Marketing Mix: Are the 4 P's Dead?

“When building a marketing program to fit the needs of his firm, the marketing manager has to weigh the behavioral forces and then juggle marketing elements in his mix with a keen eye on the resources with which he has to work." (Borden, N. 1964 pg 365).

The underlying idea in the various existing marketing mix theories is that variables must be combined and juggled in a way that both organizational and consumer objectives are met. Different products and target markets demand different marketing mix strategies, which leads to a question: If marketing mix strategies should not be standardized, then why should marketeers attempt to standardize the ingredients used in these marketing mix frameworks? We’ll get back to this question later on in this post, but first let´s go over the "marketing for dummies" textbook basics.

The 4 P's

Jerome Macarthy (1960) was the first to suggest that marketeers have essentially four variables to use and mix when crafting a marketing strategy and defining the parameters of a marketing plan. These 4 variables are commonly referred to as the 4 P’s:

Price – Pricing strategies, financial and/or commercial discount policies, seasonal pricing, bundling, price discrimination, etc.;
Promotion – “Push” vs. “Pull” style promotion, advertising, personal selling, public relations & publicity, marketing communication budgets, etc.;
Product – Brand name, product functions, packaging characteristics, accessories/services, etc.;
Place (Distribution) – Distribution channels, market coverage, inventory management, transportation, etc..

Criticisms / Theory Extensions & Deviations

All sorts of criticisms and theory extensions and deviations began pouring in, practically from the moment in which the 4 P’s marketing mix framework was developed.

Some theorists argue that the framework could be improved by increasing the number of P’s used in the mix. Borden (1964) developed a model with twelve decision variables (product planning, pricing, branding, channels of distribution, personal selling, advertising, promotions, packaging, display, servicing, physical handling, and fact finding). Bernard Booms and Mary Bitner (1981) built a model consisting of seven P's: In addition to product, price, promotion, and place, they included people (recognizing the importance of the human being in the whole marketing process), physical evidence (reflecting the physical surroundings associated with a service encounter or retail location), and process (reflecting the fact that services, unlike physical products, are experienced as a process at the time they are purchased).

Robert Lauterborn (1990) argued that the 4 P’s were too product (hence seller) oriented so he developed a more “consumer oriented” version of the 4 P’s, simply by converting Product into "Customer solution", Price into "Cost to the customer", Place into "Convenience", and Promotion into "Communication". This marketing mix structure is commonly referred to as the 4 C’s.

Re-engineering theorists, for example, believe that the 4 P’s marketing mix structure "re-enforces functional divisions within a company that lead to inefficiencies".

Peter Doyle (2000) claims the 4 P’s approach leads to unprofitable decisions, due to it not being grounded on the increasing shareholder value (note, on the other hand, that he believes decisions should not be based exclusively on financial issues). Doyle believes that developing marketing based objectives, while ignoring profitability, led to the occurrence of the “dot-com” and Japanese Economy collapses. He argues that a Net Present Value approach that maximizes shareholder value provides a "rational framework" for managing the marketing mix.

Other theorists claim the 4 P’s are too strongly oriented towards consumer markets and are not appropriate for industrial product marketing. Others claim they are not appropriate for the marketing of services.

Are the 4 P's Dead?

Basically, the list of criticisms, and framework extensions and deviations, goes on and on. Like any other “standardized” concept model, the 4 P’s have obvious limitations and adapt more adequately to some situations than to others. However, with the necessary adjustments (depending on the type of good or service that is being marketed), I believe the 4 P's are a good starting point, when executing a (hopefully successful) marketing plan. And the fact is the 4 P’s continue to be the most commonly used framework, which most modern marketing textbooks are based on. So, apparently, the answer to the post title is "no". The 4 P's are still alive.