show a wider use of MPM information in strategic decision-making. Moreover the study analyzes the impact of two key-contingent variables suggested by literature (size and organizational role of the marketing department) on the MPMS, showing a substantial alignment with previous studies on the topic. Being exploratory in nature and adopting a multiple case study methodology, this work is subject to two obvious main limitations: firstly, the work is affected by the typical shortcomings of qualitative research, such as poor generalizability and strong affection by specific contingencies of the cases. So, the results are useful as a benchmark in studies conducted with different contextual variables. Nonetheless, such limitation is driven by the poor conceptualization of the constructs in marketing performance measurement, a well-known limit of marketing literature (O’Sullivan and Abela, 2007, Morgan et al., 2002 and Loning and Besson, 2002). Secondly, the choice of a cross-industry sample, though ensuring a general overview of the issue, limits the perspective on the impact of industry-specific variables on the relationship between marketing strategy and MPM systems. These limitations suggest the immediate next steps in the research cycle: to achieve a greater generalizability of the outcomes, an explanatory research approach is desirable. Then, industry specific studies may provide with interesting insight into the role of contextual variables on the strategy–MPM relationship, suggesting the MPM system design elements to lever on to be consistent to the company contingencies. A third element to analyze is the longitudinal dimension of the adoption of a marketing strategy: since Performance Measurement Systems are dynamic systems following strategic change (Simons, 1994), the evolutionary path of the MPM system in front of marketing strategic change surely represents an interesting issue in sustaining organizational change among companies. Finally, and very important, this study confirms that marketing performance measurement is a highly relevant issue in the companies, but also that most of the firms’ questions are long to be answered: almost all the companies are aware of the fact that they adopt incorrect or imprecise marketing performance measurement systems, and mainly deal with informal, qualitative and poorly objective measures. In this regards the paper calls academicians to devote further research effort on marketing control and performance measurement.