Customer value-based pricing strategies:

why companies resist

Andreas Hinterhuber
Introduction
Pricing has a huge impact on protability. Pricing strategies vary considerably across
industries, countries and customers. Nevertheless, researchers generally concur that
pricing strategies can be categorised into three groups:
1. cost-based pricing;
2. competition-based pricing; and
3. customer value-based pricing.
Of these, customer value-based pricing is increasingly recognised in the literature as
superior to all other pricing strategies (Ingenbleek et al., 2003). For example, Monroe (2002,
p. 36) observes that: . . . the prot potential for having a value-oriented pricing strategy that
works is far greater than with any other pricing approach. Similarly, Cannon and Morgan
(1990) recommend value pricing if prot maximisation is the objective, and Docters et al.
(2004, p. 16) refer to value-based pricing as one of the best pricing methods.
Practitioners have also recognised the advantages of value-based pricing strategies.
Several companies have successfully adopted such strategies. These include
pharmaceutical companies such as Sano-Aventis, information technology companies
such as SAP and Vendavo, wireless internet service providers such as the Australian
company Xone, airlines such as Lufthansa, vehicle manufacturers such as BMW, and
biotech companies such as Tigris Pharmaceuticals.
The increasing endorsement of customer value-based strategies among academics and
practitioners is based on a general recognition that the keys to sustained protability lie in
the essential features of customer value-based pricing, including understanding the sources
of value for customers; designing products, services, and solutions that meet customers
needs; setting prices as a function of value; and implementing consistent pricing policies.
Despite the obvious benets of customer value-based approaches to pricing, a reviewof the
literature suggests that these methods still play a relatively minor role in pricing strategies. It
is apparent that various obstacles must lie in the way of a more widespread implementation
of value-based approaches to pricing. The purposes of the present study are to identify
these obstacles and to suggest guidelines for overcoming them. The next section of the
paper presents the theoretical background for the study, including consideration of
alternative pricing strategies and the frequency of implementation of these strategies. The
research methodology of the present study is then explained followed by a presentation of
the ndings with regard to the major obstacles that prevent the effective implementation of
value-based pricing. Remedies for these obstacles are also discussed.
DOI 10.1108/02756660810887079 VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008, pp. 41-50, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0275-6668
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
PAGE 41
Andreas Hinterhuber is
based at Hinterhuber and
Partners, Innsbruck,
Austria.
The wide array of pricing strategies
Cost-based pricing derives from data from cost accounting. Competition-based pricing
uses anticipated or observed price levels of competitors as primary source for setting prices
and customer value-based pricing uses the value that a product or service delivers to a
segment of customers as the main factor for setting prices.
Table I summarises the major characteristics of these various approaches. As shown in the
table, each of these strategies has its strengths and weaknesses. The advantage of the rst
two methods is that data are usually readily available, but their disadvantage is that they do
not pay sufcient attention to customer needs and requirements. Conversely, customer
value-based methods do take the customer perspective into account, but relevant data are
more difcult to obtain and interpret.
Marketing researchers recognised the inherent problems of cost-based pricing approaches
as long ago as the 1950 s. For example, Backman (1953, p. 148) notes that . . .the
graveyard of business is lled with the skeletons of companies that attempted to base their
prices solely on costs. More recently, Myers et al. (2002) assert that cost-based pricing
produces sub-standard protability; similarly, Simon et al. (2003) contend that cost-based
pricing leads to lower-than-average protability.
Ingenbleek et al. (2003) demonstrate the advantages of valued-based pricing. In an
empirical survey of 77 marketing managers in two business-to-business industries
(electronics and engineering) in Belgium, they nd that customer value-based pricing
approaches are positively correlated with new product success, whereas no such
correlation is identied between new product success and the adoption of cost-based and
competition-based pricing. The authors conclude that customer value-based pricing
approaches are, overall, the best strategies to adopt in making decisions about newproduct
pricing.
Implementing different strategies
Despite the fact that empirical research shows that value-based approaches are superior to
other pricing approaches, it has not been widely adopted in practice.
Table I Alternative approaches to pricing
Cost-based pricing Competition-based pricing Customer value-based pricing
Denition Cost based-pricing approaches
determine prices primarily with
data from cost accounting
Competition-based pricing
approaches use anticipated or
observed price levels of competitors as
primary source for setting prices
Customer value-based pricing
approaches use the value a product or
service delivers to a predened
segment of customers as the main
factor for setting prices
Examples Cost-plus pricing, mark-up
pricing, target-return pricing
Parallel pricing, umbrella pricing,
penetration/skim pricing
Pricing according to average market
prices
Perceived value pricing
MPerformance pricing
Main strength Data readily available Data readily available Does take customer perspective into
account
Main weaknesses Does not take competition into
account
Does not take customers (and
customer willingness to pay)
into account
Does not take customers (and
customer willingness to pay) into
account
Data are difcult to obtain and to
interpret
Customer value-driven pricing
approach may lead to relatively high
prices need to take long-term
protability into account
Customer value is not a given, but
needs to be communicated
Overall evaluation Overall weakest approach Sub-optimal approach for setting
prices; appropriate for commodities (if
and only if products/services in
question cannot be differentiated)
Overall best approach, direct link to
customer needs
PAGE 42
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
To substantiate this claim, we have undertaken a comprehensive survey of all published
literature on pricing approaches used in practice. This literature review covered close to two
dozen empirical studies on pricing approaches actually used in the USA, Europe, and Asia,
covering a broad range of industries (including industrial services, pharmaceuticals, IT, B2B
industries, etc.) and spanning over two decades of research.
This literature review reveals that value-based pricing approaches remain in a signicant
minority. Figure 1 shows the results of this literature review.
It is apparent from Figure 1 that competition-based pricing approaches remain dominant in
pricing practice. Their average inuence across all published surveys is found to be 44
percent (calculated as the average adoption rate in single-answer surveys and/or the
average inuence of competition-based considerations on product pricing in
multiple-answer surveys). It is also apparent that cost-based pricing approaches, despite
being acknowledged as the weakest approach to setting prices (Nagle and Holden, 2002),
remain the second-most commonly adopted approach. Their average inuence across all
surveys was 37 percent. In contrast to the popularity of the rst two approaches,
customer-value approaches have an average inuence of only 17 percent across all
surveys.
Clearly, only a small minority of companies actually adopt value-based approaches in
practice despite the fact that academics and practitioners alike are increasingly asserting
that such customer-oriented approaches possess signicant advantages over conventional
pricing methodologies. The question of why this is so is addressed in the present study.
Research methodology
So far, little is known about specic obstacles preventing companies from pursuing
customer value-based pricing. To investigate this phenomenon we employ a two-stage
empirical approach: rst, in a qualitative research, we explore the phenomenon of
implementation of value-based strategies with groups of business executives participating
in pricing workshops. The result of this qualitative stage was then used to develop a
questionnaire which was tested upon a signicantly larger and more stratied population.
We nally employ cluster analysis to summarize the results of this quantitative research
stage.
Qualitative research
Qualitative research is useful to gain initial insight and understanding into a dened problem.
If the research question is exploratory in nature, focus group research is appropriate (Seale,
Figure 1 Adoption of alternative pricing approaches in practice a summary of published
research
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
PAGE 43
2004). In the context of a broader research project on successful pricing strategies, we
discussed current pricing practices with 30 business executives responsible for pricing
decisions from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland in pricing workshops organized by a
consultancy specializing in pricing. The two-day workshops were held in three different
locations in Germany during the October-December 2005 period. The objective was to
understand the degree of familiarity these executives had with alternative approaches to
pricing, in particular with customer value-based pricing strategies, and to understand which
pricing approaches had already been adopted. Particular emphasis of these focus group
discussions were on customer value-based pricing strategies, obstacles to their
implementation, circumstances under which implementing value-based pricing strategies
was more/less likely to be successful, examples of companies moving successfully to
value-based pricing and examples of companies less successful in this respect.
Quantitative research
A sample of 126 marketing managers, business unit managers, key account managers,
pricing managers, and general managers were initially recruited for this study. These
managers participated in in-house pricing workshops which the author conducted in the
period 2006-2007. Companies represented included automotive, chemicals, information
technology (IT), chemicals, industrial services and fast moving consumer goods. We held
nine workshops at nine different companies in Germany, Austria, China, and the USA. The
study design is thus cross-sectional, multi-country, and multi-industry.
Results and discussion
In response to questions about the obstacles to implementation of value-based pricing, a
wide array of answers was received (with multiple answers being allowed and encouraged).
As shown In Figure 2, six main obstacles were identied after clustering responses:
Difculties in making value assessments
The difculties associated with reliable assessment of value are reected in the following
comment from the chief marketing ofcer of a software company:
The research and development department came up with a new software program to help large
retailers compare the prices of thousands of competitive products on the Internet in real time. This
programhelps themto adjust their own prices not only on the basis of data frominternal demand,
but also on the basis of the prices of competitors, which are usually much harder to get because
Internet-based price comparison engines typically do not list prices for toothbrushes, pet-food,
beer, and so on. We knowthere is value in this programfor such retailers as Wal Mart, K-Mart, and
so on. However, we just do not have the tools to attach a nancial value to our unique software
package.
Respondents in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and fast-moving consumer goods industries
stated that similar difculties were the primary obstacle to their implementation of
value-based pricing strategies. If the company itself does not know the value of its products
or services to customers, how does it know what to charge customers for value?
The most effective way of overcoming the value-assessment problem is rigorous value
measurement. In this regard, Nagle and Holdens (2002) denition of value to the customer is
pertinent: A products economic value is the price of the customers best alternative
If the company itself does not know the value of its products
or services to customers, how does it know what to charge
customers for value?
PAGE 44
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
reference value plus the value of whatever differentiates the offering from the alternative
differentiation value.
Drawing on this denition, the following methodologies for measuring value to customers are
worthy of note:
B Expert interviews. Company experts (such as senior representative from the marketing,
product management, key account management, pricing, sales, controlling, and nance
departments) can be asked to estimate the customer value of new offerings in laboratory
tests or brainstorming sessions. Consensus should be sought. If expert personnel inside
the company have diverging or ambiguous views on what constitutes value for the
customer, there is no basis upon which to build pricing strategies that reect value.
B Focus group assessment of value. Customers in groups of 5-15 can be asked to evaluate
the importance and impact of new product concepts. Such focus groups are a useful
means of hearing the voice of the customer and can also be used to obtain estimates of
expected price ranges for new concepts.
B Conjoint (or trade-off) analysis. In accordance with the methodology suggested by Auty
(1995), a research survey of customers evaluations of a set of potential product offerings
can be undertaken. Each offering should consist of an array of specic attributes, with the
levels of these attributes being systematically varied within the set of offerings.
Respondents are then asked to provide their purchase preference ranking for each of the
offerings. Statistical analysis is then used to identify the value that the respondents place
on each attribute. Such conjoint analysis is probably the most widely used tool to
measure customer value. It has the advantage of enabling rms to capture the value of
intangible product features (brand names, reputation, and so on) and the value of
features about which direct questioning might lead to unreliable results (such as the value
of superior delivery reliability, superior service, and so on). However, it has the
disadvantage of failing to ascertain the value of features that are not included in the
design of the questionnaire.
B Assessment of value-in-use. Customers can be observed and interviewed when they are
actually using new offerings to obtain estimates of customer value. Such value-in-use
assessments enable assessment of customer satisfaction and customer dissatisfaction
(in terms of product and service dimensions) as customers experience them in their daily
use. Such assessments are useful for uncovering unmet customer needs or problems that
customers would not voice in laboratory tests or in response to direct questioning.
Figure 2 Obstacles to the implementation of value-based pricing strategies
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
PAGE 45
B Importance ratings. Based on the conceptual work of Kano, the methodology of Matzler
et al. (1996) ask customers to respond to a questionnaire by indicating the importance of
(and satisfaction with) a set of existing and new product attributes. Answers to these
questions are then used to estimate the customer value of existing and new product
offerings. Customer value is considered highest when perceived customer importance for
a new concept is high and, simultaneously, satisfaction with current product offerings is
low. If conducted exhaustively, importance ratings enable companies to identify
instances when they are over-fullling customer requirements and instances when
customers still require more satisfactory solutions.
In practice, the most reliable assessments of customer value are likely to be obtained by
using several of these suggested tools concurrently. For example, a rm might rst
undertake internal expert assessments to obtain consensus regarding the presumed value
to customers of various features. Qualitative customer input might then be sought through
focus groups or eld value-in-use assessments. Subsequently, these ndings might be
validated by means of a broad quantitative survey (such as conjoint analysis).
Difculties with communicating value
A decit in communication of value was the second most common obstacle to implementing
value-based pricing strategies in the present study. A global marketing manager in the
chemical industry put it this way:
Our new chemical product had some advantages over its direct competitor. Our question at the
time of the launch was whether we should base our marketing campaign around this advantage
or whether we should stress other features in which our company held an advantage. In the end,
we decided to communicate distinctive product features, but we learnt the hard way that
customers simply did not care. . . So today I am still struggling with regard to the most effective
way of communicating with customers in ways that matter and are meaningful to them.
Effective communication of value is especially difcult in environments where customers are
inundated with advertising. The marketing managers in the study reported that it has
become increasingly difcult in the past 10-15 years to get their customers attention.
Customers are inundated with television advertisements, print advertisements, internet
spam, and various other sales tactics and tend to adopt a negative view of marketing.
Customers are increasingly difcult to reach and impress through traditional marketing
channels, and they tend not to respond well to traditional marketing tactics unless these
tactics are so creative, unusual, and impressive that they clearly stand out.
To improve the communication of value to customers, three levels of sophistication need to
be recognised and used appropriately:
1. Communicating product features. The most basic level of communication of value is to
advise customers of product features (for example, cars with a 300hp motor; or
chemicals with 95 percent efcacy against a given pest). The problem with this approach
is that customers often do not care about product features.
2. Communicating customer benets. On a more sophisticated level, communication of
value refers to customer benets (for example, insulation that reduces noise; or
headphones that are more comfortable). The advantage of this approach is that
customers do care about benets; the disadvantage is that companies do not always
know which benets really matter to customers.
3. Communicating benets in accordance with customer needs. At the most sophisticated
level of communication, the needs (explicit or implicit) of customers are addressed. In
these cases, the message is received and remembered because needed benets, rather
than features, are communicated. A good example is the advertising campaign of
Michelin tyres, which focused on the safety of children in cars, thus communicating
customer benets that were in accordance with customer needs.
PAGE 46
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
Difculties with market segmentation
A senior product manager of a global company explained the obstacle of market
segmentation to value-based pricing:
We had developed a newyoghurt with health benets that I planned to launch at a premiumprice.
However, I was frustrated because I could not get any of my colleagues (in marketing, sales, or
key account management) to support my plan for a higher price. All I kept hearing was: The
customer cares only about price! Purchasing agents for supermarkets benchmark you against
their own in-house labels so forget your premium prices. So I gave up. We did not launch the
product because launching it at parity to competition would not have allowed us to reach our
protability targets. The irony was that, half a year later, a competitor launched a similar product to
the one we had just dropped at 60 percent premium!
Market segmentation is difcult. In examining the impact of marketing theory on marketing
practice, Webster (2005) noted that for the past two decades, the tactical dimension has
dominated. . . Mistakenly, the sum of the four Ps was labelled as marketing strategy, even
though the most important of the marketing variables market segmentation, targeting,
positioning . . . were not part of this tactical formulation.
In short, marketing theory has not produced effective guidance for marketing practice on the
key issue of market segmentation.
The best approach to market segmentation is one that takes customer needs as the primary
segmentation variable. Such a needs-based market segmentation enables marketing and
pricing strategies to cater to a variety of market segments rather than being restricted to the
segment that is presumed to care only about price. An effective needs-based market
segmentation not only identies the size and composition of the price-driven market
segment (which is never 100 percent of the market), but also delineates the nature and size
of other market segments of customers (for whom product dimensions other than price have
value).
The agrochemical company, Monsanto, used a well-dened, needs-based market
segmentation for its Roundup product, the worlds best-selling herbicide. Three market
segments were identied:
1. a price-driven segment of customers (who were offered a generically labelled product);
2. a mainstream segment (who were offered a Roundup branded product); and
3. a technically sophisticated segment (who were offered a product called Roundup
Weather Max, which was marketed as being very effective even under difcult weather
conditions).
Using this needs-based approach to market segmentation, Monsanto was able to maintain a
60 percent share of the global herbicide market even though the patents expired in 2001 and
cheaper substitutes were readily available. This example shows that a creative needs-based
approach to market segmentation can be an effective marketing strategy even with an
apparently boring product, for which, it might be assumed, price would be the only
relevant segmentation variable.
Difculties with sales force management
The fourth most common obstacle was difculties with sales force management. One
workshop participant, from the automotive industry, put it this way:
Effective communication of value is especially difcult in
environments where customers are inundated with
advertising.
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
PAGE 47
We had just launched a new car. The press was excited, and the public loved it. Journalists put
the car on their short lists for the Car of the Year award. Although the price of the newmodel was
about 3,000 Euros (15 percent) above that of the previous model, we were all condent that we
would be able to sustain this. . . But then, towards the end of the year, our sales team felt under
pressure. Dealers had excess stock and offered signicant cash discounts to customers. They
also put pressure on our sales representatives to increase the annual allowances and bonuses to
dealers. We partly gave in, but partly resisted. . . A year later we reviewed the actual net prices for
sold cars. . .and realised that our targeted price premium of 3,000 Euros had actually evaporated
to little more than 200 Euros.
As this case shows, value leakage often occurs at the level of sales teams as they attempt to
realise annual volume targets and qualify for annual bonuses by extending discounts to
customers. In many cases, they do so without understanding the long-term consequences
of these discounts.
In many cases, they do so without understanding the long-term consequences of these
discounts. Effective sales force management includes the establishment of clear guidelines
regarding sales discounts, including:
1. Level of authority for sales discounts. Restricting the authority of sales personnel to set
prices can enhance protability (Stephenson et al., 1979). However, in certain
circumstances, sales personnel should be allowed greater latitude in setting prices to
increase protability; these circumstances include:
B cases in which sales personnel have greater insight into customers willingness to pay;
B cases in which sales staff possess outstanding negotiating skills;
B cases in which a willingness to pay varies substantially among customers; and
B cases in which products are complex or perishable.
2. Sales force remuneration systems. Companies have traditionally rewarded sales
personnel on the basis of sales volume, rather than prot. In contrast, value-based
pricing strategies require a system that rewards sales personnel for protability, rather
than for sales volume or market share.
3. Fixed and variable remuneration systems. If management wishes to encourage sales
personnel to focus on sales volume, a lower percentage commission should be offered;
conversely, if sales personnel are expected to focus on sales quality (such as developing
customer relationships) a higher percentage commission should be offered.
4. Sales force training and development. The effective implementation of value-based
pricing requires a fundamental shift in the attitude of sales personnel and therefore entails
a signicant change in the way sales personnel are trained and developed. To identify the
subtle wishes of customers, sales personnel must learn to become good listeners;
moreover, they must learn to be comfortable in selling solutions (rather than products or
services) to customers.
5. Sales force monitoring. Value-based pricing requires target prices to be maintained and
excessive discounts to be discouraged. Sales personnel should therefore be monitored
to ensure that price discrepancies are promptly detected; in addition, nancial incentives
should be offered to sales personnel to maintain list prices and nancial penalties should
be imposed for excessive discounting (Sodhi and Sodhi, 2008).
Difculties with senior management support
Another important obstacle, mentioned by 50 percent of workshop participants, was a lack
of support from senior management. A workshop participant from the industrial service
industry said:
What really made value-based pricing difcult in our company was senior management claiming
to want price premiums and protability, but then punishing people for not meeting their volume
quota.
PAGE 48
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
Support from senior management can be obtained through various means, including
lobbying, networking, and bargaining. If such support is gained, middle-ranking executives
can then implement value-based pricing strategies. Recent research has shown that C-level
executives are now handling pricing projects with increasing frequency (Jacobson, 2007).
It is the contention of this study that, once the various obstacles have been overcome using
the suggestions and guidelines presented here, companies will be well-positioned to
implement value-based pricing strategies.
Keywords:
Pricing,
Pricing policy,
Value-in-use pricing
References
Auty, S. (1995), Using conjoint analysis in industrial marketing the role of judgement, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 24, pp. 191-206.
Backman, J. (1953), Price Practices and Policies, Ronald Press, New York, NY.
Cannon, H. and Morgan, F. (1990), A strategic pricing framework, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 4,
pp. 19-30.
Docters, R., Reopel, M., Sun, J. and Tanny, S. (2004), Winning the Prot Game Smarter Pricing, Smarter
Branding, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ingenbleek, P., Debruyne, M., Frambach, R. and Verhallen, T. (2003), Successful new product pricing
practices: a contingency approach, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 289-305.
Jacobson, T. (2007), Global pricing transformations the emotional, political, and rational aspects of
getting to results, paper presented at the 18th Annual Fall Conference of the Professional Pricing
Society, Orlando, October 26.
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H., Bailom, F. and Sauerwein, E. (1996), How to delight your customers,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-18.
Monroe, K. (2002), Pricing Making Protable Decisions, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Myers, M., Cavusgil, S. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2002), Antecedents and actions of export pricing
strategy, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 159-88.
Nagle, T. and Holden, R. (2002), Strategy and Tactics of Pricing, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
NJ.
Seale, C. (2004), Qualitative Research Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Simon, H., Butscher, S. and Sebastian, K.-H. (2003), Better pricing processes for higher prots,
Business Strategy Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 63-7.
Sodhi, M. and Sodhi, N. (2008), Six Sigma Pricing Improving Pricing Operations to Increase Prots, FT
Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stephenson, R., Cron, W. and Frazier, G. (1979), Delegating pricing authority to the salesforce the
effects on sales and prot performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 21-8.
Webster, F. (2005), Back to the future integrating marketing as tactics, strategy, and organizational
culture, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, October, pp. 4-6.
Further reading
Cespedes, F. and Piercy, N. (1996), Implementing market strategy , Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 135-60.
Value leakage often occurs at the level of sales teams as they
attempt to realise annual volume targets and qualify for
annual bonuses by extending discounts to customers.
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
PAGE 49
Drucker, P. (1973), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Finkelstein, S. (2005), When bad things happen to good companies: strategy failure and awed
executives, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 19-28.
Govindarajan, V. (1989), Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level implications of
matching managers to strategies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251-69.
Hambrick, D. and Cannella, A. (1989), Strategy Implementation as substance and selling, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 278-85.
Miller, S. (1999), Implementing strategic decisions four key success factors, Organization Studies,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 577-602.
Milne, R. and Marsh, P. (2007), Man with a mandate why investors have high hopes of Siemens new
boss, Financial Times, No. 36, 7 November.
Noble, C. and Mokwa, M. (1999), Implementing marketing strategies: developing and testing a
managerial theory, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, October, pp. 57-73.
Olson, E., Slater, S. and Hult, T. (2004), The performance implications of t among business strategy,
marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, pp. 49-65.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Thorpe, E. and Morgan, R. (2007), In pursuit of the ideal approach to successful marketing strategy
implementation, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 5/6, pp. 659-77.
About the author
Andreas Hinterhuber is a partner of Hinterhuber & Partners, a consultancy in strategy,
pricing, and leadership. He is also a visiting professor at Bocconi University (Milan, Italy) and
at Tsinghua University (Beijing, China), where he teaches Strategic Pricing and Strategic
Marketing. He can be contacted at: andreas@hinterhuber.org
PAGE 50
j
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY
j
VOL. 29 NO. 4 2008
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints