Differentiate or die or be 'stuck in the middle' and survive!

Valos, Michael and Mavondo, Felix T. 2002, Differentiate or die or be 'stuck in the middle' and survive!, in ANZMAC 2002 conference proceedings, ANZMAC, Dunedin, N.Z., pp. 2211-2217.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Differentiate or die or be 'stuck in the middle' and survive!
Author(s) Valos, Michael
Mavondo, Felix T.
Conference name Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Conference (2002 : Melbourne, Vic.)
Conference location Melbourne, Victoria
Conference dates 2-4 December 2002
Title of proceedings ANZMAC 2002 conference proceedings
Editor(s) Shaw, Robin
Adam, Stewart
McDonald, Heath
Publication date 2002
Start page 2211
End page 2217
Publisher ANZMAC
Place of publication Dunedin, N.Z.
Summary “The reality is that traditional (marketing) implementation approaches have failed…” (Dobni et al., 2001, p. 402) Nevertheless recent research still seeks to identify relationships between Porter’s marketing strategies, implementation and performance (Kumar et al. 1997; Teach and Schwartz, 2000). Although each study included the Porter’s strategy types none actually classified business units into ideal differentiators, ideal cost leaders and combination differentiation cost leaders to conduct “implementation-performance process” comparisons.

This study has made a contribution to the study of marketing implementation and marketing performance by separating and comparing strategies such as ideal differentiation, ideal cost leadership, and combination (differentiation/cost leadership) strategies with the “stuck in the middle” marketing strategy type.

A key implementation finding was the importance of paying high salaries to attract the best employees when implementing either a differentiation strategy or a combined (differentiation/ cost leadership) strategy. However for the other six implementation tools, the findings support Kelliher and Perrett (2001, p.421) whose findings “do not indicate a clear relationship between business strategy and the approach to HRM.”

A key performance finding was that differentiation is the best strategy in terms of marketing performance while cost leadership is the worst performing strategy. Both differentiation and the combination strategy (differentiation/cost leadership) outperformed cost leadership.
ISBN 0730025624
Language eng
Field of Research 150599 Marketing not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category E1 Full written paper - refereed
Copyright notice ©2002, ANZMAC
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30004797

Document type: Conference Paper
Collections: Faculty of Business and Law
School of Management and Marketing
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 790 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 07 Jul 2008, 09:41:36 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.