Holistic concept of marketing performance

(1)

, . , (ROMI) . В

.

: , ,

.

І

.

,

є

,

є

,

.

, [1].

2002

,

American Marketing Association

Academy of Marketing Science

[2].

’

-

є

.

є

?

є

,

є

(

є

),

,

є

,

є

.

є

.

А

.

І

20-

.

[3, 4].

є

,

є

[5, 6].

: (1)

–

є

(

)

(2)

,

є

«

,

» [3].

(2)

,

є

,

–

.

є

,

– «

,

є

»

[7].

,

.

,

є

[1].

(

1935 .

є

75%

,

[8])

,

.

1945-1955

.

,

є

[9].

,

.

,

є

.

,

є

,

. (

.

[10]).

,

є

.

є

,

є

,

’

.

є

[10-14],

,

.

, [15-22].

,

’

[23, 24].

,

.

є

ROI [23, 24].

(3)

(ROMI)

,

.

,

.

є

ROI [23, 24]

ROI

,

[25, 13],

,

є

.

є

[26, 27]

,

є

.

є

,

.

,

є

.

Є

ROI

.

-

,

ґ

є

,

є

.

–

,

’

,

.

є

,

–

.

-

є

,

– .

’

є

–

є

,

–

.

-

,

ґ

є

,

є

,

:



є

;



,

;



,

є

,

є

;



.

є

,

(

,

)

є

.

-

є

,

(4)

ROI,

(

.

, [14]).

,

–

ROI –

є

,

.

-

,

–

,

(

),

є

.

,

ROI

є

,

є

.

,

.

,

є

,

.

,

є

,

є

.

,

.

Х

.

є

,

[3]

,

є

.

,

.

:

1. -

–

.

2. –

,

.

3. (

)

4. є

:

,

.

5. ,

,

.

’

(

) [28].

,

є

,

[29].

(5)

.

ґ

:

1

:

є

’

є

[30, 31].

2

:

’

є

[32].

3

:

є

.

4

:

є

,

.

5

:

,

є

,

.

(

)

,

.

,

-

,

’

є

:

є

[33]

’

є

.

(ROI)

є

,

’

,

є

’

.

,

.

,

є

.

,

є

-

.

1. Sheth J.N. Marketing productivity: issues and analysis / J.N. Sheth, R.S. Sisodia // Journal of Business Research. – 2002. – .55, №5. – P. 349-362.

2. Pont M. Measuring marketing performance: a critique of empirical literature / M. Pont, R. Shaw // Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy. Conference – Adelaide, 2003. – P.2064-2073.

(6)

1921. – .11, №2. – P. 214-220.

4. Clarke S. Consumers, Information, and Marketing Efficiency at GM, 1921-1940 / S. Clarke // Business and Economic History. – 1996. – .25. – P. 186-195.

5. Beckman T.N. Criteria of marketing efficiency / T.N. Beckman // Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. – 1940. – .209. – P. 133-140.

6. Engle N.H. Measurement of economic and marketing efficiency / N.H. Engle // The Journal of Marketing. – 1941. – .5, №4. – P. 335-349.

7. Phillips C.F. A critical analysis of recent literature dealing with marketing efficiency / C.F. Phillips // Journal of Marketing. – 1941. – .5, №4. – P. 360 - 365.

8. Galbraith J.K. The quantitative position of marketing in the United States / J.K. Galbraith, J.D. Black // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. – 1935. – .49, №3. – P. 394-413.

9. Schiff M. Marketing cost analysis for performance measurement and decision support / M. Schiff, J.B. Schiff/ – Montvale, N.J.: Institute of Management Accountants, 1994. – 71 p.

10.Ambler T. Beware The Silver Metric: Marketing Performance Measurement Has To Be Multidimensional / T. Ambler, J. Roberts – London: London Business School, 2005. – 14 p.

11.Assessing Market Performance: The Current State of Metrics / [T. Ambler, F. Kokkinaki, S. Puntoni, D. Riley]. – London : London Business School, 2001. – 68 p.

12.Cummings E.M. Metrics Revolution / E.M. Cummings // CMO Magazine. – 2004. – September. – P. 35-39.

13. . .

; . . / . . – : , 2005. – 272 .

14. . : ?: . . / . ,

. : . . . – : ompanion Group, 2007. – 617 .

15. . / . , . є //

. – 2005. – №1. – . 47-52.

16. . . є /

. . , .І. , . . // «

». – 2008. – « », № 633. – . 43-50.

17. . . / . . //

« ». – 2009. – : «

», № 640. – . 334-341. 18. . .

є [ ] / . . , . . . – 2009. – . 1-9. –

: conomica.org.ua.

19. І. . є /

І. . // . – 2009. - №4 ( . 2). – . 65-69.

20. . . /

. . // є :

. – 2009. – №1. – . 57-67.

21. . . «ROMI»

є - / . . //

. – 2009. – №4. – . 145-152.

22. . . є /

. . , . . , . . є // «

». – 2010. – « », № 690. – . 79-84.

23.Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future directions / [R.T. Rust, T. Ambler, G.S. Carpenter, V. Kumar, R.K. Srivastava] // Journal of Marketing. – 2004. – .68, №4. –

. 76-89.

24.Morgan N.A. Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth / N.A. Morgan, R.J. Slotegraaf, D.W. Vorhies // International Journal of Research in Marketing. – 2009. – .26, №4. – . 284-293.

25.2009 Marketing ROI & Measurements Study. Lenskold Group, 2009. – 35 .

(7)

№2. – . 46-54.

27.Hunt S.D. The Nature and Scope of Marketing / S.D. Hunt // Journal of Marketing. – 1976. – .40, №3. – . 17-28.

28.Porter M.E. The competitive advantage of nations: with a new introduction / M.E. Porter. – New York: Free Press, 1998. – 855 .

29.Van Dam Y.K. Sustainable marketing / Y.K. Van Dam, P.A.C. Apeldoorn // Journal of Macromarketing. – 1996. – .16, №2. – . 45-56.

30.Ellis P.D. Market Orientation and Practice in a Developing Economy / P.D. Ellis // European Journal of Marketing. – 2005. – .39, №5/6. – 629-645.

31.Ellis P.D. Market Orientation and Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Cross-National Comparisons / P.D. Ellis // Journal of Management Studies. – 2006. – .43, №5. – . 1089-1107.

32.Batra R. Marketing Issues and Challenges in Transitional Economies / R. Batra // Journal of International Marketing. – 1997. – .5, №4. – . 95-114.

33. .- . , : . . / .- . :

. . . . – . : , 2005. – 800 .

Ю.В. Р

С

, ,

( ) . ,

(ROMI) . В

.

: , ,

.

Yu.V. Robul

Holistic concept of marketing performance

The scope of the article is to provide a critical analysis of ROMI as a metric of marketing performance, and to propose a more comprehensive construct of marketing efficiency, which considers a holistic nature of the concept of modern marketing. It is argued that ROMI be crucial insufficient as a marketing performance indicator. In the holistic framework, a complex set of marketing performance metrics to be developed is outlined.

Keywords: marketing performance, holistic concept of marketing, social effect of marketing.