Synthesis of: Franklin, P., (Autumn 2000), Problems and Prospects for Practice and Theory in Strategic Marketing Management. The Marketing Review, Vol

Synthesis of: Franklin, P., (Autumn 2000), Problems and Prospects for Practice and Theory in Strategic Marketing Management. The Marketing Review, Volume 1, Number 3, pp. 341-361.
The paper is and an expository text. It is divided into four main parts. The first part details the problem with both the ideas and practice of strategy and marketing strategy. The second part goes on to demonstrate that this problem is caused by dependence of both strategy and marketing on micro-economic theory. The third part outlines the prospect for strategy and strategic marketing management, and focuses on the importance of people and creativity in marketing and in strategic decision making. The final part offers a summary, conclusions and implications for practice.
The objective of the paper is to investigate the problems and prospects in relation to the theory and practice of strategic marketing management. There are in general problems with the ideas and practice of strategy. The main problem with strategy and with marketing strategy is the “absence of a shared mental model” or “agreed paradigm”. The second problem facing strategy and marketing is their dependence on micro-economics. Marketing, for example, suffers from a focus on the idea of exchange, which assumes consumer are ideal despite the reality of social and economic inequalities, and the distorting effects of marketing.
This has two consequences for marketing and strategy theory and practice are concerned with the focus of analysis in strategy, and the second is concerned the identity or category of those who are assumed to be in the best position to manage strategy.
In relation of the future for strategy and marketing, there are three main emerging themes. The first is concerned the shift in attention from an economics perspective to a behavioral one. The second theme is a product of the emergence of postmodernism which denies the possibility of a generalized theory and instead recognizes individual identity, which permits the idea of contingency and fragmentation. The third theme proposes a more conservative approach and seeks integration among the opposing schools of strategy.
There are several conclusions made in the paper. Firstly, an in-depth understanding of the foundations of the models, and what the models do and don’t do, should determine the choice and the use of models in practice. Secondly, all strategy, all marketing, all strategic marketing is shaped by our perceptions of reality. Thirdly, marketing and strategy, including marketing strategy, is about taking actions today which will affect our futures tomorrow. Finally, what we think we know about today appears to be certainties but can be subject to dispute in the future and even discarded and forgotten.
Opinion, Conclusions and Application
The paper points out that there are several different models for strategic decision making however it does not identify which should be applied to which situation. This means that there is no deterministic method and we are left to apply each model based on experience. Science in this case does not appear to provide an answer.
The paper also is important because it helps students understand that the theory behind marketing is changing and that although there are strategies today that apply and are used they may be outdated as the business world changes. Since the future is unknown and the ways businesses operate depends on what the future is the obvious conclusion is that business theory will need to change to accommodate, that is there will be a different focus and different theory to explain it. This identifies the need for each business leader to continual update their knowledge as the business world changes.
When businesses are in a competitive environment differentiation is a survival requirement and is achieve by innovation. It is impossible for science to predict the type of innovation that will occur in business practices and, in this particular case, in marketing strategy. It is a fallacy to believe that it is possible to create a universal scientific theory on strategy because the act of studying strategies will only lead to a study of outdated strategies. At the forefront of the business world innovative strategies are invented before science has time to analysis them and once these strategies become common, science has the opportunity to study and evaluate them when they are outdated! Take this argument for example, if all participates use game theory in their analysis for strategy what advantage is there? Neither participate wins or they in fact only reinforce or amplify their position. Real strategic innovation is invented before other participates have the time to study them providing a competitive advantage. So how can science provide the wisdom to produce leading strategies? This explanation explains the phenomena that the paper fails to identify – “What appear to be certainties today become subject to dispute tomorrow, and on the day after become forgotten and discarded”.