INTEGRATING THE MARKETING PLAN: LESSONS FROM
MARKETING MANAGEMENT, STRATEGIC MARKETING,
AND MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION
Barry Berman, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Joel R, Evans, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
ABSTRACT
ferences among marketing management, strategic market-
' and marketing implementation perspectives need to be
onciled through the development of an integrated roar-
ing plan. Marketing plan integration can be analyzed
ough a marketing plan audit, analysis of SBU structure,
dy of a firm's communication system, and evaluation of
irm's incentive and compensation system,
INTRODUCTION
,re has been increased attention to the implementation
marketing strategy in the marketing literature and
:eptance of this topic as a relevant research area
,noma 1982, Bonoma 1984 a, b, c, Spekman and Gr,nhaug
l3, and Wind and Robertson 1983), Some major reasons
the increased attention to marketing implementation
the following:
A reassessment of 33 strategies described in Business
Week (drawn from a random sample of hundreds of stories
oncorporate strategies that appeared in Business Week
over a period of several years) found that 19 failed,
ran into trouble, or were abandoned, Only 14 could be
classified as being successful (Business Week 1984),
Marketers (both practitioners and academics) have
expressed a growing dissatisfaction with simplified
and mechanistic models of strategic planning (Allen
1980, Day 1980, Kiechel 1982, Wind and Mahajan 1980).
Reviews of these models suggest that they are norma-
tive and/or descriptive. Even the Boston Consulting
Group is abandoning some of its buzzwords in favor of
a new emphasis on implementation (Business Week 1984).
A review of pricing research by Rao (1984) indicated
that this research is conducted almost exclusively at
the brand level. The role of "corporate marketing"
was found to be particularly unclear, and many diver-
sified firms have focused their marketing activities
at the operating division (SBU level) with only a
limited corporate marketing function (Wind and
Robertson 1983). There is concern that marketing
plans be better integrated among a firm's SBUs and
that opportunities for synergy be evaluated,
Implementation may be aimed at short-range goals at
the expense of a longer-term focus, Thus, annual and
quarterly profit goals may be dysfunctional (Hayes and
Abernathy 1980).
According to a Marketing Science Institute study, too
frequently marketing is responsible for long-range
marketing planning and market development, whereas the
sales function is responsible for current year sales
and profit performance (Cady 1984). There is a need
to integrate these different time perspectives as well
as to coordinate the activities of all organizational
-ics.
=
need exists to refocus the orientations of
::a- a:>d s=rategic planning to improve the
probability of implementation success. One such analysis
by Wind and Robertson (1983) is comprised of three inter-
related sections:
1. Assessment of market opportunities and business
strengths.
2. The strategic marketing dimension which leads to the
selection of a target portfolio (which reflects a
firm's opportunities, strengths, and synergy).
3. The generation and evaluation of objectives and
strategies.
The researchers are concerned that a marketing plan be
properly integrated so that the probability of successful
implementation is increased. This paper focuses on
evaluating the differences among marketing management,
strategic marketing, and marketing implementation and the
need to reconcile these perspectives through an inte-
grated marketing plan to improve marketing implementation.
Suggestions on better integrating marketing plans and
areas for additional research will also be covered,
DIFFERENCES AMONG MARKETING MANAGEMENT,
STRATEGIC MARKETING, AND
MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION
Marketing implementation should not be confused with
either marketing management or strategic marketing. There
are important differences in each process in terms of
their activities, basic unit of analysis, objectives,
environment, use of research, and perspective. This
section describes each of these differences.
Marketing management focuses on a decision making
approach which develops a marketing mix to serve the
needs of a designated market (Cunningham and Robertson
1983). The focus of decision making is generally at the
product, brand, or company level. A marketing management
approach seeks to select the target market, set marketing
objectives, establish a marketing organization, develop
the marketing mix, integrate the marketing mix, and
monitor results. See Figure 1.
Marketing management can be distinguished from strategic
marketing or marketing implementation in that marketing
management:
Centers on the characteristics and needs of the
target market and the design of the marketing mix.
Uses divisions, departments, products, and geographic
areas as the basic unit of analysis.
Allows each division or department to attempt to
maximize the resource level it receives.
Strategic planning deals with the relationship of the
organization to its environment and therefore relates
to all areas of business. However, since marketing is
most susceptible to outside influences, marketing con-
cerns are pivotal in strategic planning (Jain 1983).
Strategic planning also assumes that different busi-
nesses should have different objectives for a firm,
 FIGURE 1
THE TRADITIONAL MARKETING MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Selecting the Target Market
Setting Specific Marketing Objectives
Establishing the Marketing Organization
Developing the Marketing Mix
Integrating the Marketing Mix
Monitoring Results
In contrast to the marketing management perspective,
strategic marketing concentrates on organizational mission,
portfolio analysis, and situation analysis. Strategic
planning takes a broader company perspective and integrates
corporate planning and marketing planning. Figure 2 shows
the strategic planning process in marketing.
FIGURE 2
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS IN MARKETING
Defining the Organizational Mission
Establishing Strategic Business Units
Setting General Marketing Objectives
Situation Analysis
Developing Marketing Strategy
Integrating Marketing Strategy
Monitoring Results
Several characteristics distinguish the strategic
approach:
Marketers participate in corporate planning and are
involved with defining an organization's mission,
establishing strategic business units, and evaluating
company strengths and weaknesses.
The basic unit of analysis is a strategic business
unit (not a product line or market segment).
Strategic marketing focuses on an organization's
ability to develop a competitively defensible position
in its strategic business units.
270
Resource allocation among strategic business units
is based upon competitive analysis, an evalua.tion
of incremental returns to the organization, nd/or
sophisticated models.
Strategic marketing encompasses traditional mar-
keting management, which comes into play in the
5th stage of Figure 2.
Marketing implementation, in contrast, can be defined
as the particular mix of tactics and activities engaged
by managers, constrained by their own skills and the
firm's marketing execution with the tactical execution
of marketing plans, programs, and strategies (Bonoma
1984a). See Figure 3 for the marketing implementation
process.
FIGURE 3
THE MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Marketing Strategy
Tactical Decisions
• Yearly
• Monthly
Internal Implementation of the - - - External
Factors Marketing Mix Factors
Monitoring Results
Adaptation of Strategy
and/or Tactics
Marketing implementation can be distinguished from mar-
keting management and strategic marketing in that mar-
keting implementation:
Centers on the practice of marketing as strategies
are translated into acts.
Focuses on a firm's organizational structure and
those interpersonal factors and organizational
processes which interact, allocate, monitor, and
organize marketing activities and tactics.
Assumes that an organization's ability to make
decisions is affected by its internal as well as
external environment.
Table 1 focuses on the basic differences among these
perspectives.
Among the critical problems within marketing management,
strategic marketing, and marketing implementation which
need to be resolved are:
In marketing management, the focus is on the product,
brand, or company. There is need for planning and
implementation consistency across products, and
brands. A firm also needs to maximize opportunities
and its competitive advantage on an overall organi-
zation level. Opportunities for synergy need to be
examined.
 TABLE 1

BASIC DIFFERENCES AMONG MARKETING MANAGEMENT, STRATEGIC MARKETING,

AND MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION

Points of Difference Marketing Management Strategic Marketing Marketing Implementation

1. Central focus 1. Centers on the 1, Centers on organizational 1. Centers on the practice of

characteristics and mission, situation marketing as strategies
needs of the target analysis, developing are translated into acts
market and the strategy, and reducing
design of the strategic gaps
marketing mix

2. Interrelation of 2. Encourages each unit 2, Integrates and 2. Develops a mix of tactics

organizational of the organization coordinates the total and activities to actualize
units to maximize its marketing involvement strategy, Involves the
performance of an organization total organization

3. Units of analysis 3. Uses division, depart- 3. Uses the strategic 3. Uses organization structure,
ments, geographic areas, business unit as the interpersonal factors, and
etc. as the basic unit basic unit of analysis organizational processes
of analysis required to interact,
allocate, monitor, and
organize marketing activities
and tactics

4. Time frame 4, May focus on the 4, Focuses on a combination 4. Focuses on a combination of

attainment of short-term of short-, medium-, and short-, medium-, and long-term
objectives at the expense long-term objectives objectives
of long-term objectives

5. Basis of resource 5. Allows each division or
allocation department to attempt to
maximize the resource
level it receives
5. Bases resource allocation 5.
upon competitive analysis,
an evaluation of incre-
mental returns to the
organization or
sophisticated models
Assesses marketing actions
based on actualizing a
strategy subject to constraints
of a manager's skills and
a firm's marketing execution
structure

6. Relationship with 6. Places less emphasis on 6. Encourages strategic 6. Assumes that an organization's
environment environmental analysis business units to conduct ability to make decisions is
and contingency environmental analysis affected by its external
planning leading to potential environment; but focus is
scenarios and related internal on operational
contingency plans, An issues
external focus

7. Use of support 7. Concentrates on 7. Utilizes detailed 7. Utilizes performance appraisal

systems marketing research marketing information systems, analysis of rules
systems and procedures to insure
compliance with corporate
policy and goals, management
by objectives systems, etc.
Monitors performance of
organization and competition
through marketing research
and marketing information
system

8. Breadth of 8. Is based on a 8. Is based on a 8. Is based on a corporate

perspective marketing function company-wide level, business level, and
perspective perspective product/market level
perspective

9. Competitive 9. Satisfies customer 9. Satisfies customer 9. Satisfies customer via

approach via marketing mix via organization's organization's total
total capability capability

10. Objectives 10, Sets sales, market 10, Set value creation, 10. Sets efficiency,
share objectives profit, cash flow effectiveness-based
objectives objectives

271
 Strategic marketing needs to resolve the conflicts
between short-, medium-, and long-term objectives.
Conflicts must also be resolved in allocating an
organization's resources among its strategic business
units.
Marketing implementation focuses more on a firm's
internal rather than external capability. In
addition, implementation must be integrated on the
product/market level, the business level, and the
corporate level.
COMPONENTS OF AN INTEGRATED
MARKETING PLAN
A well-integrated marketing plan has seven components:
a clear organizational mission, a focus on a long-term
competitive advantage, a precisely-defined target mar-
ket, compatible long-, moderate-, and short-term mar-
keting subplans, high coordination among strategic
business units, high integration of the marketing mix,
and stability over time. These components are described
in Table 2.

INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG MARKETING MANAGEMENT, TABLE 2

STRATEGIC MARKETING, AND
MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS OF A WELL-INTEGRATED
MARKETING PLAN
In practice, the marketing management, strategic marketing,
and marketing implementation approaches are interrelated. Component Description
Thus, the basic differences among these perspectives need
to be resolved. Three of the important interrelationships Clear Sets the focus on a company's activities
among marketing management, strategic marketing, and mar- Organizational by determining what business(es) the
keting implementation perspectives are: Mission firm seeks to be in. A firm should be
careful not to confine its organizational
One, strategy affects practice, and practice affects mission to existing products, markets,
strategy. Strategies must be translated into acts; or technologies. Setting a clear
and a firm's competitive advantage in implementation organizational mission is especially
affects strategy. Good strategic marketing and good difficult for a conglomerate.
marketing implementation focus on a firm's strengths
and weaknesses in marketing management capabilities. Focus on a Identifies and implements a strategy
The best formulated plan will likely fail if serious Long-Term to develop a competitively-defensible
consideration is not given to how it will be carried Competitive long-term strategy. A long-term
out. Advantage perspective allows for development of
a uniform image and continuity in
Two, a lack of theme and direction due to poor target planning and implementation.
market definition (marketing management) or poor
organizational mission (strategic marketing) would Precisely- Focuses a firm's total marketing
result in a proliferation of programs that management Defined effort in an integrated manner at
could not successfully implement. Target specific groups' satisfaction.
Market (s)
Three, according to Michael Porter, corporate strategy
should be more than a compilation of individual busi- Compatible Short-term (more specific) plans are
ness unit plans (Business Week 1984). Corporate Long-, derived from (more general) long- and
strategy needs to be a device to integrate a firm's Moderate-, moderate-term plans. Short-term
business units and to enable the firm to capitalize on and Short-Term opportunities are examined in part
synergies so that the whole of the corporation is more Marketing on their longer-term implications.
than just the sum of its parts. Subplans

One means of successfully reconciling these three High Searches for synergistic opportunities
approaches is to develop a means of integrating marketing Coordination among strategic business units such
plans within the organization's planning units and over Among as overlap in distribution channel
time. While this may appear to be a simple task, a firm Strategic usage, brand name extension oppor-
may have long-run, moderate length, and short-range plans; Business Units tunities, etc.
the different strategic business units in an organization
may require separate marketing plans; and each aspect of High Uses the components of the marketing
the marketing mix requires planning. For example, Coordination mix in a coordinated manner. Each
of the functional area is given a specific
An overall plan would be poorly integrated if short- Marketing Mix role in an overall marketing plan.
run profits are made at the expense of long-term
profits. A firm could also encounter difficulties if High An unstable marketing plan can result
plans are changed too frequently, leading to a blurred Stability in a firm's customers, channel members,
image for consumers and a lack of focus for executives. Over Time the general public, and even employees
confused about the plan.
Resources need to be allocated among strategic busi-
ness units, so that funds are given to those with high
potential. For example, physical distribution efforts HOW TO BETTER INTEGRATE
and channel member arrangements need to be timed so MARKETING PLANS
that the system is not strained by two or more stra-
tegic business units making costly demands simul- In practice, there are several ways to help insure that
taneously. marketing plans are properly integrated: a marketing
plan audit; analysis of the number of strategic business
Although a pricing plan deals with one strategic units, and their structure; evaluation of a firm's mar-
element, it must be integrated with product, dis- keting organization structure; study of a firm's communi-
tribution, and promotion plans. cation system; and evaluation of a firm's incentive and
compensation system.

272
In the marketing plan audit, the various marketing plans
(strategic business unit, brand, division, short run,
long term) are evaluated by planning personnel and top man-
agement and marketers to determine the degree of integra-
tion. The marketing plan audit can be conducted in the
same manner as any vertical marketing audit. As in any
marketing audit, one must determine who does the audit,
when and how often the audit is to be conducted, and what
audit forms are to be used. A significant problem with
the use of marketing plan audits is that many companies
are now limiting or reducing their central planning
staffs in an attempt to get planners to work more closely
with operating units (Business Week 1984). A concern is
that fewer people may be available to evaluate individual
strategic business unit plans from an overall company
perspective.
An analysis of the number of strategic business units and
their structure can often determine inherent integration
difficulties and opportunities. For example, a conglom-
erate such as Westinghouse recently evaluated its strategic
business unit structure and reduced its number of strategic
business units from 135 to 26 (Business Week 1983).
Further compounding the problem was that all 135 strategic
business units were required to submit their plans on the
same day resulting in over 65,000 pages. An inherent
problem with 135 strategic business units is the diffi-
culty in integrating their plans, in coordinating marketing
mixes, in focusing on long-term competitive advantages, and
in searching for synergistic opportunities.
Organizational structures can also aid in integrating
marketing plans. A relatively new organizational form
which promotes strategic business unit coordination is
cluster strategy. Heany and Weiss (1983) propose that
planning in a number of related SBUs can be clustered
through such bases as market relatedness, shared pro-
duction processes, underlying technology, and distribu-
tion. Cluster strategy enables planning to be conducted
at the group or cluster level instead of at the business
unit or corporate level (Stengrevics 1984). A firm needs
to evaluate its current organization structure in terms
of its role in implementing marketing planning. Appro-
priate questions relate to the organization's role in
coordinating the marketing mix, integrating plans of each
SBU, in separating strategic marketing functions from
tactual marketing operations, and in searching for syn-
ergistic opportunities.
A firm also needs to provide for an ample conmrunication
system so that a firm's mission, competitive advantages,
and different time horizon plans can be transmitted,
discussed, and understood. The conununication system also
needs to show each SBU manager his/her role in achieving
the organization's overall objectives.
Marketing plans can also be better integrated through the
development and implementation of incentive and compen-
sation systems. For example, short- and long-term
objectives can be reconciled through a two-part bonus
system. One part of the bonus can be based on short-term
financial performance (such as return on investment,
profits, and so on); the other part can be based on a
firm's long-range strategic plan objectives. For example,
at a major electronics firm, 25 per cent of every SBU
manager's bonus is based on overall corporate performance;
the remaining 75 per cent is split equally between the
SBU 1 s profitability and its non-financial objectives
(Gupta and Govindarajan 1984).
273
AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
There are a number of areas for additional research in
the area of integrating the marketing plan. Three
important areas relate to organizational mission, SBU
structure, and organization structure.
An important organizational mission question relates to
the difficulty of conglomerates and other multiproduct,
multimarket firms in integrating their marketing plans.
While this question is increasingly appropriate due to
the rise in the numbers of major mergers and acquisitions,
more research on organizational mission for conglomerates
needs to be undertaken.
There are also some important concerns in developing
appropriate organizat·ional mission statements. While a
narrow mission gives a firm a clearer focus, it may make
a firm susceptible to marketing myopia and may limit
synergistic opportunities. An example of this problem
is NYNEX's corporate mission:
Our mission is clear: to be a leader in the
information industry. To know and capture the
full potential of our many markets. To anti-
cipate conununication requirements with quality
services at competitive prices. To be a
profitable company with steady earnings growth
(NYNEX 1984).
While a more focused product/market/technology-based
mission would provide greater direction to NYNEX, it
would limit opportunities to the firm.
The relationship between a firm's SBU structure and the
level of integration in the market planning process
also needs to be examined. For example, if a firm
altered the organization of each SBU to improve imple-
mentation at the SBU level, there may be difficulty in
integrating strategy at the corporate level (Haspeslagh
1982). Firms with small numbers of SBUs may be able
to use different means of integrating plans than firms
with a large number of SBUs. Variations of cluster
strategy need to be explored.
A number of important implementation questions relate
to optimal market planning organization structure. For
example, one may hypothesize that top-down plans are
more prone to have a clear organizational mission,
and compatible time horizons. On the other hand,
bottom-up plans may be hypothesized to focus more on
long-term product/market competitive advantages, to
better coordinate the marketing mix, and to be more
stable over time (Leontiades 1983). Other organization
structure questions relate to the appropriateness of
various structures. For example, is a matrix organi-
zation better than other forms for implementing long-
term coordinated activities? Is a functional organi-
zation best for implementing short-term tactical
decisions?
REFERENCES
Allen, M. (1980), "The Corporate Strategic Gap,"
Management Today (September), 108-113.
Bettis, Richard A. and William K. Hall (1981),
"Strategic Portfolio Management in the Multibusiness
Firm," California Management Review, 24 (Fall),
23-38.
Bonoma, Thomas V. (1982), "Note on Marketing Imple-
mentation," Harvard Business School, RBS Case
Services 0-582-135.
 (1984a), "A Model of Marketing Implementa- Weitz, Barton and Erin Anderson (1981), "Organizing the
tion," in 1984 AMA Educators' Proceedings, Russell W. Marketing Function," in Review of Marketing 1981,
Belk, et al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roering, eds., Chicago:
Association, 185-189. American Marketing Association, 134-142.

(1984b), "Making Your Marketing Strategy
Work," Harvard Business Review, 62 (March-April), 68-76.
(1984c), Managing Marketing: Text, Cases
and Readings, New York: The Free Press.
Business Week (1983), "Operation Turnaround: How
Westinghouse's New CEO Plans to Fire Up an Old-time
Company," (December 5), 124-127.
Wind, Yoram and V. Mahajan (1980), "Design Consider-
ations in Portfolio Analyses," Wharton Working Paper,
University of Pennsylvania.
Wind, Yoram and Thomas S. Robertson (1983), "Marketing
Strategy: New Directions for Theory and Research,"
Journal of Marketing, 47 (Spring), 12-25.

Business Week (1984), "The New Breed of Strategic

Planner," (September 17), 62-66.

Cady, John F. (1984), Strategic Marketing Management:

The Course, Harvard Business School, HBS Case Services
9-584-076.

Collier, Don (1984), "How to Implement Strategic Plans,"

Journal of Business Strategy, 4 (Winter), 92-96.

Cunningham, William H. and Thomas S. Robertson (1983),

"From the Editor," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Spring),
5-6.

Day, George (1980), Strategic Market Analysis: Top-Down

and Bottom-Up Approaches, Cambridge, Mass.: Marketing
Science Institute, 80-105.

Gupta, Anil K. and V. Govindaraj an (1984) , "Build, Hold,

Harvest: Converting Strategic Intentions into Reality,"
Journal of Business Strategy, 4 (Winter), 34-47.

Haspeslagh, Philippe (1982), "Portfolio Planning: Uses

and Limits," Harvard Business Review, 60 (January-
February), 58-73.

Hayes, Robert H. and William J. Abernathy (1980),

"Managing Our Way to Economic Decline," Harvard Business
Review, 58 (July-August), 67-77.

Heany, Donald F. and Gerald Weiss (1983), "Integrating

Strategies for Clusters of Businesses," Journal of
Business Strategy, 4 (Summer), 3-11.

Jain, Subhash C. (1983), "The Evolution of Strategic

Marketing," Journal of Business Research, 11 (Number 4),
457-473.

Kiechel, Walter, III (1982), "Corporate Strategies Under

Fire," Fortune, 106 (December 27), 34-37.

Leontiades, Milton (1983), "The Importance of Integrating

Marketing Planning with Corporate Planning," Journal of
Business Research, 11 (Number 4), 457-473.

NYNEX (1984), Annual Report.

Rao, Vithala R. (1984), "Pricing Research in Marketing:

The State of the Art," Journal of Business, 57
(January), 539-560.

Spekman, Robert E. and Kjell Gr nhaug (1983), "Insights on

Implementation: A Conceptual Framework for Better
Understanding the Strategic Marketing Planning Process,"
in 1983 AMA Educators' Proceedings, Patrick E. Murphy,
et al., eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association,
311-315.

Stengrevics, John M. (1984), "Making Cluster Strategies

Work," Journal of Business Strategy, 5 (Fall), 106-111.

274