پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی : از وعده، غفلت، برتری، تقسیم (وعده؟)
ترجمه نشده

پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی : از وعده، غفلت، برتری، تقسیم (وعده؟)

عنوان فارسی مقاله: پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی در رشته بازاریابی و فراتر از آن: از وعده، غفلت، برتری، تقسیم (وعده؟)
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: Advancing marketing strategy in the marketing discipline and beyond: from promise, to neglect, to prominence, to fragment (to promise?)
مجله/کنفرانس: مجله مدیریت بازاریابی - Journal of Marketing Management
رشته های تحصیلی مرتبط: مدیریت
گرایش های تحصیلی مرتبط: بازاریابی
کلمات کلیدی فارسی: بازاریابی استراتژیک؛ استراتژی بازاریابی؛ تاریخچه بازاریابی
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی: Strategic marketing، marketing strategy، history of marketing
نمایه: JCR - Master Journal List - Scopus
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1326973
دانشگاه: Jerry S. Rawls College of Business Administration – Department of Marketing – Texas Tech University – USA
ناشر: تیلور و فرانسیس - Taylor & Francis
نوع ارائه مقاله: ژورنال
نوع مقاله: ISI
سال انتشار مقاله: 2018
ایمپکت فاکتور: 2/6 در سال 2017
شاخص H_index: 41 در سال 2019
شاخص SJR: 0/924 در سال 2017
شناسه ISSN: 1472-1376
شاخص Quartile (چارک): Q1 در سال 2017
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی: PDF
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی: 37
وضعیت ترجمه: ترجمه نشده است
قیمت مقاله انگلیسی: رایگان
آیا این مقاله بیس است: خیر
کد محصول: E10677
فهرست انگلیسی مطالب

Abstract


The promise of marketing strategy in Era I


Butler et al.’s (1918) Marketing Methods


The neglect of marketing strategy in Era II


White (1927) and Alderson (1937)


The prominence of marketing strategy in Era III


GE’s ‘marketing concept’


Levitt’s (1960) ‘Marketing myopia’ and Borden’s ‘marketing mix’


Alderson’s ‘competition for differential advantage’


Howard’s (1957) Marketing Management


McCarthy’s (1960) Basic Marketing


Conceptualizing marketing strategy in Era III


Marketing strategy becomes a ‘fragment’ in Era IV


Market orientation strategy


Relationship marketing strategy


Brand equity strategy


Varadarajan’s conceptualisation of strategic marketing


R-A theory of competition


The essence of the ‘R-A theory grounds strategy’ argument


Strategy at the end of Era IV


Marketing’s Era V, promising or problematic?


The prospects for Era V are promising


The prospects for Era V are problematic


Explaining Era IV’s slide towards academic irrelevance


Conclusion and prognosis for Era V


A tentative prognosis


References


 

نمونه متن انگلیسی مقاله

The marketing discipline is troubled, as prominent commentaries show. For example, Piercy (2002, p. 354) claims that ‘by failing to make the impact of other disciplines . . . our discipline stands a good chance of falling by the wayside . . . we have allowed intellectual leadership in important areas to pass to others.’ As a second example, Sheth and Sisodia (2006, p. 325) maintain that the discipline needs to be ‘reformed’ because it has become ‘hyperanalytical and heroically rigorous about trivialities’. Third, Lehmann, McAlister, and Staelin (2011, p. 155; italics added) point out that marketing’s major journals show ‘a noticeably increased emphasis on the use of . . . complex analyses and an accompanying decrease in emphasis on the importance of the topics explored.’ Consequently, ‘our field is becoming increasingly marginalised’. Fourth, Clark, et al.’s (2014, p. 233) bibliographic analysis of the ‘export’ vs. ‘import’ of citations among the leading business journals of the four major business disciplines (i.e. accounting, finance, management and marketing) finds that marketing ‘is situated below . . . all other business disciplines in the flow of ideas.’ Furthermore, when they focus on just the citation flows between marketing and management, they find that ‘the gap between exports and imports for the two fields has widened over time’ (p. 231). In short, the marketing discipline is the least influential of the four major business disciplines in terms of interdisciplinary citation flows, and the situation is getting worse. The discipline is, indeed, troubled. Similarly, the area of strategic marketing within the marketing discipline is troubled. In the early 1990s, Day (1992, p. 324) cautioned that ‘within academic circles the contribution of marketing to the development, testing, and dissemination of strategy theories and concepts’ was being ‘marginalised’. Almost two decades later, Reibstein, Day, and Wind (2009, p. 1) decried the fact that ‘the growing balkanization of academic marketing into quantitative modeling and consumer behavior has diminished research on strategic marketing issues.’ Recently, Varadarajan (2010) maintains that strategic marketing’s lack of clarity and consensus as to its theoretical foundations, its nature and its scope has resulted in the field suffering from an ‘identity crisis’. Similarly, Shaw’s (2012, p. 32, 33) historical review (1) characterises the strategic marketing area as a ‘semantic jungle of strategy terms’, (2) notes that a ‘fundamental problem is the lack of an integrating theoretical framework’ and (3) concludes that ‘the present state of marketing strategy knowledge is inconsistent at best and incoherent at worst’. Finally, Houston (2016) warns that (1) so few doctoral students self-identify as ‘strategy’ researchers and (2) so few ‘traditional marketing strategy research’ articles are published in major journals that ‘strategy’ may be becoming a ‘taboo’ topic or ‘dirty word’. Strategic marketing is, indeed, troubled.

  • اشتراک گذاری در

دیدگاه خود را بنویسید:

تاکنون دیدگاهی برای این نوشته ارسال نشده است

پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی : از وعده، غفلت، برتری، تقسیم (وعده؟)
نوشته های مرتبط
مقالات جدید
پیوندها