Using 7p, Generic Marketing Mix

IntroductionThe marketing mix concept is one of the core concepts ofmarketing theory. However, in recent years, the popularversion of this concept McCarthy’s (1964) 4Ps (product,price, promotion and place) has increasingly come underattack with the result that different marketing mixeshave been put forward for different marketing contexts.While numerous modifications to the 4Ps frameworkhave been proposed (see for example Kotler, 1986;Mindak and Fine, 1981; Nickels and Jolson, 1976;Waterschoot and Bulte. 1992) the most concertedcriticism has come from the services marketing area. Inparticular Booms and Bitner’s (1981) extension of the 4Psframework to include process, physical evidence andparticipants, has gained widespread acceptance in theservices marketing literature. The proliferation ofnumerous ad hoc conceptualizations has undermined theconcept of the marketing mix and what is required is amore coherent approach. It is our contention that Boomsand Bitner’s (1981) extended marketing mix for servicesshould be extended to other areas of marketing. Thisarticle shows how the 7Ps framework can be applied toconsumer goods, marketing situations and demonstratesthe clear advantages that it has over the 4Ps framework.Also we present the results of a survey of Europeanmarketing academics, that attempts to assess the degreeof dissatisfaction with the 4Ps concept and theacceptance of the 7Ps framework as a genericframework.

In order to place the research in context we begin byoutlining the theoretical framework underpinning thisresearch. We begin with a discussion of the concept ofthe marketing mix and the elements that constitute themix, as there is a considerable variablity in the usage ofthese terms in the literature.

The marketing mix conceptBorden claims to be the first to have used the term“marketing mix” and that it was was suggested to him byCulliton’s (1948) description of a business executive as“mixer of ingredients”. However, Borden did not formallydefine the marketing mix; to him it simply consisted ofimportant elements or ingredients that make up amarketing programme (Borden, 1965, p. 389). McCarthy(1964, p. 35) refined this further and defined themarketing mix as a combination of all of the factors at amarketing manger’s command to satisfy the targetmarket. More recently McCarthy and Perreault (1987)have defined the marketing mix as the controllablevariables that an organization can co-ordinate to satisfyits target market.This definition (with minor changes) iswidely accepted as can be seen from Kotler andArmstrong’s definition of the marketing mix:

as the set of controllable marketing variables that the firmblends to produce the response it wants in the target market(1989, p. 45).

The essence of the marketing mix concept is, therefore,the idea of a set of controllable variables or a “tool kit”(Shapiro, 1985) at the disposal of marketing managementwhich can be used to influence customers. Thedisagreement in the literature is over what thesecontrollable variables or tools are.

The elements of the marketing mixBorden, in his original marketing mix, had a set of 12elements namely:

(1) product planning;

(2) pricing;

(3) branding;

(4) channels of distribution;

(5) personal selling;

(6) advertising;

4 MARKETING INTELLIGENCE & PLANNING 13,9

Using the 7Ps as a genericmarketing mix:an exploratory survey of UK and European marketingacademicsMohammed Rafiq and Pervaiz K. Ahmed

The 7Ps framework has clear advantages over the 4Ps framework

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 13 No. 9, 1995, pp. 4-15 © MCBUniversity Press Limited, 0263-4503

(7) promotions;

(8) packaging;

(9) display;

(10) servicing;

(11) physical handling; and

(12) fact finding and analysis.

He did not consider this list of elements to be fixed orsacrosanct and suggested that others may have adifferent list to his. Other suggested frameworks includeFrey’s (1961) suggestion that marketing variables shouldbe divided into two parts: the offering (product,packaging, brand, price, service) and the methods andtools (distribution channels, personal selling, advertising,sales promotion and publicity). Lazer and Kelly (1962)and Lazer et al. (1973), on the other hand, suggest threeelements: the goods and services mix, the distributionmix and the communication mix. However, the mostpopular and most enduring marketing mix frameworkhas been that of McCarthy who regrouped and reducedBorden’s 12 elements to the now popular 4Ps, namely:product, price, promotion and place (McCarthy, 1964, p.38). Each of these categories consists of a mix of elementsin itself and hence one can speak of the “product mix”,“the promotion mix”, and so forth. For instance, Kotlerand Armstrong list advertising, personal selling, salespromotion and publicity under the heading ofpromotion.The 4Ps formulation is so popular, in fact, thatsome authors of introductory textbooks define themarketing mix synonymously with the 4Ps (see forexample Pride and Ferrell, 1989, p. 19; and Stanton et al.1991, p. 13).

While McCarthy’s 4Ps framework is popular, there is byno means a consensus of opinion as to what elementsconstitute the marketing mix. In fact the 4Ps frameworkhas been subjected to much criticism. Kent (1986), forexample, argues that the 4Ps framework is too simplisticand misleading. Various other authors have found the 4Psframework wanting and have suggested their ownchanges. For instance, Nickels and Jolson (1976) suggestthe addition of packaging as the fifth P in the marketingmix. Mindak and Fine (1981) suggested the inclusion ofpublic relations as the fifth P. Kotler suggests the additionof Power as well as public relations in the context of“megamarketing” (1986). Payne, and Ballantyne (1991)suggest the addition of people, processes, and customerservice for relationship marketing. Judd (1987) suggeststhe addition of people as a method of differentiation inindustrial marketing.

These criticisms and suggestions for change have beenlargely ad hoc and have arisen out of consideration ofspecific marketing problems. Much more concertedcriticism has come from the areas of industrial andservices marketing. These are considered below.

The need for modification of the 4Ps mixIndustrial marketers have long claimed that industrialmarketing has features that make it unique and differentto consumer marketing. The most important of thesefeatures are product complexity and buying processcomplexity that leads to a high degree of interdependencebetween buyers and sellers. This has led Webster (1984)to assert that the essence of industrial marketing is thebuyer-seller relationship which binds the two together inpursuit of their corporate goals, each becomingdependent on the other. The focus of industrial marketingshould not be products but buyer-seller relationships(Webster, 1984, p. 52).

In the buyer-seller interaction process the influenceprocess is negotiation and not persuasion, as is impliedby the marketing mix approach (Webster, 1984, p. 63).Industrial marketing has, therefore, tended to emphasizethe importance of building of relationships in marketingrather than the manipulation of the market through themarketing mix.The criticism levelled at the 4Ps by theinteraction/network approach is that personal contactsare rarely discussed and even then only in the context ofsalesperson-consumer interaction, where the massmarketing approach is insufficient (for example the saleof insurance and cars). Long-term relationships are moreimportant than obtaining immediate sales, as personalrelationships can be longer lasting than product or brandloyalties (Gummesson, 1987).

More recently the weaknesses of the goods marketingapproach have been exposed by the growing literature onservices marketing. There is a growing consensus in theservices marketing literature that services marketing isdifferent because of the nature of services. That is,because of their inherent intangibility, perishability,heterogeneity and inseparability (Berry, 1984; Lovelock,1979; Shostack, 1977) services require a different type ofmarketing and a different marketing mix (Booms andBitner, 1981). The original marketing mix as developedby Borden, it is argued, does not incorporate thecharacteristics of services, as it was derived fromresearch on manufacturing companies (Cowell 1984;Shostack, 1977), and it is also argued that there isevidence that 4Ps formulation is inadequate for servicesmarketing (Shostack 1977; 1979).

Various modifications have been suggested toincorporate the unique aspects of services, for exampleRenaghan (1981) proposes a three-element marketing mixfor the hospitality industry: the product service mix, thepresentation mix and the communications mix. A morerecent attempt at reformulating the marketing mix is thatof Brunner’s 4C’s concept (1989), which comprises theconcept mix, costs mix, channels mix and communi-cations mix. The concept mix is broadly equivalent to theidea of the product mix idea, although Brunner claims

5USING THE 7Ps AS A GENERIC MARKETING MIX

that it is better at describing variety of offerings byvarious types of organizations.The cost concept includesnot just monetary costs (i.e., the traditional price element)but also costs incurred by the customer e.g. trans-portation, parking, information gathering, etc. Thechannels concept is essentially the same as the traditionalplace element. The communications element includes notonly the traditional, promotional element but alsoinformation gathering, i.e., marketing research.

In essence Brunner’s attempt amounts to a change innomenclature, the 4Ps being replaced by 4Cs. Further-more, his cost and communications concepts do notstrictly adhere to the concept of the marketing mix as aset of controllable variables used to influence thecustomer: cost incurred by customers in obtainingproducts such as transport, information gathering and soforth are not under the control of the marketers and, in

any case, will vary from customer to customer. Also,marketing research activities per se are not used toinfluence buyer behaviour, they are used to calibrate themarketing mix variables. Further, Brunner does not showhow the 4Cs concept addresses the concerns of servicesand industrial marketing mentioned above.

The most influential of the alternative frameworks is,however, Booms and Bitner’s 7Ps mix where they suggestthat not only do the traditional 4Ps need to be modifiedfor services (see Table I) but they also need to be extendedto include participants, physical evidence and process.Their framework is discussed below.

The Booms and Bitner frameworkIn Booms and Bitner’s framework participants are allhuman actors who play a part in service delivery, namely


Table I. The marketing mix

Product Price Place Promotion Participants Physical evidence Process

TraditionalQuality Level Distribution AdvertisingFeatures and Discounts and channels Personal selling

options allowances Distribution Sales promotionStyle Payment terms coverage PublicityBrand name Outlet locationsPackaging Sales territoriesProduct line Inventory levelsWarranty and locationsService levelOther services Transport

carriersSource: Kotler (1976)

Modified and expanded for servicesQuality Level Location Advertising Personnel: Environment: PoliciesBrand name Discounts and Accessibility Personal selling Training Furnishings ProceduresService line allowances Distribution Sales promotion Discretion Colour MechanizationWarranty Payment terms channels Publicity Commitment Layout EmployeeCapabilities Customer’s own Distribution Personnel Incentives Noise level discretionFacilitating perceived coverage Physical Appearence Facilitating Customer

goods value environment Interpersonal goods involvementTangible clues Quality/price Facilitating behaviour Tangible clues CustomerPrice interaction goods Attitudes directionPersonnel Differentiation Tangible clues Other customers’: Flow ofPhysical Process of Behaviour activities

environment service Degree ofProcess of delivery involvement,

service Customer/delivery customer

contactSource: Booms and Bitner (1981)

the firm’s personnel and other customers. In services(especially, “high contact” services such as restaurantsand airlines) because of the simultaneity of productionand consumption, the firm’s personnel occupy a keyposition in influencing customer perceptions of productquality. In fact, they are part of the product and henceproduct quality is inseparable from the quality of theservice provider (Berry, 1984). It is important, therefore,to pay particular attention to the quality of employeesand to monitor their performance. This is especiallyimportant in services because employees tend to bevariable in their performance, which can lead to variablequality.

The participants’ concept also includes the customer whobuys the service and other customers in the serviceenvironment. Marketing managers therefore need tomanage not only the service provider-customer interfacebut also the actions of other customers. For example, thenumber, type and behaviour of people will partlydetermine the enjoyment of a meal at a restaurant.

Physical evidence in the Booms and Bitner frameworkrefers to the environment in which the service is deliveredand any tangible goods that facilitate the performanceand communication of the service. Physical evidence isimportant because customers use tangible clues to assessthe quality of service provided. Thus, the moreintangible-dominant a service is, the greater the need tomake the service tangible (Shostack, 1977). Credit cardsare an example of the use of tangible evidence thatfacilitates the provision of (intangible) credit facilities bybanks and credit card companies. The physicalenvironment itself (i.e. the buildings, decor, furnishings,layout, etc.) is instrumental in customers’ assessment ofthe quality and level of service they can expect, forexample in restaurants, hotels, retailing and many otherservices. In fact, the physical environment is part of theproduct itself.

The procedures, mechanisms and flow of activities bywhich the service is acquired are referred to as process inBooms and Bitner’s 7Ps framework. The process ofobtaining a meal at a self-service, fast-food outlet such asBurger King, is clearly different from that at a full-servicerestaurant. Furthermore, in a service situation customersare likely to have to queue before they can be served andthe service delivery itself is likely to take a certain lengthof time. Marketers, therefore,have to ensure thatcustomers understand the process of acquiring a serviceand that the queuing and delivery times are acceptable tocustomers.

However, supporters of the 4Ps argue that there is noneed to amend or extend the 4Ps, as the extensionssuggested by Booms and Bitner can be incorporated intothe existing framework. The argument is that consumers

experience a bundle of satisfactions and dissatisfactionsthat derive from all dimensions of the product whethertangible or intangible. Buttle (1989) for example, arguesthat the product and/or promotion elements mayincorporate participants (in the Booms and Bitnerframework) and that physical evidence and processesmay be thought of as being part of the product.

In fact, Booms and Bitner (1981) themselves argue thatproduct decisions should involve the three new elementsin their proposed mix (see Table I). Nevertheless, Bitner,while accepting that physical evidence, participants andprocess could be incorporated into the traditional 4Psframework, argues that separating them out drawsattention to factors that are of “expressed importance” toservice-firm managers (Bitner, 1990, p. 70).

Furthermore, Booms and Bitner argue that these newelements are essential to “the definition and promotion ofservices in the consumers’ eyes, both prior to and duringthe service experience” (Booms and Bitner, 1981, p. 48).Furthermore, these elements can be controlled by thefirm and used to influence buyer behaviour and henceshould be included in the expanded marketing mix:

The potential power of these elements results from the largedegree of direct contact between the firm and the customer,the highly visible nature of the service assembly process,and the simultaneity of production and consumption(Booms and Bitner, 1981, p. 48).

Despite this, introductory texts on marketing, whichwhile propagating the notion that services marketing isdifferent, continue to use the 4Ps framework for servicesmarketing (see for example, Kotler and Armstrong, 1989;and Stanton et al. 1991). However, there is somerecognition of the need for change as evidenced by thatfact the one of the leading marketing texts in the UK hasadded people to the traditional 4Ps of the marketing mixvariables (Dibb et al., 1994, p. 5).

The need for generic marketing mixBooms and Bitner in their original article clearly intendedthe extended marketing mix to be limited to servicesmarketing.This position, of having a separate marketingmix for services, is difficult to maintain, however, whenone can find statements in the services literature such asthose by Levitt (1981) that:

Everybody sells intangibles in the marketplace no matterwhat is produced in the factory…

Also that:

…there is no such thing as the service industries. There areonly industries whose service components are greater orlesser than those of other industries. Everybody is in service.(Levitt, 1972, p. 41).


This is similar to Shostack’s view of goods and servicesas a continuum with goods being tangible-dominant andservices being intangible-dominant (Shostack, 1977). Infact, there being few if any pure goods or services asproducts are usually an amalgam of goods and services.Similarly, Foxall (1985, p. 2) contends that what isexchanged in a marketing transaction “is a service (or abundle of services) which may or may not involve thetransfer of a physical entity”. Cowell goes even furtherand contends that there are no fundamental differencesbetween marketing of goods and services:

What differences there are, are of the sort often drawn todistinguish between “consumer marketing” and “industrialmarketing” that is differences of degree and ofemphasis…the same principles and concepts are ofrelevance to all fields” (Cowell, 1984, p. 36).

If that is the case then why should the marketing mix bedifferent for goods and services? As Enis and Roering(1981) point out, if the product is defined as a bundle ofbenefits (with tangible and intangible elements) then thecall for a unique services marketing strategy isinconsistent with such a definition of the product.

In light of the above, what is needed is a marketing mixwhich cuts across the boundaries of goods, services andindustrial marketing, i.e. a generic marketing mix. It iscontended here that the Booms and Bitner framework canand should be extended to goods and industrialmarketing and that there are distinct advantages in doingthis. Below it is shown how the 7Ps framework can beextended to goods marketing.

7Ps and consumer goods marketingIn the goods marketing framework the product,promotion and pricing of the product is controlled by themanufacturer, but distribution is normally delegated tomarketing intermediaries. One has to ask what servicesthe distributor provides to the manufacturer and theconsumer. It is quite evident from the reference to thedistribution function as “place” in the 4Ps framework thatthe distributors’ role in providing somewhere for theconsumer to obtain goods is well accepted andunderstood. Intermediaries also provide people to explainproduct features and to market the products, and thedemeanour and training of these staff can be crucial inthe selling of goods. Furthermore, presence or absence ofother customers can be a factor in buyer-behaviour. Forexample, long queues at check-outs in supermarkets putmany customers off from shopping there. Intermediariesalso control the process to some extent of obtaininggoods. This relates not only to queuing at the check outbut may also include, packing, delivery, maintainingwaiting lists and ordering goods from manufacturers onthe customers’ behalf and may include membershipschemes as in the case of warehouse clubs. Inter-mediaries, such as retailers, are also responsible for the

physical evidence of the environment in which consumerproducts are sold. Department stores and warehouseclubs, for instance, are distinguishable from each otherfrom their retail environments alone.

Figure 1 illustrates the fact that in goods marketing, theparticipants, physical evidence and process parts of theextended marketing mix are normally delegated todistributors. This is because normally these elementsmake very little difference to the quality of the deliveredproduct in consumer goods marketing and what isimportant is wide distribution. Where quality, or theimage of the product is affected, intermediaries may beeliminated. This is particularly likely to occur if themanufacturer produces a deep range of products.Examples of this process include, Thorntons (a UKmanufacturer and retailer of quality chocolates),Benetton, and Disney stores.The case of Thorntons isinstructive: the chocolate manufacturer has its own retailoutlets to emphasize the exclusivity of Thorntons’chocolates and to ensure that chocolates are of the highquality that customers expect from Thorntons. Theelimination of intermediaries, or at least the shortening ofthe distribution channel, is also likely to occur where theproduct requires a high degree of service (cars, forexample).

In contrast, in services marketing, all parts of the mix arenormally under the direct control of the service providers(see Figure 1); i.e. services are less frequently distributedthrough intermediaries. Some services are, however,distributed through intermediaries (for example packageholidays, and insurance, etc.). This is most likely to occurwhere a standardized, prepackaged service can be


ProductPrice

Promotion

PlaceParticipants

ProcessPhysical evidence

ProductPrice

Promotion

PlaceParticipants


PlaceParticipants


Customer

Physical goodsProducer Intermediaries

ServicesProducer

Key

Normal route Less frequent route

Figure 1. The extended marketing mix and the relationshipbetween producers and intermediaries in goods and servicesmarketing

offered. McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, DominosPizza provide good examples of where a standardizedproduct is distributed via an intermediary (namely afranchisee). In all these examples the producers maintainstrict control over the product, promotion, the pricescharged, the physical location, look and layout of theoutlet, and operating procedures and standards. This isonly possible because the producers are able to lay downexact specifications for their products. Hence, whereservice delivery can be standardized and the quality ofservice easily controlled and monitored, servicesmarketing resembles goods marketing. In fact, servicemarketers should be actively seeking to standardize theirservices or “industrialize” services as Levitt (1976) puts it.Even in these examples, however, the channels ofdistribution tend to be short. Similar analysis can beextended to other types of marketing.

As far as we are aware, there is no empirical researchavailable to date that tests the satisfaction of marketingacademics with either the 4Ps or 7Ps framework. It was,therefore, decided to conduct a survey to find out which ofthese frameworks marketing academics were using, andhow and why they were using them.

MethodologyThe target respondents of this survey were the delegatesof the UK’s Marketing Education Group (MEG)Conference held in Salford in 1992 and the EuropeanMarketing Academy (EMAC) Conference held inAarhaus, Denmark in May 1992. The two conferenceswere selected because they are probably the two largestannual marketing conferences in Europe. Also the twoconferences provided the opportunity to compare theviews of the participants of one conference with anational reputation (MEG) with those of the participantsof a conference with an international reputation (EMAC).It was believed that the participants of the twoconferences had different profiles and that this may be afactor in the opinions held by the respondents.

To maximize the response rate a modified-mail-surveyapproach was used. For the UK respondents: thequestionnaires were handed out at the MEG Conferencein July 1992 and in mid-September a follow up letter andquestionnaire were sent. A total of 46 usable questionn-aires were received giving a response rate of 24 per centfor UK marketing academics.

A postal questionnaire was also sent out to all non-UKacademic participants of the EMAC Conference inAarhus in Denmark in 1992. To prevent overlap betweenrespondents, the delegate-lists were carefully comparedbefore sending out the mailed questionnaires and UKparticipants of the EMAC Conference were systematically

excluded. The first mailshot was sent out in July 1992. Afollow-up letter and questionnaire were sent in mid-September 1992. A total of 59 replies were received, aresponse rate of around 26 per cent which is a fairlytypical response rate for postal questionnaires. Themajority of the respondents were from European and USinstitutions, with a few from other parts of the world. Theprofile of the respondents, in terms of the place of origin,was fairly representative of the (non-UK) delegatespresent at the 1992 EMAC Conference.

Of the EMAC respondents: 17 were professors, 17associate professors (30 per cent of the sample), 18 (32 percent) assistant professors, and four were researchstudents. The average number of years of teachingexperience was 13.4 with a minimum of one and amaximum of 34 years (95 confidence interval of 10.57-15.72). We believe this to be a representative profile ofEMAC delegates and that it reflects the internationalstanding of the EMAC. The UK sample, on the whole, wasless experienced with an average of 8.73 years ofexperience in teaching marketing (95 confidence intervalof 7.7-9.77). The sample included only five full professors(11.6 per cent of the sample), 17 associate professors (i.e.senior lecturers) equivalent (39.5 per cent), 17 assistantprofessors (i.e. lecturers) and four research fellows/students (9.3 per cent of the sample). This is also believedto be a representative picture of MEG delegates and thatit reflects the national standing of the conference.

ResultsDissatisfaction with the 4PsA large majority of the respondents (78 per cent of EMACdelegates and 84 per cent of the MEG delegates) felt thatthe 4Ps concept was deficient in some respects as apedagogic tool. (The difference in the proportions of MEGand EMAC delegates’ dissatisfaction is not statisticallysignificant.) In fact, 75 per cent of the EMAC respondentshad used modified versions of the 4Ps concept at sometime or other. Of these, 82 per cent (or 62 per cent of thetotal sample) said that this was a regular occurrence.Similarly, 84 per cent of MEG respondents had used amodified version of the 4Ps and of these 84 per cent hadfound this to be a regular occurrence. Examination of thedata showed that the level of dissatisfaction expresseddid not appear to be influenced by length of experience inteaching marketing or the status (i.e. the seniority) of therespondents; i.e. full professors were just as likely to bedissatisfied with the 4Ps as junior marketing academics.

The respondents were further probed as to how adequatethey felt the 4Ps were for various types of marketingsituations, as it was felt that the dissatisfaction probablyvaried across subjects. This was largely borne out (seeTables II and III).


The 4Ps were thought to be most inadequate for services,not for profit and industrial marketing. Of the respondents51 per cent felt that the 4Ps were either problematic orunusable for services. Similarily, the figures for not-for-

profit and industrial marketing were 63 per cent and 62 percent respectively.These are the areas that have generatedmost criticism of the 4Ps marketing mix. Conversely, theareas where the 4Ps are thought to be most useful are


Table II. A comparison of the dissatisfaction of UK and European academics with the 4Ps framework for various types ofmarketing course

Degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

Totally Just aboutadequate Adequate adequate Problematic Unusable Number of

Type of marketing % % % % % respondents

Introductory UK 34 48 7 7 2 46European 27 44 15 9 4 54

Consumer UK 5 52 21 21 2 44European 18 29 31 18 4 55

Retail UK 0 27 27 42 5 41European 11 28 33 22 6 54

International UK 2 19 26 45 7 42European 8 21 27 37 8 52

Strategic UK 0 18 24 47 11 45European 9 20 27 35 9 55

Industrial UK 2 27 23 43 5 44European 7 13 27 46 7 55

Not-for-profit UK 2 13 18 51 16 45European 5 9 28 44 13 54

Services UK 2 11 16 64 7 45European 6 9 25 51 9 55

Average UK 7 26 20 41 7 100%European 11 23 27 33 6 100%

Note: Row percentages may not add up to 100 owing to rounding

Table III. Overall dissatisfaction with the 4Ps framework for various types of marketing courses among the entire sample

Degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction

Totally Just aboutadequate Adequate adequate Problematic Unusable Number of

Type of marketing % % % % % responses

Introductory 31 47 11 8 3 100Consumer 12 39 26 19 3 99Retail 6 27 31 31 5 95International 5 20 27 40 7 94Strategic 5 19 26 40 10 100Industrial 5 19 25 44 6 99Not-for-profit 4 11 23 48 14 99Services 4 10 21 57 8 100

Percentage of allresponses 9 24 24 36 7 100

Note: Row percentages may not add up to 100 owing to rounding

introductory marketing and consumer marketing.Consumer marketing is, however, ranked significantlybelow introductory marketing in terms of satisfaction: 78per cent of the respondents thought that the 4Ps frameworktotally adequate or adequate for introductory marketingagainst only 51 per cent for consumer marketing. This is asurprising finding as the 4Ps concept has its roots inconsumer marketing and introductory marketing texts inthe main concentrate on consumer marketing and a smallerdifference might have been expected (see Table III).

Comparing the EMAC delegates with MEG delegates itappears that the general direction of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is the same, with the exception of industrialmarketing. Also the UK (MEG) respondents were morelikely to be satisfied or dissatisfied than to express a neutralopinion. EMAC respondents were more likely to express aneutral opinion than MEG delegates (see Table II).

The acceptance of the 7Ps frameworkWhile we suspected that there was a great deal ofdissatisfaction with the 4Ps framework it was moredifficult to assess how well Booms and Bitner’s frameworkwas accepted as a general framework for marketing as wewere not aware of any research that has been conducted inthis area. In order to gauge the acceptance of the 7Psframework, respondents were asked to rate the relevance

of the 7Ps mix variables for a list of marketing situations.This allowed us to gauge not only the acceptance of the7Ps framework but also how well the new variables ofparticipants, process and physical evidence wereaccepted. An examination of Tables IV and V show thatall of the 7Ps variables were regarded as having at leastsome relevance for all types of marketing, includingintroductory and consumer marketing, where one mighthave expected stronger adherence to the 4Ps framework.However, as might be expected, there is a difference inemphasis in the usage of the mix variables for differenttypes of marketing. For example, there is strong emphasison the traditional 4Ps in consumer marketing and lessemphasis on other mix variables. Similarly, participantsand process receive more emphasis in services marketingthan they do in other types of marketing. Note that forindustrial marketing Table V provides strong support forour contention that the 7Ps should be used as a generalframework.

Pairwise t-test comparisons were carried out to establishwhether or not the differences in the overall averages forthe mix variables in Table V were statistically significant.These tests showed that there is no statistically significantdifference between product, promotion and participants,but they are significantly different from place, price andprocess. Physical evidence is significantly different from


Table IV. A comparison of UK and European academics’ relevance rankings of mix elements for various marketing situations

Mix variableType of marketing Product Place Promotion Price Participants Process Physical evidence

Consumer UK 4.5 4.5 4.8* 4.4 3.7 3.3 3.7European 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.2 3.5 3.1 3.4

Retail UK 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.1 3.7* 4.1European 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.5

International UK 4.4* 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.0European 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.0

Strategic UK 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.3European 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.8 2.7

Industrial UK 4.6 3.8* 3.7 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.1European 4.4 3.3 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.1 3.1

Not-for-profit UK 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.1 4.1 3.9 3.4*European 3.5 3.2 3.6 2.9 4.0 3.6 2.8

Services UK 4.0 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.5 4.3 4.1*European 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.0 3.1

Average forall variables 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.1

Notes:*Statistically significant at 95 per cent levelRespondents were asked to rate the 7Ps according to the critera : 1 = no relevance; 2 = little relevance; 3 = some relevance; 4 = quiterelevant; 5 = highly relevantIntroductory marketing is excluded from this table because, the respondents were asked about the relevance of mix variables forvarious marketing situations rather than courses

all the other variables. What this tells us is that product,promotion and participants are ranked highest in termsof relevance for all types of marketing and that place,price and process are ranked below product, promotionand participants. Physical evidence, on the other hand, isranked below the other six variables. It is significant thatthe participants variable is rated as high as the productand promotions variables and that the process variable israted as high as the place and price variables.

Factor analysis shows in fact that the seven variablesform two groups. The first factor consists of thetraditional 4Ps with factor loadings as follows: product(0.865), place (0.858), promotion (0.863) and price (0.846).The second factor consists of participants, process andphysical evidence with factor loadings of 0.739, 0.879 and0.764 respectively. Similarly, cluster analysis reveals thatproduct, price and promotion cluster first, followed byplace, participants, process and finally physical evidence.This confirms the fact that the respondents regard the4Ps as highly important and that the three new variablesof the extended marketing mix make a positive andsomewhat different contribution to the traditional 4Psmix.

Respondents were also asked whether they thought the7Ps concept was a useful extension to the 4Ps frameworkwith respect to its general applicability; i.e. across a widespectrum of marketing subjects and not just to servicesmarketing for which Booms and Bitner had originallymeant it to be applied. Over half of the respondents (58per cent) thought that it was a useful or very usefulextension to the 4Ps framework (see Table VI). Around 22per cent of the respondents thought that it was neithersuperior nor inferior to the 4Ps concept. The remaining 20

per cent of the respondents thought that the 7Ps conceptwas of little or no use as an extension to the 4Psframework.The MEG respondents tended to be moreenthusiastic than their EMAC counterparts, as 66 percent of them (compared with 52 per cent of the EMACrespondents) thought that the 7Ps framework was auseful or very useful extension to the 4Ps framework.

The fact that 52 per cent of the EMAC respondents and 66per cent of the UK respondents thought that the 7Psframework was a useful or very useful extension as ageneral framework is a significant and novel finding.Thisinformation combined with the information on thefrequency of the modification of the 4Ps frameworkimplies that a significant proportion of the marketingeducators are using the 7Ps mix as a general frameworkrather than confining its use to the teaching of servicesmarketing.


Table V. Relevance rankings of mix elements for various marketing situations for the entire sample

Mix variableType of marketing Product Place Promotion Price Participants Process Physical evidence

Consumer 4.33 4.33 4.55 4.33 3.59 3.15 3.51Retail 4.06 4.39 4.39 4.32 3.86 3.42 3.77International 4.15 4.16 4.03 3.97 3.87 3.58 2.96Strategic 3.84 3.53 3.56 3.73 3.74 3.71 2.99Industrial 4.47 3.50 3.56 4.08 4.21 4.02 3.08Not-for-profit 3.60 3.31 3.75 2.99 4.04 3.70 3.09Services 3.78 3.80 3.94 3.88 4.40 4.13 3.60

Average for all variables 4.04* 3.88* 3.98* 3.90* 3.99* 3.71* 3.35**

Notes:*No statistically significant difference between these variables. However they are significantly different from the other variables.**Significantly different from all the other variables at 95 per cent confidence level.Respondents were asked to rate the 7Ps according to the criteria : 1 = no relevance; 2 = little relevance; 3 = some relevance; 4 = quiterelevant; 5 = highly relevant

Table VI. Usefulness of the 7Ps mix with respect to itsgeneral applicability (i.e. across a wide range of subjects)

RespondentsUK European All

Degree of usefulness % % %

Very useful extension 17.4 1.9 9.2Useful extension 47.8 50.0 49.0Neither superior nor inferior 17.4 26.9 22.4Of little use 17.4 11.5 14.3Of no use 0.0 10.7 5.1Total (per cent) 100 100 100Number of respondents 46 52 98

Strengths and weaknesses of the 4Ps and 7Ps mixesFurther insight into the reasons for the differences in usageof the two mixes is provided by content analysis of what therespondents thought were the strengths and weaknesses ofthe two frameworks (see Table VII).

Comprehensiveness was the most frequently mentionedstrength of the 7Ps model. It was also thought to be morerefined and detailed than the 4Ps model and was seen asproviding a broader perspective. Some respondentsexplicitly mentioned the inclusion of participants/people asa strength. The process variable was also mentioned but notas frequently as the participants/people variable. The 7Psmix was also thought to be more of a model than the 4Psmix. The standardization of the mix by extending the 7Psframework to areas other than services was also mentioned.

The strengths of the 4Ps framework mentioned are thosethat are traditionally suggested by most textbooks. Themost frequently mentioned strength of the 4Ps mix was itssimplicity and ease of understanding, closely followed byease of memorization. It was also thought to be a goodpedagogic tool for introductory marketing. Parsimony andits adaptability for various problems were also mentioned.

Although the comprehensiveness of the 7Ps framework wasthought to be a strength, this was also a source of weaknessas the most frequently mentioned weakness of the 7Psframework was the fact that it was more complicated thanthe 4Ps framework. Some respondents thought that theextra elements could be incorporated into the existing 4Ps.Others expressed doubts about the controllability of the newvariables. The 4Ps framework, on the other hand, was

thought to be too simple and not broad enough. Theomission of the participants/people, process and physicalevidence variables was also thought to be a weakness,although the participants/people variable was the mostfrequently mentioned variable of this group. The lack ofrelationship marketing and service aspects of marketingwas also thought to be weakness. A few respondents alsomentioned lack of integration and the static nature of the4Ps variables.

The above findings suggest that the major reasons for theuse of the 7Ps framework (or at any rate, modifications ofthe 4Ps mix) by marketing academics is because they findthe use of the 4Ps mix too simplistic and that it does notcover the areas that are of increasing interest to them (e.g.relationship marketing). At the same time, while theyappreciate the comprehensiveness of the 7Ps mix, they findthat it is more complicated than the 4Ps mix.

ConclusionsThe results presented here suggest that there is a highdegree of dissatisfaction with the 4Ps framework amongEuropean academics. The 4Ps framework is thought to bemost relevant for introductory marketing and consumermarketing. The result also suggests that the 7Ps frameworkhas already achieved a high degree of acceptance as ageneric marketing mix among our sample of respondents.

However, although there is general support for the 7Ps mix,there is not uniform support for the three new variables.The participants/people variable is the most widelyaccepted element of the new variables and the process


Table VII. Strengths and weakness of the 4Ps and 7Ps mixes as perceived by the respondents

7Ps 4Ps

Strengths More comprehensive Simplicity and ease of understandingMore detailed Easy to memorizeMore refined Good pedagogic tool, especially for introductory marketingBroader perspective ParsimonyIncludes participants/ Useful conceptual frameworkpeople and process Ability to adapt to various problemsIt is a modelStandardizarionSignals marketing theory

Weaknesses More complicated Too simple, not broad enoughExtra elements can be incorporated in 4Ps Lacking people, participants and processControllability of the three new elements Physical evidence

Relationship marketingServiceLack of connection/integration between variablesStatic nature of 4Ps

Note: The responses are listed in order of frequency that the respondents mentioned them

variable also has reasonable support. The physical evidencevariable is the least well-supported of the new variables.This is probably because physical evidence is not as wellconceptualized as participants/ people and process. Theparticipants/people and process variables are frequentlydiscussed in the literature on relationship marketing whichprovides a strong rationale and conceptualization of thesevariables. The physical evidence variable, on the other hand,is not discussed much outside the services marketing areaand this may be one reason for the weak support for it inthis research. Overall these results provide fairly strongsupport for our contention that Booms and Bitner’s 7Pframework should replace McCarthy’s 4Ps framework asthe generic marketing mix. Among European academics, atleast, this is already happening in practice.

While these results are based on a relatively small numberof respondents, we believe that they are representative of theviews of marketing academics. However, it is quite possiblethat the non-respondents in this survey were quite happywith the 4Ps framework and therefore did not feel the needto respond and, hence the results presented here may behighly skewed. However, we believe this not to be the case,as the results are based on two independent samples ofrespondents. Furthermore, the examination of thebackground of the respondents revealed no systematic biasin the samples. The fact that 22 of the respondents were fullprofessors of marketing also lends considerable credence tothe results. Even if it is accepted that the sample ofrespondents is biased towards those who were dissatisfiedwith the 4Ps framework, this constitutes a significantminority of marketing academics. Either way, the resultsprovide empirical support for the theoretical reasonsadvanced for the extension of the 7Ps mix into a genericmarketing mix. Nevertheless, further research is necessaryto confirm the results of the exploratory research reportedabove.

References and further readingBerry, L.L. (1984), “Services marketing is different”, in

Lovelock, C.H. (Ed.), Services Marketing, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 29-37.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effect ofphysical surroundings and employee responses”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 54, p. 69-82.

Booms, B.H. and Bitner, M.J. (1981), “Marketing strategies andorganization structures for service firms”, in Donnelly, J.H.and George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 47-51.

Borden, N.H. (1965), “The concept of the marketing mix”, inSchwartz, G., Science in Marketing, John Wiley & Sons, NewYork, NY, pp. 386-97.

Brunner, G.C. II (1988), “The marketing mix: a retrospectionand evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 10,Spring, pp. 29-33.

Brunner, G.C. II (1989), “The marketing mix: time forreconceptualization”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 11, Summer, pp. 72-7.

Buttle, F. (1989), “Marketing services”, in Jones, P. (Ed.),Management in Service Industries, Pitman, London, pp. 235-59.

Chase, R. and Garvin, D.A. (1989), “The service factory”,Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 61-9.

Cowell, D. (1984), The Marketing of Services, Heinemann,London.

Culliton, J.W. (1948), The Management of Marketing Costs,Division of Research, Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Enis, B.M. and Roering, K.J. (1981), “Services marketing:different products similar strategy”, in Donnely, J.H. andGeorge, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-3.

Fern, E.F. and Brown, J.K. (1984), “The industrial/consumerdichotomy”, Journal of Marketing, Spring, pp. 68-77.

Foxall, G. (Ed.) (1985), Marketing in the Service Industries,Frank Cass, London.

Frey, A.W. (1961), Advertising, 3rd ed., The Ronald Press, NewYork, NY.

Gummesson, E. (1987), “The new marketing – developing long-term interactive relationships”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 10-24.

Judd, V.C. (1987), “Differentiate with the 5th P: people”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 241-7.

Kent, R.A. (1986), “ Faith in the four Ps: an alternative”, Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No.2, pp. 145-54.

Kotler, P. (1976), Marketing Management, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 60.

Kotler, P. (1986), “Megamarketing”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 64, March/April, pp. 117-24.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1989), Principles of Marketing, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Lazer, W., Culley, J.D. and Staudt, T. (1973), “The concept of themarketing mix”, in Britt, S.H. (Ed.), Marketing Manager’sHandbook, The Dartnell Corporation, Chicago, IL, pp. 39-43.

Lazer, W. and Kelly, E.K. (1962), Managerial Marketing:Perspectives and Viewpoints, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood,IL.

Levitt, T. (1972), “Production line approach to service”, HarvardBusiness Review, September/October, pp. 41-52.

Levitt, T. (1976), “The industrialization of service”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 54, September/October, pp. 63-74.

Levitt, T. (1981), “Marketing intangible products and productintangibles”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 59, May/June,pp. 94-102.

Lovelock, C.H. (1979), “Theoretical contributions from servicesand non-business marketing”, in Ferrel, O.C., Brown, S.W.and Lamb, C.W. (Eds), Conceptual and TheoreticalDevelopments in Marketing, American MarketingAssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 147-65.

McCarthy, E.J. (1964), Basic Marketing, Richard D. Irwin,Homewood, IL.

McCarthy, E.J. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1987), Basic Marketing,9th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Mindak, W.A. and Fine, S. (1981), “A fifth ‘P’: public relations”,in Donnely, J.H. and George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing ofServices, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 71-3.



Nickels, W.G. and Jolson M.A. (1976), “Packaging – the fifth P inthe marketing mix, Advanced Management Journal, Winter,pp. 13-21.

Payne, C.M.A. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), RelationshipMarketing: Bringing Qual ity, Customer Service andMarketing Together, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Pride, W.M. and Ferrell O.C. (1989), Marketing: Concepts andStrategies, 6th ed., Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Reichard, C.J. (1985), “Industrial selling: beyond price andpersistence”, Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 128-33.

Renaghan, L.P. (1981), “A new marketing mix for the hospitalityindustry”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, August, pp. 31-5.

Shapiro, B.P. (1985), “Rejuvenating the marketing mix”,Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 28-34.

Shostack, G.L. (1977), “Breaking free from product marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, April, pp. 73-80.

Shostack, G.L. (1979), “The service marketing frontier”, inZaltman G. and Bonoma, T. (Eds), Review of Marketing,

American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 1979, pp. 373-88.

Stanton, W.J., Etzel, M.J. and Walker, B.J. (1991), Fundamentalsof Marketing, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Voss, C.A. (1991), “Applying service concepts in manu-facturing”, Proceedings of the OMA-UK Sixth InternationalConference, 25-26 June, Aston University, pp. 308-13.

van Waterschoot, W. and Van den Bulte, C. (1992), “The 4Pclassification of the marketing mix revisited”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 56, pp. 83-93.

Webster, F.E. Jr (1978), “Management science in industrialmarketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, January, pp. 21-7.

Webster, F.E. Jr (1984), Industrial Marketing Strategy, 2nd ed.,John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Webster, F.E. Jr and Wind, Y. (1972), “A general model forunderstanding organizational buying behaviour”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 36, April, pp. 12-19.

Zaltman, G. and Wallendorf, M. (1979), Consumer Behaviour:Basic Findings and Management Implications, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY.

Mohammed Rafiq is a Lecturer in Retailing and Marketing at Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough,UK. Pervaiz K. Ahmed is a Lecturer in Strategic Management at the Department of Economics and Management,University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.

Using 7p, Generic Marketing Mix

Documents

Transcript of Using 7p, Generic Marketing Mix