| Summary: | 碩士 === 大同工學院 === 事業經營學系 === 84 === The contemporary marketing literature now contain more than
twenty productschemata, ranging from those that classify goods
according to the observedbehavior of shoppers (Copeland 1923) to
those that classify products accordingto the effort and
perceived risk of consumers (Murphy & Enis 1986). And
theexisting marketing literature is dominated by two types of
schemata forclassifying products: product-based schemata and
consumer cost-based schemata.However, product-based schemata
consider marketing exchanges only from theproduction side, and
consumer cost-based schemata consider them only from
theconsumption side, namely neither product-based nor consumer
cost-based schemata embody a dual firm/consumer perspective. On
the other hand, though McCarthy''s 4P classification ofthe
marketing mix instruments (including product, price, place, and
promotion)have received wide acceptance in past decades,
increasing criticism of salespromotion and its lack of mutual
exclusiveness and collective exhaustiveness. Therefore,
after evaluating the existing product schemata and 4P schemataby
Hunt''s five classifying criteria, this study introduces Hyman &
Sharma''s(1995) integrated product schema and Waterschoot &
Christophe''s (1992) improved 4P schema and verifies the
relationship between the two improved ones. Thus this study has
an empirical study to see whether Hyman & Sharma''s schema can
provide widespread managerial road map for strategy development
or not, and to see whether traditional consumer/industrial
marketing distinction is appropriate or not. According to Hyman
& Sharma, we select two big items of products from each of their
schema''s product categories. So this study''s research objects
amounts to 8 items of products (i.e., fast food and
semiconductors, life insurance and steel, accounting & tax
consulting and management services, bridal gowns and
advertising).Conclusions:Part I: Hyman & Sharma''s Product
Categories Versus Marketing Mix Decisions First, in this
study, all the marketing mix variables (including the width and
the length of product mix, product promotion mix and price
promotion mix, rational message and emotional message, mass
communication promotion mix and personal communication promotion
mix, publicity promotion mix and density of distribution system)
among the schema have significant differences except for the
width and the length of product mix. Second, after examining by
Scheffe test and cases study, we arrange our findings (i.e.,
general marketing mix decisions) as Table 15 shows. Third,
though there are some differences in general marketing decisions
between this study and Hyman & Sharma''s, this proposed schema
seemly can spawn general theories, meeting with the product
definition of AMA (1985), embodying the reigning focal notion of
marketing (i.e., exchange) and a dual strategic/consumer
perspective, passing by Hunt''s five criteria of general theory.
Part II Consumer/Industrial Goods Versus Marketing Mix Decisions
1. All the marketing mix variables between this dichotomy schema
haven''t significant differences except for thumer and industrial
goods offer both individual patrons and organization patrons.
That is to say, the intended use criterion does provide a
convenient classification for goods that fit nicely into both
categories, but it does not totally overcome a more fundamental
flaw in the industrial/consumer dichotomy--the lack of mutual
exhausiveness.3.As for consumer goods'' distribution decisions,
most of our research objects incline to use exclusive
distribution decision rather than "many types of
intermediaries," which said by Hass''s industrial management
marketing text.4.According to our analysis, we prefer to support
Fern & Brown''s (1984) suggestion--the similarities between this
dichotomy schema may be more useful in formulating marketing
strategy than differences. In all, in Sheth et al. scholars''
textbook--Marketing Theory, Evolution & Evaluation, they believe
that "a general theory of marketing is possible, especially as
measured by Hunt''s criteria of a general theory, and that
marketing is a study of market behavior rather than marketer
behavior or buyer behavior." Based on this, both Hyman &
Sharma''s product schema and Waterschoot & Christophe''s improved
4P schema seem to be better alternatives. Moreover we also
believe that "the firm can source more widespread managerial
strategy not only from within categorized products'' market
behavior but also between categorized products'' market
behavior," as is useful managerial implication for product
classifying discipline.
|
|---|
