Talk:Marketing mix/Archives/2012

Emphasis on the Four Ps

Personally I don't think that this article places enough emphasis on the four Ps (Product, Price, Promotion, Place). Generally this is what the Marketing Mix is given to mean at High School / GCSE level. Maybe bullet point each of the elements at the start of paragraph 3 so they can be instantly spotted rather than being 'burried away' as they are now?

Personally I want more information on how the marketing mix can affect the turnover rates of any company using it.

MARKETING IS SPAM

---

With regard to SPAM. Perhaps you are referring to the advertising function of marketing and neglecting to consider the other areas of modern marketing.

Let us not forget that marketing creates a connection between the business entity and potential consumers. Among other functions, marketing may act as a vehicle by which the company gathers input from the consumer and as a tool for the company to make the public aware of its offerings.139.78.16.155 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• SPAM in all forms is not relevant here.212.31.63.54 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Mind your Ps and Cs

Given the lack of consistency in the use of the apostrophe in this article, I am deleting it wherever possible so as to at least make an attempt at attaining a higher level of flow. Hope to see more efforts at cleaning up this article. (The marketing article itself is even worse - does this imply that marketing folks are not getting their message across effectively and/or efficiently?) 83.180.144.111 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup & consistency

I took off the cleanup tag, used an apostrophe consistently, used American English (no reason to switch it arbitrarily; it was mostly in American English already; we can all understand each other with or without u's and z's) - I hope. If I missed anything then feel free to fix it! I also changed McCarthy to Kotler in the criticism section - there's no other reference to McCarthy. Hope that's correct. --AndrewHowse 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added a section with a clear definition of the term that ties back to marketing strategy.Spinacia (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TOTAL SPAM IN ARTICLE - as discussed on netmba.com ? It's been discussed long before this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.249.39 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How many Ps?

I know there are references in the literature to 4, 5, 6 and 7 Ps, and an eighth is probably under development, but it might be clearer to a lay reader if we stick to 4. By all means identify the 5th and 6th, but one of the articles on the 4 Ps might be the best place for that. --AndrewHowse 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An eighth is quite commonly used in Charity Marketing (See 'Successful Charity Marketing 1998, Ian Bruce). PoisonedPigeon (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think that there should be a paragraph dealing with 'beyond the four Ps': IMHO, it is a problem to stick to four Ps for the sake of 'clarity'. There are enough cases of failure when sticking to only 4Ps. BTW, we're getting to 14 Ps. I am collaborating with Professor & Consultant Dani Abramovich who is behind the website: Marketing Plan Now. According to Bonadea , this website is not a reliable source. Please, check the profile of the author and we'd be glad to understand why his website and contributions cannot be accepted herePscheimann (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarity and Brevity

One of my students submitted the original version of this as an essay, so having read the four Ps section I felt greater clarity would aid the next student who submits this page to me and it will be easier to identify it.

There was some, IMHO, confusion especially in the promotion section and the price section appeared to drift off into elements of industrial marketing - a separate topic - something that was flagged up in the final paragraph.

The description of product read more like a treatise from Hegel or Michael Foucault although I expect Michael Foucault would have added his own distinct style to it were he still with us. vorlich 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Kotler, there are 7p's now. Since we are moving more into service industry where relationship focus marketing is increasing. Traditionally there were 4ps but now there are 3 more (Physical Appearance, Process, and people.

Physical Appearance can also be identified as packaging, how is the service passed on to the customers? People : unlike family own business where the boss makes all the decision, skill and educated labors allow to increase the management decision, also results in more open opportunity for the Boss (since he doesn't have to waste time in making small decisions). Process : how quickly can the service be delivered to customer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.249.196 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

User:Waterthin added the following, which I've removed:

Despite the fact that marketing mix analysis is used as a synonym for the 4Ps of Marketing, it is criticised (Philip Kotler & Armstrong, 2004) on the point that it caters seller's view of market analysis not customers view. To tackle this criticism, Lauterborn (1990) attempted to match 4 Ps of marketing with 4 Cs of marketing to address consumer views:

Product – Customer Solution
Price – Customer Cost
Placement – Convenience

Promotion – Communication[1]

I removed it for 2 reasons. 1) "Despite the fact..." If it's a fact then it should be sourced. 2) More substantially, it's true that 4P's redirects to Marketing Mix but Marketing Mix and Marketing Mix Analysis are 2 different things. Marketing Mix Analysis is covered at Marketing Mix Modeling and others. Those pages aren't perfect but they might be better places to raise the 4Ps/4Cs matter. --AndrewHowse 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Four Ps as Decisions

The Four Ps represent the marketing decisions that need to always be made. It is an accounting of actions rather than a conceptual structure of the market. As such, it is not a description of strategic position. It is also different that the concept of marketing mix which deals with the multiple channels of promotion. The Four Ps is a straightforward but powerful concept and should not be diluted with the increasing number of items which do not relate to required actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.103.73 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• No one has yet defined here marketing so it is hard to talk about a ´marketing mix´. Also we have to must relize that there are additional Ps like problem. this page needs a major cleanup and so does the article.212.31.63.54 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Marketing? I've never seen Problem as part of any number of P's in the mix - can you source that please? Ad {{cleanup}} doesn't belong on a talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

see the article titled ´Stop Perfuming the Pig´ on the pragmaticmarketing.com website. 212.31.63.54 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that paper was trying to make the point that blindly running marketing programs is just sales promotion. Of course one needs to understand one's potential customers, and the value that one's good or service can bring to them. But that doesn't mean that the 4Ps have suddenly been redefined, so no "Problem" here. If multiple reliable sources were to indicate that the 4Ps really had been redefined, then this page could b updated to reflect that, but not until then. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree . 212.31.63.54 (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue of the Four's as Decisions rather than optional elements in the marketing strategy is critical and should be included in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.244.23 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove criticism section?

I propose removing the section for a number of reasons:

1. There is only one source in that entire section. Why should we care if one Peter Doyle wrote that "the marketing mix approach leads to unprofitable decisions?" (No offense intended.)
2. It uses a lot of weasel words ("some people", "others") without any sources or evidence to back it up, and without stating exactly who.
3. It is mostly original research (again, without reliable sources to back it up).
4. Criticism sections are, in general, not very NPOV, and should be avoided. The content should be dispersed throughout the article.

I see no reason to keep the section. However, I have not removed it yet. If someone wants to merge the content into the rest of the article, please do so. Otherwise, I'll remove the section sometime in the next few days unless I hear a compelling argument. Thanks. — ^FatalError 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since no one seems to be objecting it, I'm removing the section. — ^FatalError 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs Citation

This article makes many claims as to the originators or inventors of various ideology, but no where do they cite those sources. Chris Lloyd might have created the four P's in 1997, but there is no source to back up that claim, and there needs to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.83.202 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary capitalization

I uncapitalized some terms that do not appear to be proper names, some of which were probably capitalized because they are associated with the letters in the mnemonic systems discussed in the article. In my view, there is no need to capitalize terms to emphasize how they start with a particular letter. Readers will understand it without such assistance. Unless there is good reason not to, we should adhere to the MOS on capitalization. Jojalozzo 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Capitalization of common nouns when used as mnemonics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do we want to capitalize common nouns like "product" and "price" where they are placeholders for marketing mix mnemonic systems? Jojalozzo 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Use lower case - In my view, there is no need to capitalize terms to emphasize how they start with a particular letter. Readers understand it without such assistance. Unless there is good reason not to, we should adhere to the MOS on capitalization. While these are not acronyms, I think the MOS guidance on acronyms has bearing in this case, since the guidance is not to use capitalization to show what the letters stand for. Jojalozzo 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• lower case - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] - Lower case is generally preferred: capitals are used only in very special circumstances enumerated by the MOS. These words (product, price, etc) are not proper names, and using capitals for them in this article would be simply for emphasis, which is explicitly prohibited by the MOS. Of course, capitals are permitted when the word is at the start of a sentence. --Noleander (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• lower case - uninvolved and invited by RfC bot - I agree with the above. II | (t - c) 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4ps of innovation

http://www.humanitarianinnovation.org/innovation/types should also be mentioned here for disambiguation purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.35.78 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

8 P's

haunty.hubpages DOT COM /hub/ What-is-the-Marketing-Mix-The-Eight-Ps-Four-Cs-As-and-Os

this might help with editing in the article 8 ps are mentioned but not informed what they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.90.81 (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)