International Journal of Costume and Fashion

The Korean Society of Costume (한국복식학회)
권호 표지

A Study on Marketing Strategic Types and Performance in the Korea Apparel Firms

  • Published : 2005.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to empirically ascertain how the fitness between marketing strategy each firm chooses and environment facing each firm affects the performance of firms measured by the growth rate of market share and the growth rate of profit/sales ratio. In doing so, firms are divided into three groups. With regard to the marketing strategy, firms are classified into three groups based on marketing strategy type; prospector, analyzer, and defender. The main result of this study are as follows: First, responding firms are classified into prospector, analyzer, and defender following Miles & Snow's marketing strategy types. This classification is made using a self typing method and further confirmed by a factor analysis using a number of variables relating marketing objectives and marketing mix. Second, the results show that there are significant differences across marketing strategies in the performance measures of the growth rate of market share and profit/sales ratio. It seems, however, that there is no straight forward relationship between the marketing strategy and the performance measures. This strongly implies that the type of marketing strategy to be adopted by each firm should depend on the environment facing each firm. Third, the result indicates that the growth rate of market share tends to depend only on the marketing strategy type regardless of sufficiency and variation of environment, but profit/sales ratio tends to depend on the fitness between marketing strategy type and environment. It implies that a firm should adopt different marketing strategies for different environment characteristics, in order to enhance the efficiency of resources used reflected in the profit/sales ratio.

Keywords

References

  1. Morgan, R. E. & C. A. Strong (1998). Marketing orientation and dimensions of strategic orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12), pp. 1051-1073 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810243712
  2. Miles, R. E. & C. C. Snow (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process, McGraw-Hill, pp.48-66
  3. Ketchen, D. J., Jr., J. B. Thomas & C. C. Snow (1993). Organizations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 3(6), pp. 1278-1313
  4. Porter, M. R. (1990). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors, N.Y,. The free Press, pp. 34-42
  5. Miles, R. E. & C. C. Snow., (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process, McGraw-Hill pp. 48-66
  6. Dranove, D., H Peteraf & M. Shantey (1998). Do strategic groups exist? An economic framework for analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp. 1029-1044 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998110)19:11<1029::AID-SMJ992>3.0.CO;2-L
  7. Sheth, J. N. (1992). Emerging marketing strategies in a changing macro economic environment: A commentary. International Marketing Review, 9(1), pp. 57-63
  8. Cook, V. J., Jr (1983). Marketing strategy and differential advantage. Journal of Marketing, 47, Spring, pp. 6875
  9. Rao, V. R. & O. J. Sabavala (1981). inference of hierarchical choice processes from panel data.. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, March, pp. 85-96 https://doi.org/10.1086/208844
  10. Huber, J. & J. VcCann (1982). The inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, August, pp. 324-333 https://doi.org/10.2307/3151566
  11. Child. J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, pp. 1-22 https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101
  12. Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7(27), pp. 35-44 https://doi.org/10.2307/257246
  13. Harnermesh, R. G., M. J. Anderson, Jr., & J. E. Harris (1978). Strategies for low market share business. Harvard Business Review, 56, May-June, pp. 161-168
  14. Mckee, D. O,. P. R. Varadarajan & W. M. Pride (1989). Strategic adaptability and firm performance: A market-contingent perspective. Journal of Marketing, 53, July, pp. 21-35
  15. Venkatrarnan, N. & V. Ramanriant (1986). Measurement of nusiness performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), pp. 801-814 https://doi.org/10.2307/258398
  16. Cavusgil, S. T. & S. Zou (1994). Marketing strategyperformance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), pp. 1-21
  17. Okoraofo, S. & L. C. Russow (1993). Impact of marketing strategy on performance: Empirical evidence from a liberalized developing country. International Marketing Review, 10(1), pp. 4-18
  18. Slater, S. F. & J. C. Narver (1993). Product-market strategy and performance: An analysis of the miles and snow strategy type. European Journal of Marketing, 27(10), pp. 33-51