A Review of Marketing Mix: 4Ps or More?

The main objective of this study is to review the present marketing mix applies particularly to the marketing. This study provides an idea to the marketers and can be used as tools to assist them in pursuing their marketing objectives. Borden (1965) claims to be the first to have used the term marketing mix and that it was suggested to him by Culliton’s (1948). McCarthy (1964) offered marketing mix, often referred to as the 4Ps, as a means of translating marketing planning into practice (Bennett, 1997). Marketing mix is originating from the single P (price) of microeconomic theory (Chong, 2003). New Ps were introduced into the marketing scene in order to face up into a highly competitively charged environment (Low and Tan, 1995). Even, Möller (2006) presents 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 from five marketing management sub-disciplines (consumer marketing, relationship marketing, services marketing, retail marketing and industrial marketing) and an emerging marketing (E-Commerce). The concept of 4Ps has been criticised by number of studies, examples Lauterborn (1990), Möller (2006), Popovic (2006) and Fakeideas (2008). However, in spite of its deficiencies, the 4Ps remain a staple of the marketing mix. The subsequent Ps have yet to overcome a consensus about eligibility and agreement over the practical application (Kent and Brown, 2006).


Introduction
Marketing mix is originating from the single P (price) of microeconomic theory (Chong, 2003). McCarthy (1964) offered the "marketing mix", often referred to as the "4Ps", as a means of translating marketing planning into practice (Bennett, 1997). Marketing mix is not a scientific theory, but merely a conceptual framework that identifies thee principal decision making managers make in configuring their offerings to suit consumers' needs. The tools can be used to develop both long-term strategies and short-term tactical programmes (Palmer, 2004). The idea of the marketing mix is the same idea as when mixing a cake. A baker will alter the proportions of ingredients in a cake depending on the type of cake we wishes to bake. The proportions in the marketing mix can be altered in the same way and differ from the product to product (Hodder Education, n.d). The marketing mix management paradigm has dominated marketing thought, research and practice (Grönroos, 1994), and "as a creator of differentiation" (Van Waterschoot, n.d) since it was introduced in 1940s. Kent (1986) refers to the 4Ps of the marketing mix as "the holy quadruple…of the marketing faith…written in tablets of stone". Marketing mix has been extremely influential in informing the development of both marketing theory and practise (Möller, 2006).
The main reasons the marketing mix is a powerful concept are It makes marketing seem easy to handle, allows the separation of marketing from other activities of the firm and the delegation of marketing tasks to specialists; and -The components of the marketing mix can change a firm's competitive position (Grönroos, 1994). The marketing mix concept also has two important benefits. First, it is an important tool used to enable one to see that the marketing manager's job is, in a large part, a matter of trading off the benefits of one's competitive strengths in the marketing mix against the benefits of others. The second benefit of the marketing mix is that it helps to reveal another dimension of the marketing manager's job. All managers have to allocate available resources among various demands, and the marketing manager will in turn allocate these available resources among the various competitive devices of the marketing mix. In doing so, this will help to instil the marketing philosophy in the organisation (Low and Tan, 1995). However, Möller (2006) highlighted that the shortcomings of the 4Ps marketing mix framework, as the pillars of the traditional marketing management have frequently become the target of intense criticism. A number of critics even go as far as rejecting the 4Ps altogether, proposing alternative frameworks (see Table 1-6).
Especially in 1980s onward, number of researchers proposes new 'P' into the marketing mix. Judd (1987) proposes a fifth P (people). Booms and Bitner (1980) add 3 Ps (participants, physical evidence and process) to the original 4 Ps to apply the marketing mix concept to service. Kotler (1986) adds political power and public opinion formation to the Ps concept. Baumgartner (1991) suggests the concept of 15 Ps. MaGrath (1986) suggests the addition of 3 Ps (personnel, physical facilities and process management). Vignalis and Davis (1994) suggests the addition of S (service) to the marketing mix. Goldsmith (1999) suggests that there should be 8 Ps (product, price, place, promotion, participants, physical evidence, process and personalisation). Möller (2006) presents 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 from five marketing management sub-disciplines (consumer marketing, relationship marketing, services marketing, retail marketing and industrial marketing) and an emerging marketing (E-Commerce) (Table 1-6). Most of researchers and writers reviewed in these domains express serious doubts as to the role of the Mix as marketing management tool in its original form, proposing alternative approaches, which is adding new parameters to the original Mix or replacing it with alternative frameworks altogether.

Criticise on Marketing Mix
4Ps delimits four distinct, well-defined and independent management processes. Despite the consistent effort by many physical businesses to deal with the 4P in an integrated manner, the drafting but mainly the implementation of the P policies remains largely the task of various departments and persons within the organisation. Even more significant thought is the fact that the customer is typically experiencing the individual effects of each of the 4Ps in diverse occasions, times and places, even in case that some companies take great pains to fully integrate their marketing activities internally (Constantinides, 2002;Wang, Wang and Yao, 2005). However, a study by Rafiq and Ahmed (1995) suggested that there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the 4Ps framework. Even, Overall these results provide fairly strong support Booms and Bitner's (1981) 7P framework should replace McCarthy's 4Ps framework as the generic marketing mix. Development of marketing mix has received considerable academic and industry attention. Numerous modifications to the 4Ps framework have been proposed, the most concerted criticism has come from the services marketing area (Rafiq and Ahmed, 1995).
The introductory marketing texts suggest that all parts of the marketing mix (4Ps) are equally important, since a deficiency in any one can mean failure (Kellerman, Gordon and Hekmat, 1995). Number of studies of industrial marketers and purchasers indicated that the marketing mix components differ significantly in importance (Jackson, Burdick and Keith, 1985). Two surveys focused on determination of key marketing policies and procedures common to successful manufacturing firms (Jackson, Burdick and Keith, 1985). Udell (1964) determined that these key policies and procedures included those related to product efforts and sales efforts. This followed in order by promotion, price, and place. In a replication of this survey, Robicheaux (1976) found that key marketing policies had changed significantly. Pricing was considered the most important marketing activity in Robicheaux's (1976) survey, although it ranked only sixth in Udell's (1964) survey. Udell (1968) found that sales efforts were rated as most important, followed by product efforts, pricing, and distribution. LaLonde (1977) found product related criteria to be most important, followed by distribution, price, and promotion. Perreault and Russ (1976) found that product quality was considered most important, followed by distribution service and price. McDaniel and Hise, (1984) found that chief executive officers judge two of the 4 Ps, pricing and product to be somewhat more important than the other two -place (physical distribution) and promotion. Kurtz and Boone (1987) found that on the average, business persons ranked the 4 Ps to be of most importance in the following order: price, product, distribution, and promotion. Thus, it appears from these studies that business executives do not really view the 4 Ps as being equally important, but consider the price and product components to be the most important (Kellerman, Gordon and Hekmat, 1995).
The concept of 4Ps has been criticised as being a production-oriented definition of marketing, and not a customer-oriented (Popovic, 2006). It's referred to as a marketing management perspective. Lauterborn (1990) claims that each of these variables should also be seen from a consumer's perspective. This transformation is accomplished by converting product into customer solution, price into cost to the customer, place into convenience, and promotion into communication, or the 4C's. Möller (2006) highlighted 3-4 key criticisms against the Marketing Mix framework: The Mix does not consider customer behaviour but is internally oriented.
The Mix regards customers as passive; it does not allow interaction and cannot capture relationships.
The Mix is void of theoretical content; it works primarily as a simplistic device focusing the attention of management.
The Mix does not offer help for personification of marketing activities.
A review of another article, "Revision: Reviewing the Marketing Mix" (Fakeideas, 2008) found that: The mix does not take into consideration the unique elements of services marketing.
Product is stated in the singular but most companies do not sell a product in isolation. Marketers sell product lines, or brands, all interconnected in the mind of the consumer The mix does not mention relationship building which has become a major marketing focus, or the experiences that consumers buy.
The conceptualisation of the mix has implied marketers are the central element. This is not the case. Marketing is meant to be 'customer-focused management'. Even, a study by Rafiq and Ahmed (1995) found that there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the 4Ps, however, 4Ps is thought to be most relevant for introductory marketing and consumer marketing. The result also suggests that the 7Ps framework has already achieved a high degree of acceptance as a generic marketing mix among our sample of respondents. Rafiq and Ahmed (1995) also highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the 4Ps and 7Ps mixes (Table  7).

Conclusion
Marketing mix management paradigm has dominated marketing since 1940s and McCarthy (1964) further developed this idea and refined the principle to what is generally known today as the 4Ps. However, in the post dot-com boom, marketing managers are learning to cope with a whole host of new marketing elements that have emerged from the online world of the Internet. In some ways these new marketing elements have close analogs in the offline world, and yet from another perspective they are revolutionary and worthy of a new characterisation into the E-Marketing mix (or the e-marketing delta to the traditional marketing mix) (Kalyanam and McIntyre, 2002).
Marketing mix used by a particular firm will vary according to its resources, market conditions and changing needs of clients. The importance of some elements within the marketing mix will vary at any one point in time. Decisions cannot be made on one element of the marketing mix without considering its impact on other elements (Low and Kok, 1997). As McCarthy (1960) pointed out that "the number of possible strategies of the marketing mix is infinite.
Even number of criticisms on 4Ps, however, it has been extremely influential in informing the development of both marketing theory and practise. There is also too little reflection on the theoretical foundations of the normative advice found in abundance in the text books (Möller, 2006). Marketing mix was particularly useful in the early days of the marketing concept when physical products represented a larger portion of the economy. Today, with marketing more integrated into organisations and with a wider variety of products and markets, some authors have attempted to extend its usefulness by proposing a fifth P, such as packaging, people and process. Today however, the marketing mix most commonly remains based on the 4 P's. Despite its limitations and perhaps because of its simplicity, the use of this framework remains strong and many marketing textbooks have been organised around it (NetMBA, n.d). In spite of its deficiencies, the 4Ps remain a staple of the marketing mix (Kent and Brown, 2006 Two additional Ps to the 4 traditional ones: Political power, and public opinion formulation. Ohmae (1982) No strategic elements are to be found in the marketing mix. The marketing strategy is defined by three factors.
Three Cs define and shape the marketing strategy: Customers, competitors, and corporation. Robins (1991) The 4Ps Marketing Mix is too much internally oriented.
Four Cs expressing the external orientation of a Marketing Mix: Customers, competitors, capabilities, and company.
Vignalli and Davies (1994) Marketing planning will contribute to the organisational success if it is closely related to strategy. The Marketing Mix is limited to internal and non-strategic issues.
The MIXMAP technique allows the exact mapping of marketing mix elements and variables, allowing the consistency between strategy and tactics. Doyle (1994) While the 4Ps dominate the marketing Management activities most marketing practitioners would add two more elements in this mix in order to position their products and achieve the marketing objectives.
Two more factors must be added to the 4P mix: Services, and staff.
Bennett (  The 4PsMarketing Mix is product oriented The successful marketing plan must place the customer in the centre of the marketing planning Four Cs replace the 4Ps, indicating the customer orientation: Customer needs, convenience, cost (customer's), and communication.

Rozenberg and
Czepiel (1992) Keeping existing customers is as important as acquiring new ones. The approach towards existing customers must be active, based on a separate marketing mix for customer retention.
Retention Marketing Mix: Product extras, reinforcing promotions, sales-force connections, specialised distribution, and post-purchase communication Gummesson (1994Gummesson ( , 1997 …"The role of the 4Ps is changing from being founding Parameters of Marketing to one of being contributing parameters to relationships, network and interaction"… 30 R(elationship) parameters illustrate the role of marketing as a mix of relationships, networks and interaction.
Grönroos (1994) Several arguments underlying the limitations of the marketing mix as the Marketing paradigm: Obsolete, not integrative, based on conditions not common to all markets, production oriented, not interactive etc.
Relationship marketing offers all the necessary ingredients to become the new Marketing Paradigm, while the Marketing Mix is not suitable to support a relation-based approach.
Goldsmith (1999) The trend towards personalisation has resulted in an increasing contribution of services to the marketing of products. Personalisation must become the basis of the marketing management trajectory. Ward (2000) The traditional Marketing Mix therefore has a clearly offensive character because the strategies associated to the 4Ps tend to be function-oriented and output oriented.
Well-managed organisations must shift the emphasis in managing valued customer relationships in order to retain and increase their customer base.   Booms and Bitner (1981) Recognising the special character of the services as products, they demonstrated the importance of Environmental factors (Physical Evidence) influencing the quality perception. They included the Participants (personnel and customers) and the Process of service delivery as the additional Marketing Mix factors. The unique characteristics of the services -intangibility, inseparability, perishability and variability -make the control of the marketing process, using the generalised tools of marketing, inadequate New instruments and concepts must be developed to explain and manage the services intangibility Fryar (1991)    The retail format is the focus of retail marketing, the basis of merchant differentiation and the element that attracts potential customers in the retail outlet.
The Marketing Mix for retailers is divided into two groups of factors the logistical and commercial ones The Retailing Marketing Mix: Logistics Concept: Place mix, physical distribution mix, and personnel mix Commercial Concept: Product mix, presentation mix, price mix, and promotion mix Boekema et al. (1995) The consumer choice for a retail outlet depends on the " Shop Picture" the customer develops. The retailers can use the Marketing mix instruments in order to give form to their retail format (retail formula) which addresses the consumer's expectations and influences his/her choice While the 4Ps form the basis of the traditional marketing, the task of marketers in relationship marketing is different: The main tasks are identifying, establishing, maintaining and enhancing relationships (Grönroos 1996).   Turnbull et. al (1996) More than 20 years of research by the International Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP) indicate that success in Business to Business Marketing is based on the degree and the quality of the interdependence between firms Competitive advantage of firms engaged in B2B marketing will depend on: Interaction with customers, interaction strategies, organisation evolution, improvements in customer portfolios, inter-organisational -personal contacts, and network mobilisation Davis and Brush (1997) The 4Ps Marketing Mix is not suitable as the conceptual basis for the Marketing of the High-tech Industry. This because: a. The 4Ps are based on marketing of consumer products, b.
International elements are not taken into consideration 13 strategic elements form the marketing platform of the Hightech industry Parasuraman (1998) The key to value creation is assisting the customer to achieve his own corporate objectives.
The basis of Industrial Marketing is the Personalised Approach with special emphasis on: Customer service, teamwork, service quality, and excellence Andersen and Narus (1999) The role of business marketing in a value-based environment is the efficient management of relationships and networks.
Value-based positioning orients and updates each of the four Ps Peattie (1997) The new communication and interaction capabilities will change everything around marketing in many industries, yet the basic marketing concept will remain unchanged. New role for the 4P's of the Marketing Mix.
Product: co-design and production Price: more transparency Place: direct contacts with customers Promotion: more control of the customer, interaction Aldridge et. al (1997) There are several and important differences between the physical Marketing and the online marketing. Many new factors define the limitations of the traditional Marketing Management While the 4P's can remain the backbone activities of Ecommerce they acquire a new and different role in the online marketplace.

Mosley-Matchett (1997)
A successful presence on the Internet is based on a Web site designed on the basis of a Marketing Mix of 5 W's Who: Target audience / market, What: Content, When: Timing and updating, Where: Findability, Why: Unique Selling Proposition Evans and King (1999) There are four steps in building a successful B2B web site. Each of these steps brings with it a number of major managerial implications.
Web Planning: defining mission and goals, Web Access: How to get Web entry, Site Design and Implementation: Content, Site Promotion, Management and Evaluation: Commercial and managerial aspects  Galvin (1997) While concluding that the marketing is finding itself in a mid-life crisis they suggest that the 4P's can remain the backbone of online marketing they argue that technology can be implemented in order to improve and optimise the online, 4P-based marketing activities New technology-based functionality maintains the 4P's as the basic planning tool for online marketing Bhatt and Emdad (2001) The  Adapted from: Rafiq and Ahmed (1995)