1한양대학교 주류 마케팅 사상과 관행을 대변해 온 미국 마케팅 협회(AMA)에서는 2004년에 과거의 마케팅 정의를 새로 개정하 였는 바, 그 주요 특징은 고객 가치와 고객관계가 포함되어 있다는 것과 마케팅을 하나의 조직기능으로 정의하고 있 다는 것이다. 본 연구에서는 주로 서비스 마케팅과 관계마케팅 분야의 연구를 출발점으로 보편적 수준의 마케팅 개 념에 관하여 논의의 지평을 넓히어 개정된 정의의 배후 논리를 분석하였다. 그 결과, 개정된 정의에서 고객 가치와 고객관계와 같은 요소들이 근래의 연구동향을 제대로 반영하지 못하고 있다는 점을 지적하였다. 또한 마케팅을 단순 히 하나의 조직기능만으로
취급할 수 없다는 점도 보여주었다. 이와 더불어 개정된 정의에 관한 이러한 분석을 토대 로 마케팅 정의의 범위와 내용에 관하여 일련의 명제들을 도출하였다. 마지막으로 기존 정의에 관한 분석과 도출된 일련의 명제들 및 약속 개념을 토대로 대안적 마케팅 정의를 제시하고, 그것이 지니고 있는 학문적 및 실무적 시사점 을 논의하였다. In 2004, the American Marketing Association representing mainstream marketing thought and practice announced a newly updated marketing definition which is as follows: “Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and
for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.” This new definition is characterized by including value for customers and customer relationships. In addition, marketing is defined as one organizational function. In this paper, the author attempted to broaden the discussion on the definition to a generic marketing level and analyze the underpinning logic of the updated definition, taking mainly service and relationship marketing research as a
starting point. In particular, three elements of the updated definition were discussed:(1) the customer value concept;(2) marketing as managing customer relationships; and (3) marketing as an organizational function. In addition,(4) an intermediate stage between what is done and what should be achieved covering the ‘how’ aspect of marketing was discussed. This element is missing in the updated definition, and has been missing in the previous AMA marketing definitions as well. However, if
marketing is a process at least an outline of the nature and scope of this process should be a central part of any definition. First, the current research into customer value shows a clear trend away from a value-in-exchange view toward a notion of value being produced not by the supplier, but by the customer when using products and when interacting with suppliers in co-creation with them. Suppliers do not deliver value to customers, but they ‘support customers’ value creation’ in
value-generating process of these customers and possibly get involved in the co-creation of value with customers, by providing them with ‘resource’ such as goods. services. information and other types of solutions. Second, the new marketing definition does not provide any indications as to how the phrase ‘managing customer relationships’ should be understood, other than that they should be managed ‘in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.’ The phrase implies that customer
relationships exist. However, only customers can decide whether they have, or want to have, a relationship with a firm, in other words, whether a customer relationship exists or not. Regardless of how important the issue of understanding customer relationships and managing relationships with customer is in some or perhaps even most situations, unless it is clearly demonstrated that customers always want to see themselves in relationships with suppliers of goods, services, ideas, information and
other types of solutions, it is not advisable, and even be counterproductive to the development of marketing to include the phrase ‘managing customer relationships’ in a generic marketing definition. Therefore, in an implicit way a definition of marketing must allow both for relational and non-relational marketing strategies and activities. Third, according to the new marketing definition, ‘marketing is an organizational function’. In other words. marketing is one organizational function.
Inevitably this approach to understanding marketing has been very successful for consumer goods. However, already in consumer durables where delivering, installing and repairing equipment as well as customer advice may be important to success in the market place, the marketing department and a separate marketing function will find it difficult to manage or even influence all contacts with the customers. In services and business-to-business sector this is even more important. Therefore, marketing
cannot be implemented by one organizational function of marketing specialists, the full-time marketers, only. It also needs part-time marketer’s support. In addition, to be effective marketing requires that technologies, information systems and other systems are designed and function in a customer-focused manner. Fourth, in a marketing definition there have to be some general guidelines including ‘how’ marketing activities and processes should be planned and implemented. It is not enough to
state that, for example, ‘pricing, communicating and delivering value’ or ‘planing and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services’ should lead to some state(value to customers or satisfy goals). One of the definitions most generally agreed upon by researchers states that the economic and other goals of the firm and its customers should be achieved through ‘exchange and fulfilment of promises’. And promise made are perceived by customers, thus creating
expectations regarding what should be delivered by a firm. Accordingly, customers have both explicit and implicit expectations and these expectations should be fulfilled by the performance of the firm. And fulfilment of promise in a customers-focused manner requires internal marketing efforts as promise enablers. In addition, customer-focused technologies, information systems and other systems as well as appropriate leadership is also required to support a customer-focused performance by
part-time marketers. Thus, making promises, supported by internal activities, such as internal marketing geared towards the fulfilment of expectations created by promises made, as well as technology, systems and leadership support, and fulfilling expectations created by promises made, form a firm’s marketing process. Drawing upon the above analysis, the author suggested an alternative marketing definition as follows: “Marketing is a customer focus that permeates organizational functions and
processes and is geared towards making promises through value proposition, enabling the fulfilment of individual expectations created by such promises and fulfilling such expectations through support to customer’s value-generating process, thereby supporting value creation in the firm’s as well as its customer’s and other stakeholder’s processes.” The underpinning logic of the suggested definition is the following. First, the definition is based upon the ‘value-in-use’ notion, according to which
customer is created in the customer sphere, in customer’s value-creating processes. Second, because customers probably do not always want relationship with firms and firms do not always consider creating relationships with customers as the foundation of business as the best possible strategy, managing customer relationship as a phrase is not explicitly included in this definition. However, implicitly this definition included the potential to develop customer relationships. Third, since one
single organizational function cannot take responsibility for total marketing, the suggested definition states that several organizational functions have to take a customer focus and take a responsibility for marketing. Fourth, unlike the 4Ps of the previous marketing definitions and the equivalent list of activities in the renewed AMA definition, the suggested definition does not include a list of variables that are ‘the’ decision-making areas of marketing. Such lists, including four or any
other number of variables, can never be conclusive and easily become obsolete. Fifth, enabling promises is explicitly included in the definition and the definition takes into account the role of expectations. As customer’s perceptions of similar promises differ, it is not the promises as such that should be met, but rather the customer’s individual expectations created by these promises. One could ask whether the suggested definition fits all marketing contexts, or whether another definition
would be equally good or better. It is impossible to answer this question categorically. However, based on the stated point of departure for the analysis in the present paper and using the promise concept and the promise metaphor, it seems like a valid generic definition. In 2004, the American Marketing Association representing mainstream marketing thought and practice announced a newly updated marketing definition which is as follows: “Marketing is an organizational function
and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.” This new definition is characterized by including value for customers and customer relationships. In addition, marketing is defined as one organizational function. In this paper, the author attempted to broaden the discussion on the definition to a generic marketing level and analyze the underpinning logic of the
updated definition, taking mainly service and relationship marketing research as a starting point. In particular, three elements of the updated definition were discussed:(1) the customer value concept;(2) marketing as managing customer relationships; and (3) marketing as an organizational function. In addition,(4) an intermediate stage between what is done and what should be achieved covering the ‘how’ aspect of marketing was discussed. This element is missing in the updated definition, and has
been missing in the previous AMA marketing definitions as well. However, if marketing is a process at least an outline of the nature and scope of this process should be a central part of any definition. First, the current research into customer value shows a clear trend away from a value-in-exchange view toward a notion of value being produced not by the supplier, but by the customer when using products and when interacting with suppliers in co-creation with them. Suppliers do not deliver value
to customers, but they ‘support customers’ value creation’ in value-generating process of these customers and possibly get involved in the co-creation of value with customers, by providing them with ‘resource’ such as goods. services. information and other types of solutions. Second, the new marketing definition does not provide any indications as to how the phrase ‘managing customer relationships’ should be understood, other than that they should be managed ‘in ways that benefit the
organization and its stakeholders.’ The phrase implies that customer relationships exist. However, only customers can decide whether they have, or want to have, a relationship with a firm, in other words, whether a customer relationship exists or not. Regardless of how important the issue of understanding customer relationships and managing relationships with customer is in some or perhaps even most situations, unless it is clearly demonstrated that customers always want to see themselves in
relationships with suppliers of goods, services, ideas, information and other types of solutions, it is not advisable, and even be counterproductive to the development of marketing to include the phrase ‘managing customer relationships’ in a generic marketing definition. Therefore, in an implicit way a definition of marketing must allow both for relational and non-relational marketing strategies and activities. Third, according to the new marketing definition, ‘marketing is an organizational
function’. In other words. marketing is one organizational function. Inevitably this approach to understanding marketing has been very successful for consumer goods. However, already in consumer durables where delivering, installing and repairing equipment as well as customer advice may be important to success in the market place, the marketing department and a separate marketing function will find it difficult to manage or even influence all contacts with the customers. In services and
business-to-business sector this is even more important. Therefore, marketing cannot be implemented by one organizational function of marketing specialists, the full-time marketers, only. It also needs part-time marketer’s support. In addition, to be effective marketing requires that technologies, information systems and other systems are designed and function in a customer-focused manner. Fourth, in a marketing definition there have to be some general guidelines including ‘how’ marketing
activities and processes should be planned and implemented. It is not enough to state that, for example, ‘pricing, communicating and delivering value’ or ‘planing and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services’ should lead to some state(value to customers or satisfy goals). One of the definitions most generally agreed upon by researchers states that the economic and other goals of the firm and its customers should be achieved through ‘exchange and
fulfilment of promises’. And promise made are perceived by customers, thus creating expectations regarding what should be delivered by a firm. Accordingly, customers have both explicit and implicit expectations and these expectations should be fulfilled by the performance of the firm. And fulfilment of promise in a customers-focused manner requires internal marketing efforts as promise enablers. In addition, customer-focused technologies, information systems and other systems as well as
appropriate leadership is also required to support a customer-focused performance by part-time marketers. Thus, making promises, supported by internal activities, such as internal marketing geared towards the fulfilment of expectations created by promises made, as well as technology, systems and leadership support, and fulfilling expectations created by promises made, form a firm’s marketing process. Drawing upon the above analysis, the author suggested an alternative marketing definition as
follows: “Marketing is a customer focus that permeates organizational functions and processes and is geared towards making promises through value proposition, enabling the fulfilment of individual expectations created by such promises and fulfilling such expectations through support to customer’s value-generating process, thereby supporting value creation in the firm’s as well as its customer’s and other stakeholder’s processes.” The underpinning logic of the suggested definition is the
following. First, the definition is based upon the ‘value-in-use’ notion, according to which customer is created in the customer sphere, in customer’s value-creating processes. Second, because customers probably do not always want relationship with firms and firms do not always consider creating relationships with customers as the foundation of business as the best possible strategy, managing customer relationship as a phrase is not explicitly included in this definition. However, implicitly
this definition included the potential to develop customer relationships. Third, since one single organizational function cannot take responsibility for total marketing, the suggested definition states that several organizational functions have to take a customer focus and take a responsibility for marketing. Fourth, unlike the 4Ps of the previous marketing definitions and the equivalent list of activities in the renewed AMA definition, the suggested definition does not include a list of
variables that are ‘the’ decision-making areas of marketing. Such lists, including four or any other number of variables, can never be conclusive and easily become obsolete. Fifth, enabling promises is explicitly included in the definition and the definition takes into account the role of expectations. As customer’s perceptions of similar promises differ, it is not the promises as such that should be met, but rather the customer’s individual expectations created by these promises. One could ask
whether the suggested definition fits all marketing contexts, or whether another definition would be equally good or better. It is impossible to answer this question categorically. However, based on the stated point of departure for the analysis in the present paper and using the promise concept and the promise metaphor, it seems like a valid generic definition. 키워드열기/닫기 버튼, , , , marketing definition, customer value, relationship, promise concept, marketing theory 피인용 횟수
인용현황What is an organizational function and a set processes for creating communicating?Performance Marketing
Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.
Is an organization function and a set of processes?Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, capturing, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in. ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.
Why is marketing an organizational function?The Marketing Department plays a vital role in promoting the business and mission of an organization. It serves as the face of your company, coordinating and producing all materials representing the business.
What is the term for the process of creating communicating?Marketing is a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for improving customer relationships. It includes everything that organizations do to satisfy customers' needs.
|
Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 paraquee Inc.
