THEORY/CONCEPTUAL

Strategic marketing, marketing strategy and market strategy

Rajan Varadarajan1

Received: 4 October 2015 /Accepted: 20 October 2015 /Published online: 27 November 2015# Academy of Marketing Science 2015

Abstract In the lead article of this issue, Hunt (2015) pro-vides an exposition of how the resource-advantage (R-A) the-ory undergirds the sixteen foundational premises of marketingstrategy advanced in Varadarajan (Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 38 (2), 119-140, 2010). Hunt notes that R-A theory and its three foundational strategies, and the sixteenfoundational premises of marketing strategy complement eachother in securing the theoretical foundations of the field ofstrategic marketing. Building on Hunt’s article, this commen-tary provides additional insights into issues fundamental to thefield of strategic marketing and R-A theory, and the founda-tional premises of marketing strategy and R-A theory. Thecommentary also provides a retrospective and prospectivediscussion of the domain of strategic marketing, definitionof marketing strategy, issues fundamental to the field ofstrategic marketing, and the foundational premises of market-ing strategy that I had proposed in my above referencedarticle. In the context of theory development, empiricalresearch and organization of the cumulative body ofknowledge in the field of strategic marketing, I highlight theconceptual distinction between marketing strategy and marketstrategy.

Keywords Strategic marketing .Marketing strategy .Marketstrategy .Marketing theory . Resource advantage theory

Introduction

Hunt (2015) addresses the question of how the resourceadvantage (R-A) theory relates to the sixteen foundationalpremises of marketing strategy advanced by Varadarajan(2010). He notes that R-A theory and its three founda-tional strategies, and the sixteen foundational premisesof marketing strategy complement each other in securingthe theoretical foundations of the strategic marketingfield. In addition to providing insights into the R-A theo-ry underpinnings of the foundational premises of market-ing strategy, Hunt’s article also explores how R-A theoryexplains the issues delineated in Varadarajan’s article asfundamental to the field of strategic marketing. Againstthis backdrop, the objectives of this commentary are toprovide: (1) a retrospective on certain events that wereinstrumental in my initiating a study that culminated inmy above referenced article, (2) additional insights intocertain important issues addressed in Hunt’s above refer-enced article, and (3) a prospective discussion of some ofthe issues addressed in my above referenced article. Inreference to the last of the above stated objectives, Ipropose certain revisions to the statement of the domainof strategic marketing, schematic representation of thedomain of strategic marketing, definition of marketingstrategy, issues fundamental to strategic marketing, andthe foundational premises of marketing strategy that arepresented in an earlier article (Varadarajan 2010). Additionally,in the context of theory development, empirical researchand organization of the cumulative body of knowledgein the field of strategic marketing, I highlight theconceptual distinction between marketing strategy and marketstrategy.

* Rajan VaradarajanRVaradarajan@mays.tamu.edu

1 Texas A&M University, 4112 TAMU, CollegeStation, TX 77843-4112, USA

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90DOI 10.1007/s13162-015-0073-9

Strategic marketing and marketingstrategy – domain, definition, fundamental issuesand foundational premises: a retrospective

In the BConclusion^ section of his article, Hunt (2015)states: BStrategic marketing suffers from an identity problembecause of its longstanding lack of clarity and consensus asto its theoretical foundations, its nature, and its scope.Varadarajan’s (2010) proposals contribute to resolving stra-tegic marketing’s identity problem by articulating (1) a sug-gested domain statement for the field (what is inside andwhat is outside strategic marketing?), (2) a suggested defi-nition of the field’s key construct (what is Bmarketingstrategy^?), (3) a delineation of the fundamental issues ofthe field (what does strategic marketing theory and researchseek to explain?), and (4) a set of sixteen foundational pre-mises (what represents the field’s basic knowledge?). Be-cause all of his proposals are thoughtful, respectful of theliterature, and closely reasoned, they could, and hopefullywill, prove seminal for further developing the strategic mar-keting field.^ This section provides a retrospective of certainevents that motivated me to undertake a research study thatculminated in my above referenced article1.

In a 1997 call for papers for a special issue of theJournal of Marketing on Fundamental Issues and Direc-tions for Marketing, four questions were delineated as fun-damental issues that underlie the field of marketing: (1)How do customers and consumers really behave? (2)How do markets function and evolve? (3) How do firmsrelate to their markets? (4) What are the contributions ofmarketing to organizational performance and societal wel-fare? (Day and Montgomery 1997). It occurred to me that asimilar delineation of issues fundamental to strategic mar-keting would be beneficial from the standpoint of stimulat-ing debate and discussion among strategic marketingscholars concerning the boundaries of the field. Indeed,strategic marketing’s identity crisis was a shared concernof a number of scholars in the field during the 1980s and1990s.

In their introduction to the special issue, as validation forthe questions they delineate as fundamental issues to thefield of marketing, Day and Montgomery (1999) cite aseminal article by Hunt (Hunt 1983). In this article, Huntdescribes marketing science as the behavioral science thatseeks to explain exchange relationships by focusing on fourinter-related sets of fundamental explananda: (1) the behav-iors of buyers directed at consummating exchanges, (2) the

behaviors of sellers directed at consummating exchanges,(3) the institutional framework directed at consummatingand/or facilitating exchanges, and (4) the consequences onsociety of the behaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellersand the institutional framework directed at consummatingand/or facilitating exchanges.

Influenced by the writings of Hunt (1983), Day andMontgomery (1997, 1999) and Mankiw (1997), I beganto work on a research project with the following as itsfocus: domain of strategic marketing as a specializedfield of study in marketing, definition of marketingstrategy, issues fundamental to strategic marketing as afield of study, and foundational premises of marketingstrategy. The impetus for BFoundational Premises ofMarketing Strategy^ as a research objective was an arti-cle published in a 1997 issue of the Fortune magazine(Norton 1997). Included in the article was an exhibittitled, BTen Principles of Economics,^ with the followingfootnote: BSome things about which most economistsseem to be in agreement.^ The ten principles, excerptedfrom a textbook on economics that was published in1997 (Mankiw 1997) are as follows: (1) People facetradeoffs. (2) The cost of something is what you giveup to get it. (3) Rational people think at the margin.(4) People respond to incentives. (5) Trade can makeeveryone better-off. (6) Markets are usually a good wayto organize economic activity. (6) Governments cansometimes improve market outcomes. (8). A country’sstandard of living depends on its ability to producegoods and services. (9) Prices rise when the governmentprints too much money. (10) Society faces a short-runtradeoff between inflation and unemployment. It oc-curred to me that, along similar lines, compilation of alist of statements pertaining to marketing strategy onwhich there is likely to be a high level of consensusamong the community of strategic marketing scholarswould make an incremental contribution to the literature.

In an attempt to draw on the knowledge base ofsubject matter experts, in 1998, I elicited the views ofa sample of fellow strategic marketing scholars (whowere members of the American Marketing AssociationMarketing Strategy Special Interest Group) on the do-main of the field of strategic marketing and issues fun-damental to it. While the domain statement for the fieldof strategic marketing, the schematic representation ofthe domain of the field, and issues fundamental to thefield that are advanced in Varadarajan (2010) are largelybased on literature insights, the insights shared by fel-low strategic marketing researchers were also influentialin shaping my thinking. Furthermore, as discussed inthe next two sections, they complement and/or corrobo-rate the perspectives advanced in my above referencedarticle.

1 See Hunt (2012) for an insightful retrospective on six key events/experiences that influenced the development of the structure, foundation-al premises, and models of the resource-advantage theory (R-A theory) ofcompetition.

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 79

Domain of the field of strategic marketing

The first open-ended question that I had posed to strategic mar-keting scholars in mymail surveywas the following concerningthe domain of the field of strategicmarketing:What do you viewas the general domain of marketing strategy and major sub-stantive areas within its domain? As might be noted, the ques-tion is worded in reference to marketing strategy as the field ofstudy. It was only later that I gravitated toward, began to use,and advocated the use of the term Bstrategic marketing^ to referto the field of study, and Bmarketing strategy^ to refer to anorganizational construct central to the field. The terms that I hadproposed for the field of study and an organizational constructcentral to the field were influenced by the use of the termBstrategic management^ in the management discipline to referto a specialized field of study, and Bcorporate strategy^ andBbusiness strategy^ to refer to two organizational constructscentral to the field2.

A synthesis of the responses of a sample of 36 strategicmarketing educators to the above question is presented below.

& The study of organizational and inter-organizational issuesthat impact on a business’ ability to design and deliverproducts that are valued by customers, and provide a com-petitive advantage and an acceptable return to the firm.

& The discipline of creating and sustaining offerings of su-perior value to customers in a competitive marketplace.

& The study of strategies that businesses use to create valuefor customers.

& The study of value-creation processes for the entities in-volved in a transaction.

& The study of decisions and actions that impact on a busi-ness’ relationship with customers, competitors and chan-nel members.

& The study of assets, competencies, processes, and routinesinvolved in a business’ interactions with customers andmarketing intermediaries.

& The leveraging of distinctive competencies and resourcesmade available to the marketing function in an organiza-tion to achieve sustainable competitive positionaladvantages.

& The pursuit of customer advantage by anticipating andmeeting customers’ needs.

Given the open-ended nature of the questions, there wasconsiderable variance in response style, wording, and lengthacross respondents as well as within respondents to individual

questions. As noted earlier, each of the summary statementsconcerning the domain of the field presented in this section area synthesis of multiple overlapping responses. Therefore, theorder in which they are stated should not be construed asreflecting either the relative frequency of specific responsesor any other indication of their relative importance.

Issues fundamental to strategic marketing

As noted earlier, Hunt (1983) characterizes marketing scienceas the behavioral science that seeks to explain exchange rela-tionships by focusing on four inter-related sets of fundamentalexplananda. Day and Montgomery (1999) enumerate fourquestions as fundamental issues that underlie the field of mar-keting. Schendel (1991) delineates the following five ques-tions as issues fundamental to strategy: (1) Why do firmsdiffer? (2) How do firms behave? (3) How does the policymaking process affect policy outcomes? (4) What is the roleof the corporate headquarters in multi-business firms? (5)What explains international success and failure of firms?Mey-er (1991, p. 828) notes that strategy is crystallized around onedefinitive research question, namely, BWhat causes certainfirms to outperform their competitors on a sustained basis?^Teece et al. (1997) note that the question fundamental to thefield of strategic management is, BHow do firms achieve andsustain competitive advantage?^ Against this backdrop, I pro-posed the following as issues fundamental to strategic market-ing in Varadarajan (2010, p. 132): (1) What explains differ-ences in the marketing behavior of competing businesses inthe marketplace? (2) What explains differences in the market-place and financial performance of competing brands/productlines/businesses?

The second open-ended question that I had posed to stra-tegic marketing scholars in my mail survey was the followingconcerning issues fundamental to the field of strategic mar-keting: Given your construal of the general domain of mar-keting strategy, what do you view as some issues fundamentalto this field? Please phrase your response in the form ofquestions (e.g., why do ...; how do ...; what is ...: what ex-plains ...; when does ...: is ...). The first column in Table 1provides a synthesis and summary of the responses of 36strategic marketing educators. As highlighted in the secondcolumn of Table 1, the perspectives of fellow strategic mar-keting scholars on issues fundamental to the field lend cre-dence to BWhat explains (marketing) behavior of firms^ andBWhat explains performance of firms^ as issues fundamentalto field of strategic marketing. Specifically, the why, how,what and when of (a) firm behavior, (b) firm performance,(c) performance consequences of firm behavior, and (d) firmbehavior conducive to superior firm performance. For in-stance, consider the following issue stated in the first columnin Table 1 (Issue # 1): BWhat explains the choice of

2 An encouraging sign of the receptivity of the marketing academic com-munity to the use of the term strategic marketing to refer to the field is arecent call for papers for a special issue of the European Journal ofMarketing titled, BStrategic Marketing: New Horizons in Theory andResearch.^ See: http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=6007#sthash.b7Cg

80 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90

alternative competitive marketing strategies by businesses inan industry?^ The issue is more succinctly restated in thesecond column as follows: BWhat explains differences inthe marketing behaviors of competitors?^ It concerns expla-nation of a marketing phenomenon (i.e. theory). Considernext, Issues # 8, 9 and 10 in the first column of Table 1. Ashighlighted in the second column of Table 1, the commonthread underlying all three of the issues is the contextualnature of a firm’s marketing behavior (i.e., the organizationaland environmental conditions under which a specific behavioris likley to lead to superior firm performance). In addition toissues relating to firm behavior, firm performance, performanceconsequences of firm behavior, and behavior conducive to

superior performance under specific organizational and envi-ronmental conditions, as summarized in the second column ofTable 1, the theoretical foundations of strategic marketing werealso viewed by the respondents as issues that are fundamentalto the field3.

3 Although the second column of Table 1 is discussed in the section titled,BA Retrospective,^ it is a recent addition to an earlier version of the table(a single column table), and was developed after being invited by theeditor of the AMS Review to submit a commentary on Hunt’s (2015)article. The second column provides corroborating evidence in supportof, BWhat explains (marketing) behavior?^ and BWhat explainsperformance?^ as issues fundamental to strategic marketing.

Table 1 Perspectives on issues fundamental to strategic marketing: firm behavior and firm performance underpinnings

Perspectives on issues fundamental to the field1 Firm behavior and firm performance underpinnings of perspectives

1. What explains the choice of alternative competitive marketingstrategies by businesses in an industry?

1.What explains differences in the marketing behaviors of competitors – theory?

2. Understanding, explaining and predicting competitive behavior 2. What explains differences in the marketing behaviors of competitors – theory?

3. How do various elements of the marketing mix, individually andin combination, impact on business / product / brand performance?

3. Relationship between marketing behavior and performance – theory.

4. How does marketing strategy contribute to a business’ sustainablecompetitive advantage?

4. Relationship between marketing behavior and performance – theory.

5. How does marketing strategy create economic value? 5. Relationship between marketing behavior and performance – theory.

6. Optimal allocation of marketing resources 6. Relationship between marketing behavior and performance – theory.

7. How to compete and where to compete? 7. What specific marketing behaviors (how to compete) and market behaviors(where to compete) should a firm engage in – theory?

8. How can (when should) a business accelerate market penetration? 8. Context and marketing behavior: Under what conditions is a specific behaviorconducive to superior firm performance – theory?

9. How can (when should) a business pursue preemptive defense? 9. Context and marketing behavior: Under what conditions is a specific behaviorconducive to superior firm performance – theory?

10. When do (should) firms cannibalize their own product offerings? 10. Context and marketing behavior: Under what conditions is a specificbehavior conducive to superior firm performance – theory?

11. When do (under what conditions do) strategic alliances maximizeconsumer utility?

11. Context and marketing behavior: Under what conditions is a specificbehavior conducive to maximizing consumer utility – theory?

12. How do (should) businesses incorporate competitors’ andcustomers’ perspectives in marketing strategy decisions?

12. Embeddedness of marketing behavior: What are some factors in which themarketing behavior of firms is embedded – theory?

13. How does (should) the marketing function interact with otherfunctional areas to create sustainable competitive advantage andsuperior business performance?

13. Inter-dependencies between a firm’s marketing behavior and its behavior inother functional areas – theory.

14. How do firms learn about markets? 14. Organizational learning – theory.

15. What are the fundamental precepts of the field of marketingstrategy – theories, principles, concepts, constructs, premises,axioms, maxims, etc.?

15. Theoretical foundations of strategic marketing.

16. What are the principles of marketing strategy? 16. Theoretical foundations of strategic marketing.

17. What is the theoretical basis for distinguishing marketing strategyfrom business strategy?

17. Theoretical foundations of strategic marketing.

18. What is the strategic role of marketing in organizations? 18. Theoretical foundations of strategic marketing.

19. How is competitive equilibrium reached over time? 19. Theoretical foundations of strategic marketing.

20. Creation, managing and leveraging of: brand equity, customerequity / customer relationship equity, channel equity / channelrelationship equity, market knowledge and marketing knowledge.

20. A purpose of marketing strategy (Foundational premises ofmarketing strategy)

1 A synthesis of the responses of 36 strategic marketing researchers to the following question: Given your construal of the general domain of marketingstrategy, what do you view as some issues fundamental to this field? Please phrase your response in the form of questions (e.g., why do…; how do…;what is …; what explains…; when does …; is…)

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 81

R-A theory underpinnings of strategic marketing

Although Hunt (2015) primarily focuses on the R-A theoryunderpinnings of the foundational premises of marketingstrategy that are advanced in Varadarajan (2010), he alsoreviews and comments on the domain of the field ofstrategic marketing and issues fundamental to strategicmarketing that are proposed in the above referenced articleby Varadarajan. This section elaborates on the sections ofHunt (2015) pertaining to issues fundamental to strategic mar-keting and the foundational premises of marketing strategy.

Issues fundamental to strategic marketingand resource-advantage theory

Hunt (2015) notes that the R-A theory can provide a theoret-ical grounding for the issues that are delineated in Varadarajan(2010, p. 132) as fundamental to strategic marketing. Al-though the issues fundamental to the field are stated as twoseparate questions, they are inter-related. A firm’s perfor-mance is a consequence of it engaging in a particular strategicbehavior under specific organizational, competitive and envi-ronmental conditions. Differences in firm performance amongcompetitors are a consequence of differences in their strategicbehaviors, organizational conditions and environmental con-ditions. The ability of a firm to engage in specific strategicbehaviors is enabled by (constrained by) its comparative ad-vantage (comparative disadvantage) in resources (i.e., organi-zational conditions).

In R-A theory (Hunt 2015), resources are defined asBthe tangible and intangible entities available to the firm thatenable it to produce efficiently and/or effectively a marketoffering that has value for some market segment(s).^ Re-sources are broadly classified as financial, physical, legal, hu-man, organizational, informational, and relational. R-A theoryposits that a firm, by effectively leveraging its comparativeadvantage in resources to compete in themarketplace achievescompetitive positional advantage (s), and thereby, superiorfinancial performance. Depending on the nature and scopeof its comparative advantage in resources, a firm will be ableto achieve either (1) a position of competitive superiorityalong the cost dimension and competitive parity along thedifferentiation dimension, or (2) a position of competitive par-ity along the cost dimension and competitive superiority alongthe differentiation dimension, or (3) positions of competitivesuperiority along the cost and differentiation dimensions.

In order for a firm to be able achieve competitive positionaladvantage (s), comparative advantage in resources (having bet-ter resources) and effectively leveraging these resources (mak-ing better use of the resources) are necessary conditions. Extantliterature on the resource-based view of the firm and R-A the-ory provide insights into the ongoing competition for

comparative advantage in resources, comparative advantage/disadvantage in resources of competing firms being a state ata given point in time, and the leveraging of comparative advan-tage in resources for competitive positional advantage (s) in themarketplace. For instance, Conner (1991) points out that dis-tinctiveness (competitive differentiation advantage) or low cost(competitive cost advantage) of a firm’s product offering aretied directly to the distinctiveness of the inputs (i.e., resources)that are used to produce the product. Conner further notes that afirm’s ability to attain and hold on to profitable market positions(sustainability of competitive positional advantages) dependson its ability to gain and defend advantageous positions inunderlying resources important to production and distribution.Along similar lines, Hunt (2015) notes that competition forcomparative advantages in resources (and the resulting compar-ative advantage in resources) will yield a firm marketplacepositions of competitive advantage in some market segment(s)and, thereby, superior financial performance.

Although in R-A theory, relative resource cost and relativeresource produced value represent the dimensions of thecompetitive position matrix (see: Hunt 2015, Figure 2), thediscussion here is presented in reference to relative cost andrelative differentiation. In this regard, Hunt (2015) notes:BHowever, many researchers—including, it appears,Varadarajan (2010)—routinely use Bdifferentiation strategy^to mean something similar to what R-A theory identifies as theBsuperior value^ strategy.^ In reference to ambiguity in liter-ature concerning the meaning of Bdifferentiation^ in the con-text of Bdifferentiation strategy,^ Hunt (2015, Footnote # 4)notes: BIndeed, if researchers do not mean a Bsuperior value^strategy when they recommend a Bdifferentiation^ strategy, itis unclear what they do mean. Surely, they do not mean thatfirms should simply make their products different, as the wordBdifferentiation^ might literally imply.^

Elaborat ion of the context in which the termBdifferentiation^ is used can be found in some sources. Forinstance, Coyne (1983) highlights the centrality of differenti-ation in respect of important product attributes (and relatedly,the associated customer benefits) to competitive differentia-tion advantage. He notes that in order for a firm’s productoffering to have a competitive (differentiation) advantage inthe marketplace, (1) customers must perceive a consistent dif-ference in important attributes between the product offering ofthe firm and those of its competitors, (2) the difference must bea direct consequence of a capability gap between the firm andits competitors, and (3) both the difference in important attri-butes and the capability gap must be enduring over time.

Porter (1996) notes that competitive cost advantage is theresult of a business performing specific activities more effi-ciently than competitors, and competitive differentiation ad-vantage is the result of a business’ choice of activities to per-form and the manner in which they are performed, relative tocompetitors. From an R-A theory perspective, depending on

82 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90

the nature and scope of a firm’s comparative advantage inresources, effectively leveraging them can enable a firm toachieve: (1) a position of competitive superiority along thecost dimension by performing specific activities more effi-ciently than its competitors, or (2) a position of competitivesuperiority along the differentiation dimension by performingspecific activities differently compared to its competitors, and/or different activities compared to its competitors, or (3) posi-tions of competitive superiority along both the cost and differ-entiation dimensions by performing certain activities moreefficiently than its competitors, and certain other activitiesdifferently compared to its competitors.

It might be appropriate to point out that relative to thescope of R-A theory, the scope of the foregoing discussionon the R-A theory underpinnings of issues fundamental tostrategic marketing is limited. For instance, Hunt’s (2015)definitions of superior value strategy, lower costs strategyand synchronal strategy refer to identifying, acquiring, devel-oping, and deploying specific kinds of resources as the goal.However, the discussion here essentially focuses on the com-petitive advantage outcomes of deploying resources (i.e., ef-fectively leveraging comparative advantage in resources).Furthermore, the focus is limited to differences in compara-tive advantage in resources of competing firms and their per-formance at a given point in time. However, in the Schematicof the Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition, Hunt(2015; Figure 1) notes: BCompetition is the disequilibrating,ongoing process that consists of the constant struggle amongfirms for a comparative advantage in resources that will yielda marketplace position of competitive advantage and, there-by, superior financial performance. Firms learn through com-petition as a result of feedback from relative financial perfor-mance Bsignaling^ relative market position, which, in turnsignals relative resources.^ The italicized words in the abovequote (not in the original source) serve to highlight thedynamic perspective of competition, competitive positionand comparative advantage in resources in R-A theory.

Foundational premises of marketing strategyand resource-advantage theory

Hunt (2015) provides a detailed exposition of how R-Atheory illuminates, informs, extends, and grounds the six-teen foundational premises advanced in Varadarajan (2010).The discussion relating to the sixteen premises are orga-nized as follows: (1) purpose premises and R-A theory,(2) differentiation strategy premises and R-A theory, (3) costadvantage strategy premises and R-A theory, and (4) strate-gic diversity premises and R-A theory. Table 2 providesfurther elaboration and/or clarification in respect of someof the premises (i.e., Hunt’s exposition of the R-A theoryunderpinnings of the foundational premises of marketing

strategy). The sixteen foundational premises (Varadarajan2010) are stated in the first column of the table. Excerptsfrom Hunt (2015) concerning the R-A theory underpinningsof the premises are presented in the second column. Furtherelaboration and/or clarification in regard to some of thepremises and/or their R-A theory underpinnings is presentedin the third column.

Strategic marketing, performance and R-A theory

Explaining variance in performance at various levels such asat the firm level, business unit level, product level andbrand level has been a long-standing and major focus ofresearch in the field of strategic marketing. Early researchin strategic marketing (as well as strategic management) wasprimarily focused on explaining differences in performanceat the firm level and organizational units within the firmsuch as individual businesses in the firm’s portfolio on thebasis of differences in competitive strategy variables. In theindustrial organization (IO) economics literature, the focuswas on explaining variance in performance at the industrylevel on the basis of differences in industry structure vari-ables. The structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigmposits that industry structure factors (e.g., industry concen-tration, entry barriers, exit barriers, and bargaining power ofcustomers and suppliers) influence business conduct(strategy) and performance. In subsequent research in stra-tegic marketing and strategic management, modeling perfor-mance as a function of competitive strategy variables, in-dustry structure variables and unobservables were amongthe refinements and enhancements in attempts to gain betterinsights into determinants of performance.

Extant strategy literature also shows an evolution towardultimate explanations from proximate explanations. Considerfor instance, the following explanations advanced in literaturein support of a positive relationship between market share andprofitability that are reviewed in Bharadwaj and Varadarajan(2005): (1) Efficiency explanation: All else being equal, onaverage, high market share businesses will be more profitablethan low market share businesses as a result of the cost advan-tage of the former due to scale effects and experience effects.(2) Market power explanation: All else being equal, on aver-age, high market share businesses will be more profitable thanlow market share businesses as a result of their ability to (a)exercise market power to obtain inputs from suppliers at lowercosts, (b) extract more favorable terms from channel mem-bers, and (c) set prices rather than be price takers. (3) Productquality association explanation: All else being equal, on av-erage, high market share businesses will be more profitablethan low market share businesses because of the propensity ofcustomers to view the relative market share standing of com-peting brands as an indicator of their relative quality, and the

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 83

Table 2 Resource advantage (R-A) theory underpinnings of the foundational premises of marketing strategy

Foundational premises of marketing strategy(Varadarajan 2010)

R-ATheory Underpinnings of foundational premises(Hunt 2015)

Comments

Marketing Strategy Purpose Premises Marketing Strategy Purpose Premises and R-AThe-ory

Elaboration and/or Clarification

1. A purpose of marketing strategy is to facilitate anorganization to achieve and sustain a competitiveadvantage in the marketplace.

BThe first six premises, though stated in strictlypositive terms, appear to be best viewed aspositive reports of the normativerecommendations of those in the strategicmarketing field. For example, the first premisemay be restated, with no apparent loss of content,as Bthe field of strategic marketing (typically ormost frequently) recommends that managers inorganizations should pursue marketing strategiesthat will facilitate an organization to achieve andsustain a competitive advantage in themarketplace.^ The other five premises may besimilarly restated with no apparent loss ofcontent.^ (Hunt 2015)

The term Bpremises^ is used in Varadarajan 2010) inthe following context. Based on their knowledgeof the subject matter, a majority of strategicmarketing researchers are likely to be inagreement with the statement. That is, there islikely to be a high level of consensus amongstrategic marketing researchers concerning theface validity of the statement.

2. A purpose of marketing strategy is to createmarket-based relational assets and market-basedintellectual assets for the organization.

3. A purpose of marketing strategy is to enable anorganization to establish and nurture mutuallybeneficial exchange relationships with customers.

4. A purpose of marketing strategy is to modify/influence/shape the affect, cognition andbehaviors of customers and consumers in waysthat are conducive to their acquisition, possessionand consumption of specific product offerings ofan organization.

BSpecifically, creating market-based, relationalassets is squarely within relationship marketingstrategy (Figure 3), which has the followingstrategic imperative: Bto achieve competitiveadvantage and, thereby, superior financialperformance, firms should identify, develop, andnurture an efficiency-enhancing, effectivenessenhancing portfolio of relationships^. Also,creating market-based intellectual assets is a keypart of market orientation strategy (Figure 3) andits strategic imperative: Bto achieve competitiveadvantage and, thereby, superior financial perfor-mance, firms should systematically (1) gather in-formation on present and potential customers andcompetitors and (2) use such information in a co-ordinated way across departments to guide strat-egy recognition, understanding, creation, selec-tion, implementation, and modification. (Hunt2015)

In addition to the size of a firm’s channel membersbase and channel relationship equity, and numberof marketing alliance partners and alliancerelationship equity that seem to be the focus ofrelationship marketing literature, brand equity andthe size of a firm’s end user customer base, andcustomer relationship equity also constitute majorclasses of market-based relational assets. Inaddition to market knowledge that seems to be theprincipal focus in market orientation literature,marketing knowledge and marketing skills aremajor classes of market-based intellectual assets.

5. A purpose of marketing strategy is to identify andleverage new points of differentiation.

6. A purpose of marketing strategy is to enhance thesalience of non-price criteria vis-à-vis or vice-versa in buyers’ choice decisions.

BTherefore, financial performance as an objective isnot mentioned in his Bpurposes^ premisesbecause the six marketing purposes, takencollectively, are intended to promote the firm’sfinancial performance objectives (as well as topromote competitive positional advantages,specific customer responses, and marketplaceperformance objectives).^ (Hunt 2015).

Differentiation Strategy Premises Differentiation Strategy Premises and R-ATheory Elaboration and/or Clarification

7. A business can enhance the importance of non-price criteria relative to price in the brand choicedecision process of buyers by segmenting themarket into homogenous subgroups, developingdifferentiated product offerings responsive to theneeds of individual market segments, and dis-tinctively positioning its offerings relative tocompetitors’ product offerings.

A superior value strategy is an effectiveness strategy.A lower costs strategy is an efficiency strategy. Asynchronal strategy is an efficiency/effectivenessstrategy (Hunt 2015).

See section titled, BIssues Fundamental to StrategicMarketing and Resource-Advantage Theory,^ inthe text of the article.

8. Differentiation implies heterogeneity in supply.

BHowever, many researchers—including, it appears,Varadarajan (2010)—routinely useBdifferentiation strategy^ to mean somethingsimilar to what R-A theory identifies as theBsuperior value^ strategy^ (Hunt 2015).9. Heterogeneity in demand is not a necessary

condition in order for a strategy of differentiationto be effective in the marketplace. Heterogeneityin demand can either be a pre-existing state of themarketplace, or a consequence of heterogeneity insupply and the marketing efforts of competingbusinesses designed to stimulate heterogeneity indemand.

84 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90

propensity of risk-averse customers to patronize the productoffering of the market share leader.

A logical follow-up question that was the focus of largebody of research in strategy literature was, BWhat enables abusiness to achieve a high market share in the first place?^In this vein, the progress from proximate explanations to-ward ultimate explanations can be seen in the evolution ofstrategy literature (albeit, oversimplified) encompassing thefollowing linkages:

Heterogeneity across firms in resources and heterogeneityin the ability of firms to effectively deploy rare, valuable, non-

imitable and non-substitutable resources→Competitive posi-tion of cost and/or differentiation advantage in the market-place→Marketing Performance→Financial Performance

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney1991;Conner 1991), the capabilities-based view (CBV) of the firm(Teece et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000), and theresource-advantage (R-A) theory (Hunt and Morgan 1995;Hunt 1997; Hunt 2000) provide valuable insights into theabove linkages. The three research streams (i.e., the IO per-spective of performance; the competitive strategy perspectiveof performance; and the RBV/CBV/R-A theory perspective of

Table 2 (continued)

Foundational premises of marketing strategy(Varadarajan 2010)

R-ATheory Underpinnings of foundational premises(Hunt 2015)

Comments

10. The range of options available to a business forpursuing a strategy of differentiation encompassesall non-price criteria that buyers either currentlyfactor into the brand choice decision process orcan be influenced to factor into the brand choicedecision process.

BIndeed, if researchers do not mean a Bsuperiorvalue^ strategy when they recommend aBdifferentiation^ strategy, it is unclear what theydo mean. Surely, they do not mean that firmsshould simplymake their products different, as theword Bdifferentiation^ might literally imply.^(Hunt 2015, Footnote # 4).11. All else being equal, a business can enhance its

financial performance through pursuit of astrategy of differentiation when the incrementalcost of differentiation per unit is lower than theprice premium that a unit of a differentiatedproduct will command in the marketplace relativeto an undifferentiated product.

12. Holding all other factors constant, thosedimensions of differentiation for which theincremental cost of differentiation is lower thanthe incremental price premium that suchdifferentiation is likely to command in themarketplace constitute feasible avenues fordifferentiation.

Cost Advantage Strategy Premises Cost Advantage Strategy Premises and R-ATheory Elaboration and/or Clarification

13. A sustainable competitive cost advantage (beingthe lowest cost producer) is a necessary conditionin order for a business to be able to compete on thebasis of price over the long-run.

BFurthermore, as an extension of premise 13, R-Atheory provides a second necessary condition forBcompeting on price over the long-run.^ Thiscondition is that lower resource costs associatedwith the lower prices must, at the minimum, pro-duce a market offering valued as Bgood enough^for the targeted consumers.^(Hunt 2015).

14. Competitive cost advantage does not imply beingthe lowest priced offering in the marketplace, butpossessing the ability to compete on price andconstraining the ability of competitors fromcompeting on the basis of price over the long-run.

Strategy Diversity Premises Strategy Diversity Premises and R-ATheory In a single business firm, strategic diversity at the firmlevel and business unit level are the same.However, in a multi-business firm, individualbusinesses in the firm’s portfolio compete in dif-ferent industries against different sets of competi-tors and serve different groups of customers. Stra-tegic diversity in a multi-business firm at the busi-ness unit level refers to differences in the marketingstrategies of specific businesses in the firm’s port-folio vis-à-vis their competitors. Understandably,factors such as each firm being unique in time andspace because of its history and differences in firmlevel capabilities will impact on strategic diversityat the business unit level.

15. In an industry, there will be more than one meansto achieving a desired end. Thus, differentcompetitors in an industry will be able to achieveand sustain comparable levels of superiorperformance by pursuing different strategies.

Firms and their strategies differ because: (1)intraindustry firm resources are heterogeneousand imperfectly mobile, (2) each firm is a uniqueentity in time and space because of its history, (3)firms may target different market segments, and(4) firms differ in their capabilities (Hunt 2015).16. There will be differences in the marketing

strategies (i.e., heterogeneity or diversity inmarketing strategy) pursued by competitors in anindustry. The marketing strategies pursued by notwo competitors in an industry are likely to beidentical. At the margin, there will be differencesin the strategies pursued.

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 85

performance) should however be viewed as complementary,since each provides only a partial explanation of the variancein performance.

Strategic marketing and marketingstrategy – domain, definition, fundamental issuesand foundational premises: a prospective view

This section provides an overview of certain revisions and mod-ifications that may be appropriate in regard to the domain, def-inition, fundamental issues and foundational premises relatedstatements that I had advanced in my earlier article (Varadarajan2010). The recognition of the need for these revisions is attrib-utable to a number of factors. They include further reflection onthe issues addressed in the article in the aftermath of (1) usingthe article as an assigned reading in a doctoral seminar on stra-tegic marketing research and amaster’s level elective on productinnovation that I have been teaching (and, as a result, havingread and reread the article a few times), (2) reading of books andjournal articles on myriad issues pertaining to strategic market-ing, and (3) research in progress.

Domain of strategic marketing

For greater clarity, with minor revisions, the domain of stra-tegic marketing advanced in Varadarajan (2010, p. 126) canbe stated as follows: The domain of strategic marketing isthe study of organizational, inter-organizational and environ-mental phenomena which are of crucial importance to orga-nizations from the standpoint of their long-term perfor-mance, and concerned with (1) the behaviors of organiza-tions in the marketplace in their interactions with consumers,customers, competitors and other external constituencies inthe context of the creation, communication and delivery ofproducts that offer value to customers in exchanges withorganizations, and (2) the general management responsibili-ties of the marketing function in organizations that alignwith its boundary spanning role.4

Schematic representation of the domain of strategic mar-keting Figure 1 presents a revision of the schematic represen-tation of the domain of strategic marketing presented in

Varadarajan (2010, Figure 1, p. 124). Here, Box 1 (TheoreticalFoundations) serves to highlight the centrality of concepts, con-structs, principles, premises, axioms, theories, frameworks,models, frameworks, propositions, hypotheses, etc. to the under-standing of strategic marketing related organizational, inter-organizational and environmental phenomena. Also, in therevised schematic representation, market strategy (Box 2) andmarketing strategy (Box 3) are highlighted as distinct organiza-tional constructs that are central to the field of strategic market-ing. However, in light of space considerations, representativeorganizational, inter-organizational and environmental phenom-ena pertaining to marketing strategy only are delineated in Boxes4 to 7 and 9 to 12. A brief discussion on the conceptual distinc-tion between market strategy and marketing strategy follows.

Market strategy and marketing strategy

In Varadarajan (2010), Table 2, pp. 131–132, the constituentelements of a business’ marketing strategy are broadly classi-fied as (1) precursors to the customer interfacing layer, and (2)the customer interfacing layer. Precursors to the customer in-terfacing layer of marketing strategy is conceptualized as afirm’s crucial decisions that in a natural sequence, would pre-cede its decisions pertaining to the customer interfacing layerof marketing strategy. They include an organization’s choiceof markets to serve, mode of market entry, and order of marketentry. Consider for instance the question of Bhow to enter amarket.^ Of the alternative entry strategies (e.g., internal de-velopment, acquisition and strategic alliance), under certainenvironmental and organizational conditions, entering into astrategic alliance with a firm that possesses complementaryskills and resources may be the course of action that is mostconducive for the focal firm to achieve superior performance.Strategic alliance as mode of market entry, by enhancing theability of the focal firm to offer to its customers a superiorproduct offering relative to those of its competitors, may en-able it to achieve superior performance. However, the re-sponse of the customers is to the attributes of the superiorproduct offering and not to the strategic alliance. Even undera scenario of the strategic alliance taking the form of dualbranding of the product offering (i.e., the product being pro-moted with the brand names of both alliance partners), thedecision pertaining to how to enter the market (internal devel-opment, acquisition or strategic alliance), is a precursor to thequestion of what branding strategy (dual branding versus sin-gle brand name) would engender greater affective, cognitiveand/or behavioral responses in consumers (i.e., the customerinterfacing dimension of marketing strategy).

Customer interfacing layer of marketing strategy is concep-tualized as an organization’s crucial decisions underlying itsmarketing actions that have the potential to engender affective,cognitive and/or behavioral responses from customers. That is,

4 The use of the terms Bcrucial choices^ and Bcrucial decisions^ in refer-ence to a firm’s strategic marketing decisions in this paper and inVaradarajan (2010) draws on Day’s (1984, p. 3) discussion concerningthe strategic role of marketing in organizations. He notes: BAs a generalmanagement responsibility, marketing embraces the interpretations of theenvironment and the crucial choices of customers to serve, competitors tochallenge, and the product characteristics with which the business willcompete.^

86 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90

elements of behavior of the firm in the marketplace that areprimarily directed at consumers with the objective of engender-ing specific affective, cognitive and/or behavioral responses inthem. Brand name, product attributes, price, distribution, adver-tising, and sales promotion are listed as illustrative of the cus-tomer interfacing layer of marketing strategy.

Guided by these considerations, strategic marketing deci-sions were broadly classified in Varadarajan (2010) as deci-sions that are precursors to the customer interfacing layer ofmarketing strategy, and the customer interfacing layer of mar-keting strategy. However, as summarized in Table 3, the terms,Bmarket strategy^ and Bmarketing strategy^ more aptly cap-ture the essential nature of the dimensions of firm behaviorenumerated in these sections. Although some extent of itera-tion is conceivable, in the logical of sequence of decision-making in organizations, market strategy decisions can beexpected to precede marketing strategy decisions.

What is market strategy?What is marketing strategy?Whatis the conceptual distinction between market strategy and mar-keting strategy? These are important questions to the field ofstrategic marketing. Any conceptualization of market strategyshould build on and relate to the meaning of the termsBmarket^ and Bstrategy.^ Likewise, any conceptualization ofmarketing strategy should build on and relate to the meaningof the terms Bmarketing^ and Bstrategy.^ For instance, in anarticle on the definition of social innovation, Phills Jr et al.(2008) note that in order to define social innovation moreclearly, one must first take a closer look at what innovationmeans, and what social means. When evaluated on the basisof the above criteria, the limitations of some of the proposedconceptualizations of marketing strategy in literature are evi-dent. Consider for instance, the conceptualization of market-ing strategy as concerned with Bwhere to compete^ and Bhowto compete^ (Jain 2000). Here, the strategic questions of

A. Organizational, inter-organizational andenvironmental phenomena ofimportance from the standpoint of thelong-term performance oforganizations, and concerned withthe:• Behaviors of organizations in the

marketplace in their interactions with consumers, customers, competitors and other external constituencies in the context of creation, communication and delivery of products that offer value to customers in exchanges with organizations.

• General managementresponsibilities ofthe marketing function inorganizations aligned with its boundary spanning role.

7. Core Marketing Processes6

• Value Creation• Value Communication• Value Delivery

4. Marketing Strategy ContextMarketing strategy at the firm level,business unit level, product class level,product category level, brand level, etc.

8. Empirical Foundations• Methods, Metrics and Analysis

5. Marketing Strategy Environment Internal Organizational Environment• Market Orientation• Organizational Culture and Climate• Organizational Learning • Market and Marketing Knowledge ManagementExternal Environment• Web 1.0, 2.0, … Technologies• Triple Bottom Line Perspective on Firm Performance – People, Planet and Profit• Corporate Social Responsibility •…

12. Intra-Organizational Horizontal Interfaces• Marketing Strategy R&D Strategy• Marketing Strategy Manufacturing Strategy• …

11. Intra-Organizational Vertical Interfaces• Distinctive and overlapping domains of marketing

strategy, business strategy and corporate strategy• Influence of business and corporate strategy on

marketing strategy• Influence of marketing strategy on business and

corporate strategy• Locus of decision making for marketing strategy• …

10. Inter-Organizational Horizontal Interfaces• Strategic Marketing Alliances• Multi-point (multi-market and multi-product)

competition • …

9. Inter-Organizational Vertical Interfaces• Marketing Strategy Cooperation and Coordination

with Suppliers• Marketing Strategy Cooperation and Coordination

with Intermediate Customers (Channel Members)• …

3. Marketing Strategy Content4

• Competitive Behavior• Cooperative Behavior• Collusive Behavior

6. Marketing Strategy Process,5

Strategy Formulation Process Strategy Content Strategy Implementation

1. Theoretical Foundations• Concepts, Constructs, Principles,

Premises, Axioms, … • Theories, Frameworks, Models,

Propositions and Hypotheses (Explanation of Phenomena)

2. Market Strategy ContentChoice of Markets in Which to Compete: Geographic market

scope, market types scope and market segments scope3

Mode of Entry into Market: Internal development, acquisition, joint venture / strategic alliance

Order of Entry into Market: Market pioneer, early follower, late entrant

Fig. 1 Domain of Strategic Marketing: A Schematic Representation 1.Adapted from Varadarajan (2010), Fig. 1, p. 124 2. The issues delineatedin the figure are representative of the domain of strategic marketing as afield of study. 3 Geographic Market Scope: Global, multi-country,country, region of a country, etc. Market Types Scope: Business-to busi-ness market, business-to-consumer market, business-to-business andbusiness-to consumer markets, etc. Market Segments Scope: All marketsegments, subset of market segments, specific market segment, etc. 4 Thenature and scope of marketing strategy content has evolved and continuesto evolve. For instance, marketing strategy in an Internet-enabled marketenvironment and social media environment are relatively recent additionsto the scope of marketing strategy content. At an earlier point in time, the

scope of behaviors of organizations in the marketplace would generallyhave been construed to mean behaviors targeted at consumers, customers,competitors and other external constituencies. In an Internet-enabled mar-ket environment, the scope of behaviors of organizations in the market-place also encompasses interactive behaviors between the organizationand specific external constituencies. 5 Although for ease of exposition,the marketing strategy process is shown as a linear sequence, in reality, itis iterative. For example, firms routinelymake changes in strategy contentin the aftermath the outcomes of implementation. 6 See Srivastava et al.(1999) for a discussion on core business processes that create value forcustomers – product development management process, supply chainmanagement process and customer relationship management process.

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 87

Bwhere to compete^ and Bhow to compete^ pertain to marketstrategy and marketing strategy, respectively.

A review of literature points to Profit Impact of MarketStrategy (PIMS) data based research as one of the early

Table 3 Market strategy and marketing strategy: an overview

Market strategy: some key issues Related market strategy constructs

Where to compete? Target Market Strategy

Geographic market (s) to serve

Market segment (s) to serve

Market type (s) to serve: business-to-business market and/or business-to-consumer market

How to enter a product-market? Market Entry Strategy

Internal development versus joint venture / strategic alliance versus acquisition

When to enter a product-market? Order of Market Entry/Market Entry Timing Strategy

First-mover vs. early follower vs. late entrant

What should be the relative emphasis on? Alternative product-market growth strategies

Market penetration strategy (promoting present products in present markets) vs. market developmentstrategy (promoting present products in new markets)

Acquiring new customers versus retaining present customers

What is the overarching strategy? Market driving (shaping / influencing / modifying the market environment) vs. market driven strategy(adaptively responding to the market environment)

How to exit a product-market? Market Exit Strategy

Spin-off versus sell-off versus phase out

Marketing strategy: some key issues Related marketing strategy constructs

How to compete? Brand Strategy

Single brand strategy versus multi-brand strategy

Branding Strategy

New brand name versus brand name in the firm’s brand portfolio. Introduction of a new product (entryinto a new product category) with an existing brand name in the firm’s brand portfolio versus with anew brand name.

Channel Strategy

Single versus multi-channel strategy

Online versus online and offline

Distribution (intensity) Strategy

Intensive versus selective versus exclusive distribution

Positioning Strategy

Positioning of a firm’s product offering relative to the positioning of its competitors’ product offerings

Positioning of a firm’s offerings in individual market segments relative to the positioning of itsofferings in the other market segments

Pricing Strategy

Market penetration price strategy versus market skimming price strategy

Product Line Strategy

Broad versus narrow product line

How should total marketing effort be allocated?

How should promotion effort be allocated? Promotion Strategy

Predominantly pull strategy (allocation of a larger percent of promotion effort to the pull elements ofthe promotion mix – advertising and consumer sales promotion) versus predominantly push strategy(allocation of a larger percent of promotion effort to the push elements of the promotion mix –personal selling and trade sales promotion).

What is the overarching strategy? Primary demand stimulation (increasing the size of the market for a product) vs. selective demandstimulation strategy (increasing the firm’s share of the market)

What should be the relative emphasis on? Radical versus incremental innovations

Development of variety extension new products, replacement new products, competitive substitutenew products, new to the firm new products, and new to the world new products.

88 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90

literature streams to use the term Bmarket strategy.^ However,in PIMS data-based research, market strategy is used in thesame context as business strategy, competitive strategy, orcompetitive business strategy in the strategy literature. In alarge body of PIMS data-based research, business perfor-mance is modeled as a function of industry structure variables,competitive position variables and competitive strategy vari-ables. For instance, in the model presented in Buzzell andGale 1987 (Exhibit 2–3, p. 28), pricing, R&D spending, newproduct introductions, change in relative quality and variety ofgoods/services, marketing expenses, distribution channels andrelative vertical integration are modeled as Bstrategy andtactics^ related variables. In the model which is referred toas the BPIMS Competitive Strategy Paradigm,^ the terms,market strategy and competitive strategy appear in tandem(i.e. Profit Impact of Market Strategy Competitive StrategyParadigm). Against this backdrop, a definition of marketstrategy and revisions to the definition of marketing strategyadvanced in Varadarajan (2010) are proposed in the next twosections.

Market strategy – definitionMarket strategy refers to a firm’scrucial decisions concerning markets to serve, mode of marketentry and order of market entry.Markets to serve encompasses afirm’s crucial decisions concerning geographic markets to serve(e.g., country markets and specific geographic regions withinchosen country markets), market types to serve (e.g., business-to-business-market and business-to-consumer market), andmarket segments to serve within specific geographic marketsand specific types of markets. Alternativemodes of market entryinclude internal development, acquisition, and joint venture /strategic alliance. Order of market entry related alternatives in-clude first-mover, early follower and late entrant.

Marketing strategy – definition Marketing strategy is de-fined in Varadarajan (2010), p. 128 as follows: BAn organiza-tion’s integrated pattern of decisions that specify its crucialchoices concerning markets to serve and market segments totarget, marketing activities to perform and the manner of per-formance of these activities, and the allocation of marketingresources among markets, market segments and marketingactivities toward the creation, communication and deliveryof a product that offers value to customers in exchanges withthe organization and thereby enables the organization toachieve specific objectives.^ Conceptualization of marketstrategy as encompassing a firm’s crucial choices concerningmarkets to serve, mode of market entry, and timing of marketentry, and defining marketing strategy as encompassing anorganization’s crucial choices concerning markets would im-ply a conceptual overlap between the two definitions. In lightof the above, the following definition of marketing strategy isproposed: BMarketing strategy refers to an organization’s in-tegrated pattern of decisions that specify its crucial choices

concerning marketing activities to perform and the mannerof performance of these activities in the chosen markets andmarket segments, and the allocation of marketing resourcesamong markets, market segments and marketing activities to-ward the creation, communication and delivery of a productthat offers value to customers in exchanges with the organiza-tion and thereby enables the organization to achieve specificobjectives.^

There are virtues to defining a construct at a high level ofspecificity as well as at a high level of abstraction. In the lattervein, marketing strategy can be defined as follows:Marketingstrategy refers to an organization’s crucial decisions that spec-ify its pattern of behavior in the marketplace pertaining to thecreation, communication and delivery of products that offervalue to customers in exchanges with the organization andthereby enable the organization to achieve specific objectives.Understandably, when a construct is defined concisely, fromthe standpoint of construct operationalization, there is a needto elaborate on specific words and phrases in the definition.For example, the phrase Bcrucial decisions that specify itspattern of behavior in the marketplace,^ in the proposed def-inition of marketing strategy can be elaborated as meaning,Ban organization’s crucial choices, such as those pertaining tomarketing activities to perform and the manner of perfor-mance of these activities in the chosen markets and marketsegments, and the allocation of marketing resources amongmarkets, market segments and marketing activities.^ All elsebeing equal, a definition of marketing strategy that conciselystates its essential nature may be preferable.

Issues fundamental to strategic marketing

In Varadarajan (2010), p. 133, an issue fundamental to mar-keting is stated as follows: BWhat explains differences in themarketplace performance and financial performance of com-peting brands/product lines/businesses?^ In recent years, therehave been calls for firms to move away from a singular focuson financial performance toward a triple bottom line orienta-tion – people (social performance), planet (environmental per-formance) and profit (financial performance). Relatedly, therehas also been a movement by a growing number of firmstoward a triple bottom line orientation. Against this backdrop,rather than stating an issue fundamental to strategic marketingin specific reference to marketplace and financial perfor-mance, it may be appropriate to state the issue in referenceto performance broadly construed, along the following lines:What explains differences in performance of competingbrands/product lines/businesses? The importance of a triplebottom line orientation is also highlighted in the proposedrevised schematic representation of the field of strategic mar-keting (see: Fig. 1. Box 5 –Marketing Strategy Environment).

AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90 89

Premises

On the one hand, the foundational premises of marketing strat-egy that are presented in Varadarajan (2010), p. 134 are char-acterized as generalizing across products, markets and timehorizons. That is, they hold for all types of products (e.g.,goods, services, experiences, places, etc.) and markets (e.g.business-to-business market, business-to-consumer market,etc.), and time horizons (e.g., pre-Internet market environmentand Internet enabled market environment). At the same time,it should also be borne in mind that marketing strategy con-ducive to superior performance is contingent upon internalorganizational factors and external environmental factors.That is, all else being equal, Type A marketing strategy (asopposed to Type B or Type C marketing strategy), when pur-sued by Type P firms (as opposed to by Type Q or Type Rfirms), under Type C environmental conditions (as opposed toType Y or Type Z environmental conditions) will lead to su-perior firm performance (see: Abell 1978).

Conclusion

Hunt (2015) concludes his article by highlighting the need foran ongoing conversation on issues of importance to the fieldof strategic marketing and the potential of such conversationto enrich the field. In this regard, Hunt alludes to the socialimpact of the marketing strategies of firms. In a societal envi-ronment characterized by a growing awareness of the environ-mental sustainability imperative, from a social impact of mar-keting strategy perspective, an issue of importance to societyand marketing that merits the attention of strategic marketingscholars is how firms can concurrently pursue a larger marketfootprint and a smaller environmental footprint. Debate anddiscussion on the conceptual distinction between marketingstrategy and market strategy and the centrality of both to thefield of strategic marketing is another issue that has the poten-tial to contribute to the enrichment of the field.

References

Abell, D. F. (1978). Alternative strategies for strategy research. MarketingScience Institute Report No 78–100. Cambridge, MA.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-tage. Journal of Management, 17(March), 99–120.

Bharadwaj, S. G. & Varadarajan, R. (2005). Toward an integrated model ofbusiness performance. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.) Review of MarketingResearch, Volume 1 (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe), 207–243.

Buzzell, R. D., & Gale, B. T. (1987). The PIMS principles: Linkingstrategy to performance. New York: The Free Press.

Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory andfive schools of thought within industrial-organization economics: dowe have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management,17(March), 121–154.

Coyne, K. P. (1983). Sustainable competitive advantage: what it is, whatit isn’t? Business Horizons, 29 (January-February), 54–61

Day, G. S. (1984). Strategic market planning: The pursuit of competitiveadvantage. St Paul: West Publishing Company.

Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1997). Call for papers. Journal ofMarketing, 61(April), 100–101.

Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions formarketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 3–13.

Eisenhardt, K. M., &Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what arethey? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (October-November),1105–1121

Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda ofmarketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall), 9–17.

Hunt, S. D. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: an evolutionary theory ofcompetitive firm behavior. Journal of Economic Issues, 31, 59–77.

Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: resources, compe-tences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.

Hunt, S. D. (2012). The evolution of resource-advantage theory: Sixevents, six realizations, six contributions. Journal of HistoricalResearch in Marketing, 4(1), 7–29.

Hunt, S. D. (2015). The theoretical foundations of strategic marketing andmarketing strategy: foundational premises, R-A theory, three funda-mental strategies, and societal welfare. AMS Review, 5(3–4). doi:10.1007/s13162-015-0069-5

Hunt, S. D., &Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theoryof competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 1–15.

Jain, S. C. (2000). Marketing planning & strategy (6th ed.). Cincinnati:South-Western College Publishing.

Mankiw, N. G. (1997).Principles of economics. NewYork: Holt Rinehart& Winston.

Meyer, A. D. (1991). What is strategy’s distinctive competence? Journalof Management, 17(1), 821–833.

Norton, R. (1997). Some things economists actually agree on. Fortune(October 13). http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/10/13/232523/index.htm

Phills Jr. J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscoveringsocial innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (Fall).http://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(November-December), 61–78.

Schendel, D. E. (1991). Editor’s comments on winter speial issue.Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter Special Issue), 1–3.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, busi-ness processes, and shareholder value: an organizationally embed-ded view of marketing activities and the discipline of marketing.Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 168–179.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilitiesand strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7),509–533.

Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: do-main, definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 119–140.

90 AMS Rev (2015) 5:78–90