Marketing Mix Concept

The 4P model of the marketing mix has been considered a successful option for many decades. All sections of the economy have adopted marketing mix practices in order to increase the chances for short-run and long-run success and reaching an advantage over the competitors (Aremu & Bamiduro 2012). The 4P model includes four components: product, price, place, and promotion (Ettenson, Conrado & Knowles 2013).

The development of this approach, as well as of its subsequent variations, was established by the necessity to arrange businesses in the most comprehensive way. However, current practices necessitate a more modernized approach to creating the marketing mix. According to Ettenson, Conrado, and Knowles (2013), the 4P model is no longer suitable for modern B2B markets. Thus, it is suggested that marketers should shift the focus of their attention in the following ways:

• concentrate on a solution rather than on a product;
• focus on access rather than a place;
• direct attention to the value instead of price;
• concentrate on education rather than on promotion (Ettenson, Conrado & Knowles 2013).

In regards to the services offered by the organization for which I work, I can say that our current marketing mix is quite successful. Still, some improvements may be implemented in order to make our work more customer-oriented. Scholars remark that regardless of which segment customers belong to, their priorities in consuming products and services can be divided into four categories: essentials, treats, postpones, and expendables (Quelch & Jocz 2009).

The services offered by my organization are related to people’s healthcare needs. In order to provide for sustainable growth and greater competitive advantage of the healthcare facility for which I work, it is necessary to make sure that customers do not limit their use of our services only by essentials. The key change I would like to suggest is to provide the focus on the solution rather than on the product. This change presupposes the definition of services not by their functions but by the needs of consumers that the services meet (Ettenson, Conrado & Knowles 2013).

With the help of such a change, it will be possible to persuade the potential customers that we offer the most suitable services. A good example of the implementation of such a change in the case of Motorola Solutions (Ettenson, Conrado & Knowles 2013). Only when the company took a customer-oriented perspective instead of concentrating on technological superiority was it able to reach a positive reorganization and achieve better outcomes.

With the continuous growth of the market size, it is necessary to consider new marketing mix strategies (Mehra, Seidmann & Mojumder 2014). An important aspect in this regard is compatibility (Maruama & Zennyo 2013). Companies need to identify whether they will be the most successful in the conditions of compatibility or incompatibility (Maruama & Zennyo 2013). Furthermore, competence plays one of the key roles in providing the organization’s sustainable growth.

In the healthcare facility where I work, there was a situation when the entrepreneurial competence of the manager allowed me to avoid errors and increase profits. The strategy used by our organization in terms of the marketing mix is differentiation (Kotler & Keller 2012). With the help of this strategy, we emphasize our assets rather than try to compete with the companies that have better possibilities.

The marketing mix concept is a rather advantageous way of creating and sustaining the competitive advantage of any organization. The concept has undergone some changes and has become even more beneficial. With the advent of new approaches to the marketing mix, firms are able to build better tactics and promote their products and services with better outcomes.

Reference List

Aremu, MA & Bamiduro, JA 2012, ‘Marketing mix practice as a determinant of entrepreneurial business performance’, International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 205-213.

Ettenson, R, Conrado, E & Knowles, J 2013, ‘Rethinking the 4 P’s’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 91, no. 1-2, p. 26.

Kotler, P & Keller, K 2012, Marketing management, 14th edn, Pearson, New York, NY.

Maruama, M & Zennyo, Y 2013, ‘Compatibility and the product life cycle in two-sided markets’, Review of Network Economics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 131-155.

Mehra, A, Seidmann, A & Mojumder, P 2014, ‘Product life-cycle management of packaged software’, Production & Operations Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 366-378.

Quelch, J & Jocz, K 2009, ‘How to market in a downturn’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 1-12.