See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247624424

Measures of marketing performance: A comparative study from

Spain

Article  in  International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · February 2006

DOI: 10.1108/09596110610646691

CITATIONS READS
37 173

3 authors:

Rossano Eusebio Joan Llonch

Autonomous University of Barcelona Autonomous University of Barcelona
35 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    120 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pilar López
Autonomous University of Barcelona
32 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Brand Purchase Likelihood View project

For my research and classes in my job as a teacher at Tecnologico de Monterrey View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joan Llonch on 23 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Measures of marketing performance: a comparative study from Spain
Rossano Eusebio Joan Llonch Andreu M. Pilar López Belbeze
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rossano Eusebio Joan Llonch Andreu M. Pilar López Belbeze, (2006),"Measures of marketing
performance: a comparative study from Spain", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

Management, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 145 - 155

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110610646691
Downloaded on: 23 February 2015, At: 06:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3007 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Don O'Sullivan, Andrew V. Abela, Mark Hutchinson, (2009),"Marketing performance measurement and firm
performance: Evidence from the European high-technology sector", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43
Iss 5/6 pp. 843-862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560910947070
Johanna Frösén, Henrikki Tikkanen, Matti Jaakkola, Antti Vassinen, (2013),"Marketing performance
assessment systems and the business context", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Iss 5/6 pp.
715-737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561311306688
Anthony A. Hines, António Pimenta da Gama, (2011),"An expanded model of marketing
performance", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 643-661 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501111178677

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 405817 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Measures of
Measures of marketing marketing
performance: a comparative performance
study from Spain
145
Rossano Eusebio, Joan Llonch Andreu and M. Pilar López Belbeze
Department of Business, Autonomous University of Barcelona,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

Barcelona, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – Despite the importance of assessing business performance, there is limited research on the
ways of measuring marketing effectiveness. Aims to redress this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper focuses on six categories of marketing effectiveness
measures to compare the ways of measuring marketing performance in two groups of Spanish firms
(Tourism and Hospitality firms and Industrial firms) in an exploratory study; and also studies the
effect of business orientation (customer and competitor orientation) on the measures used to evaluate
marketing performance.
Findings – It was found that consumer-based measures have a leading role in the evaluation of
marketing effectiveness in Tourism and Hospitality companies and customer orientation affects the
importance of these consumer-based measures.
Research limitations/implications – Research is exploratory and subjective measures of business
performance were used.
Practical implications – The main implications are addressed to the Tourism and Hospitality
managers for improving the ways of measuring marketing effectiveness.
Originality/value – This is a study of the measurement of marketing effectiveness in Tourism and
Hospitality companies in comparison with the industrial counterparts.
Keywords Tourism management, Hospitality management, Manufacturing industries,
Performance measures, Marketing strategy, Spain
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Despite the importance of measuring business performance (see, for example, Meyer,
1998), there is little research on the measures used to evaluate marketing
effectiveness[1]. Due to this, The Marketing Science Institute made this question one
of its research priorities since the year 2000. Reasons for the lack of research marketing
metrics include the complexity of unravelling short- from long-term effects (Dekimpe
and Hanssens, 1995), the difficulties of measuring brand equity (Marketing Leadership
Council, 2001) and the perhaps excessive importance business management ascribes to
financial measures (Eccles, 1991; Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999).
Given that a firm’s survival depends on its capacity to create value, and value is International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
defined by customers (Day, 1990), marketing makes a fundamental contribution to Management
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2006
long-term business success. Therefore evaluating marketing performance is a key task pp. 145-155
for management. However, businesses that concern themselves with rigorous q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
evaluation of marketing results are in the minority (Ambler, 2000). DOI 10.1108/09596110610646691
 IJCHM The present research examines further the differences in marketing metrics
18,2 between the Tourism and Hospitality and Industrial Spanish firms. Second, we analyse
business orientation as antecedents in the marketing performance measurement.
The paper is structured in four sections. The first lays out the theoretical framework
and formulates hypotheses. The following section sets out the methodology, then the
principal results are described. The last section draws together conclusions and
146 implications of the present research.

2. Theoretical framework
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

2.1. Measurement of marketing effectiveness

Research points to a variety of marketing metrics. Clark (1999a) identifies about 20
measures, Ambler and Riley (2000) tested a total of 38 measures, Davidson (1999)
considers ten important measures of marketing effectiveness and Meyer (1998) notes
hundreds. However, Clark (1999a) suggests we should make better use of existing
measures rather than formulate new ones. Recently, Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999)
have summarized marketing metrics in six categories: financial, competitive market,
consumer behaviour, customer intermediate, direct customer and innovativeness
measures. Financial metrics can alternatively be seen as accounting metrics but they
are mostly expressed in monetary terms whereas the other metrics are not.
Financial metrics are usually the first type to be employed to evaluate marketing
performance (Ambler, 2000; Clark, 1999a; b; Eccles, 1991; Day and Farley, 1988; Feder,
1965; Sevin, 1965). Among measures of comparison with the competition, market share
is especially prominent owing to the belief that it predicted cash flow and profitability
(Buzzell and Gale, 1987). Market share is one of the most used measures, in the
academic field as well as in business practice (Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999). Among
measures relating to customers, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty have
gained attention (Bigné et al., 2001; Ambler and Riley, 2000; Clark, 1999a; Echtner and
Ritchie, 1993).
In light of these identified shortcomings, the purpose of this research is to gain an
empirically based insight into the measurement of marketing performance between
two types of business. We considered that marketing decisions in Tourism and
Hospitality businesses are focused in the consumer services, while industrial
businesses have a wider target. In this context, the specific objectives are first to
explore the process of measurement of marketing performance in both types of
business; and second, to study the importance of the metrics used.

2.2. The effect of business orientation in the measurement of marketing success

Many organizations emphasize how well they perform which they believe is required
by customers. So business orientation is perhaps one of the main antecedents of
business performance. Companies may focus their activities on consumers or
competitors. A customer orientation means focusing exclusively on customers as the
way to achieve long-run profits, while competitor orientation means focusing on the
activities of competitors to counteract them in some way with the same objective of
achieving long-run profits. Both are components of what has come to be called “market
orientation”[2] and a lot of studies have confirmed the positive effect of market
orientation on business performance (see, for example, Narver and Slater, 1990; Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990).
 There is some research focused on market orientation in the tourism sector (Qu et al., Measures of
2004; Harris and Watkins, 1998). In fact, a recent study recognizes the positive effects marketing
of market orientation in the tourism sector (Wu, 2004). Along this line, Buhalis (2000)
and Seaton and Bennet (1996) also recognize the importance of the relationship performance
between market orientation and business performance in the tourism industry.
In this context, we expect that the process of marketing performance measurement
is affected by the market orientation of the firm (Barwise and Farley, 2004). Thus, if the 147
business is customer-oriented one would expect the measures of its success to be
customer-based (Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999). From this we deduce the first
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

hypothesis:
H1. Customer orientation has a positive effect on the importance attached to
customer-based measures of marketing effectiveness.
In the context of market orientation, competitor orientation implies that a business
understands its main current and potential competitors’ strong and weak points in the
short term and their potential and possible strategies in the long term (Narver and
Slater, 1990). In other words, the primary attention is given to performing better than
competitors. In this case our hypothesis is as follows:
H2. Competitor orientation has a positive effect on the importance attached to
competitor-based measures of marketing effectiveness.

3. Methodology
For this research we conducted a postal survey addressed to the chief executive officer
of 500 firms in Spain with an income higher than e15 million (150 Tourism and
Hospitality companies and 350 Industrial companies). Travel agencies, hotels and
others constitute the Tourism and Hospitality category, while the Industrial category is
made up of companies from Textile and Clothing, Electric Machinery,
Telecommunication and Computer Machinery.
Table I shows the details of the data collection process. A sample of 174 CEOs
completed the questionnaire that included items to be answered in a seven-point Likert
scale for customer and competitor orientation scales and a five-point Likert scale for
the measurement of business performance. Of the final sample, 42.8 per cent is made up
of businesses with incomes lower than e60 million. The rest are businesses with
incomes greater than e60 million.

Information collection method Postal survey

Sample unit Chief executive officer (CEO)
Scope National

Universe or population 150 tourism and hospitality companies 350 industrial companies
Sample size 71 companies 95 companies
Sampling error 11.4 9.6
Confidence level 95% Z ¼ 1:96 p ¼ q ¼ 0:50 95% Z ¼ 1:96 p ¼ q ¼ 0:50
Sample procedure Convenience simple
Fieldwork Pre-test (January 2003); first mailing (February 2003); second mailing Table I.
(April 2003); third mailing (May 2003). Data collection
 IJCHM Customer orientation was determined with a six-item scale and competitor orientation
18,2 with a five-item scale adapted from the one developed by Narver and Slater (1990). A
Cronbach reliability test was conducted on the survey data. The results in Table II
show that both scales present coefficients near to the level recommended, that is, 0.7.
Marketing success measures are captured by the six categories established by
Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999):
148 (1) financial measures (as turnover, contribution margin and profit);
(2) competitive market measures (as market share, advertising and promotional
share);
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

(3) consumer behaviour measures (as consumer penetration, loyalty and customer
gained);
(4) consumer intermediate measures (as brand recognition, satisfaction and
purchase intention);
(5) direct costumer measures (as distribution level, profitability of intermediaries
and service quality); and
(6) innovativeness measures (as products launched and their revenue).

4. Results
In this section, we show the results obtained regarding marketing metrics and, later,
we test the hypotheses on the relationship between business orientation and the
importance of the different categories of metrics.

4.1. Descriptive analysis of the measurement of marketing performance for tourism and
hospitality firms and for industrial firms
First we asked the respondents about their degree of satisfaction with their measures
of marketing success. The results in Table III show that in general managers are not
very satisfied with the measures used, regardless of the type of the firm. The degree of
satisfaction is around four (out of seven). However, managers from Tourism and
Hospitality (T&H) businesses are more satisfied than their industrial (IND)
counterparts. These differences have statistical significance when managers belong
to the smallest T&H businesses, and for the overall sample too.
In order to know which measures are more important for the firms and find out the
differences according to the type of business, we have conducted a t-test analysis for
each marketing performance measure. Table IV shows the mean values and the
significance of the t-test. We observe that there are statistical significance differences
for two measures, consumer behaviour and consumer intermediate.
The results show that the most important marketing metrics in the T&H business
are consumer behaviour and customer intermediate, that is, measures of penetration

Scale Type of business Cronbach’s alpha

Customer orientation Tourism and hospitality firms 0.6847

Table II.
Industrial firms 0.7860
Reliability analysis for
customer and competitor Competitor orientation Tourism and hospitality firms 0.6288
orientation scales Industrial firms 0.7012
 Measures of
Type of business Mean Standard deviation t-test
marketing
, 30 millions e Tourism and hospitality firms 4.82 1.08 1.853 * performance
Industrial firms 4.10 1.22
30-60 millions e Tourism and hospitality firms 4.33 1.73 0.685
Industrial firms 4.00 1.02
149
. 60 millions e Tourism and hospitality firms 4.82 1.22 0.248
Industrial firms 4.73 1.46
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

Total Tourism and hospitality firms 4.74 1.26 1.914 * Table III.
Industrial firms 4.29 1.31 Degree of satisfaction
with measures for
Note: *p , 0.05 marketing effectiveness

Measures Type of business Mean Standard deviation t-test

Financial Tourism and hospitality firms 5.12 1.54 2 0.157

Industrial firms 5.16 1.62
Competitive market Tourism and hospitality firms 5.11 1.41 0.322
Industrial firms 5.04 1.43
Consumer behaviour Tourism and hospitality firms 5.98 1.30 2.125 *
Industrial firms 5.31 1.32
Consumer intermediate Tourism and hospitality firms 5.93 1.31 2.429 *
Industrial firms 5.23 1.52
Direct customer Tourism and hospitality firms 4.17 1.65 2 0.841
Industrial firms 4.41 1.48
Innovativeness Tourism and hospitality firms 4.90 1.42 2 0.620 Table IV.
Industrial firms 5.08 1.67 Importance of metric
categories for assessing
Note: *p , 0.05 performance

level, customer loyalty or customer satisfaction. Specifically, the degree of importance

of consumer behaviour is 5.98 for T&H business and 5.31 for IND business (p . 0.05).
We get similar results for consumer intermediate measures. On the other hand,
measures with the lowest degree of importance seem to be direct customer measures
(as distribution level or profitability of intermediaries), especially for T&H businesses.
In order to study the relative importance of the six marketing performance
measures, we performed a t-test comparing the means between financial and each one
of the non-financial measures analysed. Table V reports the result of these analyses for
both type of business. As we expected the t-test has higher statistical significance for
the three categories of measures mentioned above.
For the case of T&H business, consumer behaviour and intermediate measures are
more important than financial measures, and direct customer measures are less
important than financial measures. For IND business, financial measures are the most
 IJCHM important marketing performance measures and direct customer measures are the
18,2 least important too.
We also examined the benchmark used in the measurement of marketing
performance for both types of business. In this case we have used a Chi-square test.
Table VI shows the valid percent and the cases where the chi-square test has shown
statistical significance.
150 We observe that for both types of business the previous year is the main benchmark
used for marketing performance measurement and specially for financial measures. A
specific competitor is obviously the main benchmark used for competitive measures
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

while for consumer behaviour, consumer intermediate and innovativeness measures

the main benchmark is the marketing plan.
If we focused in T&H business, we observe here that the marketing plan has a
greater importance as benchmark for consumer behaviour and intermediate measures
than for industrial business. In the other hand, a specific competitor and the previous
year have a lower relative importance as benchmarks for marketing performance
measurement in the T&H business than in IND ones.
To study the frequency of marketing performance measurement, we also conducted
a chi-square test. However, we have not found any significant differences between both
types of business. Table VII reports the results. We observe that the measurement of
marketing performance is usually performed annually or quarterly. However, financial
measures in both industries are used more frequently.

T&H business IND business

Measures Mean Standard deviation t-test Mean Standard deviation t-test

Financial 5.12 1.54 5.16 1.62

Competitive market 5.11 1.41 20.086 5.04 1.43 0.720
Consumer behaviour 5.98 1.30 23.191 * * 5.31 1.32 2 1.712 *
Consumer intermediate 5.93 1.31 22.305 * * 5.23 1.52 2694
Table V. Direct customer 4.17 1.65 2.587 * * 4.41 1.48 3.435 * *
Importance relative of the Innovativeness 4.90 1.42 0.477 5.08 1.67 0.420
measurement categories
for type of business Note: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Specific Other units

Previous year Marketing plan competitor in the group
Measures T&H IND T&H IND T&H IND T&H IND

Financial 76.5 80.5 54.9 63.4 15.7 17.1 11.8 11.0

Competitive market 41.2 36.6 25.5 36.6 * * 45.1 53.7 * 1.7 2.4
Consumer behaviour 51.0 52.4 54.9 * * * 31.7 11.8 28.0 * * * 15.7 12.2
Table VI. Consumer intermediate 52.9 48.8 52.9 * * * 28.0 9.8 28.0 * * * 15.7 14.6
Frequency of Direct customer 39.2 50.0 * * 33.3 28.0 9.8 18.3 * * 9.8 8.5
benchmarks used in the Innovativeness 23.5 43.9 * * * 35.3 45.1 * 17.6 34.1 * * * 5.9 6.1
measurement of
marketing performance Notes: Chi-square test significance: *p , 0.10; * *p , 0.05; * * *p , 0.01
 4.2. The relationship between customer and competitor orientation and the Measures of
measurement of marketing performance marketing
To analyse these relationships, a regression analysis of customer and competitor
orientation as independent variables with the importance of each one of the six performance
categories of measures as a dependent variable was conducted (see Table VIII and
Table IX for the results of T&H and Industrial business respectively). The coefficients
of determination (R 2) and the F-test in Tables VIII and IX indicated that the regression 151
models are statistically significant.
If we focused on these relationships for the T&H business sample, the results in
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

Table VIII indicate that the importance of a measure of marketing performance is

positively affected by the customer and/or competitor orientation of the firm. We
observe that customer orientation coefficients have statistical significance in the
importance of consumer behaviour and intermediate measures (0.45 and 0.28) and in
direct customer measures (0.34). On the other hand, we can see that the degree of

Yearly/ Monthly or
quarterly more Never Rarely/ad hoc
Yearly/quarterly T&H IND T&H IND T&H IND T&H IND
Table VII.
Financial valuation 28.3 21.1 26.1 29.6 23.9 29.6 21.7 19.7 Regularity of tracking the
Other measures 36.4 35.4 27.3 35.5 30.2 20.8 6.1 8.3 marketing asset

Independent variables
Customer orientation Competitor orientation
Dependent variables F-value R2 Standardized b Standardized b

Financial measures 6.183 * * * 0.21 0.445 0.501 * Table VIII.

Competitive market measures 6.411 * * * 0.22 0.14 0.37 * * Regression analysis of
Consumer behaviour measures 13.542 * * * 0.37 0.45 * * * 0.23 * the relationship between
Consumer intermediate measures 12.438 * * * 0.35 0.28 * * 0.39 * * * the importance of
Direct customer measures 5.509 * * * 0.20 0.34 * * 0.16 measures and customer
Innovativeness measures 3.624 * * 0.14 0.04 0.35 * * and competitor
orientation (T&H
Notes: *p , 0.1; * *p , 0.05; * * *p , 0.01 businesses)

Independent variables
Customer orientation Competitor orientation
Dependent variables F-value R2 Standardized b Standardized b

Financial measures 0.890 0.02 2 0.07 0.15 Table IX.

Competitive market measures 23.261 * * * 0.38 0.05 0.57 * * * Regression analysis of
Consumer behaviour measures 9.247 * * * 0.19 0.28 * * 0.20 the relationship between
Consumer intermediate measures 12.279 * * * 0.24 0.40 * * * 0.12 the importance of
Direct customer measures 9.621 * * * 0.20 0.22 * 0.27 * measures and customer
Innovativeness measures 17.673 * * * 0.31 0.24 * * 0.37 * * * and competitor
orientation (industrial
Notes: *p , 0.1; * *p , 0.05; * * *p , 0.01 businesses)
 IJCHM competitor orientation also has a positive effect on the importance of the every
18,2 measure, except for direct customer measures.
For the industrial businesses, the results in Table IX also show that customer and
competitor orientation have a positive effect on the importance of marketing
performance measures. Specifically, the degree of customer orientation has a
significant effect on the importance of the three consumer measures, while the degree
152 of competitor orientation has an effect on competitive measures.
We also observe some differences in the coefficient values in Table VII and Table IX.
Therefore the degree of customer orientation of the firm would have a greater effect on
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

consumer behaviour measures for T&H business than for industrial ones (coefficient is
b ¼ 0:45 in Table VIII and b ¼ 0.28 in Table IX). We also observe that competitor
orientation has a lower effect on the competitive measures of marketing performance in
the T&H sample than in the IND one (the coefficient is 0.37 in Table VIII and 0.57 in
Table IX).

5. Conclusions and implications

In the empirical study we have found notable differences between Tourism and
Hospitality and Industrial managers in the way their firms assess marketing
effectiveness. In particular, the results indicate:
.
There are some disparities in the system for evaluating marketing performance.
First, T&H managers seem to be more satisfied with the measures used of
marketing effectiveness than industrial managers. Second, Tourism and
Hospitality managers ascribe more importance to consumer behaviour and
intermediate metrics than industrial managers. The leading role of the financial
measures is shared with the consumer and intermediate measures as penetration
level, loyalty level, customer satisfaction or new customers gained for the T&H
managers, while this leadership of financial measures is maintained for the
industrial managers. In this sense, Tourism and Hospitality managers appear to
have internalised the marketing concept more coherently than their Industrial
counterparts. As Levitt (1983) indicates, profits are not the main goal of
marketing, the main goal of marketing is to satisfy customers. Hence to measure
marketing success businesses should base themselves above all on criteria
relating to customers (Bhargava et al., 1994).
.
There are differences in the type of benchmark used for measuring marketing
performance. Among industrial businesses, the main benchmark is the previous
year, while for the Tourism and Hospitality firms, the marketing plan is used
more often, especially in the case of consumer behaviour and consumer
intermediate measures. Both sectors place less emphasis on comparison of
results with the competition than, e.g. Eccles (1991) suggests.
.
There are few differences in the frequency of financial measurement of
marketing assets. In both type of business they are usually evaluated annually.
As Barreda (1999) indicates, quantifying increases and decreases in these assets
is an essential part of measuring marketing effectiveness.
.
In both types of companies customer and competitor orientation coefficients
have a positive effect on the different categories of measures analysed.
Specifically there is a close relationship between customer orientation and the
 categories of measures focused on the consumer. As was foreseeable, we have Measures of
also confirmed the positive relationship between competitor orientation and marketing
evaluation of marketing success from measures based on competitors. Therefore,
in general we found a close association between business orientation and the way performance
it assesses its marketing performance.

In light of these identified shortcomings, we indicate some implications for T&H 153
managers in their task of assessing marketing effectiveness. First, managers have to be
aware of the importance of an accurate measurement of marketing performance. The
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

aim of this measurement is to provide knowledge and understanding of the reason for
and consequences of any particular marketing decision. So the measurement of
marketing performance has to be considered as a regular and systematic process for
managers. The main results of this research highlight that the source of this process
must be in a call to customer and competitor orientation of the firms.
In the systematic process indicated, accuracy is in a high frequency in the
measurement process and a broad financial and non-financial metrics. Moreover the
characteristics of T&H business imply that it is necessary to pay special attention to
the consumer metrics,that is, regularly measuring the customer satisfaction level,
consumer loyalty, new customer gained, customer retained or customer lost. T&H
managers have to give these consumer metrics priority in the way it assesses its
marketing performance.
This work has various limitations. This research is exploratory and subjective
rather than an objective measurement of business performance. Although this is not
uncommon in the literature and is justified by reference to, e.g. Dess and Robinson
(1984). For future research we suggest refining categories to individual metrics and
considering elements of the marketing mix as well as marketing as a whole. Finally, we
believe it would be very useful to investigate these issues in the context of new
technologies.

Notes
1. Ambler and Kokkinaki (1997), examined 1,316 issues of seven marketing magazines and
found that only 11.5 per cent of the articles analysed dealt with the evaluation of marketing
results.
2. Customer and competitor orientation are complementary concepts in the context of market
orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990).

References
Ambler, T. (2000), “Marketing and the bottom line: the new metrics of corporate wealth”,
Financial Times, Prentice-Hall, London.
Ambler, T. and Kokkinaki, F. (1997), “Measures of marketing success”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 5 No. 13, pp. 665-78.
Ambler, T. and Riley, D. (2000) pp. 1-30, “Marketing metrics: a review of performance measures
in use in the UK and Spain”, draft paper, London Business School, London.
Barreda, E. (1999), Marketing Metrics and Innovation: Research on Current Practice in the United
Kingdom and Spain, London Business School, London.
Barwise, P. and Farley, J. (2004), “Marketing metrics: status of six metrics in five countries”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 257-62.
 IJCHM Bhargava, M., Dubelaar, C. and Ramaswami, S. (1994), “Reconciling diverse measures of
performance: a conceptual framework and test of a methodology”, Journal of Business
18,2 Research, Vol. 31, pp. 235-46.
Bigné, E., Sánchez, M.I. and Sánchez, J. (2001), “Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behaviour: inter-relationship”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16.
Buhalis, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management,
154 Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 97-116.
Buzzel, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The SMBS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

Clark, B.H. (1999a), “Marketing performance measures: history and interrelationships”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 15, pp. 711-32.
Clark, B.H. (1999b), “Managerial perceptions of marketing performance: efficiency, adaptability,
effectiveness and satisfaction”, working paper, College of Business Administration,
Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Davidson, J.H. (1999), “Transforming the value of company reports through marketing
measurement”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 15, pp. 757-77.
Day, G.S. (1990), Market-Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Day, G.S. and Farley, L. (1988), “Valuing marketing strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 45-57.
Dekimpe, M.G. and Hanssens, D.M. (1995), “The persistence of marketing effects on sales”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), “Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 265-73.
Eccles, R.G. (1991), “The performance measurement manifesto”, Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 131-7.
Echtner, C. and Ritchie, J. (1993), “The measurement of destination image: an empirical
assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, Spring, pp. 3-13.
Feder, R.A. (1965), “How to measure marketing performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43,
May-June, pp. 132-42.
Harris, L. and Watkins, P. (1998), “The impediments to developing a market orientation:
an exploratory study of small UK hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 221-6.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, 5(54), April, pp., Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 1-18.
Kokkinaki, F. and Ambler, T. (1999), “Marketing performance assessment: an exploratory
investigation into current practice and the role of firm prientation”, working paper
No. 99-114, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Levitt, T. (1983), “After the sale is over . . .”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, pp. 87-93.
Marketing Leadership Council (2001), Measuring Marketing Performance: Results of Council
Survey, Marketing Leadership Council, Washington, DC.
Meyer, M.W. (1998), “Finding performance: the new discipline in management”, Performance
Measurement – Theory and Practice, Centre for Business Performance, Cambridge,
pp. 14-21.
 Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, Measures of
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 20-35.
Qu, R., Ennew, C. and Sinclair, M.T. (2004), “The impact of regulation and ownership structure
marketing
on market orientation in the tourism industry in China”, Tourism Management. performance
Seaton, A. and Bennet, M. (1996), The Marketing of Tourism Products, Thomson Publishing,
London.
Sevin, C.H. (1965), Marketing Productivity Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 155
Wu, J. (2004), “Influence of market orientation and strategy on travel industry performance:
an empirical study of e-commerce in Taiwan”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

pp. 357-65.

Further reading
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value, Free Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Rossano Eusebio can be contacted at: rossano.eusebio@uab.es

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gungor Hacioglu, Osman Gök. 2013. Marketing performance measurement: marketing metrics in
Turkish firms. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14:sup1, S413-S432. [CrossRef]
2. Johanna Frösén, Henrikki Tikkanen, Matti Jaakkola, Antti Vassinen. 2013. Marketing performance
assessment systems and the business context. European Journal of Marketing 47:5/6, 715-737. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
3. Riyad Eid, Hatem El-Gohary. 2013. The impact of E-marketing use on small business enterprises'
marketing success. The Service Industries Journal 33:1, 31-50. [CrossRef]
4. Ebrahim Oliya, Mohammad Saleh Owlia, Zohreh Dehdashti Shahrokh, Laya Olfat. 2012. Improving
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA At 06:08 23 February 2015 (PT)

marketing process using Six Sigma techniques (case of Saman Bank). International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma 3:1, 59-73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Inés Küster, Pedro Canales. 2011. Compensation and control sales policies, and sales performance: the
field sales manager's points of view. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:4, 273-285. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Paulo Águas, Célia Veiga, Helena Reis. 2010. Competitive destination analysis in Southern European
countries. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 2:4, 364-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Haris Machlouzarides. 2010. The future of destination marketing: the case of Cyprus. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology 1:1, 83-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. N. Gladson Nwokah. 2009. Customer‐focus, competitor‐focus and marketing performance. Measuring
Business Excellence 13:3, 20-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Inés Küster, Pedro Canales. 2008. Some determinants of salesforce effectiveness. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal 14:7/8, 296-326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. N. Gladson Nwokah. 2008. Strategic market orientation and business performance. European Journal of
Marketing 42:3/4, 279-286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Irene SamantaExport Marketing Communications of Public Sector in Promoting Tourism Destination
of a Greek Island 323-337. [CrossRef]
12. Irene SamantaExport Marketing Communications of Public Sector in Promoting Tourism Destination
of a Greek Island 557-571. [CrossRef]

View publication stats