Introducing the Marketing Research Mix - a tool for Practitioners and Scholars.

By Nigel Bradley, University of Westminster 2005

Cite as: Bradley N (2005) Introducing the Marketing Research Mix - a tool for Practitioners and Scholars. Available at http://www.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/Marketing/MRMIX.html

Abstract

History shows that research was part of the famous Marketing Mix in its early days; but over time it has been removed. This is evident by examining how the Marketing Mix has evolved. In today’s world the research sector is substantial, and the author argues that it is time to give research more prominence in decision making. This article therefore introduces and describes the “Marketing Research Mix” (or the MR Mix), a concept developed by the author in 2004. This new “Mix” replaces the stages of research and can help us to approach the complex area of planning research. The MR Mix has been used in teaching students on Marketing Research modules. All of these students had a basic appreciation of marketing, so instantly recognised the similarity with the Marketing Mix and without exception they felt that this was a valuable mnemonic. It places great weight on the purpose of research studies and encourages close scrutiny and inspection of objectives, something that is vital to effective research. Practitioners should be aware of the concept because they may well encounter it.

Introduction

 Marketing Research is important: Hess and Lucas (2004) attempted to answer the question, “How much marketing research should a firm do when it takes resources away from manufacturing the goods that generate revenue?” The findings give food for thought as they say: “firms without initial knowledge of their potential customers should allocate one-third of the firm’s resources to marketing research.” This is an indication of the importance of research to corporations. Indeed an entire sector has emerged to serve users. The worldwide research revenue of the top 50 research agencies was in the region of 11,500,000,000 US dollars for 2003 (AMA 2004). In the United Kingdom alone we find over 450 full service agencies, over 200 freelance consultants, some 70 fieldwork and tabulation agencies, 30 data preparation and analysis providers. Additionally there are some 100 group discussion and viewing facilities available (MRS 2005).

In spite of this activity it may seem strange that research is not part of the marketing mix, a tool that has been used in management for some fifty years. It is useful to explore this apparent absence by a review of the Marketing Mix and how it has evolved. The article then proposes and describes the “Marketing Research Mix". This is a term developed by the author in 2004, a concept hitherto unused, yet very similar to the “Marketing Mix”, this similarity was deliberate. Just as marketing has adopted the four Ps to help marketing decision-makers, this new “Mix” can help researchers to approach the complex area of planning research. There are several applications of the MR Mix: If there is a need for research this structure helps to ascertain the parameters, the framework gives an aide-memoire to design research and arrive at a proposal. At a procedural level it gives guidance on specific aspects of the research, for example in questionnaire design or sampling. It gives a checklist to pose relevant questions.

The Marketing Mix

The marketing mix is a checklist that can be applied quickly and discussed in team meetings; the device can also form the basis of considered deliberation in written reports. There is an appeal in that the device, as it is taught, is easily memorised. Generations of marketing scholars have learnt how to use the marketing mix to create market plans. The Oxford English Dictionary even has a definition:  “the factors that can be controlled by a company to influence consumers to purchase its products; a combination of these factors designed to promote a particular product or influence a particular segment of the market.” It is relevant to trace the origins and development of the marketing mix, because it will be shown that research was originally part of it.

When inspecting the history of any topic, conflicting or untidy accounts abound; one version of history starts in 1948 when Culliton said that a marketing decision should be a result of something similar to a recipe. This version continues in 1953 when Neil Borden, in his American Marketing Association presidential address, took the recipe idea one step further and coined the term 'Marketing-Mix'. A prominent person to take centre stage was E. Jerome McCarthy in 1960; he proposed a four-P classification which was popularised. Therefore we have Product, Price, Place and Promotion, a classification that is still taught today. This is a useful tool to analyse the status of any marketing situation.

Figure 1 The Marketing Mix

In the original texts we find some other things of relevance. For example Louis Cheskin gave an interview that was published in January 1956. In it he said “the most popular talk I give is called “The Four P’s of Profit” The first P is product, the second P is the package, the third P is promotion or advertising, the fourth P is Price” (Cheskin 1957:100). By August 1957 this talk was committed to print in the Advertiser’s Digest and Cheskin moved away from the “Four P’s of Profit” to describe these four Ps as the “Four Pillars of Successful Marketing.” It is relevant to see how Cheskin places a major emphasis on Marketing Research: “A marketing program cannot stand on one or even two pillars. It must have four pillars and four walls, each buttressed with reliable research.” Here we see the four-P notion clearly described, and it does not ignore research.

However interesting this may be, it is not clear evidence that either Cheskin or McCarthy were the originators of the marketing mix.  In fact if we turn to a small booklet of 24 pages printed in 1956 by the Amos Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College we find that it was authored by Albert Frey; it was called “The Effective Marketing Mix”. McCarthy may have popularised the 4 Ps but he does, in his book (1968:34), mention A.W. Frey. McCarthy calls his table an adaptation of Frey and it divides it into five considerations shown in Table 1. Frey calls his first consideration The Nature of the Market and he describes it in some detail. This first consideration is arguably marketing research.

Table 1 A.W. Frey’s five considerations

Returning to Borden we find that he provided 12 elements (Borden 1964), these appear in Table 2. The final one is “Fact finding and Analysis”. Is this last item not really marketing research? Apparently, for these many years, no matter which old documents are unearthed, or to which history we refer, there is no doubt, research was part of the marketing mix but seems to have disappeared.

Table 2 Borden’s 12 elements

So, in the mid 1950s the four Ps were brought into the world and it is fascinating to think that this concept has survived for so many years. We have seen it praised; we have seen it rejected; we have seen it compressed, we have seen it expanded.  Some writers argue that the four elements could be collapsed: “Several aspects of the total mix really involve combinations of the four basic items” (Shapiro 1985: 32). There is another argument to expand the elements; some authors have extended the four Ps to five: Nickels and Jolson (1976) added packaging whereas Mindak and Fine (1981) added public relations. We have also seen the four increase to seven: people, process, physical evidence (Booms & Bitner 1981; Rafiq & Ahmed 1995); and even seen it change alphabetically to the letter C (Robins 1991) and the letter V (Bennett A. R. 1997).  The structure has been moved to International Marketing (Gruca et al 2001) and to Green Marketing (Bradley 1989). With the arrival of E-Commerce we have found it in Interactive Marketing (Peattie & Peters 1997). There is the E-Marketing Mix (Kalyanam & McIntyre 2002) and the Web-Marketing Mix model with four S words: Scope, Site, Synergy and System (Constantinides 2002).

Promotion has become the “Promotion Mix”, itself with four elements such as advertising, public relations, sales force and sales promotions. Then there is an extended Promotional Mix that embraces other aspects such as Sponsorship and Direct Mail. Again the appeal is that it helps the human being to remember numerous items by putting them under simple headings. This sub-set is sometimes called the “Marketing Communications Mix.”

The Marketing Mix is a useful device, it can be moulded, recreated, applied, criticised, defined, adapted, adopted but most importantly for education, it can be remembered. In spite of this activity it may seem strange that research is not obviously part of the marketing mix. Again, a look into the past shows us that this has not always been the case. Borden and Marshall (1959) and Traynor (1985) offered a relevant P for the researcher, this is “Probing”. With an industry of well over 11,500,000,000 US dollars perhaps it is time to give research some more importance?

The Marketing Research Mix

In considering research design let us go back to Jerome McCarthy who, when discussing the four Ps, made this observation (1960:33):

“The framework may appear simple enough, but the task of making choices within this framework is fairly complex. For one thing, each of the four Ps has many potential variations, thereby making the number of possible marketing mixes very large. For example, if there were 10 variations in each of the variables (10 price, 10 products etc) there would be 10,000 possible marketing mixes.”

Marketing researchers are, for the most part, testing the marketing mix and from this account it is clear that the research design must adapt to accommodate these numerous variations. Let us not forget that the researcher also has very many options. Sometimes these are so numerous that the human mind is incapable of considering the strengths and weaknesses of the many possibilities without time, resources and debate. To take sampling as just one example, Malhotra (1999:335) tells us that at least 32 different techniques can be derived from the combinations of aspects of the random technique. If multi-stage sampling is used and non-probability techniques are introduced, the choice is vast.

A framework was sought to assist researchers to design studies, to help draw the parameters then begin a proposal. The term Marketing Research Mix (or the MR Mix) was coined by the author in 2004, and the concept was created for students, it has been used in classes with success.  The name is of course very similar to the “Marketing Mix”, this similarity was deliberate and it also has four Ps. Unlike the marketing mix these elements are sequential and they match the main phases that need to be followed. These four Ps are: Purpose; Population; Procedure and Publication. Figure 2 shows these stages and Table 2 outlines the main parts of each element.

Figure 2 Stages of Research in terms of the MR Mix

Purpose

The purpose of the research is the reason why it is being done. The word “purpose” is useful because it has a wide coverage. It can be specifically defined or it can be loosely explained. The wide term also embraces studies to gather marketing intelligence, where the manager’s role is to scan the environment for useful data, and there may be no specific objective.

Many marketers avoid the term hypothesis entirely and tend to use the words “research objective” or “aim”. The word hypothesis (plural, hypotheses) is quite different from the terms mentioned above. It is an essential starting point for quantitative researchers, but takes a lesser role for qualitative researchers.  The term is deeply rooted in the history of scientific thought. In statistics we expend much time and energy to generate hypotheses, to test hypotheses, and to reject them.  Some people argue that we should only test one hypothesis; others say we should test several. In hypothesis testing we create a statement, which may be true or false, this statement is a "proposition" - we propose that something may be the case.   If it is right then we accept it.  If it is not right, if it is "wrong" then we reject it.

The first step is to formulate the null-hypothesis, abbreviated to Ho.   This is usually intended to be rejected.   Another carefully constructed hypothesis is the alternative hypothesis or the H1; this is actually called the 'research hypothesis'.  After these have been articulated the researcher can design a research programme to test the hypotheses. When the results are received, they are examined against the prediction of the null hypothesis. The basic idea is to use this possible explanation and then look for data to support the explanation (or not).  It is best to spend as much time as possible on the hypothesis: it is the research question, and it determines how the study is carried out.  It determines the design because it defines the problem.

The subject of hypothesis testing has been debated heavily for many years and there are suggestions that misuse of null hypothesis significance testing is widespread and damaging (Finch et al 2001), at least in psychological research. It is relevant to cite an article on hypothesis testing in marketing research by Lawrence (1982) who tells us: "Practical survey researchers (realise) that, in many cases, no adequate theory exists for setting up hypotheses in advance".  The article continues:  "Drawing one-off hypotheses out of the air offers no solution to the problem.  Researchers will be guided by their own ideas, experiences, hunches".

A mnemonic commonly used in management is the SMART acronym.  It helps in planning, so if we set a business objective we want it to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely; summarised by the acronym SMART. The fundamental idea is that any plans we have should not be vague, it should be possible to quantify them in some way so that progress can be evaluated, and it should be possible to carry them out and within a certain time frame. This can be applied to business objectives, marketing objectives; it can even be applied to sales or communications objectives.  An example of a fully articulated SMART objective is “to increase sales by 250,000 units before December.”

It could be argued that “SMART” is not fully applicable to research objectives since researchers often attempt to throw light on an area that needs greater understanding.  There may be a clear purpose for doing research or it may be exploratory.   For this reason specific objectives and clearly formulated hypotheses may be a mistake. We might suggest that preconceptions will push the research in one direction. SMART fails for Qualitative Research; it fails for Exploratory Research and indeed for intelligence-gathering where the environment is constantly scanned for changes that might trigger action.   Such information may not be anticipated, and the SMART model is best applied to planning rather than describing. Sometimes projects are 'fact-finding' missions and the researcher strives to avoid framing pre-conceived ideas about the market environment.  Grounded theory (Glaser 1978) is usefully employed to capture the unexpected. This approach is a relatively young area for market researchers, in grounded theory a “fact-finding” exercise is carried out and information is collected without defining objectives. The resulting output means that the final overview (or theory) is “grounded” in the data.  There may be no objectives but there is always a reason for such studies. This does not mean that researchers go into the field to collect any information that happens to come in their direction, there is always an overall purpose.   The unknown elements, at the outset, are what is required; by not drawing conclusions in advance of fieldwork, the research is not restricted, and the work continues until results make valuable discoveries. If we remember that expenditure on qualitative research is substantial, this is further proof that strict objectives are, in practice, not the norm. The term “purpose” is therefore broad enough to be usefully applied in studies that use grounded theory as a starting point.

Much quantitative research is also 'fact-finding'.  Most questionnaires contain questions that are there for interest or curiosity, to follow up a hunch. In analysis of results there is much to be said for letting the 'tables speak', to 'trawl' through numbers to look for patterns. This is done both by machine and by the human eye.

The point is that the term 'purpose' is sufficiently loose to describe the first phase of research. It does embrace the straitjacket of the carefully worded hypothesis, but it also accommodates the other extreme of exploration to discover patterns that do not rely on prior knowledge. It is suitable for both qualitative and quantitative research.

Population

When considering any market sector we need to ask “Who is involved in this marketplace?” Who are the players? Who should be the centre of the investigation and where are those subjects? This area considers the target audience, customer or player; the users or non-users. Who will become the respondent or informant? Should we contact all players or just some of them? Should we carry out a census or a sample: should respondents be selected by probability or non-probability methods? An important concept for primary research is sampling. We choose to interview or observe people who we think will give us the information that will solve our problems. So in choosing our research method, we need to consider whom we select and how we select.  This applies to qualitative research, with only a few people, and quantitative research with many people. Much emphasis in marketing research is on the end user, but “experts” can bridge the gap between primary and secondary data.  An expert may be someone who has been in the business for many years. This part of the MR Mix involves identifying relevant sampling frames.

Procedure

When considering the procedure the key question is “How should the study be conducted?” Will it be qualitative or quantitative? This area also covers the question of timing: when will the fieldwork take place?

The best research starts by looking at secondary data, this information already exists. The two basic sources: internal (within an organisation) and external, published by someone outside have become easier to access in recent years. Information Technology, with Intranets and the Internet, has improved our ability to find such data. If secondary data doesn’t solve the problem then original data (primary data) is sought. It is useful to think of different primary methods in these terms: we can ask people what they are doing; we can watch them or detect what they have done by counting or we can manipulate some variables to discover the effect. This creates three categories: questioning; observation and experimentation.

Primary data collection techniques can be subdivided into: interviewer-administered or respondent-administered; direct or indirect; personal or impersonal. Processing data, analysis and interpretation are essential parts of the procedure.  Detailed examination of the appropriate tools used in the data collection needs to take place.

Table 3 The Marketing Research Mix

Publication

Under the heading of “Publication” the key questions are: Who is the audience for the results? What should be communicated? When and how should they be communicated? Research is of no use if findings are kept within the research team; similarly commercially sensitive information will have no competitive advantage if placed in the public domain. Choices need to be made on how publication takes place. Will a written report be created? Will tabulations be provided? Will a personal presentation take place? Who should be allowed sight of the results?

There are many different readers of research reports and these audiences all have very different expectations. Reporting must be personalised, writing and presentation style must be customised and adapted to the user. At one extreme there is the general public. There are many reasons why research is reported to the “mass consumer”. It may be a government report that has been commissioned to be in the public interest: concerning health, welfare, transport and so on. It may be a consumer report: consumer watchdog reports are of great interest to the man on the street, so we find the Which? Magazine and similar bodies have enabled the layman appreciate survey findings. Editors of periodicals regularly commission research for editorial reasons, so the results may become part of an article for mass consumption. The research agency may report directly to the public on web pages, by email or by post, this is because it is now common to offer a short summary report to a respondent as a gesture of goodwill, an incentive, a thank you for co-operating in the research. Research findings may appear as part of a promotional campaign, appealing to the consumer’s need to know that indeed this is a best seller (“nine out of ten cat-owners prefer…”).

Then there are smaller audiences such as managers who are anxious to receive a report in order to make instant decisions. Additionally there are managers who will benefit from the information much later when the report is consulted as secondary data in the future.

How the MR Mix has been received

As stated, the MR Mix has been piloted in teaching; well over 200 students have been introduced to the concept. The MR Mix has been integrated into teaching University undergraduates on Marketing Research modules. It has also been introduced to postgraduates following professional qualifications for the Chartered Institute of Marketing.

All students had a basic appreciation of marketing, so instantly recognised the similarity with the Marketing Mix and without exception they felt that this was a valuable mnemonic. The MR Mix replaces the stages of research that are often presented as 8 or 10 steps and so are less likely to be memorised quickly. With regard to the word Purpose some students were pleased to hear the synonyms and to be involved in the debate concerning wide and narrow thinking; it is true to say that some students feel uncomfortable with hypothesis setting and this umbrella term helps to overcome any reservations by a gradual introduction to the area. Students often take hypotheses and apply them rigorously to qualitative research and the word Purpose helps them to realise that this is not appropriate or necessary.

In discussions some students felt that the MR Mix could be reduced to three Ps whereby the Population could be absorbed into Procedure, but counter arguments put forward argued that the Players are of major importance to any given market-place and the mere existence of the element confirms and reminds us of this. The word population was said to be clumsy, and someone questioned why it wasn’t called “Players”, not a bad idea.

A few students stressed that the four elements are not equal in content and this is clear when arriving at the element called Procedure. This was seen to be the most compact of the four, in that it contains all of the mechanical processes involved in research. Within this element there is much to consider, as one student said “it hides too much”. In defence of the four, yes there is a huge difference between purpose and procedure, but the creation of a category for the objectives highlights the importance of getting the research question right before wasting resources. It is possible to find many marketing mistakes or business blunders that would have been avoided if research objectives were clearly defined at the outset.

The terms used for each element have been the focus of much debate. The final choice of words may not be ideal; clearly they have been chosen to begin with the letter P and to approximately embrace the meaning inherent in the stages. Debate was particularly lively with regard to the word Publication. Some students felt that this word gives the implication that research findings are disseminated to the general public. It is true that some results of research may be for mass consumption, (we find political opinion research in daily newspapers) but on the whole marketing audiences are far more limited. One astute observer pointed out that this is not a problem for other forms of research (academic, social, medical) where the term Publication really is correct. This led to a debate about the fact that the MR Mix could be renamed as the Research Mix; it would then have potential uses outside the field of marketing research. My own view is that it works in marketing because McCarthy’s four Ps are so well known.

Conclusions

There are several applications of the MR Mix: the framework gives a reminder to design research and develop a proposal. This structure helps to ascertain the parameters, and it gives guidance for specific aspects of the research. It gives a checklist to pose relevant questions. We can use the MR Mix in questionnaire design: bearing in mind the purpose, the appropriate respondents, procedural features such as scales, showcards, and mode of delivery, and publication or production of the final questionnaire version. We can use the MR Mix in sampling: the purpose, the population needs careful analysis to make sampling decisions; the procedure involves selection by quota or other means and publication relates to the operation of making the sample ready for use in the field. In desk research projects the four Ps can be used to evaluate secondary data: why it was conducted, who was involved, what research procedures were used and why it was published. Indeed the four Ps can be applied to any part of the research.  Another application will come after research has been conducted, the mix allows the results to be organised, and findings can be evaluated by asking key questions about each P. For presentations the audience can pose questions with the framework, thereby leading to a greater understanding. Initial use in teaching has been favourable, the framework is very memorable to marketing students, and it allows debate to take place where there was little before. It is hoped that the MR Mix will serve practitioners; certainly they should be aware of the concept because they will be soon joined by people who are fully aware of the framework.

References

AMA (2004) Honomichl Global 25 annual report on the global research industry, AMA’s Marketing News, 15 August 2004.

Available at http://data.ama.org/publications/honomichl/display2.php

Bennett A. R. (1997) The five Vs – a buyer’s perspective of the marketing mix. Marketing and Intelligence Planning 15(3); 151-156

Booms, B.H. & Bitner, M.J. (1981) Marketing Strategies and organisation structures for service firms, in Donnely J.H. and George W.R. (eds) Marketing of Services, American Marketing Association. Chicago. IL pp47-51

Borden, N. H. (1964), “The Concept of the Marketing Mix”, Journal of Advertising Research, June, Vol. 4, pp. 2-7. Available in Schwartz G. Science in Marketing. John Wiley & Sons, NY 386-97

Bradley N (1989) The Green Marketing Mix. Industrial Marketing Research Association News. December pp8-9

Cheskin, Louis (1957) How to Predict What People Will Buy. Liveright Publishing Corp, New York

Constantinides E (2002) The 4S Web-Marketing Mix model. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1: 57-76

Culliton, J. W. (1948), The Management of Marketing Costs, Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, Mass: Harvard University.

Finch, S., Cumming, G., & Thomason, N. (2001). Reporting of statistical inference in the Journal of Applied Psychology: Little evidence of reform. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 181-210

Frey, Albert (1956) The Effective Marketing Mix. The Amos Tuck School of Business

Gruca Thomas S., Sudharshan D. and Kumar, K. Ravi (2001) Marketing mix response to entry in segmented markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18, (1-2), June 53-66

Hess James D, Lucas, Marilyn T (2004) Doing the Right Thing or Doing the Thing Right: Allocating Resources Between Marketing Research and Manufacturing. Management Science (50) 4 March 521-526

Lawrence, Raymond J (1982) To hypothesize or not to hypothesize?   The 'correct' approach to survey research.   Journal of the Market Research Society 24(4) 335-343

McCarthy EJ (1960) Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood IL: Irwin.

Mindak W.A. and Fine S. (1981) A fifth ‘P’: public relations, in Donnely J.H. and George W.R. (eds) Marketing of Services, American Marketing Association. Chicago. IL pp71-73

MRS (2005) Research Buyer’s Guide UK & Ireland. Market Research Society.

Nickels W.G. and Jolson M.A. (1976) Packaging – the fifth P in the marketing mix. Advanced Management Journal, Winter pp.13-21

Peattie K & Peters L (1997) The marketing mix in the third age of computing. Marketing and Intelligence Planning 15(3); 142-150

Rafiq M, Ahmed PK (1995) Using the 7Ps as a generic marketing mix: an exploratory survey of UK and European marketing academics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, October 1995, 13 (9) 4-15

Robins F (1991) Four Ps or Four Cs or Four Ps and Four Cs. MEG 1991 Conference Proceedings.

Shapiro BP (1985) Rejuvenating the marketing mix. Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 63(5), 28-34

About the Author: Nigel Bradley, University of Westminster

 Nigel Bradley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Westminster.

With an MSc in Product Management and Marketing from Cranfield he joined Burke Research Services Group. He continued at BJM Research and then RSL/ IPSOS working in various sectors: agriculture, industrial, international and media. For several years he has been a Chief Examiner to the CAM Foundation. He is also an examiner for the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the Market Research Society. He is a Chartered Marketeer, Marketing Research Consultant and a Freelance Tutor.   bradlen@wmin.ac.uk