Skip to main content
Log in

The theoretical foundations of strategic marketing and marketing strategy: foundational premises, R-A theory, three fundamental strategies, and societal welfare

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The strategic marketing field of study has long suffered from an identity problem: the field has lacked clarity and consensus as to its theoretical foundations, its nature, and its scope. There have been two recent approaches that contribute to resolving the identity problem. First, Varadarajan’s (Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 119–140, 2010) approach focuses on strategic marketing's (1) domain, (2) definition, (3) fundamental issues, and (4) foundational premises. Second, resource-advantage (R-A) theory's approach focuses on how R-A theory provides a theoretical grounding for eight forms of business and marketing strategy. This article evaluates how the two approaches relate to each other and shows how R-A theory (1) grounds extant business and marketing theories of strategy, (2) illuminates, informs, extends, and grounds the sixteen foundational premises of the strategic marketing field that Varadarajan (2010) proposes, (3) implies that there are three fundamental strategies, “superior value”, “lower cost”, and “synchronal”, and (4) shows how the three fundamental strategies promote societal welfare. Therefore, the two approaches, when considered jointly, complement each other and foster the development of the field of strategic marketing and the forms of marketing strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Hunt (2012) for a discussion of themajor events that influenced the evolution of R-A theory.

  2. See Topaloglu et al. (2015) for an extension of R-A theory to competition in the context of nonprofit organizations.

  3. For an extensive discussion of why consumers enter into relational exchanges with firms, see Hunt et al. (2006).

  4. Indeed, if researchers do not mean a “superior value” strategy when they recommend a “differentiation” strategy, it is unclear what they do mean. Surely, they do not mean that firms should simply make their products different, as the word “differentiation” might literally imply.

  5. The quoted materials are in both the 1933 and 1962 editions; the page numbers are from the 1962 edition. See Hunt (2000; 2011) for a more detailed analysis of both how Chamberlin’s views evolved from the first edition of his book in 1933 to the final edition in 1962 and how his views influenced both economics and marketing.

  6. See Hunt (2010, pp. 424–430 for an R-A theory evaluation of the impact of adopting brand equity strategies.)

References

  • Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic marketing behavior. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin, E. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin, E. (1962). The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (1993). Economics and evolution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Toward a general theory of marketing. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2003). The resource-advantage research program. Working paper, Texas Tech University.

  • Hunt, S. D. (2006). On reforming marketing: For marketing systems and brand equity strategy. In J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia (Eds.), Does marketing need reform? (pp. 69–77). New York: Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, resource-advantage theory. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2011). The theory of monopolistic competition, marketing’s intellectual history, and the product differentiation versus marketing segmentation controversy. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2012). The evolution of resource-advantage theory: six events, six realizations, six contributions. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4(1), 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2013). A general theory of business marketing: R-A theory, Alderson, the ISBM framework, and the IMP theoretical Structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2001). Competition as an evolutionary process and antitrust policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2004). Market segmentation strategy, competitive advantage, and public policy: grounding segmentation strategy in resource-advantage theory. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. (2006). Toward a general theory of marketing: Resource-advantage theory as an extension of Alderson’s theory of market processes. In B. Wooliscroft, R. D. Tamilia, & S. J. Shapiro (Eds.), A twenty-first century guide to Aldersonian marketing thought (pp. 453–472). Massachusetts: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Derozier, C. (2004). The normative imperatives of business and marketing strategy: grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). Teaching marketing strategy: using resource-advantage theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: a snake swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (2005). The resource-advantage theory of competition: a review. Review of Marketing Research, 1, 153–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., & McGrath, R. G. (1997). Discovering new points of differentiation. Harvard Business Review, 133–138.

  • Madhavaram, S. & Hunt, S.D. (2008) The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67–82.

  • Marketing News. (2008). Marketing defined. Marketing News, 42, 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topaloglu, O., McDonald, R.E., & Hunt, S.D. (2015) The theoretical foundation of non-profit competition. Working paper, Texas Tech University.

  • Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain, definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelby D. Hunt.

Appendix: Varadarajan’s (2010) foundational premises of marketing strategy

Appendix: Varadarajan’s (2010) foundational premises of marketing strategy

  1. 1.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to facilitate an organization to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

  2. 2.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to create market-based relational assets and market-based intellectual assets for the organization.

  3. 3.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to enable an organization to establish and nurture mutually beneficial exchange relationships with customers.

  4. 4.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to modify/influence/shape the affect, cognition and behaviors of customers and consumers in ways that are conducive to their acquisition, possession and consumption of specific product offerings of an organization.

  5. 5.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to identify and leverage new points of differentiation.

  6. 6.

    A purpose of marketing strategy is to enhance the salience of non-price criteria vis-à-vis or vice-versa in buyers’ choice decisions.

  7. 7.

    A business can enhance the importance of non-price criteria relative to price in the brand choice decision process of buyers by segmenting the market into homogenous subgroups, developing differentiated product offerings responsive to the needs of individual market segments, and distinctively positioning its offerings relative to competitors’ product offerings.

  8. 8.

    Differentiation implies heterogeneity in supply.

  9. 9.

    Heterogeneity in demand is not a necessary condition in order for a strategy of differentiation to be effective in the marketplace. Heterogeneity in demand can either be a pre-existing state of the marketplace, or a consequence of heterogeneity in supply and the marketing efforts of competing businesses designed to stimulate heterogeneity in demand.

  10. 10.

    The range of options available to a business for pursuing a strategy of differentiation encompasses all non-price criteria that buyers either currently factor into the brand choice decision process or can be influenced to factor into the brand choice decision process.

  11. 11.

    All else being equal, a business can enhance its financial performance through pursuit of a strategy of differentiation when the incremental cost of differentiation per unit…is lower than the price premium that a unit of a differentiated product will command in the marketplace relative to an undifferentiated product.

  12. 12.

    Holding all other factors constant, those dimensions of differentiation for which the incremental cost of differentiation is lower than the incremental price premium that such differentiation is likely to command in the market-place constitute feasible avenues for differentiation.

  13. 13.

    A sustainable competitive cost advantage (being the lowest cost producer) is a necessary condition in order for a business to be able to compete on the basis of price over the long-run.

  14. 14.

    Competitive cost advantage does not imply being the lowest priced offering in the marketplace, but possessing the ability to compete on price and constraining the ability of competitors from competing on the basis of price over the long-run.

  15. 15.

    In an industry, there will be more than one means… to achieving a desired end…Thus, different competitors in an industry will be able to achieve and sustain comparable levels of superior performance by pursuing different promotion strategies.

  16. 16.

    There will be differences in the marketing strategies (i.e., heterogeneity or diversity in marketing strategy) pursued by competitors in an industry. The marketing strategies pursued by no two competitors in an industry are likely to be identical. At the margin, there will be differences in the strategies pursued.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hunt, S.D. The theoretical foundations of strategic marketing and marketing strategy: foundational premises, R-A theory, three fundamental strategies, and societal welfare. AMS Rev 5, 61–77 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-015-0069-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-015-0069-5

Keywords

Navigation