| |
| |
| |
| Marketing''s Influence on Strategic Thinkingconsumer Orientation | |
| |
| |
| The Marketing Concept | |
| |
| |
| Criticisms of the Marketing Concept | |
| |
| |
| Should You Ignore Your Customers? | |
| |
| |
| Technology-Driven Companies | |
| |
| |
| Faith, Instinct, and Determination | |
| |
| |
| Action Versus Analysis Paralysis | |
| |
| |
| Planning Versus Doing | |
| |
| |
| Strategy''s Response | |
| |
| |
| In Defense of the Marketing Concept | |
| |
| |
| Production-Oriented Firms | |
| |
| |
| A Competitor Focusdual Consumer and Competitor Orientations Toward Markets | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: GatoradeMini-Case: Diet Rite Cola Versus Coke and Diet Pepsi | |
| |
| |
| The Power of External Events | |
| |
| |
| Technological ChangeDemographic ShiftsSocial ChangesGovernment Deregulation | |
| |
| |
| Special Resourcesmarketing as a Boundary-Spanning Function | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Brief History of Marketing Strategy | |
| |
| |
| Definition and Scope of Marketing Strategy | |
| |
| |
| Milestones in ihe History of Marketing Strategy | |
| |
| |
| 1950s: Budgeting and the Search for Overall Strategy | |
| |
| |
| 1960s: The Decade of Long-Range Planning | |
| |
| |
| The Decline of Long-Range Planning | |
| |
| |
| 1970s: The Decade of Portfolio Planning | |
| |
| |
| The Decline of Formula Planning | |
| |
| |
| 1980s: Porter''s Generic Strategies | |
| |
| |
| 1990s: Restructuring, Customer Satisfaction, and Speed as Strategy | |
| |
| |
| Current Trends in Marketing Strategy | |
| |
| |
| |
| Strategic Thinking: From Elitism to Egalitarianism | |
| |
| |
| |
| From Calculation to Creativity | |
| |
| |
| |
| From Precision in Planning to Learning and Adaptation | |
| |
| |
| Connections with the Past | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Assessing Competitive Intensity | |
| |
| |
| Economic Models of Competition | |
| |
| |
| The Assumptions of Perfect Competition | |
| |
| |
| Monopoly Power Is RareTypes of Imperfect Competition | |
| |
| |
| Factors Affecting Competitive Intensity | |
| |
| |
| |
| Barriers to Entry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Intensity of Rivalry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Competition from Substitutes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Bargaining Power of Customers | |
| |
| |
| |
| Bargaining Power of Suppliers | |
| |
| |
| Uses of Competitive Analysis | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fitting the Current Environment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Anticipating Market Changes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Picking a Market to Enter | |
| |
| |
| |
| Reconfiguring the Rules of Competition | |
| |
| |
| |
| Protecting the Status Quo | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Competing on Costs: The Rise and Fall of Experience Effects and the Growth-Share Matrix | |
| |
| |
| Experience Effects | |
| |
| |
| Experience Effects Versus Economies of Scale | |
| |
| |
| Experience Effects Versus Learning Effects | |
| |
| |
| Sources of Experience Effects | |
| |
| |
| The Experience Curve | |
| |
| |
| The Case of Pocket Calculators | |
| |
| |
| The Relationship Between Costs and Prices | |
| |
| |
| The Merits of Market Share and Market Growth | |
| |
| |
| The Growth-Share Matrix | |
| |
| |
| The Source and Use of Funds | |
| |
| |
| Strategic Prescriptions of the Growth-Share Matrix | |
| |
| |
| The Path to SuccessThree Paths to Failure | |
| |
| |
| Criticisms of the Growth-Share Matrix | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Success of Low-Share Firms | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Futility of Market Share Gained | |
| |
| |
| |
| Success of Low-Growth Markets | |
| |
| |
| |
| Should Dogs Be Divested? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Harvesting Bread-and-Butter Products | |
| |
| |
| |
| Importance of Business "Relatedness" | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pursuing Experience Effects Hinders Innovation | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Confounding Effects of Shared Experience | |
| |
| |
| |
| Lower Prices Versus Market Share: Which Causes Which? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Internal Cash Flow | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Mechanical Response Instead of a Creative Solution | |
| |
| |
| |
| No Consideration of Product Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| |
| One Way to Win: An Obsession with Low Costs | |
| |
| |
| The Return of Cost Competitiveness | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Generic Strategiesporter''s Three Generic Strategies | |
| |
| |
| Low-Cost Low-Price SellingProduct Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| Market Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| Stuck in the Middle | |
| |
| |
| Treacy and Wierseman''s Three Value Disciplines | |
| |
| |
| Operational Excellence | |
| |
| |
| Customer Intimacy | |
| |
| |
| Product Leadership | |
| |
| |
| The Relationship Between Strategic Choice and Target Market | |
| |
| |
| Should Firms Pursue Only One Generic Strategy?Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Competing On Priceconditions that Favor Selling on Price | |
| |
| |
| When the "Gouge Gap" Is Too Wide | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: The Battle Between National Brands and Private Labels | |
| |
| |
| When There is a Shift in the Point of Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Hallmark Cards -- A Shift In Buying Behavior Leads to a Diminution of Competitive Advantage | |
| |
| |
| When Products Become Commodities | |
| |
| |
| When Markets Are Deregulated | |
| |
| |
| When the Low-Price Formula Can Be Applied in a New Arena | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Staples -- The Office-Supply Superstore | |
| |
| |
| How to Compete on Price | |
| |
| |
| Ruthless Cost Cuffing Through Reengineering | |
| |
| |
| Stressing Equal Quality at Lower Prices | |
| |
| |
| Specialization and Lower Prices | |
| |
| |
| Copying and Cutting Prices | |
| |
| |
| Letting Prices Dictate Costs | |
| |
| |
| The Effects of Low-Cost Competition | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Differentiation Strategies Basis of Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Superior Performance | |
| |
| |
| |
| Superior Design and StylingMini-Case: Oakley Sunglasses | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Product for Every Purpose | |
| |
| |
| |
| "On-the-Edge" Product Innovations | |
| |
| |
| |
| Luxury Goods and Services | |
| |
| |
| |
| Popular Mass-Market Brand Names | |
| |
| |
| |
| Exceptional Service | |
| |
| |
| |
| Greater Reliability and Durability | |
| |
| |
| |
| Convenience | |
| |
| |
| |
| Unique Distribution Channels | |
| |
| |
| Price as a Point of Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| The History of Product Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| Monopolistic CompetitionConsumers'' Preference for Variety | |
| |
| |
| Real Versus Contrived Differences | |
| |
| |
| What to Differentiate | |
| |
| |
| Core Product Features | |
| |
| |
| Incidental Product Features | |
| |
| |
| Product Intangibles | |
| |
| |
| Accounting for Intangibles | |
| |
| |
| Requirements for Successful Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| Support Premium Prices with Sufficient Marketing | |
| |
| |
| Keep the Gouge Gap Reasonable | |
| |
| |
| Embrace Innovation | |
| |
| |
| Keep Copycats at Bay Protect Against the "Squeeze Play" | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Segmentation Strategiesthe Difference between Differentiation and Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| The Argument for Alternative Strategies | |
| |
| |
| Claims for Complementary Strategies | |
| |
| |
| Reconciling the Relationship Between Differentiation and Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| Segmentation Strategies | |
| |
| |
| |
| Go for the Largest Segment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sell Multiple Products in Multiple Segments | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sell a Single Product to All (or Most) Segments | |
| |
| |
| |
| Focus on a Small Segment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Create a New Segment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Break Segments Into Even Finer Subsegments | |
| |
| |
| The Basis of Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| A Regional Focus | |
| |
| |
| Demographics | |
| |
| |
| Product Usage | |
| |
| |
| Quality Niches | |
| |
| |
| The Individual Consumer | |
| |
| |
| Market Research and Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| Questions about Segmentation | |
| |
| |
| Are Segments Created or Discovered? | |
| |
| |
| To What Extent Do Segments Overlap? | |
| |
| |
| Are Segments Stable? | |
| |
| |
| Is Countersegmentation a Viable Option? | |
| |
| |
| Is Segmentation for Small Firms Only? | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Competitive Dynamicscompetition Between Price Points | |
| |
| |
| Venical Differentiation112 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Drawing Customers Up-Market with Higher QualityMini-Case: Gillette''s Sensor Razor Versus the Low-Priced Disposables | |
| |
| |
| |
| Luring Customers Down-Market with Lower Prices | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pushing Products Up-Market | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pushing Products Down-MarketMini-Case: The American Express CardCollisions in Vertically Integrated MarketsIntensity of Rivalry in Venically Differentiated Markets | |
| |
| |
| Increasing Product Valuecompetition Between Differentiators | |
| |
| |
| Horizontal DifferentiationShifting Points of Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Nike Versus Reebok | |
| |
| |
| Competition Between Low-Cost Producers | |
| |
| |
| A Succession of Low-Cost Producers | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Microwave Ovens -- A Succession of Low-Cost Producers | |
| |
| |
| Price Shifting | |
| |
| |
| Everyday Low Prices Versus High-Low Promotional Pricing | |
| |
| |
| Competition Between Segmenters and Mass Marketers | |
| |
| |
| When a Segment Grows Larger and More Attractive | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Brian Maxwell''s PowerBars | |
| |
| |
| When Segmenters Steal Share from Market Leaders | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Specialty Coffees Versus Folgers and Maxwell House | |
| |
| |
| Mini-Case: Microbreweries Versus Anheuser-Busch and Miller | |
| |
| |
| Within-Segment Competition | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| Market-Share Strategiesgaining Market Share | |
| |
| |
| When to Gain Share | |
| |
| |
| How to Gain Share | |
| |
| |
| Holding Share | |
| |
| |
| How to Hold Share | |
| |
| |
| Harvesting Strategies | |
| |
| |
| Sustained HarvestingSevere Harvesting | |
| |
| |
| How to Harvest | |
| |
| |
| Abandonment | |
| |
| |
| Poor Market Position | |
| |
| |
| A Poor Fit with the Firm''s Other Products | |
| |
| |
| Notes | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Evolution of Products, Markets, and New Technologiestypes of Innovations | |
| |
| |
| Incremental Innovations | |
| |
| |
| New-to-the-World Innovations | |
| |
| |
| Theories of Product EV | |