Talk:Marketing strategy/Archives/2016

Delete or Merge
Perhaps this article could be merged with the article on Marketing? Both are terrible articles - but between them, Wikipedia might be able to get some decent content that could form the nucleus of a new and improved article on marketing.

As it currently stands, this article lacks a strategic marketing focus; covers much of the same content as on the Marketing page (which I assume is a page dedicated to marketing management - although it is very hard to tell since it lacks any real focus). BronHiggs (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues requiring attention
Much of the material in this article is poorly conceptualised, and appears to have been shoved under headings that do not capture the essence of the content that follows.

Heading 2.1 Strategies based on market dominance' This section includes a discussion of market followers, market nichers and market challengers. These strategies are NOT examples of market dominance.


 * Comment: A lot of these types of problems could be avoided if the editor would take care to define terms. Before presenting a typology of market dominant types, why not simply define what is meant by market dominance?

Heading 2.2: Entrant strategies:


 * Comment: This section exhibits similar problems to 2.1. What is an entrant strategy? The term seems confusing as it sounds very much like market entry strategies.

Heading 2.3 Raymond Miles strategies: 


 * Comment: This section consists of little more than a list and so readers might be left wondering why it was included at all. Who was Raymond Miles? Why are his strategies important? Outline each of the strategies. How can these strategies be reconciled with the other strategies mentioned in Section 2. Why do we need so many different typologies of strategies?

'''Heading 3.3. Growth Strategies:''' This section includes sub-headings vertical integration, horizontal integration and diversification.


 * Comment: The only strategy in this section that can realistically be considered a growth strategy is diversification. The two forms of integration are distribution strategies which may or may not lead to growth. There are many reasons why firms integrate - to shore up supply lines, to keep costs down, to ensure prices are maintained at a constant level, to assist with quality of raw materials - these are not directly related to growth. Diversification is discussed again in section 4.2 The Ansoff Matrix.  Thus this section adds no value whatsoever!

Heading 4.2 The Ansoff Matrix This section starts out with "The Ansoff Matrix model was invented by H. Igor Ansoff and is a model that focuses on four main areas, which are; Market penetration, Product development, Market development and Product/ Market Diversification."


 * Comment: What a poor opening sentence for a widely used model. Focuses on four main areas of what????? Well, actually the Ansoff matrix is more commonly known as the Product-Market Growth Matrix. This section needs a diagram or a description that shows the two growth dimensions are new products or new markets. Without understanding the variables that make up the matrix, the discussion is useless! The bit about diversification is already covered in another section, so there is obvious repetition. Why does Ansoff's model require its own section in 4.2. when growth strategies are covered in section 3.3. These two sections need to be collapsed into a single, coherent section that is dedicated to growth.

Heading 4.3 The 4Ps Model:


 * Comment The 4 Ps is framework for decision-making, but few would call it a model This refers to managerial decision-making as distinct from strategic decision-making.

Real-life marketing: What was the rest of it? Was it artificial marketing or virtual marketing? Seriously?????????

The entire article needs to be rewritten and preferably with a much stronger conceptualisation of what strategic marketing is and isn't! BronHiggs (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)