营销组合的修正：面向21世纪营销.doc

毕业论文（设计）外文翻译题目： XX企业营销组合策略研究一、外文原文标题：The Marketing Mix Revisited:Towards the 21st Century Marketing原文：Mix has its origins in the 60s: Neil Borden (1964) identified twelve controllable marketing elements that, properly managed, would result to a “profitable business operation”. Jerome McCarthy (1964) reduced Bordens factors to a simple four-element framework: Product, Price, Promotion and Place. Practitioners and academics alike promptly embraced the Mix paradigm that soon became the prevalent and indispensable element of marketing theory and operational marketing management. The majority of marketing practitioners consider the Mix as the toolkit of transaction marketing and archetype for operational marketing planning (Gr.nroos 1994). While empirical evidence on the exact role and contribution of the Mix to the success of commercial organisations is very limited, several studies confirm that the 4Ps Mix is indeed the trusted conceptual platform of practitioners dealing with tactical/operational marketing issues (Sriram and Sapienza 1991; Romano and Ratnatunga 1995; Coviello et al. 2000). A large-scale study carried out among executives of 550 Dutch companies (Alsem et al. 1996) revealed that about 70% of the companies surveyed apply formal marketing planning as basis of their operational marketing plans but responsibility for the Mix decisions is divided among different departments. According to the same study market leaders trust the formal operational marketing planning based on the 4P paradigm much more than the market followers. The wide acceptance of the Mix among field marketers is the result of their profound exposure to this concept during college years, since most introductory marketing manuals embrace it as “the heart of their structure” (Cowell 1984) and identify the 4Ps as the controllable parameters likely to influence the consumer buying process and decisions (Kotler 2003; Brassington and Pettitt 2003). An additional strong asset of the mix is the fact that it is a concept easy to memorise and apply. In the words of David Jobber (2001): “The strength of the 4Ps approach is that it represents a memorable and practical framework for marketing decision-making and has proved useful for case study analysis in business schools for many years”. Enjoying large-scale endorsement, it is hardly surprising that the 4Ps became even synonymous to the very term Marketing, as this was formulated by the American Marketing Association (Bennet 1995). Next to its significance as a marketing toolkit, the Marketing Mix has played also an important role in the evolution of the marketing management science as a fundamental concept of the commercial philosophy (Rafiq and Ahmed 1995), with theoretical foundations in the optimisation theory (Kotler 1967; Webster 1992). The theoretic endorsement of the Mix in its early days was underlined by the sympathy of many academics to the idea that the chances for successful marketing activities would increase if the decisions (and resource allocation) on the 4P activities were optimised; Philip Kotler elucidated in 1967 how “mathematical programming provides an alternative framework for finding the optimal marketing mix tool that allows the optimal allocation of the marketing effort”3. The theoretical value of the Mix is also underlined by the widely held view that the framework constitutes one of the pillars of the influential Managerial School of Marketing along with the concepts of “Marketing Myopia”, “Market Segmentation”, “Product Positioning” and “Marketing Concept” (Kotler 1967; Sheth et al. 1988), Despite the background and status of the Mix as a major theoretical and practical parameter of contemporary marketing, several academics have at times expressed doubts and objections as to the value and the future of the Mix, proposing alternatives that range from minor modifications to total rejection. It is often evident in both the academic literature and marketing textbooks that the mix is deemed by many researchers and writers as inadequate to address specific marketing situations like the marketing of services, the management of relationships or the marketing of industrial products. The main objective of this paper is to present an up-to-date picture of the current standing in the debate around the Mix as marketing paradigm and predominant marketing management tool by reviewing academic views and criticism originating from five marketing management sub-disciplines: Consumer Marketing, Relationship Marketing, Services Marketing, Retail Marketing, Industrial Marketing. Next to these “traditional” areas the paper reviews the arguments as to the value of the mix in an emerging marketing management domain, the E(lectronic)-Marketing.The review of the literature originating from six marketing sub-disciplines does not imply that the Mix is irrelevant for other marketing areas. The reason for selecting six areas only was purely related to the length of the study. It must be also clear that any conclusions drown are tentative and relevant for the respective areas only. Furthermore the classification is by no means meant to demarcate marketing disciplines, alternative marketing schools or alternative paradigms but rather to identify managerial situations facing distinctive as well a common practical marketing issues and problems. Attempting a review of opinions about the Marketing Mix one can turn to exclusively academic quarters or alternatively look for views based on field experience. In each case it can be argued that the approach is one-sided, either not contemplating the real world or lacking theoretical foundations. The authors reviewed in this study were limited to academic opinions published in research papers and academic textbooks. The fact that the -often normative views expressed in textbooks were included in the study can be seen as a compromise to a strictly scholastic approach. There are two reasons explaining this choice. Firstly, the fact that the volume of academic research on the suitability of the 4Ps as marketing tool in the new domain of E-Marketing lacks the depth found in more traditional marketing areas; the available theoretic material is very limited due to the newness of the issue. Secondly the author believes that the inclusion of (often normative) opinions expressed in marketing textbooks leads to a more pragmatic and comprehensive picture of the Marketing Mix debate.Review of a Marketing Management Paradigm. Developments on the commercial landscape and changes in consumer and organisational attitudes over the last four decades, have frequently prompted marketing thinkers to explore new theoretical approaches addressing specific marketing problems and expanding the scope of the marketing management theory. The most important landmarks of the evolution of the marketing management theory include”the broadening of the marketing concept during the 70s, the emphasis on the exchange transaction in the 80s, the development of the Relationship Marketing and Total Quality Management in the 90s” (Yudelson 1999) and last but not least the emergence of Information and Communication Technologies as major actors of the 21st century Marketing. At the same period the consumer behaviour has also evolved; one of the noticeable changes has been the gradual evolution from the mass consumer markets of the 60s (Wolf 1998) towards increasingly global, segmented, customised or even personalised markets of today (Kotler et al. 2001) where innovation, customisation, relationships building and networking have become issues of vital significance. The developments on the ground have prompted the development of new theoretical approaches dealing with specific rather than general marketing problems and situations. In the course of these developments the 4Ps Marketing Mix framework has been one of the subjects that frequently became the source of controversy and scientific debate (Dixon and Blois 1983; Rafiq and Ahmed 1992). Surprisingly in a sense, this scientific debate has hardly been echoed in the practitioners quarters. Unlike academics, practicing marketers have been reluctant to question, let alone dismiss the trusted paradigm (Bowman-Upton et al. 1989; Sriram and Sapienza 1991; Gr.nroos 1994), presumably anticipating that the academic debate will yield some new, apparently better marketing methodologies and usable concepts. Some of the criticism to the address of the 4Ps framework has its roots in the discrepancy between the philosophy behind the Marketing Mix on one hand and the fundamentals of the Management School of Marketing on the other. The Management School that embraced the Mix as one of its “most important conceptual breakthroughs” (Sheth et al. 1988) has given the Mix, as already mentioned, similar status with the Marketing Concept and the Market Orientation principles (Kotler 1984). Yet the very nature of the 4PS as manageable i.e. controllable factors combined with the explicit lack of market input in the model (Kotler 2003) is in sharp contrast with the Marketing Concept and Market Orientation principles implying that marketing activities should be based on identification of customer needs and wants, typical external and therefore uncontrollable factors. This paradox has been highlighted by researchers like Dixon and Blois (1983) and Gr.nroos (1994). The expanded theoretical scope of the marketing theory reflects the scholarly urge to better understand the managerial consequences of transformations taking place and identify sources of superior firm performance in constantly evolving competitive environments. The debate has been focused on developments of consumer and organisational behaviour, the increasing complexity of the environment and the growing importance of technology as marketing enabler. (Kaufman 1995; Brown and Eisenhardt 1998; Beinhocker and Kaplan 2002)Internal Orientation: a frequent objection underlying the Mixs explicit lack of customer orientation. Kotler (1984), Robins (1991), Vignali and Davies (1994) Bennett (1997) and Schultz (2001) are one way or another identifying this as the prime limitation of the Mix. Lack of consumer interactivity: Doyle (1994), and Yudelson (1999) argue that the Mix ignores the evolving nature of the consumer who demands not only higher value but also more control on the communication and transaction process. Allowing better interaction reduces the customer defection rates and increases customer trust. Lack of strategic elements: Ohmae (1982) Vignali and Davies (1994) argue that lack of strategic content is a major deficiency of the framework, making it unfit as planning instrument in an environment where external and uncontrollable factors define the firms strategic opportunities and threats. The majority of the reviewed authors propose alternative frameworks while those willing to accept a role for the 4Ps often propose modified versions, with new elements added to the traditional parameters. The commercialisation of Internet brought about a new breed of virtual business engaged in a variety of commercial (and often non-profit) online activities usually referred to as E-Commerce. Without being something essentially new as to the types of the supported commercial practices and activities, E-Commerce presented Marketing academics and practitioners with several unique challenges: customer empowerment, new forms of communication and interaction, global and around-the-clock operation, high degree of market transparency and difficulty in maintaining competitive advantages (Weltz 1995; Seybold and Marshak 1998; Porter 2001). During the second half of the 90s the world witnessed an explosive growth of Internet firms and online users; the Web seemed to become the new and promising business frontier. Yet the initial excitement and inflated hopes did not prevent massive failures of ambitious online projects that brought an end to the Internet gold rush of the 90s. The demise (W 2002) demonstrated that the optimistic promises of a so-called New Economy were largely unfounded and commercially unsustainable, at least for the time being. the virtual marketplace in the 90s and the reasons for their failures is already and will continue for some time to be the subject of debate and research. Researchers, consultants and practitioners have already identified several causes behind the failures. Managerial skills, naivety, technology drawbacks, lack of financial control, non-viable business models and last but not least old-fashion product orientation, have been named as contributing reasons to the demise (Colony 2000; Innosight 2001; Porter 2001; Owen 2001; Pew Internet 2001; ). The suitability of the Marketing Mix as tool of E-Marketing and its possible contribution to creation of unsustainable online business models has also been suggested as possible contributors to failures (Cash 1994; Hoffman and Novak 1997; Constantinides 2002). From 1995 on an ever-increasing number of scientific papers and text books have been dealing with the issue of E-Marketing Mix and the role of the 4Ps in it (Table 6). 出处： EfthymiosConstantinides .The Marketing Mix Revisited:Towards the 21st Century MarketingJ. Journal of Marketing Management ,2006(22), pp.407-438二、翻译文章标题：营销组合的修正：面向21世纪营销译文：营销组合起源于六十年代：尼尔博登（1964）提出了了十二种可控制的市场因素，只要管理操作得当就能带来有利可图的经济效益。杰罗姆麦卡锡（1964）减少Borden的因素，归纳为一个简单的四元架构：产品，价格，促销和地点。从业者和学者都迅速接受了营销组合这个范例，很快它成为市场营销理论和业务营销管理普遍和必不可少的因素。而大多数的市场营销从业者把营销组合当作交易营销的工具包和业务营销策划的原型（格罗鲁，1994）。然而在确切的角色和营销组合的贡献当中，经验证据对商业机构的成功是非常有限的。一些研究机构证实，4PS营销组合确实是从业人员处理战术/业务这类营销问题的值得信赖的观念平台（斯利拉姆和诗学1991； Romano和Ratnatunga 1995；卡威罗等2000）。据一项涉及了550个荷兰公司的管理人员（Alsem等基地。1996）的大规模调查显示大约有70%的公司接受调查的申请以作为其业务营销的基础上正式的营销策划方案，但是营销组合决策的责任是分属不同部门的。根据同一项研究，市场领导者比市场追随者更加信任这基于4P的正式业务营销策划。营销组合在国外市场营销领域被广泛接受导致了其在大学期间深刻地暴露这个概念，自从大多数营销手册把它当作为“这个结构的核心”（科威尔1984）并确定4PS为有可能影响消费者的购买决策过程和决定的控制参数（科特勒2003，布拉辛和佩蒂特2003）。营销组合另外一个特别强大的资产实际上是它本身就是一个很容易被记忆和运用的概念。David Jobber曾这样说过：“这4PS策略的优势在于它代表了营销决策一个难忘的和切实可行的框架，并且在这么多年里已经证明对于商学院案例分析是有益的。”因为受到世界大规模的支持，当这4PS策略接近甚至等同于将来的市场营销的代名词就不足为奇了，由此它就被美国市场营销协会制定了出来（尼特，1995）。接下来讲它作为市场营销工具包的意义，市场营销组合在科学的营销管理进化中作为一个商业哲学的基本概念和最优化理论的基础理论已经扮演了一个重要的角色（拉菲克和艾哈迈德，1995年）。在早期，该组合的支持者对很多同情的学者强调这么一点，如果对资源分配的决定和分配上的4P活动进行了优化这市场营销活动的成功机会将提高。菲利普科特勒在1967年如此定义的“数学规划提供了一个为寻找最佳的营销组合工具的替代框架，它允许了对营销工作的优化配置”。该组合的理论价值也强调了广泛持有的观点：这个框架构成一个有关影响因素管理学院市场营销的支柱，伴随它而发展的是“营销近视综合症”、“市场细分”、“产品定位”、“市场营销观念”这些概念（科特勒，1967；Sheth等人，1988）。尽管营销组合的背景和状态作为一个重大理论和现代营销的实际参数，一些学者在当时已经表达了困惑和怀疑以及营销组合的价值和未来，提出了替代方案，范围从轻微的修改到完全的否定。在学术文献和教科书当中，这是显然的，营销组合被很多研究者和作家视为不足以解决像具体的服务营销，人际关系的管理或者销售的工业产品这类情况。 本书的主要目的是提出一种当前具有争议性营销组合模式的向上的最新情况，通过审查营销管理工具发现主要学术观点，评价消费品营销，关系营销，服务营销，零售市场，工业市场这五个营销管理子学科起源。接下来综述这些“传统”领域的论点以发现该组合在新兴的市场营销管理领域的价值，E（电子）市场营销。来自六个营销子学科的原始文献的评论并不是意味着这组合在其他营销领域无关。选择六个方面的原因，不仅是关系到纯粹的学习时间。必须明确的是任何过时结论都是暂时的，有关的只是各自领域。此外，该分类绝不是为了划定营销学科，选择营销学校或者其他规范，但管理面临的形势相当独特就像一个常见的实际营销问题和难题。试图对营销组合的意见检讨能转向专门学术领域或者寻找实地经验的基础意见。在各种情况下它可以说这种方法是片面的，既不考虑现实世界也不缺乏理论基础。作者在这项研究中的总述只限于发表在研究论文和学术教科书的学术意见。事实上在教科书中常被使用的意见包括在研究的都能被看作为一种向严格的学术方法的妥协。这有两个原因去解释这种选择。第一，事实上关于作为营销工具的4Ps适宜量的学术研究而在电子商务营销新领域缺乏深入的地区发现更多的传统营销。由于这个问题的新奇，现有的理论资料是非常有限的。第二，这作者相信对（通常标准）列入表达意见的营销教科书导致了营销组合的辩论更加务实和全面的了解。一个营销管理模式的评论在过去的四十年商业环境、消费者、组织态度地变化不断促使营销学者去探索解决特定营销问题和扩大范围的营销管理理论新的理论方法。营销管理理论发展的最重要的地标，包括”在70年代扩大营销概念，在80年代强调外汇交易，在90年代发展关系营销和全面质量管理（Yudelson，1999）最后至少出现作为21世纪的市场营销专业演员的信息和通信技术。在同一时期，消费行为也发生了变化。其中一个显著的改变已经从大众消费市场的60年代（沃尔夫1998年）逐步向日益全球化，分段，定制，甚至个性化的市场演化（科特勒等人，2001年），而在这个市场的创新，定制，关系建立和联网具有重要的意义成为问题。在地面上的事态发展也促使新的处理具体理论方法的发展而不是一般的营销问题和情况。在这些发展过程中4Ps营销组合框架已经成为一个争议来源和科学辩论的课题之一（Dixon和布卢瓦1983;拉菲克和艾哈迈德1992年）。令人惊讶的是，在某种意义上他的科学争论几乎一直回荡在学者的住处。不想学者，执业营销人员一直不愿意质疑，更不用说解雇信任范式（鲍曼，阿普顿等人1989;。斯利拉姆和诗学1991; Gr.nroos 1994），大概预测学术辩论将会产生一些新的，明显更好的营销方法和使用的概念。对4PS框架地址的一些批评已经扎根于差异，这种差异一方面是背后的营销理念，另一方面是基本面的市场营销管理