Service Recovery

     About six years ago I was on a late night flight from Pittsburgh to Hartford for an audit of an insurance company which was to commence early the next day. It was after 11:00 PM when my taxi dropped me off at the hotel. I couldn’t wait to get to my room and collapse in bed to make the most of what was going to be a short night. Alas, when I reached the front desk to check in the receptionist informed me that the hotel was overbooked and that there were no rooms available in spite of my reservation. The look on my face was probably frightening to the young man. After expressing my mild displeasure with the situation, the receptionist turned his back to me, made a couple of phone calls, wrote something down on hotel stationary, pulled some documents out of a drawer, and then turned back to me in the manner a nervous juror might present a guilty verdict. The young man revealed to me that he had found me a room in a nearby four-star hotel (my reservation was at a three-star), agreed to arrange transportation not only to that hotel, but to the client that I was auditing, and presented me with a free voucher for a breakfast buffet and a certificate good for a free nights stay at any of the company’s hotels in the continental United States. Still tired, I was extremely pleased not only at the level to which I didn’t have to yell at someone, but at the expediency to which the young man took action to not only resolve my issue, but compensate for it. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was the recipient of a service recovery strategy. It was also the best four hour sleep I ever had in what turned out to be a suite with a California king size bed, but I digress.

                Service recovery is defined as “actions that service providers take in response to service defections or failures in service delivery to return aggrieved customers to a state of satisfaction by addressing customers’ problems.” (Back et al., 2007). The customers’ evaluation of the effort to which satisfaction is achieved is grounded in Equity Theory, specifically (1) the quality of the tangible outcomes (e.g., discounts, free meals, credits, etc.), (2) the way in which the rewards are allocated, and (3) the process used in arriving at the resolution.

                If the process used in arriving at the resolution is extremely successful or goes above and beyond the customers’ expectations, the phenomenon known as the service recovery paradox can occur. The service recovery paradox is described as “when service recovery efforts are exceptional, the level of customers’ overall satisfaction rates can be actually higher than those of customers who have not experienced any problem in the transaction” (Back et al., 2007). On the other hand, a poor recovery can lead to a “magnification of negative evaluation”. Chip Bell, author of the book Knock Your Socks Off Service Recovery, states that service recovery works best if “a front line employee apologizes, fixes the problem, and offers something of value before an unhappy customer leaves the premises”. Such was the case with my hotel experience in Connecticut. Service recovery is not a new concept, but service providers seem to be focusing more on such strategies as the battle over customer loyalty is intensifying.

Graphical illustration of the Service Recovery Paradox source: wikipedia.org



Using a convenience sample of 286 casual restaurant customers, Kansas State University and University of Houston researchers wanted to test the merits of the paradox in the context of various levels of recovery. The researchers results indicated that the recovery efforts must be “exceptional” rather than just “good” to achieve a higher customer satisfaction than would have been present had the failure not have occurred in the first place. The researchers invite the reader to view service recovery as an opportunity to repair and build lasting customer relationships in light of the costs to do so. Critics of the service recovery paradox state that if you can achieve even higher satisfaction ratings, why not just fail in the first place? “Too risky”, respond the researchers. First, service providers typically have little or no control over the issue giving rise to the failure. Second, recovery efforts can be costly and third, the researchers reiterate that only “exceptional” efforts achieved higher ratings and such an achievement may not always be realistic or feasible.

Of course, not everyone buys into the idea of service recovery. Author Betsy Kruger criticizes the service industry for allocating too many resources to pacifying disgruntled customers and not placing enough emphasis on rewarding their best customers. Ms. Kruger states, “It’s wrong to reward complainers”. In her book Top Market Strategy: Applying the 80/20 Rule, Ms. Kruger invites service providers to adopt the following three principles:

1.       Identify the top 20% of customers – they are your true profit generators.

2.       Discontinue marketing to the bottom 80% and, when possible, automate all interactions to that group

3.       Allocate some resources to identifying and attracting prospects whose characteristics are similar to that of the top 20% of existing customers.

No matter which position is preferred, service providers need to understand their customers and meet their needs. While 100% satisfaction is always the goal, is it more often than not far from the reality. With this being the case I believe that it is imperative for some recovery strategy to be in place and communicated to front line employees. In the long run, the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.

Resources:

Back, Ki-Joon, et al., “Mixed Findings on Service Recovery Paradox: An Illustration from an Experimental Study” Kansas State University Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management & Dietetics: 2007.

Loftstock, John, “CSD: Are Customers Always Right?” Retailwire January 26, 2012 (accessed January 29, 2012), http://www.retailwire.com/discussion/15778/csd-are-customers-always-right

“Service Recovery Paradox” Wikipedia.org (accessed January 29, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_recovery_paradox

Stoller, Gary, “Companies give front line employees more power” USA Today, June 26, 2005 (accessed January 29, 2012), http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-06-26-service-usat_x.htm

Marketing Integrity

     At one point in class we had discussed how marketing yourself is as important as anything. Sometimes, it could mean everything. With this in mind I am pulling a recently read excerpt from the book Rising Tide, which chronicles the history of Procter & Gamble. In a previous post I related how the decisions behind the rollout of the laundry detergent Tide helped set the stage for the company’s success the remainder of the Twentieth Century. I feel that the company’s experience with the toothpaste brand Crest is just as important. Tide demonstrated that the company had executives who could think quickly and act decisively. Crest helped to strengthen P&G’s reputation, and sometimes reputation is all that you have. If your reputation is a good one, then customers will stick with you in the lean times.

                In the 1950s, toothpaste was seen as nothing more than a cleaning agent and the market was flooded with brands that claimed nearly everything without having the substance to back it, P&G notwithstanding. What’s more, the American public didn’t even view the act of brushing your teeth as a preventative measure against tooth decay. A study mentioned in the book revealed that in 1959, the average American brushed fewer than four times a week. Crest was out to change all that, but the brand needed some help in doing so. Crest was born out of exhaustive research (a common P&G characteristic) that led to the conclusion that the use of fluoride-enhanced pastes was actually effective at preventing tooth decay. The challenge was convincing the American Dental Association (ADA) of this and attaining the organization’s endorsement. The company embarked on a massive campaign to market to consumers, dentists, and the ADA. P&G wanted to prove to the ADA that their toothpaste, over all of the others in the market, actually prevented tooth decay when used as part of a routine that included regular dentist visits. P&G was adamant that it did not want to sacrifice scientific integrity “for the sake of commercial expediency”. Slowly dentists examined the research and bought into P&G claims. Moms gravitated towards the “Look, Mom – No Cavities” ad campaign created by advertising agent Benton & Bowles. The company would stick to their principles. Like Tide, they believed in their product and were committed to it. Finally, after careful examination and rigorous trials, the ADA  awarded a seal of acceptance to the Crest brand toothpaste in 1959. This was the first acceptance of its kind for a consumer branded dental product. Sales of the toothpaste skyrocketed following the announcement.

"No cavities!" source: http://www.rare-posters.com/



                The journey to have Crest toothpaste accepted by the American Dental Association was a long one- nearly twelve years. Throughout that time, P&G adhered to its principles. The company collaborated with universities and researchers to confirm and affirm the benefits of their fluoride compound. P&G worked hard to regain the trust of dentists and consumers and by doing so, eventually earned the trust and acceptance of the dental establishment. By earning this trust, P&G communicated to its consumers that there can be more to a brand than creative advertising and claims. Crest took oral hygiene in a new and positive direction and, in effect, paved the way for an entire industry focused not only on profits, but on people’s oral health.

The prize (see upper right corner) source: http://www.soap.com/



Resource:

Dyer, Davis, et. al. Rising Tide: Lessons from 165 Years of Brand Building at Procter & Gamble (Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Mass) 2004. 141-158.

J.C. Penney's Revitalization

     This morning, I decided to use a journal post to analyze the revival plan revealed yesterday by J.C. Penney Co. (JCP) CEO Ron Johnson. Johnson, who has been at the CEO post only since June, is credited for the retail success both with Apple Inc. and Target. Department stores are facing a gloomy outlook, expecting to lose more market share and projecting sales growth of only 1.7% (down from 3.4% previously) as reported by Bloomberg Industries. Prior to Johnson’s announcement, the chain’s largest shareholder, William Ackerman, vowed that this moment “would be the most important for retailing in 25 years”. Investors were not as enthusiastic and share prices bounced around during and after the announcement.

                After reading over the strategy announcement and some trade articles, I summarize that the plan consists of three components, each of which drives off of the other. The three components, based on my interpretation, are brand management, store layout, and pricing.

Brand Management

                The department store chain currently has 400 brands under its roof, most of which are private-labels that the company created. Johnson’s plan is to reduce the number of brands to about 100. With less brands, it will be easier for stores to organize them in a marketplace or ‘store-in-store’ type format.

Store Layout

                The brand restructuring will allow for better store organization. In recent years, J.C. Penney partnered with the Sephora brand going to the extent of “building” a small Sephora store within the larger store. Results have found sales per square foot were three times higher than the average of the rest of the larger store. The store-in-store or marketplace concept helps to keep the shopper focused and encourages traffic as consumers seek premium brands.

Pricing

                Brand management and store redesign will help JCP restructure its pricing. The company found that it held over 600 sale-type events a year which was confusing to consumers. In addition, they found that products sold at up to a 50% discount. With this information, JCP plans to lower price entry points by as much as 40% and structure sale events around a monthly theme (e.g., ‘back-to-school). The company’s hope is that this new pricing, along with the store redesign, increases consumer traffic to at least one visit per month. Current research indicates that shoppers visit a JCP store on average of four times per year. I can vouch for that. I can only recall entering a Penney’s a handful of times last year whereas I am in a Target and/or Wal-Mart store at least once a month.

The JCP revitalization plan is expected to be fully implemented by 2015. While the Wall Street reaction to the announcement has been lackluster, I believe the plan has some merit. Instituting a simpler pricing structure along with an alignment with premium plans should regenerate consumer interest toward the chain. Similar plans have worked for Target, Macy’s and Kohl’s so we shall see if JCP can compete or fail.

Resources:

Clifford, Stephanie. “J.C. Penney to Revise Pricing Methods and Limit Promotions” The New York Times January 25, 2012 (accessed January 26, 2012) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/jc-penneys-chief-ron-johnson-announces-plans-to-revamp-stores.html?partner=yahoofinance

Townsend, Matt. “J.C. Penney Plan Chills Investors Seeking Apple Magic: Retail” Bloomberg January 26, 2012. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/j-c-penney-plan-chills-investors-seeking-apple-magic-retail.html

Wahba, Phil. “Penney clears out clearance with new pricing plan” Reuters January 25, 2012 (accessed January 26, 2012) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-jcpenney-idUSTRE80O1HG20120125

Back in the U.S.A.

As consumers in the United States we most often hear about domestic companies branching out into international markets. Well, here is a story of a domestically-based, multinational company bringing one of its most successful brands abroad to our shores. The H.J. Heinz Company has been entrenched firmly in the United Kingdom for over one hundred years. Known for tomato ketchup here in the states, the company’s star product by far is baked beans. Company records indicate that the first can of Heinz baked beans or “Heinz Beanz” as it is better known to the Brits was sold in London in 1901. In 1967 the now famous marketing slogan ‘Beanz Meanz Heinz was coined and recently was voted best slogans of all time.[1] Also in 1967, British rock band The Who released their second album The Who Sell Out. On the cover of the album is a picture of lead singer Roger Daltrey in a bathtub filled with Heinz Beanz along with him holding an oversized can of them. In an interview with the BBC in 2009, Daltrey commented that he caught pneumonia from prolonged sitting in the tub of cold beans.[2] In 1998, Heinz Beanz was selected as one of the best brands to represent the final ten years of the millennium and in 2005 the British public voted the beans the ‘Most Loved Brand’. Today approximately 2 million cans of the beans are filled and,  according to a Nielsen study, over one million cans of Heinz Beanz are consumed each day in the UK.[3] Continuing a tradition of innovation that has been referenced a couple of times in this learning journal, Heinz UK introduced the Beanz in a 1 kilogram resealable plastic Fridge Pack in 2010 which allows consumers to eat as much or as little of the beans as they would like in a sitting and easily refrigerate the unused portion for later.[4]

It's not the Rolling Stones, but it will do. source: wikipedia.org

                As for the United States, Heinz version of baked beans just hasn’t had the presence. If you look hard enough you can find a vegetarian version which caters to Kosher and other niche markets (like my mother who can’t get enough of them). According to company records, Heinz produced several flavors of baked beans in the 1950’s through the 1970’s, but then that “sort of went away”, according to Noel Geoffroy, vice president Heinz Brands/U.S. Consumer products.[5] But now they are back. The company is introducing the baked beans under the popular Homestyle line of products (i.e., gravy with no lumps) in traditional flavors such as brown sugar and bacon, molasses and pork, maple, and Chipotle BBQ, which is my favorite. The beans will be produced in an existing bean plant in Ontario, Canada and shipped to the United States.

'BEANZ' are king in the U.K.! source: http://www.heinz.co.uk/


                So why does Heinz feel like returning to the United State baked bean market? Research has indicated that the recent economic downturn has consumers trending towards traditional, inexpensive “comfort foods” like baked beans. Heinz bringing its century-old expertise with beans into the country at this time of uncertainty could be just what consumers who are either loyal or familiar with the brand are looking for. Currently, the leader of the United States $530 million bean market is Tennessee-based Bush Brothers & Co, according to SymphonyIRI Group.[6] I believe that Heinz greatest challenge will be to get consumers to first consider their brand and then make the switch. Most of my acquaintances are Bush’s baked bean fans and although they will humor me by trying the Heinz brand, ultimately their pallets and wallets will make the decision.

source: http://www.post-gazette.com/



[1] http://www.heinz.co.uk/ourfood/beans/didyouknow

[2] Savage, Mark. “Roger Daltrey’s concert conundrum” BBC News. March 21, 2009 (accessed January 25, 2012), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7951056.stm.

[3] TNS & AC Nielsen data, 2009

[4] http://www.heinz.co.uk/ourfood/beans/heinzbeanz/beanz-fridge-pack

[5] Lindeman, Teresa. “Heinz brings beans back to U.S.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette January 25, 2012.
[6] Ibid.

---

When Cannibalism is a Good Thing

     Tide laundry detergent, not Ivory soap, is heralded as the brand that essentially made the company into the global, multidivisional giant that it is today and it is all because executives knew about cannibalism of the company’s brands and chose to let it happen. Cannibalism is a touchy subject in marketing and, as the name implies in other arenas, can be a negative. In general, market cannibalism is defined as a “situation where sales of a new or differently branded product eat into the sales of other products within the same line. If the total sales revenue of that (the new) product line increases, then the line extension is justifiable. However the danger of weakening the main brand remains.”[1] Such is the story with Tide.

                As a project that was almost cancelled, Tide was a revolutionary product. Born out of rigorous lab testing, the product could not be referred to as the traditional laundry soap, but rather a synthetic laundry detergent. The brand name arose from this period of experimentation when as one of the developers would always comment on the “oceans of suds” the product generated.  At the time, Procter & Gamble had successful laundry soaps by the name of Oxydol and Dash, but those products fell short by sometimes leaving residue on clothes after washing or failing to generate any cleaning power in hard water. Not only did Tide not leave any residue, but it exhibited superior cleaning power even in hard water. With the advent of the automatic washing machine in the post-war era, the two were destined as a marriage in laundry heaven.

                Tide forced the hands of P&G executives to abandon their traditional methods of rolling out a product (i.e., rigorous blind and market testing). They knew they had something special in the product and a fast rollout would give them an advantage over their closest competitors, namely Colgate and Lever. This posed a huge gamble for the company, whose reputation revolved around methodology and precision. Tide would be first introduced in 1946 and was an unbelievable success from the start. Grocers had difficulty keeping the product on shelves and the company was stretched to its limits keeping up with demand. By the time Colgate launched its competing brand Fab in April of 1948 and Lever launched Surf in July of 1948, Tide was well on its way to capturing 30% of the laundry soap/detergent market – an unheard of share in the industry.

source: http://www.adclassix.com/



                With the competition clearly in the rearview mirror, Proctor & Gamble’s major challenge with the introduction and aggressive marketing of Tide was the cannibalization of its own brands. The new synthetic detergent was rendering obsolete “massive investments in manufacturing and was destroying decades worth of hard-earned brand equity” per one P&G historian. It was at this point the decision makers at Procter & Gamble had to establish their interpretation of brand management. Brands had either to live or die in the marketplace, even if the death is a result of your own success. P&G never looked back from their commitment to the Tide brand and haven’t since. From the period 1950-2002, the Tide brand has enjoyed a steady 20-30% market share. Colgate and Lever reportedly lost money trying to compete in this category while P&G excelled.

                So why was the cannibalism of P&G’s brands a positive for the company? Tide was such an overwhelming success in its initial years following introduction that it actually buoyed the company. From here executives could conceivably take on long-term, capital-intensive investments  in new ventures (Charmin toilet tissue and Crest toothpaste come to mind) and even consider expanding into new countries.

                The company learned four important lessons from Tide. Some of which could be adopted by any consumer products manufacturer in any era:

1.       P&G must remain a technology company (w/intensive R&D). They will move forward through innovation and experimentation.

2.       Do not be afraid to move fast into a market if you know the advantage you could gain. This takes a decisive executive.

3.       P&G showed the customer that it was in charge by allowing some of its own brands in the same product line as Tide to fail. Sometimes this doesn’t work, but in P&G’s case it kept the company from destabilizing.

4.       There is power in grabbing a big share of the market. As with lessons #2 & #3 the concept of being decisive without fear is reiterated here. By grabbing a big share of the market with Tide, the doors were wide open for P&G to expand in other categories, countries, and markets while all competitors could do is try to catch up.

Resource:

Dyer, Davis, et al. Rising Tide: Lessons from 165 Years of Brand Building at Procter & Gamble (Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts) 67-84.

---

[1] http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/cannibalism.html

Coopetition

The first time I heard the term “coopetition” (or “co-opetition”, or “coopertition” if you are from Kentucky) was during a call of a NASCAR race by Hall of Fame driver turned color commentator Darrell Waltrip. In the stock car world coopetition refers  to a situation where two cars from opposing teams work together to gain positions on the race track. This most commonly occurs on superspeedways like Daytona and Talladega where two cars working together, or drafting’, can go faster than a car lapping the track by itself. At the time I was amused by the term and thought it was something cute just for television, but when the word came up in class yesterday I thought I’d better take another look. Upon Googling the word I found numerous articles from thesis papers to articles in Forbes. So, if the word is good for the business community, academia, and NASCAR I should devote some analysis and synthesis to it. Since I am employed by a multinational corporation, this journal entry will focus on coopetition amongst global entities rather than stock car racers.

                Ray Noorda, the founder of the software company Novell, is given credit from the business community for coining the term ‘coopetition’. With that, I extend my apologies to Darrell Waltrip. Simply put, coopetition is the blend of cooperation and competition among rival firms. Reportedly, large firms such as Bell Atlantic, Merck, and Procter and Gamble to name a few, have all leveraged the benefits of coopetition. In multinational entities (MNEs), coopetition focuses on an interaction “between two or more geographically dispersed subunits”. Truthfully, the elements of cooperation and competition have always co-existed as entities have struggled to attain the limited resources needed to succeed. In collaboration, MNEs share knowledge while still maintaining their individual competitive advantage. MNEs compete on the basis of resource and market expansion. They cooperate on the basis of technological, operational, organizational, and financial acumen. Finding the proper blend will allow all parties involved to expand their economies of scope.

                As one can imagine, there are a number of hurdles that come when “cats and dogs” try to play together. One significant hurdle to coopetition amongst MNEs is navigating the complex political landscapes that exist within each of the entities arenas of operation. In this context, political hurdles can arise from governmental, societal, or economical issues. These hurdles force business executives and managers to intimately educate themselves on the situation at hand, all the while fostering proper intra-firm rivalries and keeping the firm’s own interests and principles in focus.

Coopetition: Ford wishing GM Happy 100th Birthday!!! source: http://www.scottmonty.com/



                In every scenario, the elements of cooperation and competition are neither fixed nor predetermined. Pressure from competition and product similarity will bolster competition and cooperation. In order for the two to work together it is up to the leaders of all parties involved to nourish the proper environment. In the modern business world, coopetition is here to stay. It is a significant element that rolls up into the concept of globalization. It’s a new spin on a series of old ideas. Those who keep their eyes wide open and recognize the opportunities will benefit the most.

Resources:

Brandenberger, Adam and Barry J. Nalebuff. “What is Co-opetition?” (accessed January 22, 2012). http://mayet.som.yale.edu/coopetition/answers.html

Dorrenbacher, Christoph. “Intra-firm Competition in Multinational Corporations: Towards a Political Framework” Manchester, UK, July 2007.

Luo, Yadong. “Toward Coopetition with a Multinational Enterprise: A Perspective From Foreign Subsidiaries” Journal of World Business. (Elsevier: Coral Gables, FL) 2005.

Monty, Scott. “Social Media Encourages Co-opetition” The Social Media Marketing Blog. September 16, 2008 (accessed January 22, 2012) http://www.scottmonty.com/2008/09/social-media-encourages-co-opetition.html

A Note on Marketing Strategy

I wanted to utilize this journal post to summarize some key points from the Harvard Business School “Note on Marketing Strategy” I believe some of these points will serve as the basis for decision making for the marketing simulation that the class is commencing on week three.

I.                    Peter Drucker once wrote that any business enterprise has only two basic functions

a.       Marketing

b.      Innovation

II.                  Marketing

a.       The process by which a firm creates value for its chosen customers

                                                               i.      Value is created by meeting customer needs

                                                             ii.      A firms needs to define itself not by the product it sells, but by the customer benefit provided

III.                Marketing strategy involves two major activities

a.       Selecting a target market

b.      Specifying a plan

IV.                Five major areas of analysis that underlie marketing decision making

a.       Customer needs – Where strategy development begins

b.      Company skills

c.       Competition

d.      Collaborators

e.      Context

V.                  Markets can be segmented in the following ways

a.       Demographics (e.g., income, gender, occupation)

b.      Geographic (e.g., nation, region)

c.       Lifestyle (e.g., hedonistic v. value oriented)

VI.                The customer dictates “the rules of the game”

a.       Compare your strengths and weaknesses relative to your competition

b.      Align the segment goals with your firm’s goals

c.       Know those with whom you can collaborate to market successfully

d.      The likely financial returns

VII.              Target selection and Positioning summarized

a.       “The advantage of solving the positioning problem is that it enables the company to solve the marketing mix problem”

b.      Marketing Mix

                                                               i.      Merchandising – Product Planning

                                                             ii.      Pricing

                                                            iii.      Branding

                                                           iv.      Channels of distribution

                                                             v.      Personal selling

                                                           vi.      Advertising

                                                          vii.      Promotions

                                                        viii.      Packaging

                                                           ix.      Display

                                                             x.      Service

                                                           xi.      Physical Handling

                                                          xii.      Fact-finding and analysis (or Market Research)

VIII.            The Four “Ps” that set the marketing mix

a.       Product

                                                               i.      Product definition

                                                             ii.      Product line planning decisions

                                                            iii.      Individual item decision

                                                           iv.      The new product development process

1.       Opportunity

2.       Design

3.       Testing

4.       Product integration

5.       Life cycle management

b.      Place: Marketing Channels

                                                               i.      “Generic” channel functions

1.       Product information

2.       Product customization

3.       Product quality assurance

4.       Lot size

5.       Product assortment

6.       Availability

7.       After-sale service

8.       Logistics

                                                             ii.      Channel design

1.       Channel length

a.       Account concentration

b.      Degree of control and performance of direct customer contact.

                                                            iii.      Channel management

c.       Promotion: Marketing communications

                                                               i.      Market – To whom?

                                                             ii.      Mission – What is the objective?

                                                            iii.      Message – What are the specific points

                                                           iv.      Media – Where will the message be conveyed

                                                             v.      Money – How much will be spent?

                                                           vi.      Advertising

1.       Advertising is effective

a.       Creating awareness of a new product

2.                       features of the product

a.       Suggestions

b.      Distinguishing the product from its competitors

c.       Directing buyers to the point-ot-purchase

                                                                                                                                       i.      Creating or enhancing a brand image

3.       Advertising is limited in its ability to close the sale and make a transaction happen

4.       Three major types of sales promotions

a.       Consumer promotions (manufacturer to end consumer)

b.      Trade promotions (trade to the end consumer)

c.       Retail promotions (trade to end consumer)

d.      Pricing

                                                               i.      Perceived value represents the maximum price which a customer is willing to pay – this should be the primary guide to pricing the product.

                                                             ii.      Pricing basis and objective

                                                            iii.      Price customization

                                                           iv.      Price leadership

e.      Analysis underlying marketing strategy formulation

                                                               i.      Recall the “Five Cs”

                                                             ii.      Identify five major roles in buying situations

Resource:

Dolan, Robert J. “Note on Marketing Strategy” Harvard Business School. November 1, 2000.