discussion response

Reply from Lindsey Moore

Lindsey Moore

Discussion Board #2

Article #1 – Marketing Mix Revisited: Towards the 21st Century Marketing Framework by Constantinides

Author Constantinides (2006) criticizes the use of the traditional marketing mix. One big idea that I got from reading the article was that the marketing mix is still valid and useful, but can be myopic and transactional at times. It usually emphasizes what your organization does in the market rather than how it builds relationships with its customers. I find this idea relevant to the discussions about product strategy and branding because customers today are not passive listeners to marketing communication. Customers today help shape brands by what they experience, how they relate, and interact with various organizations.

Viewing from a product strategy lens, Constantinides (2006) demonstrates that companies should not limit themselves by first developing a product, then wondering how to price, place, and promote it. Instead, an organization should think deeply about ever-changing customers’ needs, market conditions, and the overall experience that their customers have with the product. From that perspective, branding should be considered part of a company’s overall strategy and not merely part of promotional efforts. That strengthens my belief that great brands are built when not only the product meets the customers’ needs but when customer experience, organizational relationships, and marketing communication all align to convey the same brand value.

Article #2 – The Elements of Value

Authors found that there are 30 elements of value that consumers look for when making decisions. They classified these into four categories: Functional, Emotional, Life-changing, and Social impact. Functional value includes saving time, making life easier, and reducing monetary and energy expenditures. Elements of emotional value include reducing anxiety, entertaining, and providing a sense of belonging. Social impact and life-changing categories can have a greater impact on a consumer’s life by providing motivation, hope, or meaning to life.

From this article, I learned that consumers don’t just consider price and core features when assessing products. Product strategy must identify what benefits are most valued by consumers. As demonstrated by Almquist et al., companies that performed better across many elements of value also had greater customer loyalty and revenue growth. I think this also ties in with branding because brands can differentiate themselves by the unique mixture of functional and emotional benefits they create for customers. You can easily imitate competitors' products. However, the added meaning, trust, and experience that customers have with a brand is much harder to replicate.

Article #3 – Factories Rust; Brands Do Not

Veigel (2017) discusses how brands continue to have strategic value despite disruptions in the consumer goods industry. The author explains that digital firms are now vying for market share, and consumer preferences are changing at a rapid rate. Modern organizations should no longer consider brand leadership as something you “earn” after hitting a certain level of sales. The biggest takeaway from this article is found in the title. Factories and production capabilities can deteriorate over time, but when done right, brands can continue to generate value for the organization.

This article complements both Constantinides’ (2006) call for evolved marketing strategies and Almquist et al.’s (2016) framework by showing that successful brands understand the principles of both. Brand is an intangible asset that is anchored in consumer perception, experience, trust, and ultimately relevance to the consumer. Veigel (2017) does warn us, however, that longevity is not synonymous with invincibility. Established brands should not solely rely on their name or past achievements. Companies must continue adapting their products and branding strategies to changing technology, competitors, and consumer expectations. Companies must continue adapting their products and branding strategies to fit what is valuable to the consumer.

Biblical Integration

A related article on product strategy and branding is found in the Bible. My favorite verses that pertain to this subject are ones that highlight integrity, servant leadership, and stewardship. Proverbs 22:1 says, “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold” (New International Version, 2011). One can easily relate this to brand equity. You cannot have a good reputation as an organization if all you do is communicate or advertise. Companies should look to build their brands based on their behavior, offer quality and dependable products, and maintain ethical relationships with customers. Similar to how Veigel (2017) describes enduring brands, your reputation can be an asset that will last you a lifetime.

Philippians 2:4 tells us that as believers, we should “look not to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (New International Version, 2011). I also believe that this goes hand in hand with how customers view products and services as described by Almquist et al. (2016). A solid product strategy should begin with understanding the needs of your customer. It does not start from what your organization wants to sell. Only organizations that have the heart to solve problems and create value for others will gain trust and enjoy lasting relationships.

Lastly, Colossians 3:23 states, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” Although this scripture focuses on work ethic, I feel it supports the idea of having excellent products. An organization should never tell consumers one experience with branding, but provide the complete opposite through subpar products. Marketing from a biblical standpoint would require honesty and excellent stewardship of what your brand promises.

Conclusion

The three articles teach us that effective product strategy and branding require a lot more than old “inside-outward” marketing decisions. Marketing Mix Revisited by Constantinides made me rethink traditional frameworks of marketing. The Elements of Value by Almquist et al. (2016) showed me how to better create value by catering to multiple elements that customers care about. Finally, Factories Rust; Brands Do Not by Veigel (2017) reminds us why brands still matter despite changes in industry and society.

My favorite article was "Elements of Value" because it laid out a practical framework for why customers would choose one product or brand over another. The article’s main premise was also supported by recent studies. Wang et al. (2024) discovered that product brand image had a positive effect on brand trust and loyalty. This further validates the idea that consumers do not simply look at the functional aspects of a product. By reading all these articles, I now understand that brands are built by knowing your customer, providing value, and having the trust necessary for lasting relationships.

References

Almquist, E., Senior, J., & Bloch, N. (2016). The elements of value. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 46–53. ‪The Elements of Value.‬‎ - ‪Record details‬‎ - ‪EBSCOhost Research Databases‬‎

Constantinides, E. (2006). The marketing mix revisited: Towards the 21st century marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(3–4), 407–438. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706776861190

New International Version. (2011). Holy Bible. Zondervan.

Veigel, U. (2017). Factories rust; brands do not. Journal of Brand Strategy, 6(2), 123–130. Factories rust; brands do not. - EBSCO

Wang, F., Wang, M., Wan, Y., Jin, J., & Pan, Y. (2024). Optimizing brand loyalty through user-centric product package design: A study of brand image, perceived quality, and perceived value. Heliyon, 10(3), e25443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25443