The marketing mix was introduced by Professor Edmund McCarthy and his book entitled ‘Basic Marketing: A managerial approach’. His book changed the notion of marketing in the early 1960s and in his book, he uses the data to analyse the effectiveness of the consumer market in relation to the marketing mix.

To understand the principles of marketing, it is important to understand the model of the marketing mix because most of the marketing theories and models are aligned with the marketing mix. Although the marketing mix outlines the standardised determinants which are the 4Ps or in some cases – the 7Ps; there is a missing puzzle of the marketing mix which is not spread through the global marketing sphere. The marketing mix is not a complex model and it is one of the few models which are taught in-depth in higher and further education, and even secondary schools but the concept of this model is not represented very well by global companies. The reason is quite simple because the marketing mix points out the common determinants which are product, place, price and promotion and these determinants are the fundamental steps for corporations to extend their monopolistic view and also increase their market capitalisation (Weiss, 1968; Kotler, 2015).

The marketing mix is a unique model which has improved the marketing capabilities but a standalone model is misrepresented because the marketing mix has to be combined with other models such as the Boston Consulting Matrix and Ansoff matrix to make it an effective model. In many ways, the marketing mix as a standalone model is a powerful model and the reason why the full capability of the marketing mix is not utilised is because marketers focus on other theories to justify the usage of the marketing mix. The promotional mix has been used as a subordinate for the marketing mix and the promotional mix is not considered as a strong model as the determinants of the promotional mix are not perceived to be dynamic. The promotional mix is a good example of how the elements of the marketing mix have been coupled with other elements of marketing to make it a strong candidate in the marketing environment (Ouwersloot and Duncan, 2008). Elements of the promotional mix such as advertising, public relations and sponsorships have been linked to branding to make this mix a satisfied model within the marketing framework. Whenever advertising is mentioned; there is a sense of brand equity being put into the mix to justify advertising and it gives advertising a solid ground to make a good argument to the audience (Karunanithy and Sivesan, 2013; Eberechukwu and Chukwuma, 2016).

A conclusive example of the misrepresentation of the marketing mix is the use of product strategy within the product element of the marketing mix. The core understanding of the product strategy is to implement a distinctive strategy which shows the stages of the product so that product value is achieved. However, this is not the case as soon as the word ‘stages’ are in play then the product life cycle (PLC) and the Boston Consulting Matrix are implemented so that the product determinant of the marketing mix is stable and they are used accurately to influence the growth of the product during its life stages.

Maybe, the renaissance of the marketing mix is around the corner and there is an author who is polishing the publication of the marketing mix better than what McCarthy (1960) did. Maybe, the elements within the marketing mix are not forgotten and maybe the idea of aligning the marketing mix with other models and theories make it relevant to suit marketers’ preferences. The preferences of the marketing mix do suit the needs of modern capitalism. The social media era means that consumers will purchase any product as long as it has Photoshop imprints. The assumption which is drawn from the assertion above is that it should be called the 5Ps then corporate marketers might pay full attention to the marketing mix.

The proposed fifth ‘P’ should be called ‘profits’ as it flows in the same understanding which corporations focus on. The symbolisation of profit is to make the difference which entirely relies on the growth of the business but it does not have any ties with the enhancement of the mix. The marketing mix cannot be represented as it stands on a foreground to be the ingenious marketing tool which can equip a business with both knowledge and acknowledgment if each determinant is applied accurately and effectively. However, the synopsis of the marketing mix gives the tool a dynamic approach which allows corporations to adapt its elements to synchronise its strategic aims and objectives.

The main mix is ignored and they are broken down into individualistic elements which change the diagnostics standards of the marketing mix, and it makes the mix completely misrepresented. The understanding of the marketing mix is simple with all the notions linking to the economic and technological implementation within an organisational infrastructure.

McCarthy (1960) denotes that the marketing mix can change the values of an organisation’s fortune which can make an organisation attract their target audience or enhance the development of their supply chain. Nevertheless, the mix has used other elements of the marketing to strengthen its position on how it is implemented. Perhaps, the growing disciplines of marketing gives an ageing sequence to the marketing mix and that is why it needs to be strengthened to proclaim its stances as a result of changing the conditions to make the marketing mix a flexible tool which could change the approach of the future trends in marketing.

The marketing mix has become a standalone model and marketers have influenced the concept of the marketing mix by adding other formulas to make it prevalent. The roots of the 4Ps have become a pioneer which has reshaped the marketing strategy and provided the alternatives that have reinforced the specific outcomes to maintain the organisational growth. The organic position of the marketing mix should not be forgotten, but the determinants have been designed with precision that have made the marketing mix a taught model in educational institutions and also written in academic scriptures. The marketing mix should not need justifications and enhancements to make it represented even though the extended marketing mix (people, process and physical evidence) along with profit could make the marketing mix a stable model, the indigenous of the mix needs to be restored under the corporate umbrella and should not be misrepresented by marketers and scholars. The marketing mix does not need additional reinforcements to make it a renowned framework and on its own, it is a perfect framework which enables businesses to create a sustainable market environment.

References

1. Weiss, D. L. (1968). Determinants of market share. Journal of Marketing Research, 290-295

2. Kotler, P. (2015). A framework for marketing management. 6th eds. Harlow: Pearson

3. Ouwersloot, H., and Duncan, T. (2008) Integrated Marketing Communications. New York: McGraw Hill

4. Karunanithy, M., & Sivesan, S. (2013). An empirical study  on  the  promotional  mix  and  brand equity:  Mobile  service  providers.  Industrial Engineering Letters, 3(3), 1-9

5. Eberechukwu,  A.,  &  Chukwuma,  A.  (2016). integrated  marketing  communication  in building  customer-based  brand  equity:  a review  paper.  International  Journal  of management and  economics invention,  2(3), 573-582

6. McCarthy, E. J. (1960) Basic marketing: a managerial approach. New York: McGraw Hill