1.

INTRODUCTION

The business, and hence marketing, environment has changed dramatically in the last few
decades. In fact, it is becoming even more turbulent (Reilly, 2007). The business environment in
India has become tremendously competitive in almost all industry segments (Krishnan, 2009).
Competition has been growing in domestic and international markets and customers have
become more demanding and assertive. The decades have seen rapid advances in technology,
and government laws and policies have changed continuously to keep pace with the changing
environmental factors. Cravens (2000) argued that in various areas of business management like
management of customers, development of new products, or effective use of supplychain
management – marketing plays a key role. Superior value is delivered to the customers when
competitive advantage is obtained through application of concepts and processes provided by
marketing strategy. So, effective implementation of marketing strategy is very important to the
challenges of the market place today. (Cravens et al., 2000). Literature also suggests that
companies that compete effectively on time (speeding new products to market, manufacturing
just in time, responding promptly to customer complaints) tend to be good at other business
attributes. Some of those business attributes include assessment of customer requirements,
product quality consistency, and ability to exploit emerging markets, enter new businesses,
generate new ideas and incorporate them in innovations (Stalk et al., 1992). Intensive market
knowledge (good understanding of customers, competitors and the market 3 environment) is
considered to be one of the key approaches to low cost production and efficiency improvement
(Dodgson, 1989; Storey, 1994). According to Zairi (1994), the key elements of competitiveness
include the "voice of the customer through current and future demands and the voice of the
process through establishing the organizational capability to deliver customer wants". In order to
succeed in the market place of today, managers need to allocate resources in a prudent manner
and this can happen only when the right strategic choices are made. As the challenges of the
external environment are increasing, the managers are facing increasing uncertainties which can
be addressed only with the right kind of strategies for the organization. This view is consistent
with the views of Bettis and Hitt (1995), who argued that uncertain environments can only be
tackled with completely new thinking as well as completely new implementation tools. Also,
increasing competition will lead to deteriorating performance if proper strategies are not used

Page 1
(Mia et al, 1996). The success or failure of companies competing in a market is largely
dependent on strategy they evolve and implement.

The literature is full of references regarding comparisons between companies having strategy and
winning and companies that do not have strategy and fail. One of the major reasons attributed to
success or failure of companies is the presence or absence of a well formulated strategy [(B.
Nwielaghi Michael, E. Ogwo; 2013), (Wael Mohd, Subhi Idris, Raed A. Momani; 2013),
(Sherine Farouk Abdel Al, John D. McLellan; 2013), (Rapheephan Phonginwong, Phapruke
Ussahawanitchakit, Karun Pratoom; 2012), (Peter Gabrielsson, Mika Gabrielsson, Tomi Seppälä;
2012)]. Sometimes the failings of market leaders could be explained by what is known in
strategy as The Icarus Paradox. The principle is derived from the story of the mythological Greek
God, who became a 4 victim of his own success – because of his overconfidence in his own
power. Many companies, with early success, tend to believe that ‗more of the same‘ is the way
to future success. This often leads to failure. So, it is often said that the seeds of one‘s failure is
imbedded in today‘s success. Jaakkola (2010) observes that the effects of strategic marketing on
business performance are very relevant but has not been studied adequately. The authors chose
Austria, Finland and Germany – countries known for their excellence in Engineering – for their
study on the influence of four key strategic marketing concepts—market orientation, innovation
orientation, and two marketing capability categories (outside-in and inside-out capabilities)—on
company performance. They found that relationships between market orientation and outside-in
capabilities, and business performance are very weak, whereas that of inside-out capabilities and
innovation orientation are very strong. These results are justified when it is considered that the
countries are all ―engineering‖ countries. The results challenges widely assumed notion of
generality of the strategic marketing – performance relationship. It can be said that there is
considerable managerial relevance of country-specific results as well. The argument is that
superior performance among companies is a result of strategy they adopt. So, a strategy is an
action plan which leads to the fulfillment of the company‘s short term as well as long term
objectives. The overarching goal of organizations is to achieve superior performance compared
to its competitors. Competitive advantage is achieved when the strategies adopted by the
organization culminates in superior performance. So, the strategic management process in
organizations has a very high impact on achievement of superior performance. 5 So, even after a

Page 2
lot of research, it is difficult to prove and reach a conclusion on the effect of strategic marketing
on business performance (Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan, & Fahy, 2005; Matsuno, Mentzer, &
Özsomer, 2002; Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey, 1998). According to Bonoma (1988), the reason
for this is that the outcomes of strategic marketing are influenced by many internal and external
influences. This makes it very difficult to establish the cause-and-effect linkages. With this
background in mind, the study sets out to investigate the strength of the relationship between
strategy and performance of firms. In order to do this, it is imperative to verify whether
performance of firms is indeed different and that if these differences are correlated to the
different contextual factors.

On the other hand, it is essential to understand whether different strategies pursued by firms are
also dependent on their contextual factors. The investigative objective is to link the two – that is,
performances of firms differ and are correlated to the distinctive strategies undertaken by them.
Overall, the study aims to establish that distinct strategies are a result of different contextual
factors, and these distinct strategies result in different business performance of firms. Distinct
business strategies, however, may not influence performance directly. Business strategies
influence marketing strategy, which, in turn, impacts performance of firms. Marketing strategy is
manifested in organizations through marketing mix decisions, or as it is popularly known as the
4Ps – i.e. product, price, place, and promotion. So, strategy influences marketing mix decisions,
which in turn affects the performance of firms. Marketing strategies serve as the fundamental
underpinning of marketing plans designed to fill market needs and reach marketing objectives
(Marketing basics: Marketing strategy based on market needs, targets and goals). Quantifiable
and 6 measurable results prove the success of plans and objectives formulated by the
organization. More often than not, marketing strategies are developed as multi-year plans with a
long-term perspective. This is then broken down into tactical plans detailing specific result-
oriented actions to be accomplished in the current year. Time horizons covered by the marketing
plan vary by company as well as by industry. In order to devise a proper and effective marketing
strategy, scanning of internal as well as external environments are required. Careful formulation
of marketing mix along with analysis of performance constitutes a major part of the internal
environmental scanning. The organization also has to consider the constraints it as in the process
of implementing the chosen strategy. External environmental scanning includes a careful

Page 3
analysis of customer, competitor, and target market. The important concept of PEST (political,
economic, social, and technology) analysis also needs to be carried out. Finally, marketing
should be in line with the mission statement of the firm. Only when these steps are complete, can
the firm venture into formulation of the strategic plan. This is the step where goals are set,
alternatives developed, optimal marketing mix decided, and details of strategy implemented are
worked out. Like all other management processes, a system of moitoring and evaluating
performance and progress is then worked out. Contingency plans will also be devised at this
stage. Marketing budget and allocation of marketing mix across strategic goals is achieved
through Marketing Mix Modeling. Optimal allocation of marketing expenditures help nurture the
brand portfolio in an efficient manner in order to create value. Strategic models and tools are
often employed to evaluate and analyze marketing decisions. In the beginning, a broad
understanding of the strategic environment is 7 required. The 3C‘s tool may be employed for this
purpose. In order to convey the strategic positioning of the marketing mix of the organization,
Ansoff‘s Matrix is used more often. The 4Ps can then be utilized to form a marketing plan to
pursue a defined strategy.

The objective also is to develop alternative strategic options that go along with the 4P‘s.
Marketing Mix Modeling is often used for this purpose. Nowadays, 4P‘s has been expanded to 7
or 8P‘s. Many firms, especially in the FMCG and Consumer Durable category, are heavily
dependent on their marketing strategy for growth and overall performance. These companies are
more consumer-centric and build their business ethos centered around their Consumer, Shopper
& Retailer needs. Their Marketing departments concentrate on finding newer and better "Growth
Opportunities" in their categories by developing consumer insights. The Marketing team will
then develop strategies based on these growth opportunities. The opportunities may also be in the
form of development of new products or services, as well as changes made to the 7Ps.
Objectives: There are several objectives of this research. One of its objectives is to find out if
performance of firms is distinctive and whether the performance is based on contextual factors.
The study also tries to find out if contextual factors influence choice of strategy, as postulated by
Porter (1980), and whether these strategies influence marketing strategy, which is manifested
through marketing mix decisions. Finally, the study aims to ascertain whether strategy influences
performance, and whether marketing mix decisions also have an impact on performance, both –

Page 4
business as well as market. The research was conducted with particular reference to an emerging
market like India. Literature shows that irrespective of the origin of the 8 brand (domestic owned
or foreign owned), performance of firms are to a large extent dependent on the strength of the
strategy they conceptualize and implement. Different firms follow different strategies depending
on contextual factors like the size of the firm, the industry/market they are operating in, the
number of years of operation in India, distinctive ownership patterns (domestic or foreign
owned) and similar other factors. The research will try to ascertain whether there is a pattern of
strategy common to certain type of industries and whether this pattern has an impact on the
differential performance of these firms. Porter (1980) has postulated generic strategies followed
by firms across the world.

These strategies, in conjunction with the contextual factors, have the capabilities to influence and
impact firm-specific performance. It is also understood that the distinctive strategies may not
have a direct impact on performance of the firms. Rather, the strategies will impact the
marketing resources and capabilities of the firm which in turn will affect the business
performance at the firm level. The marketing strategy choices may be represented by the choice
of marketing mix, more popularly referred to as the 4P‘s of marketing. So, the research objective
may be enumerated as:

• The first objective is to analyze whether there are differences in performance of firms
depending on the industry they belong to across several industries in India. Also, analysis
will be done to see whether the performance of firms differ according to their contextual
factors, within the same industry. For example, analysis will be done to find out if
performance of firms in 9 personal care products industry differs on the basis of their
ownership, domestic (DOB) or foreign (FOB).
• The second objective is to understand the strategies followed by different firms. The focus
will be to understand the overall strategies of firms, instead of specific marketing strategies.
The responses will be analyzed to see whether there is any sort of pattern emerging in the
strategies being pursued by firms. It is possible that firms belonging to the same industry
pursue similar strategies; or, firms in the same industry follow different strategies depending

Page 5
 on their ownership or any other contextual factors. These findings will help us in connecting
performance with strategies and contextual factors.
• The third objective is to establish the correlation between contextual factors, strategy and
performance of firms. Here, strategy means Porter‘s generic strategies. Attempt will be made
to ascertain whether there is a correlation between any of the generic strategies being
followed by firms with distinct performances of firms. Here, both, business as well as
marketing performance will be measured. Since, marketing strategy is likely to influence
performance indirectly; marketing mix decisions will be used as the intermediate step of
strategy influencing performance. It will also be analyzed whether contextual factors
influence strategy, or business and marketing performance.

Page 6
 CHAPTER-1
Marketing Strategy & Performance

Marketing strategy could be defined in terms of three key constituents (i.e., customer,
competition, and corporation). Jain (1997) defines it ―as an endeavor by a corporation to
distinguish itself positively from its competitors, using its relative corporate strengths to better
satisfy customer needs, in a given environmental setting to realize marketing objectives”.
Objectives are based on market opportunity and the business unit mission. Long-term viability of
the firm is dependent on the firm and its capability to match needs of the customers. This
matching of needs must be better or stronger than that between the market competitors and the
customer. Otherwise, it will lead to situations which are detrimental to the interests of the
organization. A good marketing strategy should define its market clearly, match its own
strengths with the needs of the market, and then have superior performance compared to
competitors. According to Henry Mintzberg (1994), marketing strategy evolves over time and
tries to accommodate the changing reality of the external environment. Perspective changes over
time and strategy becomes evident in decisions and actions over time. Michael Porter (1996)
made a clean break from the past and postulated that strategy is about competitive position. It is
also about differentiation and addition of value in a manner and in a set of activities which sets
the firm completely apart from its competitors. In an article (Azizi et al, 2009), the relationship
between marketing strategy and the marketing capability of business performance was
investigated. Results show that 12 marketing strategy has no effect on the overall performance,
whereas it shows a positive effect on non-financial performance, and a negative effect on
financial performance. The results also indicate that marketing capability has positive effects on
all three investigated categories, that is, the overall performance, the nonfinancial performance
and the financial performance. In another paper (Slater et al, 2010), the authors investigates
whether overall firm performance is influenced by how well the marketing organization‘s
cultural orientation complements alternative business strategies. Results show that
highperforming businesses of one strategy type have a different cultural orientation than high-
performing businesses of the other strategy types. And, contrary to previous research, the results
of this study show that each of the cultural orientations may play a role in creating superior
performance. Research by Zahay and Griffin (2010) investigates the relationship between
marketing efforts and business growth. The study suggests that marketing efforts go a long way
in determining business achievements. This is an empirical survey of 209 business-to-business
Page 7
services firms. While marketing measures are related to segmentation and positioning strategies,
generic strategies have an indirect influence on business growth. Performance improves when
both, low cost as well as differentiation strategies are used. The study also suggests that
measurement of market performance is crucial, and both the generic strategies are important for
business growth. According to the authors, Porters generic strategies are applicable; however, the
metric used should be marketing measures rather than business growth measures. Gokus (2015)
asserts that company performance is mainly determined by the strategy a company follows. Firm
performance will be determined by the different levels of strategy the firm is operating on.
Prospectors and defenders are 13 the generic business strategies used to gauge their impact on
business performance. The effects of market orientation on them is also studied. The data is
collected from selected service industries which they have high level of customer interaction and
high level of labor of intensity. Results show that there is a negative relation between the
strategies and firm performance. Excessive use of one strategy will result in poor performance.
Results suggest that excessive level of one specific strategy is not used by highly market oriented
companies. Market oriented companies focus on creating value, internal coordination and cost
control. So, they do not have the tendency to overuse one particular strategy. In another study
(Singh, Sweta; 2015) investigates the impact of marketing expenditures on sales performance.
The industries considered were FMCG, consumer durables and textile industries. The results
showed that marketing expenditures had differential impact on the sales of the companies across
the three industries. The results of the study indicate that there is a significant positive impact of
packaging on the sales of the companies in the FMCG industry, which is similar to the findings
in prior literature, whereas the other three variables, i.e., distribution, advertisement and
marketing, showed no significant impact on sales performance. In textile industry, packaging and
distribution showed a significant impact on sales, but marketing and advertising expenditures did
not make any impact. In the consumer durable industry, only distribution showed a significant
impact, whereas other three variables did not show any impact on the sales performance, which
is at variance with prior results in similar studies. 14 2.1 Importance of Marketing Strategy A
ground-breaking five year study (Nohria et al. 2003) discusses about the musthave management
practices that truly produce superior results. According to the authors, there are four primary
management practices that represent the fundamentals of business. They are strategy, execution,
culture and structure. One of the fundamentals is to devise and maintain a clearly stated focused

Page 8
strategy. Equally important is to develop and maintain flawless operational execution. It‘s not
what the firm executes but how. In the author‘s own words: ―Winning companies determine
which processes are most important to meeting their customers‘ needs and focus their energies
and resources in making those processes as efficient as possible. They take the same critical eye
to product and service quality as well. Evergreen winners deliver offerings that consistently meet
customers‘ expectations, and they are very clear about the standards they have to meet.‖ So,
strategy and its execution are crucial for the success of the firm in the long run. Marketing
strategy is devised by companies in order to fulfill their marketing objectives. Marketing
objectives are believed to flow from corporate objectives - which, according to Porter, the firms
design to achieve competitive advantage over its competitors. Marketing objectives of firms are
distinct and vary over time as it depends on the environment in which the firms operate.
Marketing objectives are dependent on the industry structure, as well as the size of the firm and
the nature of its products. There may be a plethora of variables, both internal and external, which
have an impact on the conduct and the performance of the firms. However, current strategic
thinking emphasizes the importance of firm-specific objectives and 15 strategies which have
more impact on the performance of the firm (O‘Cass, Aron; Julian, Craig; 2003; Okoroafa, Sam;
Russow, Llyod C; 1993; Hawawini et al, working paper series, INSEAD, 2000)). In conclusion
of the argument, we may say that typical marketing objectives of firms would hover round
maximization of sales/revenues, profits, and market share, enhancement of brand image,
providing customer value and improvement of customer satisfaction. In the context of formal
thinking, strategy may be considered a sequence of decision rules which give a complete
description of the marketing practices of a company, their order, and their timing (Howard,
1957). Since the future is uncertain, contingency planning forms an essential part of strategy.
Firms sometimes need to have alternative plans in order to successfully face the adverse
environmental and competitive activities that they are likely to encounter periodically.
Integration of all aspects of the marketing plan is said to be the hallmark of a good strategy.
Some authors (Huang et al 2013) suggest that marketing mix is one of the major components of
the marketing strategy. In fact, they divide marketing strategy into two parts: a) operating
objectives composed of targets and goals, and, b) combination of instruments – composed of the
marketing mix and other relevant resources. As has been discussed earlier, strategy is generated
from the objectives and goals of the organization. An intermediate step is to ascertain the status

Page 9
or the position of the company currently – with respect to the parameters enumerated in the goals
and objectives of the company. Once the strategy is formulated, the entire program of the
organization is designed. This design, if properly implemented, will enable the 16 company to
achieve its objectives and goals. So, after designing, the steps that are followed are of acceptance
by the organization and then its implementation. Over a period of time (from beginning of last
century to present times), the objectives of the organizations seem to have undergone a sea
change. Initially, the focus of the organization was on maximization of profits. Then it evolved
into gaining a market position and achieving success over competitors. Then the focus shifted to
the growth of the firm (Jain, 1997). Thus, the orientation of the firms shifted from organization
focus to focus on competition, and then to the present day customer focus. According to Porter
(1980), firms should not concentrate on growth alone, but also on the growth of the product-
market or industry it is operating in. This focus on growth entails a continued planned effort to
enlarge the size of the market. Howard (2006) opined that ―strategy is designed to maximize
long-term profits within the limits determined by top management‘s view of the company‘s basic
objectives.‖ As discussed earlier, ‗marketing mix‘ is an essential component of the process of
formulation of marketing strategy (Kim, 2007). In the process of formulation of strategy,
decisions on key strategic areas like location, channels, promotion, and pricing are of extreme
importance. The theory on Growth and success of firms (Porter, 1980) describes the issues as
follows: ―Many companies fail to achieve their growth targets in revenue and profitability.
However, the probability of achieving profitable growth is heightened whenever an 17
organization has a clear growth strategy and strong execution infrastructure. One without the
other impairs the probability of success. Many organizations fail to achieve their desired growth
targets in revenue and profitability. Porter continues to assert that for achieving growth, firms
should: 1. Strengthen the execution infrastructure by investing in ‗safe bets‘. 2. Initiate a process
to identify strategies with a high probability for success‖. The two Growth Strategies described
above require a supporting infrastructure to increase the chances of successful implementation.
―A supportive infrastructure includes:

• Organization capabilities that are valued by customers,

• a management-performance system and scorecard which focuses on leading indicators and
the drivers of growth and
• strong leadership practices at every level of the organization‖.

Page 10
 So, in order to ensure that strategy delivers results in terms of growth of the firm,
conceptualization/formulation of strategy is as important as its execution. While it is important to
understand the choices, in terms of strategy, which is more likely to deliver expected results – the
infrastructure to carry out effective implementation of the chosen strategies is also equally
important. It is imperative to stay close to the firm‘s competitive advantage as well as to align the
leadership of the firm with the strategic goals and the strategic choices made by the firm. Very
often, organizations tend to view strategy as a one-off exercise or as an exercise which is
compartmentalized. There, very often, is lack of coordination among departments in regards to
strategy. Success, however, comes to organizations which view strategy in a holistic fashion
encompassing all the functions of the organization. Marketing strategy is also often viewed as a
summation of individual 18 tactics, like introducing a consumer promotion or increasing the
advertising budget. Successful firms view strategy as a source of competitive advantage which
enhances the financial as well as the marketing performance of firms in the market place. They
realize that the impact of strategy is long term, by definition. It also impacts not only marketing
as a function, but also the fundamental way of working of the organization. So, in order to realize
the full impact of a marketing strategy, the firm must be willing to change various processes and
systems in various other aspects of functioning of the organization. For example, if the marketing
strategy is to ensure faster deliveries, the organization has to gear up its entire supply chain and
be willing to take decisions regarding aspects like labor productivity, efficiency of the suppliers
etc.
So, effective formulation and implementation of strategy ensures success in the market,
provided it becomes an enterprise-wide exercise. 2.2 Firm-Specific Strategy Marketing literature
very often discusses about the criticality of marketing strategy in impacting the financial
performance of organizations. It goes on to assert that marketing strategy is a key differentiator
for business success. Hunt and Morgan (1997) explained that management‘s role is to design
appropriate competitive strategies to achieve the firm‘s over-arching objective, which is superior
financial performance. Hunt (2000) states that good strategies are explicit, implemented, and
offer good fit or match for the firm within a market. Additionally, 19 he says, that firms pursue
superior performance because rewards will then flow to the stakeholders of the firm. In order to
gain favorable market position or to win in the market place, effective formulation and execution

Page 11
of marketing strategy is extremely important. Formulation of marketing strategy therefore
involves generation of alternatives.
The firm chooses the alternative path, which at that point in time, seems to give the best
chance of fulfilling its goals and objectives. Strategy of a firm is further broken down into
actionable plans and targets. Achievement of targeted plans and objectives are monitored for
evaluation and control, which leads to better performance. Marketing literature talks of three
main contemporary strategic typologies. They are: 3C‘s (Jain, 2004), the S-Q-I-P approach
(Johnson and Weinstein, 2004), and the Value Disciplines (Treacy and Wiersema, 1995).
According to Jain, emphasis of marketing strategy has evolved from focus on the corporation
itself, to emphasis on competition, and finally now to concentration on the customer - also as a
method of ensuring current profitability. In this context, it will not be out of place to recall the
famous guideline given to SBUs of GE by the then legendary CEO, Jack Welch: Either be no.1
or no.2, or get out of that business. This was not only a goal set for excellence, but was supported
by empirical research – which showed that only the top few companies in an industry has
profitability and return on investment above a particular desired threshold value. In traditional
marketing, value is measured by Quality, Price and Service. Extending this concept, the
customer value (CV) paradigm [Johnson and Weinstein, 2004] is based on a foundation of four
key variables. The core offerings to the firm are Service (S) and Quality (Q), while 20 Image (I)
and Price (P) offer communication signals to the marketplace. According to the PIMS (Profit
Impact of Market Strategies) Program, in order to formulate a proper strategy, analysis of the
market, competition, and measures of performance are absolutely necessary (Buzzell and Gale,
1987). 2.3 Relationship between Contextual Factors & Growth of the Firm One of the main
strategic objectives of the firm is its growth. It has been seen in our earlier discussions how the
major objectives of the firm have evolved over a period of time. There seems to be a consensus
today (Rumelt, Richard P; 1993) that the firm should focus on its growth as a long term
objective. Many authors have studied the phenomenon of growth and have come up with multi-
faceted explanations of growth of the firm. Contextual factors are characteristics of the firm such
as size (as measured by sales, or profit, or by the number of employees), the stage of its life-
cycle (infancy, growth, maturity, or decline), number of years of existence in India, ownership
(foreign-owned or domestic firm), and the nature of the industry it belongs to. Various analyses
have demonstrated that in the early work on this subject, contextual factors like size of the firm

Page 12
and its performance as measured by growth are not necessarily correlated (Hall, Bronwyn H;
1987). However, more recent work has found mixed results. In a test for new entrants in a given
industry – i.e. new small firms in early stages of their life-cycle, for some selected industries in
Italian manufacturing (Coad, Alex; 2007), it was observed that they grew faster than the
established large firms. This is 21 because smaller firms have to rush in order to achieve a size
large enough to enhance their likelihood of survival. Conversely, once the early stages of life-
cycle is over, the patterns of growth of new smaller firms do not differ significantly from those
of larger entrants. In a study of young firms founded between 1989 and 1994 within the West
German manufacturing sector, which were subdivided into technology intensive and
nontechnology intensive branches (as well as in different size classes), Almus and Nerlinger
(1999) found that no significant difference existed between the two firm groups. A number of
empirical studies had indicated that smaller firms have larger growth potential than larger ones.
Mukhopadhyay et al (2010), examined empirically how a firm‘s profitability performance
impacts its growth process. In the study, they tested whether smaller firms – being more
constrained in obtaining outside funds for growth – have a higher propensity to grow when their
internally generated profits are high.

Page 13
 CHAPTER-2

Strategy, Marketing Strategy & Firm Growth

It is usually claimed that superior performance among companies is a result of strategy they
adopt. A strategy is a culmination of a set of actions which leads to the fulfillment of the
company‘s short term as well as long term objectives. The overarching goal of organizations is to
achieve superior performance compared to its competitors. Competitive advantage is achieved
when the strategies adopted by the organization culminates in superior performance. So, the
strategic management process in organizations has a very high impact on achievement of
superior performance (Wright et al. 1991; O‘Farrell et al. 1992). In spite of a plethora of research
on the subject, there is no concrete evidence of a correlation between strategy and performance
of firms. Establishing the relationship has proven to be very difficult as the number of internal as
well as external influences on the results produced by marketing strategy is very vast (Jaakkola
et al, 2010). One of the main strategic objectives of the firm is its growth. There seems to be a
consensus today that the firm should focus on its growth as a long term objective. Many authors
have studied the phenomenon of growth and have come up with multi-faceted explanations of
growth of the firm. One of the founding theories of growth is Gibrat‘s law of proportionate
growth. It says that the size of a firm and its growth rate are independent. In a test for new
entrants in a given industry – i.e. new small firms in early stages of their life-cycle, for some
selected industries in Italian manufacturing – Gibrat‘s law fails to hold in 31 the years
immediately following start-up. This is because, smaller firms have to rush in order to achieve a
size large enough to enhance their likelihood of survival. Conversely, in subsequent years, the
patterns of growth of new smaller firms do not differ significantly from those of larger entrants.
The law therefore cannot be rejected. As the speed of change in markets and technology is
becoming faster, sustainability of competitive advantage is becoming a problem. As a result of
increasing pressure to improve productivity, quality and speed, organizations are adopting
various tools. Application of these tools is resulting in dramatic operational improvements. Still,
sustainable profitability remains elusive to most of these organizations. This proves that
operational effectiveness is necessary but not sufficient for superior performance. One of the
probable reasons for this is the fact that for most of these organizations, imitating techniques has
become very easy. From this observation, Porter (1996) concludes that the essence of strategy is

Page 14
difficult to match. A major error that many companies commit is to compete with competitors in
the same dimensions (Porter, 1996). According to Porter, companies should endeavor to be
unique, and not only the best in their industry. Strategy should set the distinctive direction in
which it will compete and the competitive advantages on which it will be based. Industry
structure and strategic positioning within the Industry decides the economic performance of
companies. In order to obtain better results, companies should be able to focus on the health of
the overall industry, and not only on their own position. 32 In all organizations, there always
exists conflicting goals between short term revenues and profits and long term strategy
formulation, between operational and strategic objectives. However, according to Porter (1996),
organizations that have a long range perspective and a proactive future orientation, as part of the
strategic management tool, always deliver better results. Anticipation of the changing dynamics
of the consumer market will make marketers face future challenges better – integrating long-term
analysis and planning into the marketing management process will become an essential
requirement. In a research based discussion on behaviors of companies with superior
performance (Wilson et al, 1977), the authors identified three categories of behavioral change by
top-performing companies:

• Positioning: changing from differentiated to low cost, or vice versa. Many companies have
tried this strategy, but in most cases, the results have been disastrous.
• Markets: moving into new geographies, new segments or new products.
• Competencies: changing or expanding core competencies, most often by reinventing
processes that had been critical to the success of a given position.
The authors have arrived at this by empirically studying superior long term performers. Changes
in positioning fail most of the times. When they succeed, it is more of ‗upmarket stretch‘ rather
than ‗down market‘ to a low-cost position. Changes in markets and competencies typically
succeed, with market changes being more frequent. 33 The authors also suggest that growth
creates its own momentum, and this in turn attracts the best people, the most promising
opportunities, and enthusiastic customers. All this put together improves profitability, which in
turn helps in increase of investments. A PricewaterhouseCoopers study (2011) of 400 business
leaders found a clear link between effective performance management and superior financial
performance. High performing companies typically outperform peers by 54%, and are 67% more

Page 15
successful at entering new markets, 61% more successful at generating growth through
innovation and 51% more successful at introducing new products. A performance management
system helps to drive the actions of employees aligning their energy and behaviors with the long-
term business strategy. This research aims to find out the relationship between growth of the firm
and the strategies pursued by them. The basic question that needs to be answered is whether
growth or business performance is driven by strategy and whether it is dependent on the
contextual factors. While there are innumerable real-life examples of changes in strategy, most
of them are born out of the necessity of the growth imperative. The research tries to ascertain
whether this strategic changes or pursuing of a particular strategy in positioning, or markets, or
competencies indeed result in superior performance. It is also imperative to understand and
appreciate the factors or elements that firms with different contextual factors and strategies
consider as important components of their strategy.

Page 16
 CHAPTER-3

Competitive Strategies: Porter’s Generic Strategies

According to Tang (1984, MIT Working Paper), generic strategy may be defined as the most
basic decision made by an SBU in the hierarchy of its decision making. It is also the highest
decision which integrates and creates internal consistency among decisions. One of the most
abiding theories of strategy in these times has emanated from Michael Porter. Porter postulates
that firms follow any of the three following strategies: differentiation, cost leadership, and focus.
Differentiation is followed by firms who are capable of either manufacturing distinct products or
have a completely unique marketing strategy. They are capable of standing apart from their
competitors in the marketplace, and more importantly has a distinct positioning in the minds of
the consumers. Cost leadership strategy is followed by firms who are usually leaders in the
market place in terms of volumes and gain large market share with very low pricing of their
products. This is usually achieved through control of costs which are a result of a very efficient
supply chain. Focus strategy is pursued by firms which does not saddle the entire market, but
concentrates in a particular niche by satisfying the needs of that particular set of customer
segment. Porter (1980), in his book on competitive strategy, says that competition is at the core
of the success or failure of firms. The appropriateness of a firm‘s activities that can contribute to
its performance, such as innovations, a cohesive culture, or good implementation is determined
by competition. Competitive strategy is the search for 51 a favorable competitive position in the
industry, the fundamental arena in which competition occurs. According to Porter, competitive
strategy aims to establish a profitable and sustainable position against the forces that determine
industry competition. The choice of competitive strategy is determined by two central issues.
The first issue is the attractiveness of industries for long-term profitability and the factors that
determine it. Not all industries offer equal opportunities for sustained profitability, and the
inherent profitability of its industry is one essential ingredient in determining the profitability of
a firm. The second issue in competitive strategy is the determinants of relative competitive
position within an industry. In most industries, some firms are much more profitable than others,
regardless of what the average profitability of the industry may be. The fundamental basis of
above-average performance in the long run is sustainable competitive advantage. Porter
postulates that there are two basic types of competitive advantage a firm can possess: low cost or

Page 17
significance of any strength or weakness a firm possesses is ultimately a function of its impact on
relative cost or differentiation. Industry structure determines cost advantage and differentiation,
which, in turn, is a result of the firm‘s ability to cope with the five forces better than its rivals.
According to Porter, the two basic types of competitive advantage, when combined with the
scope of activities for the firm, leads to three generic strategies for achieving above-average
performance in an industry. They are: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus. The focus
strategy has two variants, cost focus and differentiation focus. The cost leadership and
differentiation strategies seek competitive advantage in a broad range of industry segments,
while focus strategies 52 aim at cost advantage (cost focus) or differentiation (differentiation
focus) in a narrow segment. The implementation of each generic strategy varies widely from
industry to industry. Feasible generic strategies in a particular industry also vary. According to
Porter, selection and implementation of a generic strategy is far from simple. However, they are
the ―logical routes to competitive advantage that must be probed in any industry‖. Wright &
Parsinia (1988) critiqued Porter‘s generic strategies on four fundamental issues. According to
them, choices of generic strategies have limitations in terms of the size of the company, its
access to resources, and industry and competitive analyses. Larger firms in industries with
greater access to resources may compete primarily with the cost leadership or differentiation
strategies, while smaller firms can only viably compete with the focus strategy. The authors feel
that Porter‘s viewpoint that successful businesses should compete on the basis of only one of the
generic strategies, regardless of the size of the firm, is not correct. The larger enterprises that
compete with cost leadership would use that as their only strategy. The larger firms that compete
with differentiation strategy, however, may do so in conjunction with focus strategy. Those firms
using the cost leadership strategy could use only that one because the emphasis of this strategy is
on cutting costs throughout all the functional areas of the organization. Consequently, the
economics and the technologies of functional supports involved with this strategy would
normally be incompatible with other strategies. The authors do not agree with Porter‘s contention
that the focus strategy may be a viable single strategy adoption possibility. As a single strategy
adoption, the focus strategy is only appropriate for the smaller firms. With regard to larger firms,
focus may only be logically adopted in conjunction with the differentiation generic strategy. The
authors further suggest 53 that in fragmented industries, the differences in sizes of firms are not
pronounced. Firms of various sizes might compete with a low-cost strategy or differentiation

Page 18
strategy and/or focus strategy. Whereas in established and mature industries, firms achieve low
costs through cumulative volume of operations, in fragmented industries companies achieve low
costs through low initial investments and, subsequently, low operating costs. In a study (Baack &
Boggs, 2007) regarding the difficulties in using a cost leadership strategy (for MNCs) in
emerging markets, it is argued that implementation of a cost-leadership strategy by developed-
country MNCs is rarely effective in emerging markets, and that MNCs may benefit from using
different strategies in different markets. For effective cost-leadership strategy, target customers
need to be industry-wide; i.e. demand should be market wide, not segmented. The authors
conclude that there is powerful evidence of the substantial environmental obstacles to the
successful implementation by developed-country MNCs of a cost leadership strategy in
emerging markets. In these markets, focus, differentiation, or other strategies, such as those
based upon personal or political relationships (Peng and Luo, 2000), may provide a better ―fit‖
with the environment than cost leadership. In a study (Long, Fu; 2001) on differentiation focus
strategy in the Insurance industry in USA, the author analyzes the shift that took place from
traditional strategies for the ‗white-male‘ dominated market to an ethnocentric one, focusing on
Asian-Americans. New strategies were formulated, innovative operations were designed, and
distinctive market campaigns were launched. The social-economic demographic changes in the
1980s had an intriguing impact on the insurance industry. Marked changes took place in
crossover competition within the industry, 54 market contention imposed by other industries,
varying public attitudes towards insurance products, the changing American family structure and
income sources, and economic-demographic increases of ethnic groups. The development of
differentiation focus strategy had a distinctive feature – an ingenious incorporation of cultural
and ethnic elements into the equation of the strategic formulation and its market execution. The
firms changed their strategy from being ethno-centric to pluralistic. Strategies were no longer
uniform, but took on cultural and ethnic specificity. For example, the mainstream mass media
that the industry relied on in the past was not effective for reaching Asian American clients.
Rather, ethnic media sources were turned to for market promotion, ethnic languages were used in
advertising, and public relationships were built with ethnic communities for companies‘ name
recognition (Novak et al 1992). Instead of emphasizing the death benefit attached to life
insurance products, new policies highlighted the education benefit and the love for dear ones.
Dess and Davis (1984) studied strategic group membership and organizational performance,

Page 19
based on Porter‘s generic strategies. The survey identified differentiation and cost leadership
clearly, while there was some ambiguity about focus strategy. An important implication is that
equifinality (von Bertalanffy, 1955) may characterize focus strategies, that is, there is a broad
range of different but internally consistent sets of competitive methods available to firms
employing a focus strategy. In cluster analysis, two of the clusters that emerged in the three
cluster solution did appear to represent Porter's differentiation and focus strategies. However, the
overall low cost dimension did not appear as significant in determining the composition of
organizational strategies. An important finding of the study is the apparent lack of singularity in
strategic orientation that characterizes 55 the highest performance group. While this cluster was
identified as primarily oriented towards an overall low cost strategy, this group also emerged
with the highest centroid score on the focus strategy. Given Porter's (1980) caution against the
commitment to multiple generic strategies, the high performance exhibited by the members of
this cluster may appear inconsistent. However, as Cyert and March (1963) suggest, high
performance may generate slack resources that can be used to enable firms to expand their
present scope of operations. Also, constraints posed by budget limitations may require that a firm
limit its emphasis to only one market segment. This research aims to test whether there is a
correlation between these strategies and business performance. It is also to be verified whether
contextual factors determine the adoption of a particular strategy and whether these strategies
influence the marketing mix decisions of the firms. While many attempts has been made in
extant literature to link strategy and performance, there is an absence of relevant literature
studying whether generic strategies lead to emphasis on particular marketing mix decisions. For
example, there is a gap in literature of the phenomenon that cost leadership strategy indeed
makes the firm emphasize more on competitive/penetration pricing and value-for-money
products – while, differentiation strategies emphasize more on product quality/design/features
and premium pricing. One of the major objectives of this study is also to observe whether firms
operating in India do follow the categorization of generic strategies, and whether these strategies
lead to relevant marketing mix decisions. In this research study, in keeping with existing
literature, marketing strategy has been operationalized through marketing mix decisions. So, the
interesting phenomenon of generic strategies influencing marketing strategy decisions is also
being studied. However, it may be pertinent here to state that the objective here is not to study
whether firms group themselves according to generic strategies.

Page 20
 CHAPTER-4

INTERVIEWS WITH TOP EXECUTIVES

In order to verify and corroborate the major findings, structured interviews were conducted of
some top executives in India. Telephonic interviews were conducted of the ten top executives.
These executives are CEOs / Managing Directors of large multinationals as well as Indian
companies. Most of the executives had earlier responded to the questionnaire sent to them. About
40% of them were executives who either did not respond or were not sent the questionnaire
earlier. Most of the executives have a rich experience and were in that position for quite a
number of years. Most of them were highly educated as well. Care was taken to choose the
respondents in such a way that they represented diverse backgrounds and reflected the market
place as well as the respondents in the questionnaire. They are geographically dispersed across
the country and represented industries from FMCG and consumer goods to capital equipment
and scientific products. Of the executives interviewed, 45% are from FOB and 55% are from
DOB. About 45% are in industrial products, 11% each from retail and technology, and 22% from
finance. About 11% of the firms have revenue of above Rupees 5000 crores, and 11% each from
100 – 500, 500 – 1000, and 1000 – 5000 Rupees crores. So, 56% of the firms have revenue less
than 100 crores. All of them, without any exception, agreed that product quality and customer
service are indeed the two most important aspects of their business strategy. One of them said
that product quality is a ‗hygiene factor‘ – without which no company can survive in today‘s
market place. Another respondent commented that customer 196 service is the ‗philosophy of
the company‘ and forms the basis for the company‘s survival and growth. According to some of
the respondents, product quality may act as a differentiator in the market place if the product is
indeed much superior to competitor‘s products. In that case, the product must be able to provide
some tangible benefits in terms of functionality or cost savings or similar other attributes.
Customer service is surely a differentiator, but on the operational efficiency side. All respondents
also unanimously agreed that product related factors and customer related factors are the most
important factors in formulation and implementation of strategy of an organization. So far, all
respondents endorsed the outcomes of the research results. About 30% of the respondents
observed that although product is the most important element of the marketing mix or strategy of
the organization, one should not undermine the importance of the three other P‘s, especially .

Page 21
pricing should not be very high. This corroborates with the findings of this research study. In the
capital goods industry, relationship with the client is of utmost importance and the deals need to
be transparent. The executive went on to add that the promises made by the manufacturer has to
be honored – and hence, it is better to make it clear to the client upfront, the boundaries and
limits of what is possible and what is beyond the scope of delivery. On the issue of
efficiency/productivity and human resource, which the study found to be extremely important
(only next to product and customer), almost all respondents agreed fully. One respondent was of
the opinion that while human resource is definitely a very important element, efficiency will lead
to value creation which is anyway the objective of the firm. Another response was that
operational 197 efficiency is also a sort of hygiene factor and that is why it has received such
high importance rating. There were a lot of divergent views on the issue of brand equity and
awareness receiving high importance rating, while advertising received a rating of least
importance (among all the 22 variables rated). All respondents agreed that brand equity and
awareness are very important for the success and growth of the firm. Most of them were of the
opinion that advertising is not so important, while some mentioned that it might depend on the
industry or the product. CEOs of industrial products were of the opinion that advertising is not
required at all. One CEO of consumer products, however, said that simultaneous building of
brand image is essential for the brand trial which leads to brand experience. He does not agree
with the result that advertising is the least important parameter. In his opinion, advertising led
successes are much more than product led success (only example, APPLE). Simultaneously,
product should back up the claims made through advertising. Another CEO was also of the
opinion that branding or reputation of the company is extremely important (cites the example of
APPLE). Brand equity is anyway very important, but is not comparable with advertising as
advertising is only a tool for building brand equity. For proper buildup of brand equity, a lot of
work needs to be done in terms of product quality, customer service etc. It is the amalgamation
of various elements that contribute to development of brand equity. In the research study,
channel distribution has received the lowest importance rating. Most of the respondents in the
telephonic interview expressed surprise at this finding. Most of them are of the opinion that,
overall, channel distribution is one of the most important aspects of strategy. Only a few
respondents said that the importance of channel distribution is dependent on and may vary from
industry to 198 industry and from product to product. One CEO said that for his company,

Page 22
channel distribution is only a means of ensuring proper after-sales service. Another CEO agrees
completely with brand equity/awareness receiving very high rating, but also adds that
distribution is almost equally important. He is of the opinion that in a country like India, firms
may remain on the growth path year after year simply by increasing distribution. He further
added that this hierarchy of importance is dependent on and may vary with the business/industry
segment. According to the CEO of a scientific product MNC, distribution is important, but more
important is the advent of e-commerce. So, there is a likelihood of traditional distribution
channels getting a low importance rating. According to him the entire combination is important
as product design and innovation is becoming the key to differentiation in the market place. Also
human intervention or interface will be continuously reducing in the marketing of products. He
feels that there are differences in the way of operation between industrial and FMCG products –
one depends more on branding while the other depends more on direct sales. Also, pricing may
be more important in case of FMCG products. The magnitude of importance will be different
between industries, but the variables will remain the same. On the question of similarity of
importance rating of variables by firms - cutting across industry segments, most of the
respondents agree, as they are of the opinion that fundamentals of firms will be common
irrespective of the industry they belong to. About 20% of the top executives does not agree at all
with the finding that there is very little difference between different categories of firms in their
importance rating of the strategy and/or marketing mix variables. Most of the top executives
expect that there will be high correlation between strategy and marketing mix – which
corroborates the research findings. However, 199 all of them expressed surprise at the finding
that strategy and/or marketing mix do not have any significant correlation with the business
performance of firms. According to one CEO, then business performance is a random
phenomenon linked to product etc. and marketing decisions becomes irrelevant. Intuitively, he
says, it is definitely contrary to his expectations. Another CEO commented that strategy should
definitely impact performance – but ―people look at product rather than marketing strategy‖.
Two CEOs have come up with interesting interpretations of this finding in the research study.
One of them raises the very important point of implementation. He is of the opinion that strategy
is the same for all firms, as all top managers will tend to think alike. That is what got reflected in
the responses. However, business performance of firms is quite different. That is because of
different capability levels in implementation. For example, everybody knows customer service is

Page 23
important. But the magnitude and quality of implementation of customer service will vary widely
from one firm to another. That may be an explanation for this unexpected result. He also says
that firms become successful in the marketplace for certain things which are much bigger than
conceptualization of strategy. According to the other CEO, the whole purpose of strategy is to
differentiate and win in the market place. Today the markets are flooded with ―me too‖
strategies, which he thinks is not a proper strategy at all. Strategy should help the firm and its
products to be able to differentiate themselves in the market, and ultimately win. He is of the
opinion that one crucial part of strategy is innovation. Innovation should be built into the strategy
– otherwise it is difficult to win in the market place. Strategy must include innovation and should
be different from that of other firms, especially 200 in its product category. He says that then
only can it be claimed to be a strategy. He gives the example of APPLE, who he claims made the
customer believe that its products are the ones the customer wants. He feels that strategy should
be something radical – against the current flow.

Page 24
 CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

The study started with a comparison of performance of firms across industry segments and other
varied contextual factors like number of years of operation in India, size of the firm in terms of
sales revenues, profits made by the firm etc. Specifically, comparison was made between
domestic companies and foreign owned companies on their business performance in some
categories of business/industry like personal care products, food products, and pharmaceutical
industry etc. The outcome was that it was found that there is no major difference in performance
between the two sets of firms. The second phase of the study was eliciting responses from top
executives about whether or what kind of differences exists in strategies of different firms based
on their contextual factors. The study showed that the components and the concentration of the
firms on the components are different based on the kind of ownership. While this conclusion
may be arrived at, it is also true that the differences are not so striking. Overall, the objectives
and methods of running organizations seem to have a lot of similarities in the Indian context,
irrespective of the contextual factors (in this case, type of ownership). The overall environment
seems to be having more influence on choice of strategy of the firm, than its own characteristics
like whether it is a domestic firm or is a foreign owned business. The third phase of the study
was to ascertain whether contextual factors influence strategy and whether strategy has a
correlation with business performance through marketing mix decisions. Again questionnaires
were sent to top executives of firms 203 in India. The outcome of the study clearly elucidated
that there is no relationship between contextual factors and strategy of the firm. However,
strategy and marketing mix decisions are highly correlated. The final outcome, surprisingly, was
that strategy or marketing mix decisions are not correlated with the business performance of
firms, in the Indian context. However, there is a moderate correlation between contextual factors
and performance of the firms. As suggested by the top executives, there is a lot of difference
between conceptualization and implementation and there is a presence of too many ―me too‖
strategies in the market. In terms of management common sense or in terms of widely held
beliefs, there is an understanding that strategy is important, and it is important because it
influences business performance or results. Even the literature survey done earlier leans towards
that conclusion. The most famous research done in this area is that of Nitin Nohria (Dean,

Page 25
performance. One of the major contributions of the study is the finding that performances differ
on the basis of ownership. More research needs to be done to ascertain whether performances of
firms vary according to other contextual factors as well. There is a need to conduct more
research industry wise in order to assess correctly the reasons behind the difference in
performances – and if possible, find out the existence of a pattern in the causes for superior
performance. Another major contribution of this study is the finding that strategies, as postulated
by Porter, does not necessarily have a correlation with business performance. Nor do the
contextual factors of the firm have any correlation with strategies 204 conceptualized by the
firms. This then leads to the obvious question that why have strategy at all. This study cannot say
that strategy is irrelevant to performance or the firm itself. What needs to be looked into is the
gap between conceptualization and implementation of strategy. For example, a CEO may be
acutely aware of the necessity of customer service, and he also feels that the service levels must
be improved in order to perform better in the market place. In the questionnaire, he gives very
high importance to customer service. The reality is that this firm actually, as an organization, has
quite low levels of customer service. So, the mismatch between what he responds and the ground
reality remains. This, in all probability, has produced this kind of a result – as performances of
firms differ widely, even in the same industry, whereas the CEOs of the firms may be thinking
on similar lines. Thus, there is a necessity to study the firms more closely and in a manner that
reveals the actual strategy of the firm on the ground (comparative scales will have to be
developed for this exercise). Similar issues would have cropped up between contextual factors
and strategy. CEOs interviewed seem to be convinced that there should and is a difference in
strategy between certain categories of business/industry. To an extent, that has got reflected in
our analysis. However, there is a scope to understand these firms and industries better and draw
sharper differences between them. While it may be true that differences between domestic firms
and foreign owned firms in terms of both, performance as well as strategy, may not be
substantial, differences on the basis of number of years of operation in India or size of the firm
may be much more than what has been captured in this study. Having said this, there is a
necessity to understand the differences between a developed market and an emerging market.
The degree of importance that strategy 205 might have in firms operating in developed markets
may not be applicable in the emerging markets at all. As has been discussed earlier, the
requirements of the Indian market are likely to be of a larger dimension than just strategy. There

Page 26
are certain hygiene factors for the Indian market – like, product quality or customer service, or
productivity/efficiency, or even good human resource. Pricing does not seem to be extremely
important, quite contrary to the general expectations. However, distribution, as is expected, along
with other related factors are extremely important for the Indian market. So, firms are
continuously trying to come out of the price trap and take on the challenges of the real issues
they face in the Indian market – for example, distribution and logistics. Advertising expenditures
also are a major challenge to most firms operating in this market. It seems from the results so far
that other than the hygiene factors, the firms go through a lot of experimentation before they may
settle down to a long term strategy. Even getting the hygiene factor requirements correct is not
an easy game in this market. Considering one of the earlier situations, the CEO or even the entire
firm may want to achieve high standards of customer service, but achieving that goal itself is not
an easy task, given the challenges of the Indian market and its infrastructure/overall
environmental factors. From the managerial point of view, the study implies that overdependence
or too much concentration on strategy may not yield suitable results, or meet the high
expectations of the firms in terms of its performance. It is more fruitful to understand the
product-market and its customers, and then make suitable plans to fulfill customer expectations.
One MD who was quoted earlier said that almost 70% of the strategies adopted by the firms are
―me too‖ strategies and this he says are not strategy at all. So, a strategy will be unique for the
firm, and there should be a near 206 perfect fit between the firm‘s internal capabilities with the
external environment and requirements. The link, as said earlier, is the product-market and the
customer. Implementation is the key in this kind of a market. As has been discussed earlier, an
emerging market like India poses many challenges to the firm - in terms of distribution and
logistics, in terms of building awareness and building brands, and even in maintaining product
quality standards as well as ensuring customer service levels. So, it is not the firm which plans
better or conceptualizes better that wins in the market place. It is the firm which implements all
plans (as part of its objectives) meticulously and delivers value to the customer that will
ultimately win in the market place. It is not so much the price alone, as is commonly believed,
but the entire combination that the customer rewards. To reiterate, it is not the quality of the plan
or the strategy, but the quality of implementation that matters. Going to the basics of marketing,
it is the proper understanding and appreciation of customer needs and wants (customer insights,
if we may call it) coupled with appropriate delivery of quality product at the right price and time,

Page 27
backed up by a high standard of customer service (wherever required) will win the day for the
firm. Off course, the firm has to be profitable and will need to grow its topline and bottom line,
both, simultaneously. So, efficiency and productivity is of paramount importance, and so is
quality human resources and brand building exercises. Brand building is not an exercise in
attracting customers alone, but also plays an important role in differentiating the firm/brand in
the market place from its competitors. It may not be out of place to recall that one of the
attributes of strategy, in order to make it work and deliver results, is its uniqueness. Firms and
managers of the firm must keep in mind that the strategy developed by them is made to order,
that is the strategy is 207 suitable and fit only for them, and is necessarily different from other
firms, especially their competitors. Future research will concentrate on studying this
phenomenon, one industry at a time, instead of aggregating responses from across all industries.
Concentration on one industry will help focus on implementation aspects as well, and then
establishing correlation between strategy and business performance will become more
meaningful. Eliciting more in depth responses from these executives and understanding the
history, background, and environment of the firms will help in establishing a pattern for
surviving and successful growth of firms in the Indian context

Page 28
 CHAPTER-6

Reference

1. Aaker, David Strategic Market Management 2008. ISBN 978-0-470-05623- 3.

2. Abdel Al, Sherine Farouk; McLellan, John D.; Strategy and Management Accounting
Practices Alignment and Its Effect on Organizational Performance; Journal of Accounting,
Business and Management; April 2013, Vol. 20 Issue 1.
3. Acar, Avni Zafer; Zehir, Cemal; The Harmonized Effects of Generic Strategies and Business
Capabilities on Business Performance; Journal of Business Economics and Management;
2010, 11(4); 689 – 711.
4. Acquaah, Moses; Enterprise Ownership, Market Competition and Manufacturing Priorities in
a Sub-Saharan African Emerging Economy: Evidence from Ghana; Journal of Management
and Governance 2005, 9:205-235.
5. Akan, Obasi; Allen, Richard S; Helms, Marilyn M; Spralls, Samuel A.; Critical Tactics for
Implementing Porter‘s Generic Strategies; The Journal of Business Strategy; 2006; 27, 1: pg.
43.
6. Al-Dmour, Hani; Al-Zu‘bi, M. F.; & Kakeesh, Dana; ―The Effect of Services Marketing
Mix Elements on Customer-Based Brand Equity: An Empirical Study on Mobile Telecom
Service Recipients in Jordan‖, International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 8,
No. 11; 2013. 210
7. Alsem, K, J.; & van der Heide, B. (1996). Marketing orientation and strategies in the
Netherlands; (B02 ed.) Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM research school.
8. Allen, Richard S; Helms, Marilyn M; Linking Strategic Practices and Organizational
Performance to Porter‘s Generic Strategies; Business Process Management Journal; Vol. 12,
No. 4, 2006; pp. 433 – 454.
9. Allen, Richard S; Helms Marilyn M; Takeda, Margaret B; White, Charles S; Porter‘s Generic
Strategies: An Exploratory Study of their Use in Japan, Journal of Business Strategies Vol.
24, No. 1
10. Almus, M. and Nerlinger, E. (1999), Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Groesse und Wachstum
bei Gruendungen: Empirische Ergebnisse fuer West Deutschland, ZEW Discussion Paper

Page 29
11. Amine, L.S.; Cavusgil, S. T.; 2001; Export marketing strategies in the British clothing
industry; European Journal of Marketing; 20(7), 21-33.
12. Ataman, Berk M., Van Heerde, Harald J., Mela, Carl F.; The Long-Term Effect of Marketing
Strategy on Brand Sales; Journal of Marketing Research; Vol. XLV11, October 2010, 866-
882.
13. Auerswald, Philip; Branscomb, Lewis; Edwin Mansfield, Technological Complexity, and the
‗Golden Age‘ of US Corporate R & D; Journal of Technology Transfer; 2005, 30: ½, pp.
139-157.
14. Azadi, Siamak; Rahimzadeh, Elham; Developing Marketing Strategy for Electronic Business
by Using McCarthy‘s Four Marketing Mix Model and Porter‘s Five Competitive Forces;
Emerging Markets Journal; 2012, Vol. 2.
15. Azizi, Shahriar; Movahed, Sedhigeh Ansari; Khah, Mariam Haghighi; ―The effect of
marketing strategy and marketing capability on business 211 performance. Case study: Iran‘s
medical equipment sector‖, Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 9, 4, 2009, 309–317.
16. Baack, Daniel W, Boggs, David J; The difficulties in using a cost leadership strategy in
emerging markets, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 3 No. 2, 2008, pp. 125-
139.
17. Baker, Michael; The Strategic Marketing Plan Audit 2008. ISBN 1-902433- 99-8. p.3.
18. Barbosa, Natalia; Louri, Helen; Corporate Performance: Does Ownership Matter? A
Comparison of Foreign – And – Domestic – Owned Firms in Greece and Portugal; Review of
Industrial Organization, 2005, 27:73-102.
19. Barney, Jay; Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage; Journal of Management,
1991; Vol. 17, No.1, 99-120.
20. Bartels, Robert (1988). The History of Marketing Thought (3rd. ed.). Columbus: Publishing
Horizons
21. Bertalanffy 1955 An essay on the relativity of categories. In: Philosophy of Science, 225,
243-263
22. Bertalanffy 1955a General System Theory. In: General Systems, Vol. 1, 1- 10
23. Bettis, Richard A; Hitt, Michael A; The New Competitive Landscape, Strategic Management
Journal, Volume 16, Issue S1, pp. 7-19, 1995.

Page 30
24. Bezawada, R. & Pauwels, K. (2013). What is special about marketing organic products? How
organic assortment, price, and promotions drive retailer performance. Journal of Marketing,
77(1), 31-51. 212
25. Bodea (Sava), Adriana Mirela; Bacali, Laura; Importance of the Marketing Mix Components
in the context of Romanian Firms‘ Market Performance; Revista de Management si Inginerie
Economică, Vol. 10, Nr. 2, 2011.
26. Bonoma, Thomas V; Marketing Performance Assessment; Harvard Business School Press;
2008.
27. Bonoma, Thomas V. and Crittenden, \^ctoria L. (1988), "Managing Marketing
Implementation", Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.7-14.
28. Boulding, W.; Kirmani, A.; A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling
Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality? Journal of Consumer
Research, 1993, 111-23.
29. Borden, Neil H., The concept of the marketing mix; Journal of Advertising Research, June,
1964, pp. 2-7.
30. Bowman, Douglas; Gatignon, Hubert; ―Order of entry as a moderator of the effect of the
Marketing Mix on Market Share‖, Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, 1996, pg. 222-242.
31. Brei, Vinícius Andrade; D'Avila, Lívia; Camargo, Luis Felipe; Engels, Juliana; ―The
Influence of Adaptation and Standardization of the Marketing Mix on Performance: a Meta-
Analysis‖, Brazilian Administration Review, Volume 8, Issue 3, 2011, pg. 266-287.
32. Bryne, Barbara M.; Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Application,
and Programming; Second Edition; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2009.
33. Buzzell, Robert Dow; Gale, Bradley T.; The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to
Performance; Simon and Schuster, 1987. 213
34. Campbell-Hunt, Colin; What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-
analysis; Strategic Management Journal; Volume 21, Issue 2, pages 127-154, February 2000.
35. Carpenter, Gregory S; Modeling Competitive Marketing Strategies: The Impact of
Marketing-Mix Relationships and Industry Structure; Marketing Science; May 1987.
36. Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An
investigation. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1.

Page 31
37. Chari, Murali D.R.; David, Parthiban; Sustaining Superior Performance in an Emerging
Economy: An Empirical Test in the Indian Context; Strategic Management Journal; 33: 217-
229, 2012.
38. Chen, Yung-Fang; Sternquist, Brenda; Differences Between International and Japanese
Retailers; The Services Industries Journal, Oct 1995; 15, 4, pg 118.
39. Chhibber, Pradeep; Majumdar, Sumit K.; Capital structure and performance: Evidence from
a transition economy on an aspect of corporate governance; Public Choice 98: 287-305,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
40. Coad, Alex; Exploring the processes of firm growth: evidence from a vector auto-regression;
Industrial and Corporate change, 2010, vol 19, number 6, pp 1677-1703).
41. Coad, Alex; Firm Growth: A Survey, Papers on Economics and Evolution, May 14, 2007.
42. Colpan, Asli M; Dynamic effects of product diversity, international scope and keiretsu
membership on the performance of Japan‘s textile firms in the 214 1990s; Asian Business &
Management; Volume 5, Issue 3; pp. 419-445; 2006.
43. Connor, Paul; Tynan, Caroline; ―In Sickness and In Health: Exploring and Redeveloping a
Measure of Marketing Effectiveness‖, Journal of Marketing Management, 1999.
44. Constantinides, E.; The Marketing Mix Revisited: Towards the 21st Century Marketing,
Journal of Marketing Management, 2006.
45. Cook, Victor J. Jr.; Marketing Strategy and Differential Advantage; Journal of Marketing;
Vol. 47 (Spring 1983).
46. Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J. and Munro, H.J. (2000), ―An investigation of marketing
practice by firm size‖, Journal of Business Venturing.
47. Cravens, D.W. (2000), Strategic-Marketing, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
48. Cravens, D.W., Merrilees, B. and Walker, R.H. (2000), Strategic Marketing Management for
the Pacific Region, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
49. Crosby, L. A. and Johnson, S.L. (2002), "The globalisation of relationship marketing",
Marketing Management, March/April, Chicago, IL.
50. Cyert, Richard; March, James G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm; Wiley-Blackwell.

Page 32