Vivat Academia. Revista de Comunicación (2024).
ISSN: 1575-2844
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE MARKETING MIX: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE BETWEEN 1960 AND 2023
Caracterización del marketing mix: una revisión sistemática de la literatura académica entre 1960 y 2023
Edison Albeiro Patiño Mazo[1]: University Institution Salazar y Herrera. Colombia.
edison.patino@salazaryherrera.edu.co
edison-pm@hotmail.com
How to cite the article:
Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. (2024). Characterization of the marketing mix: A systematic review of the academic literature between 1960 and 2023 [Caracterización del Marketing Mix: una revisión sistemática de la literatura académica entre 1960 y 2023]. Vivat Academia, 157, 1-17. http://doi.org/10.15178/va.2024.157.e1519
ABSTRACT
Keywords: marketing, marketing mix, marketing theories, marketing approaches, marketing mix characterization.
RESUMEN
Introducción: La evolución de la mezcla de marketing desde la década de 1960 hasta 2023 ha sido un proceso complejo, reflejando la adaptabilidad del marketing a los cambios empresariales y tecnológicos. Esta revisión sistemática aborda cinco etapas clave, desde la configuración inicial de las 4 P hasta la introducción de conceptos como Marketing 3.0 y 4.0, evidenciando cambios significativos en el paradigma del marketing. Metodología: La revisión se basa en un análisis sistemático de la literatura académica y profesional relacionada con la evolución de la mezcla de marketing. Se identificaron y analizaron cinco etapas clave, destacando modelos alternativos como las 4 C de Rousey y Morganosky y las 4Es de Konhäusner, que desafían la perspectiva tradicional de las 4 P. Resultados: A lo largo de las etapas analizadas, se observa una persistente orientación hacia el cliente y la adaptabilidad a tecnologías emergentes. Se destaca la propuesta del Marketing 5.0, que enfatiza tecnologías avanzadas y desafíos contemporáneos, aunque se reconoce que la esencia de la mezcla de marketing permanece a lo largo del tiempo. Discusión y Conclusiones: La revisión sugiere una necesidad continua de redefinir la mezcla de marketing para abordar los desafíos de una industria en constante cambio. Se invita a futuras investigaciones para explorar más a fondo estos cambios y adaptarse a contextos cambiantes de sociedad y tecnología, lo que podría proporcionar una comprensión más completa de la evolución del marketing y su aplicación en un mundo en constante transformación.
Palabras clave: marketing, mezcla de marketing, teorías de marketing, enfoques de marketing, caracterización mezcla de marketing.
1. INTRODUCTION
This literature review article transcends temporality to provide a broad understanding of the evolution of the marketing mix based on a characterization conducted between 1960 and 2023. The systematic literature review methodology provides a comprehensive look at the theories that have shaped the marketing discipline. Through five temporal analyses, conceptual transformations and emerging trends are explored, highlighting the relevance of this study for the academic community and industry. The characterization derived from this review not only offers historical insight, but also provides valuable perceptions of the changing perspective of the marketing mix for marketers, business strategists, and scholars.
2. OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this article is to characterize the existing theories on the marketing mix concept, based on a systematic review of scientific literature published in different time periods between 1960 and 2023.
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the objective proposed in this document, a bibliographic documentary research methodology was used based on the proposal of Boothe et al. (2008). Its purpose lies in the exploration of textual content from books and academic journals that present findings related to the object of study, which facilitates the understanding of the concepts and contexts to be addressed. This methodology was developed as follows:
3.1. Selection of bibliographic sources
Bibliographic sources relevant to the study were identified and selected. These sources include books, academic articles, reports and other documents related to the marketing mix and the postulates of different authors over time. Their selection was organized by time phases.
3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to determine which bibliographic sources would be considered in the research. The sources had to be related to the theories of the marketing mix and the postulates of the different authors over time. Those sources that were not directly related to the topic of study, such as business development, sales, administration, among others, were excluded.
3.3. Databases consulted
Relevant academic databases and digital libraries, such as PubMed, Google Scholar and institutional databases were searched. These sources provided access to a wide range of academic literature related to marketing and its theories.
3.4. Keywords used in the search.
Specific keywords were used in the searches to effectively identify relevant sources. Keywords used included "marketing mix", "marketing theories", "marketing evolution", "marketing mix", among others.
3.5. Literature selection criteria.
Rigorous selection criteria were applied to determine the relevance and quality of the sources. Factors such as the authority of the author, the timeliness of the publication and the relationship with the topic of study were considered.
3.6. Categorization and organization of concepts
The identified concepts were categorized and organized in a systematic way to understand the evolution of marketing mix theories in response to social dynamics.
3.7. Critical analysis and synthesis
A critical analysis of the concepts and findings extracted from the bibliographic sources was carried out. This made it possible to identify trends, significant changes and emerging approaches in marketing mix theories.
This bibliographic documentary research methodology allowed a systematic and rigorous approach to the exploration of key textual content, the identification of relevant concepts, and the construction of an article that analyzes the evolution of marketing mix theories in the context of social dynamics.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The changes in the way of approaching the relationship between brands and their audiences has changed over time in close harmony with the media evolution, since media has a considerable impact on this function of social and business relationship, as it allows the dynamic connection between the different actors. The following is a bibliographic review of the most representative models that can be found in academic-scientific and commercial literature, in order to identify arguments and formulations that illustrate in a general way the different postulates regarding the configuration of the marketing mix. This review is divided into five sections or stages to improve the visualization and understanding of the concepts:
4.1. Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 1 (1960 – 1989)
The evolution of the marketing mix over the decades has been a testament to the continuous adaptation of marketing strategies to changing market dynamics and growing consumer demands. This first stage of characterization, from 1960 to 1989, saw the genesis of concepts that laid the foundation for a deeper understanding of the marketing mix and its practical application.
During this period, influential authors such as Jerome McCarthy, Booms and Bitner, Kenichi Ohmae and Philip Kotler contributed crucial ideas that contributed to the expansion and enrichment of marketing mix theory. Each of them presented compelling arguments and innovative postulates that expanded the traditional "4Ps" (Price, Promotion, Place and Product) perspective into a more holistic view of marketing.
The following table presents the arguments and postulates of these authors, who stood out for their ability to capture the essence of the marketing mix in their time and lay the foundations for a deeper understanding and more effective application of these strategies. Their contributions have endured over time and continue to be fundamental in the world of modern marketing.
Table 1
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 1 (1960 – 1989).
|
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 1 (1960 – 1989) |
||
|
Authors |
Arguments |
Postulates |
|
It establishes that success in marketing is based on the proper management and combination of the four variables of the marketing mix, to create an effective marketing strategy that satisfies the needs and desires of customers, thus achieving a competitive advantage in the market.
|
|
|
|
Booms and Bitner (1981) |
The differential characteristic of services understood as products is recognized. They raise the importance of the environment (physical evidence) as a determining factor that influences the perception of consumers regarding their ultimate satisfaction. In addition, the factors related to the Process and its Participants are added as determining elements in the quality experience.
|
|
|
Ohmae (1982) |
The marketing strategy is defined on the basis of three interconnected components for the identification of common and differential factors that will give rise to the value proposition. |
|
|
Kotler (1984) |
The strategy must incorporate an analysis of external and uncontrollable environmental factors.. |
|
Source: Elaborated by the author.
4.2. Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 2 (1990 - 1999)
The evolution of the marketing mix is a process that reflects the constant adaptation of the marketing field to changing market demands and dynamics. In the second stage of characterization, spanning from 1990 to 1999, the world witnessed a significant shift in the way marketers conceived and implemented marketing mix strategies.
During this era, a number of influential authors, such as Robins, Rozenberg and Czepiel, Doyle, Grönroos, Gummesson, Vignalli and Davies, Rousey and Morganosky, Turnbull et al., Bennett, Mosley-Matchett, Peattie, Goldsmith and Yudelson, presented arguments and postulates that transformed the way the marketing mix was understood. These authors contributed to expand the traditional vision of the "4Ps" (Price, Promotion, Place and Product) towards a more holistic and relationship-oriented approach with customers.
The following table presents the arguments and postulates of these authors, who played a crucial role in redefining the marketing mix at this stage. Their contributions were a milestone in the history of marketing, broadening the perspective and adapting strategies to a constantly evolving business environment.
Table 2
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 2 (1990 – 1999).
|
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 2 (1990 – 1999) |
||
|
Authors |
Arguments |
Postulates |
|
Robins, (1991) |
Marketing planning is approached with external competitive aspects in mind.
|
● Client. ● Competitors. ● Capacities. ● Corporation. |
|
Sustainability depends on the retention of current customers, as well as the acquisition of new ones. Planning must be differentiated for each customer. |
● Place. ● Promotion. ● Product. ● Price. ● Extra products. ● Booster promotions. ● Commercial team connections. ● Specific distribution. ● After-sale communication. |
|
|
Doyle (1994) |
It takes up the traditional marketing mix proposal, but suggests that it can be enhanced by including two extra elements. |
● Place. ● Promotion. ● Product. ● Price. ● Services. ● Staff. |
|
Grönroos (1994) |
It moves from transactional marketing to relationship marketing. It proposes planning with people in mind. |
● Internal relations . ● Side relationships. ● Relations with providers. ● Relations with clients. |
|
Gummesson (1994; 1997) |
The role of marketing is transformed to give greater importance to relationships and their contribution to integration and interaction in market dynamics. |
There are 30 relational parameters to be considered for marketing planning. |
|
A change of observation from internal to external and from tactical to strategic is proposed to give greater scope and transcendence of impact to marketing planning. |
MIXMAP as a technique for a more assertive analysis of the items that make up the traditional marketing mix, thus promoting the integration between strategy and its different tactics through an extended marketing mix. |
|
|
Rousey and Morganosky (1996) |
Empirical evidence suggests that retail formats, rather than individual elements of the marketing mix, are the building blocks of customer value. |
Retailers should replace the 4 Ps with Lauterborn's 4 Cs: ● Needs and desires. ● Convenience (valuation). ● Cost (beyond financial). ● Comunication (omnidirectional). |
|
Turnbull et al., (1996) |
More than 20 years of research by the International Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP) indicates that success in Business to Business Marketing is based on the degree and quality of interdependence between companies. |
The competivviveness advantages of the companies dedicated to marketing B2B will depend on: ● Interaction with customers. ● Interaction strategies. ● Evolution of the organization. ● Improvements in customer portfolios. ● Personal contacts between organizations. ● Network mobilization. |
|
Bennett (1997) |
Customers relate in different ways to those proposed by the traditional marketing mix and their interest is affected by other variables that must be considered. |
● Value ● Viability ● Variety ● Volume. ● Virtue. |
|
Mosley- Matchett (1997) |
An approach to online marketing from a proposal based on a successful presence on the Internet. Experiences are based on the Web: 5 W's marketing mix. |
● Who: Target audience/market. ● What: Content. ● When: Timing and updating. ● Where: Findability. ● Why: Unique selling proposition. |
|
Peattie (1997)
|
The competitive advantage of companies dedicated to B2B marketing will depend on It proposes to resignify the traditional 4Ps to give it a broader approach that is applicable to B2B contexts. |
● Product: co-design and production. ● Price: more transparency. ● Place: direct contact with customers. ● Promotion: more customer control, interaction. |
|
Goldsmith (1999) |
Personalization as part of the value proposition becomes the central axis for the development of marketing planning. To this end, the contribution of services and their consumption experiences to the marketing of products is recognized. |
● Place. ● Promotion. ● Product. ● Price. ● Personalization. ● Personalization. ● Physical assets. ● Procedures. |
|
Yudelson, (1999) |
The traditional mix is rethought under a new approach, but preserving the essence of the same items. A new flexible mix is proposed, preserving the simplicity of the previous configuration, which is still in force. |
Exchange activities: ● Product performance. ● Price penalty. ● Promotion perceptions. ● Place process. |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
4.3. Characterization of the marketing mix - Stage 3 (2000 - 2009)
The third stage of marketing mix characterization, spanning from 2000 to 2009, saw a significant transformation in the way marketers approached strategies in a world increasingly influenced by technology and digitization. During this period, a number of influential authors put forward arguments and postulates that reflected the need to adapt the traditional marketing mix to changing market dynamics.
In this table, the arguments and postulates of these key authors, who contributed to the redefinition of the marketing mix in the digital era, are presented. Their ideas range from personalization and online communication to the importance of transmedia storytelling and customer participation in value creation. This stage represents a period of fundamental adaptation in the marketing world, where technology and networking played a central role in transforming traditional strategies.
Table 3
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 3 (2000 – 2009).
|
Characterization of the marketing mix - Stage 3 (2000 – 2009) |
||
|
Authors |
Argument |
Postulates |
|
English (2000) |
The traditional marketing mix lacks effective applicability for service companies based on human relationships. |
● Relevance. ● Response. ● Relationships. ● Results. |
|
Kambil and Nunes (2000)
|
E-commerce poses challenges that are difficult to solve or address from the traditional marketing mix. |
Online marketing mix: ● Community building. ● Original event programming. ● Convenience. ● Connectivity. |
|
Lawrence et al. (2000) |
A hybrid approach that raises the understanding of the traditional marketing mix with two new items, as well as a new package of five elements to consider. |
● Place. ● Promotion. ● Product. ● Price. ● People. ● Packaging. ● Paradox. ● Perspective. ● Paradigm. ● Persuasion. ● Passion. |
|
Patterson and Ward (2000) |
The traditional marketing mix presents an offensive approach, which prioritizes function and result; while the new business dynamics seek a sustainable approach based on the management of quality relationships with internal audiences and current customers. |
Transformation of the four classic items into new perspectives that make up the "new C's" of marketing: ● Customization ● Communication. ● Clairvoyance. ● Collaboration. |
|
Wang et al. (2000) |
His proposal is based on the relationship marketing proposed by Grönroos (1996), and is defined mainly by the distinction of three elements that are fundamental for Internet-dependent contexts. |
● Database. ● Interaction. ● Network. |
|
Allen and Fjermestad (2001)
|
The foundation of traditional marketing is accepted as valid for digital or Internet-based environments, but with changes that allow a better understanding of each concept. |
● Product: constant innovation. ● Place: scenarios and transcendence. ● Price: competitiveness. ● Promotion: assertiveness. |
|
Bhatt and Emdad (2001) |
The original structure of traditional marketing is taken up again, and each aspect is explored in depth to better support the challenges of digital environments.
|
● Product: Personalization and experience. ● Place: Changing and flexible environments. ● Price: Transparency and value relationship. ● Promotion: Memorable experiences. |
|
Healy et al. (2001) |
Relationship marketing is proposed as a new approach for contemporary environments.
|
Relationship marketing trilogy: ● Relationships. ● Neo-Relational Marketing. ● Networking. |
|
Schultz (2001) |
Customer (demand) rather than product (supply) oriented markets. |
Marketing triad: ● Marketer. ● Employee. ● Customer. |
|
Constantinide (2002)
|
The marketing mix is rethought under a strategic online presence approach. |
Transformation of the classic model to an online approach: ● Scope: Strategic projection. ● Site: Tactical operability. ● Synergy: Management. ● System: Technological appropriation. |
|
Kotler (2002) |
Marketing 1.0 - Product orientation: Focus on production and product features. Focus on production efficiency. Focus on customer satisfaction. |
The product is at the center of marketing. The goal is to maximize efficiency and quality. Satisfying customer needs is key. |
|
Jenkins (2006) |
Presents and coins the concept of transmedia which could integrate some marketing dynamics. This model proposes a relationship narrative that travels in multiple formats, media and platforms, to conceive immersive narrative universes that allow the participation of audiences in a more organic way according to the experiences that are lived both offline and online. |
Integrated offline and online media. No structure is proposed to cover the different marketing scenarios, focusing only on communication and leaving out aspects such as the product or service itself. |
|
Mootee (2007). |
It presents a focus somewhat similar to the 4Cs model, where a more humanized understanding of the strategy is proposed, guiding the analysis from the perspective of contemporary relationships, which largely take advantage of digital media to generate value. |
It presents a different way of understanding market dynamics and of using a model to organize strategic planning in a way that does not neglect contextual changes in understanding communication and marketing. Personalization Participation Peer to Peer Predictive Modeling. |
|
Chaffey et al. (2009) |
It is based on the concept of traditional marketing mix, but a combination of six critical factors is proposed to respond to the opportunities offered by the Internet. |
● Brand displacement. ● Potential audience ● Marketing support ● Marketing integration ● Organizational structure ● Strategic alliances ● Budget and associated costs. |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
4.4. Characterization of the marketing mix - Stage 4 (2010 - 2019)
The fourth stage of marketing mix characterization, spanning from 2010 to 2019, saw a radical change in the way marketing strategies were conceived and implemented. During this period, influential authors presented arguments and postulates that reflected the need to adapt to an increasingly digital and customer-oriented world.
In this table, the arguments and postulates of these key authors are presented, who contributed to the redefinition of the marketing mix in the digital and value-centered era. From marketing 2.0, which emphasizes customer satisfaction and personalized communication, to marketing 4.0, which advocates the integration of digital technologies and data-driven personalization, this stage represents a profound transformation in the way companies relate to their customers and seek to create value.
The introduction of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) marked a fundamental shift in the way companies approach marketing, leading them to adopt omnichannel and customer experience-centered strategies. This stage was also characterized by a focus on values and business purpose, leading to emotional connection with customers and collaboration in value co-creation. Adapting to this new environment became an imperative for organizations wishing to remain relevant in the ever-evolving marketplace.
Table 4
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 4 (2010 – 2019).
|
Characterization of the marketing mix - Stage 4 (2010 – 2019) |
||
|
Authors |
Argument |
Postulates |
|
Kotler (2010) |
Marketing 2.0 - Customer orientation: Focus on customer satisfaction through segmentation. Market segmentation to adapt products. Customer-centered communication.. |
The customer is the main focus. Segmentation allows addressing diverse needs. Communication must be relevant and personalized. |
|
Kotler and Kartajaya (2010) |
Marketing 3.0 - Value orientation: Focus on values and purpose beyond profit. Connecting emotionally with customers. Collaborative marketing and value co-creation. |
Values and purpose as business drivers. Emotional connection with customers is sought. Collaboration with customers to co-create value.. |
|
A new marketing mix model is needed to address the limitations of existing models. |
Changes in attitudes have led to the exploration of new theoretical approaches, such as the 4Cs, 4Ss and 3Vs. However, these models have limitations. There is a need to study the marketing process through the "4 Values Model": Valued Customers Value for Customers Value for Society Value for the Marketer. |
|
|
Kotler et al. (2016) |
Marketing 4.0 - Technology-driven: integration of digital technologies and data. Focus on omni-channel and customer experience. Data-driven marketing and personalization. |
Use of emerging technologies such as AI and IoT. Consistent customer experience across multiple channels. Use of data to personalize the interaction. |
|
Vargo and Lusch (2016) |
In their work on Service-Dominant Logic (SDL), they propose an alternative approach to the traditional Marketing mix. SDL challenges the goods-centric perspective and argues that value is co-created through the interaction between suppliers and consumers over time. |
Instead of the 4 P's of the Marketing mix (Product, Price, Place, Promotion), SDL emphasizes collaboration, experience and service as fundamental elements for value creation. The proposal suggests a shift towards a more relationship-oriented approach and continuous value co-creation between the parties involved. |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
4.5. Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 5 (2020 – 2023)
The fifth stage of marketing mix characterization covers only a short period from 2020 to 2023. During this period, influential authors have presented some arguments and postulates that reflect the need to adapt to a world in constant transformation, driven by technological advances, socio-economic changes and global environmental concerns.
In this table, we will present the arguments and postulates of these key authors, who have so far contributed to the redefinition of the marketing mix in this digital and client-centered era. From research on the influence of marketing 4.0 on customer satisfaction and purchase intent to the proposal of a new approach for Crowdfunding businesses using the 4Es instead of the 4Ps, this stage represents a continuous adaptation to an ever-changing environment.
In addition, a framework focused on the customer perspective and the key elements of services marketing for the Base of the Pyramid (BoP) markets is presented, which is quite interesting in a financial crisis environment. A new model of sustainability marketing, the "new 3Ps of sustainability marketing", is also presented.
This stage also highlights the importance of educating consumers about sustainability and discusses how the marketing mix has adapted in response to global factors. It highlights that the marketing mix is constantly evolving and that key dimensions (who, what, how, where) define its implementation. The coexistence of automation and the human touch, as well as local adaptation and global uniformity, are opposing trends that have been observed in this evolution.
It is worth noting that Kotler, one of the main representatives of modern marketing, states that the new marketing 5.0 strategy is still based on the traditional concepts of the marketing mix, but with adjustments of interpretation and application to face the new business challenges related to new technologies and the human factor.
Table 5
Characterization of the marketing mix – Stage 5 (2020 – 2023).
|
Characterization of the marketing mix - Stage 5 (2020 – 2023) |
||
|
Authors |
Argument |
Postulates |
|
Dash et al. (2021) |
They examine the relationships between marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction and purchase intent. They suggest that there are important contextual elements that can affect the influence of the four constructs on customer satisfaction and purchase intentions. Understanding digital environments is important for the proper leveraging of marketing 4.0. |
A conceptual model is presented that shows the relationships between four elements of marketing 4.0 and two additional ones:
|
|
González-Ferriz (2021) |
Marketing 5.0 proposes an integration of new approaches in relation to technological advances, mainly ICT and social relationships. However, it is argued that a new configuration of the marketing mix is not necessary; it is proposed to work on what has been built, but bearing in mind the new challenges of the industry. |
It is based on the traditional mix of Place, Price, Promotion and Point of Sale, but considering the challenges of relationship marketing, social responsibility and digital marketing. |
|
Konhäusner et al. (2021) |
A change from the classic 4Ps marketing mix to the 4Es is proposed for Crowdfunding businesses. Crowdfunding: method of financing that involves obtaining small contributions from many people and organizations to support projects. There are different models, including donation, investment, reward and loan, each with its own approach and benefits. |
It is presented as an alternative to the traditional 4Ps model (product, price, promotion and place). The 4Es refer to Experience, Everywhere, Exchange and Evangelism, and focus more on interaction and engagement with customers in the digital age. |
|
Kotler et al. (2021) |
"Marketing 5.0" is presented as a comprehensive approach to address the challenges and complexities of contemporary marketing, such as artificial intelligence, agile marketing, emerging technologies, transmedia storytelling, flexible services, Internet of Things, blockchain, virtual reality, and corporate activism, among others. |
The marketing mix has not changed, the change is evident in the way it is approached from an integrative perspective that responds to more fun challenges than before. It is based on the traditional marketing mix: Place, Price, Promotion and Point of Sale. |
|
Purohit et al. (2021). |
Review of the marketing mix for Base of the Pyramid (BoP) markets and propose a new framework, focusing on the customer perspective and the key elements of service marketing. |
The BoP needs a customized approach to the elements of the marketing mix, including personalization, product, place, service delivery process and price. |
|
Fuxman et al. (2022). |
They present a model for sustainability marketing in the fashion industry that could be replicated to other industries. They emphasizes the importance of educating consumers about sustainability. |
New model of sustainability marketing in the fashion industry, called the "new 3Ps of sustainability marketing", which include Preservation (Environment), Public (Society) and Performance (Economy), in addition to the traditional 4Ps (Product, Price, Place and Promotion). |
|
Wichmann et al. (2022). |
Discusses the evolution of the marketing mix (MM) in response to technological advances, global socioeconomic and environmental changes. |
|
|
Yadav et al. (2023) |
They analyze the marketing mix concept in the context of the technological transformation of the last 20 years and propose a scenario of integration with the new immersive digital environments offered by Virtual Reality (VR). |
They propose a model based on Lauterborn's 4Cs: Consumer, Cost, Communication and Convenience where Virtual Reality (VR) is applied in all marketing channels to attract, communicate, sell and engage. |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
Marketing dynamics are constantly changing, just as society advances in the way it relates to each other. The authors and theories reviewed in this article present many changes in the conception and structure of the marketing mix, which is healthy evidence of an environment that evolves and does not remain static in the face of different realities. On the other hand, the evident difference between the authors and their postulates reveals the lack of scientific-academic consensus regarding the structure of the marketing mix.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The marketing mix, since its conception in the 1960s, has undergone a remarkable evolution up to the present day. This transformation is reflected in the theories proposed by various authors over different time periods. This systematic review of the scientific literature from 1960 to 2023 reveals clear trends that demonstrate the adaptability and responsiveness of marketing to changes in business and technological environments.
1960-1989: foundations and initial configuration In the first stage, authors such as McCharty (1964) laid the foundations by identifying the four key variables of the marketing mix: Price, Promotion, Place and Product. This initial configuration sought effective management to satisfy customer needs and gain competitive advantage.
1990-1999: transition to relationship marketing During the 1990s, the perspective evolved toward a relational approach. Authors such as Grönroos (1994) proposed a shift from transactional to relational marketing, where relationships with customers, suppliers and within the organization became fundamental. Rousey and Morganosky (1996) even suggested replacing the classic 4 P's with the 4 C's, Centered on Needs and Desires, Convenience, Cost and Omni-directional Communication.
2000-2009: digital integration and sustainability As the new millennium progressed, the need to adapt to digital environments and socioeconomic changes was recognized. Authors such as Kotler (2002) introduced the concept of Marketing 1.0, 2.0, and so on, highlighting the importance of technology and customer experience. New dimensions were explored in the mix, such as online integration and sustainable marketing (Fuxman et al., 2022).
2010-2019: technology, values and pervasive service The last decade evidenced the integration of digital technologies (Marketing 4.0) and a shift towards values and purpose (Marketing 3.0). Vargo and Lusch (2016) proposed the Service-Dominant Logic, challenging the traditional 4Ps perspective and emphasizing collaboration and expertise in value creation.
2020-2023: Towards Marketing 5.0 and new approaches In the last stage, Marketing 5.0 is presented as a comprehensive response to contemporary challenges, including artificial intelligence, agile marketing, transmedia storytelling, among others (Kotler et al., 2021). The proposal by Konhäusner et al. (2021) to change the 4Ps for the 4Es in Crowdfunding and the emphasis on personalization for the Base of the Pyramid (Purohit et al., 2021) demonstrate the flexibility and continuous adaptability.
Finally, this characterization and systematic review allows us to conclude that the marketing mix has gone through several phases, from its original configuration to the incorporation of emerging technologies and approaches focused on values and sustainability. The persistence of key elements such as the customer, personalization and adaptability to digital environments suggests a constant redefinition of the marketing mix to stay relevant.
As we move into the future, a landscape emerges where technology integration, value focus and attention to new challenges will be crucial. The scientific literature reviewed provides valuable guidance for marketers, highlighting the need to maintain a balance between tradition and innovation in shaping effective marketing mix strategies. This analysis invites future research to further explore the dynamic changes in marketing and adapt to the changing contexts of society and technology.
6. REFERENCES
Allen, E. y Fjermestad, J. (2001). E-commerce marketing strategies: An integrated framework and case analysis. Logistics Information Management, 14(1/2), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050110360106
Bennett, A. R. (1997). The five Vs - a buyer’s perspective of the marketing mix. Marketing Intelligence y Planning, 15(3), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509710165957
Bhatt, G. y Emdad, A. F. (2001). An Analysis of the Virtual Chain in Electronic Commerce. Logistics Information Management, 14(1/2), 78-85.
Booms, B. H. y Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing Strategies and Organization Structures for Service Firms. En Marketing of Services (pp. 47-51). American Marketing Association.
Boothe, D., Glass, G. y Kadzamira, E. (2008). Methodology for the analysis of qualitative data: Analysis of documentary evidence. In Qualitative Research Methods Series (Vol. 12). Sage Publications.
Chaffey, D., Mayer, R., Johnston, K. y Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2009). Internet Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice. Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Constantinides, E. (2002). From physical marketing to Web marketing: The Web-Marketing Mix. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2628-2638. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.994217
Dash, G., Kiefer, K. y Paul, J. (2021). Marketing-to-Millennials: Marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction, and purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 122, 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.016
Doyle, P. (1994). Marketing Management and Strategy. Prentice Hall.
English, J. (2000). The Four “P”s of Marketing are Dead. Marketing Health Services, 20(2), 20-23.
Fuxman, L., Mohr, I., Mahmoud, A. B. y Grigoriou, N. (2022). The new 3Ps of sustainability marketing: The case of fashion. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 31, 384-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.004
Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). The Personalized Marketplace: Beyond the 4Ps. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(4), 178-185.
González-Ferriz, F. (2021). El marketing 5.0 y su efecto en la estrategia empresarial del sector industrial en España. Redmarka. Revista de Marketing Aplicado, 25(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17979/redma.2021.25.1.7848
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing. Toward a paradigm shift in marketing. Management Decision, 32(2), 4-32.
Gummesson, E. (1994). Making Relationship Marketing Operational. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), 5-20.
Gummesson, E. (1997). Relationship Marketing as a Paradigm Shift: Some Conclusions From the 30R Approach. Management Decision, 35(4), 267-272.
Healy, M., Hastings, K., Brown, L. y Gardiner, M. (2001). The Old, The New and the Complicated - A Trilogy of Marketing Relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 182-193.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. University Press.
Kambil, A. y Nunes, P. (2000). Internet Marketing: Lessons from the Field, Research Note. Accenture Institute for Strategic Change. https://acortar.link/YfKdnY
Konhäusner, P., Shang, B. y Dabija, D. C. (2021). Application of the 4Es in Online Crowdfunding Platforms: A Comparative Perspective of Germany and China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020049
Kotler, P. (1984). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P. (2002). Marketing Management. Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. (2010). Marketing 2.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit. John Wiley & Sons.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H. y Setiawan, I. (2016). Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital. Wiley.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H. y Setiawan, I. (2021). Marketing 5.0: Technology for Humanity (Edición ilustrada). John Wiley y Sons.
Kotler, P. y Kartajaya, H. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit. Wiley.
Lawrence, E., Corbitt, B., Fisher, J. A., Lawrence, J. y Tidwell, A. (2000). Internet Commerce (2nd ed.). John Wiley y Sons Australia Ltd.
Londhe, D. B. (2014). Marketing Mix for Next Generation Marketing. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 335-340.
McCarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach (2nd Edition). Irwin.
Mootee, I. (2007, July 3). Web 2.0 and the Marketing new 4Ps. Idris Mootee official website. http://idr.is/wen-20-and-the/
Mosley-Matchett, J. D. (1997). Include the Internet in Marketing Mix. Marketing News, 31(25).
Ohmae, K. (1982). The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business. McGraw-Hill Inc.
Patterson, G. P. y Ward, T. (2000). Relationship Marketing and Management, Handbook Services Marketing and Management. Sage Publications Inc.
Peattie, K. (1997). The Marketing Mix in the Third Age of Computing. Marketing Intelligence y Planning, 15(3), 142-150.
Purohit, S., Paul, J. y Mishra, R. (2021). Rethinking the bottom of the pyramid: Towards a new marketing mix. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102275
Robins, F. (1991). Four Ps or Four Cs or Four Ps and Four Cs [Paper] MEG Conference.
Rousey, S. P. y Morganosky, M. A. (1996). Retail Format Change in US Markets. International Journal of Retail y Distribution Management, 24(3), 8-16.
Rozenberg, L. y Czepiel, J. (1992). A Marketing Approach to Consumer Retention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 59, 58-70.
Schultz, D. E. (2001). Marketers: Bid Farewell To Strategy Based on Old 4Ps. Marketing News, 35(2).
Turnbull P., Ford, D. y Cunningham, M. (1996). Interaction, Relationships, and Networks in Business Markets: An Evolving Perspective. Journal of Business y Industrial Marketing, 11(3/4), 44-62.
Vargo, S. L. y Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
Vignalli, C. y Davies, B. J. (1994). The Marketing Mix Redefined and Mapped - Introducing the MIXMAP Model. Management Decision, 32(8), 11-16.
Wang, F., Head, M. y Archer, N. (2000). A Relationship-Building Model for The Web Retail Marketplace. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 10(5), 374-384.
Wichmann, J. R. K., Uppal, A., Sharma, A. y Dekimpe, M. G. (2022). A global perspective on the marketing mix across time and space. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39, 502-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.001
Yadav, N., Sota, S. y Chaudhary, H. (2023). Aplicaciones de la realidad virtual en marketing (2000-2020): una revisión basada en el marketing mix de 4C y una futura agenda de investigación. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 18(2-3), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2023.129660
Yudelson, J. (1999). Adapting McCarthy’s Four P’s for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 60.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS, FUNDING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Author's contributions:
Conceptualization: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Methodology: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Formal analysis: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Data curation: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Drafting-Preparation of the original draft: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Drafting-Revision and Editing: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. Project administration de: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro. The author has read and accepted the published version of the manuscript: Patiño Mazo, Edison Albeiro.
Funding: This research did not receive external funding.
AUTHOR:
Edison Albeiro Patiño Mazo: Professional in Advertising and Master in Business Administration. Passionate about advertising and marketing planning with special interest in the creative industry.
Teaching experience with the Bolivarian Pontifical University, Advertising program; Polytechnic Gran Colombiano, Marketing and Advertising program; University Institution Salazar y Herrera, Marketing program and currently at the same institution, as Academic Coordinator for the Advertising program. High professional experience in Advertising and Marketing companies, where he has worked as a team member with managers of large and small companies in several economic sectors, mostly under the role of Commercial Executive and Account Planner (Strategic Planning Executive).
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7399-7524
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com.co/citations?user=U246PXcAAAAJ&hl=es