We will write a custom Essay on Marketing Implementation: Paradox of Planning Capability specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The article The Paradox of a Marketing Planning Capability and several examples of paradox in marketing from real companies will be presented in this work.
The ideas of marketing implementation are considered to be the major ones in this work, as only marketing implementation may include “producing advertising material, undertaking promotions, manufacturing products, inconsistent promotions” (Gelder, 2005, p.59).
Paradox in marketing planning may be caused by different outcomes of planning capabilities, this is why this very issue is considered to be the burning one for many researchers.
The major purpose of marketing planning is to develop and promote the relationship between a firm and the environment (Slotegraaf & Dickson, 2004, p. 372), in other words, marketing implementation should be on a really proper level.
This is why planning capabilities should be developed day by taking and improved in accordance with new circumstances. Unfortunately, even excellent planning may bring to poor implementation.
Poor prepared marketing copies, not successful targeting campaigns, or even bad design of a web site – all this is a good example of poor implementation even with proper marketing planning (Schultz & Doerr, 2009, 40).
This is why good marketing should give proper answers to who the customers are, what the products are, why needs should be met, when and where to start working, how to advertise the products (Epstein, 2006, p. 3).
However, even taking into consideration all these aspects, it is quite possible to face marketing paradox in case firms are not interested in improvising from their own approved plans even if they have enough planning capabilities.
Very often, the results of investigations of marketing planning capability show that this capability’s effect is curvilinear. When marketing planning capability enhances performance and decreases returns exist, the effect is negative.
However, at the same time, planning capabilities lead to positive results because advertising still takes places. So, marketing paradox is noticeable and has to be solved. In order to manage this type of paradox, it is necessary to clear up with tensions.
For example, when one firm creates a certain plan but the content of this plan is explained not to each member of a team, the implementation will be certainly poor, and the mistake will be made by numerous departments in chain. Social media is one of the spheres, where poor implementation of good marketing planning capabilities takes place.
Many media companies create proper content but do not take into consideration marketing this content. Their focus is databases and mail lists. Their marketing time is usually used in order to advertise and grab people’s attention.
But with time, they have to spend much time on content marketing (according to certain laws), this is why they do not have much time to market other things. So, their good planning lead to negative effects, and marketing is not that effective.
Nowadays, lots of firms may face paradox of a marketing planning capability. Usually, this paradox is caused by lack of desire to develop and use planning improvisation and presence of rigidity in marketing.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
In order to overcome this paradox, it is necessary to evaluate the situation in general and the participation of each member of the firm in particular. Only in this case, some ideas on how to improve marketing will be found.
Epstein, K 2006, Marketing Made Easy, Kevin Epstein.
Gelder, S 2005, Global Brand Strategy: Unlocking Brand Potential across Countries, Cultures & Markets, Kogan Page Publishers.
Schultz, M and Doerr, J 2009, Professional Services Marketing: How the Best Firms Build Premier Brands, Thriving Lead Generation Engines, and Cultures of Business Development Success, John Wiley and Sons.
Slotegraaf, RJ and Dickson, PR 2004, ‘The Paradox of a Marketing Planning Capability’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 32, no. 4, p. 371-285.