PIMS in the new millennium: how PIMS might be different tomorrow

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488726.012

11 - PIMS in the new millennium: how PIMS might be different tomorrow

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Paul W. Farris ,

Michael J. Moore and

Keith Roberts

Edited by

Paul W. Farris and

Michael J. Moore

Show author details

Paul W. Farris: Affiliation:
Professor of Business University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business Administration
Michael J. Moore: Affiliation:
Research Professor Darden Graduate School of Business Administration; Professor of Health Evaluation Sciences School of Medicine, University of Virginia
Keith Roberts: Affiliation:
Managing Director PIMS Europe
Paul W. Farris: Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Michael J. Moore: Affiliation:
University of Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

From one perspective, the objective of this chapter is to develop a researcher's “wish list” for an idealized dataset to address questions in marketing strategy and elsewhere. From another viewpoint, the topics in this chapter indicate how our field has shifted since the early seventies. In the process of studying “the profit impact of marketing strategy” we have learned that “profit” is not so easily defined and that “strategy” is a somewhat ambiguous term.

While the subject of this chapter is mainly what a revised and revived PIMS project might look like, we should note that PIMS Europe is alive and well. (See Box 11.1 for a brief update of the current PIMS management philosophy.) While PIMS Europe is also open to proposals from academics and others for joint research projects, the organization is clearly more consulting-oriented than either the original PIMS project or what we have in (wishful) mind.

Our final chapter is organized as follows. With the assumption that form and substance will follow function, we begin with a discussion of how the marketing mix has changed. Section 11.1 discusses changes in marketing programs, dimensions of marketing strategy, and the possibilities for defining marketing costs that would be encompassed by a present-day PIMS project. Collectively, these changes have substantially redefined the strategic marketing mix for many companies. Section 11.2 discusses new performance measures that may redefine or augment traditional measures of ROI and ROS, which occupied center stage for the original PIMS project.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy Project
Retrospect and Prospects
, pp. 272 - 286

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488726.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ailawadi, Kusum L., Borin, Norm, and Farris, Paul W.. 1995. “Market Power and Performance: A Cross-Industry Analysis of Manufactures and Retailers.” Journal of Retailing 71 (Fall): 211–249CrossRef Google Scholar

Ailawadi, Kusum L., Lehmann, Donald R., and Neslin, Scott A.. 2003. “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity.” Journal of Marketing 67 (October): 1–17CrossRef Google Scholar

Alberts, F. W. 1989. “The Experience Curve Doctrine Reconsidered.” Journal of Marketing 53 (July): 36–49CrossRef Google Scholar

Alchian, A. E. 1950. “Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 58(3): 211–221CrossRef Google Scholar

Arthur, W. B. 1996. “Increasing Returns and the New World of Business.” Harvard Business Review 74 (July–August): 100–110Google Scholar

Arthur, W. B. (ed.) 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, 69–97. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

Becker, Gary S. 1993. “Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 101(3): 385–409CrossRef Google Scholar

Berger, Paul D. and Nasr, Nada I.. 1998. “Customer Lifetime Value: Marketing Models and Applications,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12 (Winter): 17–303.0.CO;2-K>CrossRef Google Scholar

Blattberg, Robert C. and Deighton, John. 1996. “Managing Marketing by the Customer Equity Test.” Harvard Business Review 74 (July–August): 136–144Google Scholar

Bresnahan, Timothy F. 1989. “Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power,” in R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. II, ch. 17. Ansterdam: North-Holland

Dwyer, F. R. 1989. “Customer Lifetime Valuation to Support Marketing Decision Making.” Journal of Direct Marketing 3(4): 8–15CrossRef Google Scholar

Farris, Paul W. and Pfeifer, Phillip. 2000. “All You Needed to Know About the New Economy You Learned from Playing Monopoly.” Darden School Working Paper

Fornell, Claes, Johnson, Michael, Anderson, Eugene, Cha, J., and Bryant, B. E.. 1996. “The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings.” Journal of Marketing 60(4): 7–19CrossRef Google Scholar

Forrester, Jay W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Gupta, Sunil, and Lehmann, Donald R.. 2003. “Customers as Assets.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 17(1): 9–24CrossRef Google Scholar

Taub, Stephen. 2003. “MVPs of MVA.” CFO 19 (July): 59–66Google Scholar