دانلود رایگان مقالات تیلور و فرانسیسدانلود رایگان مقالات ژورنالی بازاریابیدانلود رایگان مقالات ژورنالی مدیریتدانلود رایگان مقالات سال 2018دانلود رایگان مقاله ISI بازاریابی به زبان انگلیسیدانلود رایگان مقاله ISI مدیریت به زبان انگلیسی سال 2022 و 2023سال انتشار

مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی در رشته بازاریابی و فراتر از آن – تیلور و فرانسیس ۲۰۱۸

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله پیشبرد استراتژی بازاریابی در رشته بازاریابی و فراتر از آن: از وعده، غفلت، برتری، تقسیم (وعده؟)
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Advancing marketing strategy in the marketing discipline and beyond: from promise, to neglect, to prominence, to fragment (to promise?)
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۸
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۳۷ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه تیلور و فرانسیس
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس نمیباشد
نمایه (index) JCR – Master Journal List – Scopus
نوع مقاله ISI
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF)
۲٫۶ در سال ۲۰۱۷
شاخص H_index ۴۱ در سال ۲۰۱۹
شاخص SJR ۰٫۹۲۴ در سال ۲۰۱۷
شناسه ISSN ۱۴۷۲-۱۳۷۶
شاخص Quartile (چارک) Q1 در سال ۲۰۱۷
رشته های مرتبط مدیریت
گرایش های مرتبط بازاریابی
نوع ارائه مقاله
ژورنال
مجله  مجله مدیریت بازاریابی – Journal of Marketing Management
دانشگاه  Jerry S. Rawls College of Business Administration – Department of Marketing – Texas Tech University – USA
کلمات کلیدی بازاریابی استراتژیک؛ استراتژی بازاریابی؛ تاریخچه بازاریابی
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی Strategic marketing، marketing strategy، history of marketing
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1326973
کد محصول  E10677
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
Abstract

The promise of marketing strategy in Era I

Butler et al.’s (1918) Marketing Methods

The neglect of marketing strategy in Era II

White (1927) and Alderson (1937)

The prominence of marketing strategy in Era III

GE’s ‘marketing concept’

Levitt’s (1960) ‘Marketing myopia’ and Borden’s ‘marketing mix’

Alderson’s ‘competition for differential advantage’

Howard’s (1957) Marketing Management

McCarthy’s (1960) Basic Marketing

Conceptualizing marketing strategy in Era III

Marketing strategy becomes a ‘fragment’ in Era IV

Market orientation strategy

Relationship marketing strategy

Brand equity strategy

Varadarajan’s conceptualisation of strategic marketing

R-A theory of competition

The essence of the ‘R-A theory grounds strategy’ argument

Strategy at the end of Era IV

Marketing’s Era V, promising or problematic?

The prospects for Era V are promising

The prospects for Era V are problematic

Explaining Era IV’s slide towards academic irrelevance

Conclusion and prognosis for Era V

A tentative prognosis

References

 

بخشی از متن مقاله:
The marketing discipline is troubled, as prominent commentaries show. For example, Piercy (2002, p. 354) claims that ‘by failing to make the impact of other disciplines . . . our discipline stands a good chance of falling by the wayside . . . we have allowed intellectual leadership in important areas to pass to others.’ As a second example, Sheth and Sisodia (2006, p. 325) maintain that the discipline needs to be ‘reformed’ because it has become ‘hyperanalytical and heroically rigorous about trivialities’. Third, Lehmann, McAlister, and Staelin (2011, p. 155; italics added) point out that marketing’s major journals show ‘a noticeably increased emphasis on the use of . . . complex analyses and an accompanying decrease in emphasis on the importance of the topics explored.’ Consequently, ‘our field is becoming increasingly marginalised’. Fourth, Clark, et al.’s (2014, p. 233) bibliographic analysis of the ‘export’ vs. ‘import’ of citations among the leading business journals of the four major business disciplines (i.e. accounting, finance, management and marketing) finds that marketing ‘is situated below . . . all other business disciplines in the flow of ideas.’ Furthermore, when they focus on just the citation flows between marketing and management, they find that ‘the gap between exports and imports for the two fields has widened over time’ (p. 231). In short, the marketing discipline is the least influential of the four major business disciplines in terms of interdisciplinary citation flows, and the situation is getting worse. The discipline is, indeed, troubled. Similarly, the area of strategic marketing within the marketing discipline is troubled. In the early 1990s, Day (1992, p. 324) cautioned that ‘within academic circles the contribution of marketing to the development, testing, and dissemination of strategy theories and concepts’ was being ‘marginalised’. Almost two decades later, Reibstein, Day, and Wind (2009, p. 1) decried the fact that ‘the growing balkanization of academic marketing into quantitative modeling and consumer behavior has diminished research on strategic marketing issues.’ Recently, Varadarajan (2010) maintains that strategic marketing’s lack of clarity and consensus as to its theoretical foundations, its nature and its scope has resulted in the field suffering from an ‘identity crisis’. Similarly, Shaw’s (2012, p. 32, 33) historical review (1) characterises the strategic marketing area as a ‘semantic jungle of strategy terms’, (۲) notes that a ‘fundamental problem is the lack of an integrating theoretical framework’ and (3) concludes that ‘the present state of marketing strategy knowledge is inconsistent at best and incoherent at worst’. Finally, Houston (2016) warns that (1) so few doctoral students self-identify as ‘strategy’ researchers and (2) so few ‘traditional marketing strategy research’ articles are published in major journals that ‘strategy’ may be becoming a ‘taboo’ topic or ‘dirty word’. Strategic marketing is, indeed, troubled.

نوشته های مشابه

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *

دکمه بازگشت به بالا