Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain,
definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38, 119–140.
Main purpose of the article:
Varadarajan aims to clarify what strategic marketing as a field actually covers, how
marketing strategy should be defined, which issues are fundamental to the field, and which
basic premises underlie marketing strategy research. The paper argues that the field has
suffered from conceptual ambiguity and that clearer definitions are needed for stronger theory
building and research.
Important argument about strategy vs tactics:
Varadarajan criticizes the common idea that STP is always “strategy” and the 4Ps are always
“tactics.” He argues this distinction is too simplistic and conceptually flawed, because
decisions in any of these areas can be more or less strategic depending on how consequential
they are for long-term performance. In other words, marketing decisions should be seen as
lying on a continuum from less strategic to more strategic, not as belonging to fixed boxes.
What makes a marketing decision strategic?
According to the paper, strategic marketing decisions are those with major long-term
consequences. They usually:
• require large resource commitments,
• are difficult or costly to reverse,
• involve longer-term commitments,
• involve major trade-offs,
• are interdependent with other strategic decisions, and
• are usually made at higher organizational levels.
Examples used in the article:
The paper shows that even decisions often labeled “tactical” can be strategic. For example:
• major product decisions such as Boeing 787 or Airbus 380 development involve huge
irreversible investments and are clearly strategic;
Domain of strategic marketing:
Varadarajan defines the domain of strategic marketing broadly. It includes the study of:
• organizational phenomena,
• inter-organizational phenomena, and
• environmental phenomena,
related to:
1. how organizations behave in the marketplace in relation to consumers, customers,
competitors, and other external actors, in the context of creating, communicating, and
delivering value; and
2. the broader management responsibilities linked to marketing’s boundary-spanning role
in the firm.
,What belongs inside this domain?
The article’s framework shows that strategic marketing includes much more than just STP or
the 4Ps. It also includes:
• strategy formulation, content, and implementation,
• competitive, cooperative, and collusive behaviors,
• internal and external environmental influences,
• relationships between antecedents, outcomes, moderators, and mediators,
• vertical and horizontal interfaces inside the firm,
• relationships with suppliers and channel members,
• alliances and multipoint competition,
• the overlap between marketing, business, and corporate strategy.
Definition of marketing strategy:
The core definition proposed in the article is:
Marketing strategy is an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions about products,
markets, marketing activities, and marketing resources that guide the creation,
communication, and/or delivery of offerings that provide value to customers and help the
organization achieve its objectives.
Two layers of marketing strategy:
1. Customer Interfacing Layer — decisions that directly affect customers (e.g., pricing
strategy, channel strategy, positioning strategy, promotion strategy, branding strategy)
2. Precursor to the Customer Interfacing Layer — decisions that are upstream inputs,
such as target market selection, order of entry, and market entry mode (e.g., internal
development vs. acquisition vs. strategic alliance)
This distinction helps show that many strategic decisions matter even if customers do not
directly observe them.
Fundamental issues in strategic marketing:
The paper suggests that one of the biggest fundamental questions is how marketing strategy is
shaped by both:
• demand-side factors (customer behavior, preferences, market response), and
• supply-side factors (firm resources, competitors, industry structure, cost and
differentiation possibilities).
So the field should not focus only on one side. Strategic marketing must explain how firms
compete while also accounting for how customers think and behave.
Foundational premises of marketing strategy:
Although the paper lists many premises, the general idea is that marketing strategy rests on
several broad assumptions:
• organizations act in dynamic, changing environments;
• marketing strategy is central to organizational performance;
• strategy is about meaningful choices and trade-offs;
• strategy is shaped by both firm-side and market-side conditions;
, • more than one effective strategy may exist in a market;
• competitors will differ in the strategies they pursue;
• competitive advantage is important, but it should be seen as one purpose of marketing
strategy rather than the only purpose.
Important nuance about competitive advantage:
The author explicitly argues against defining marketing strategy only as a way to achieve
sustainable competitive advantage. He says that is too narrow. Marketing strategy can also
aim to:
• build market-based assets,
• create and maintain exchange relationships, and
• shape customer affect, cognition, and behavior.
Overall conclusion of the article:
Varadarajan’s main message is that strategic marketing should be understood as a broad field
concerned with marketplace behavior, cross-functional and inter-organizational interfaces,
and consequential marketing decisions.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Main purpose of the article:
Slater and Narver argue that market orientation is closely connected to the idea of the
learning organization. Their core claim is that a market-oriented business is better positioned
to create and use knowledge, adapt to change, and sustain superior performance. The paper
explains how organizational learning works, how it links to market orientation, and what
firms need to do to become better learning organizations.
The central argument of the paper:
The article argues that market orientation and organizational learning reinforce each
other. A market-oriented culture encourages firms to gather information about customers,
competitors, and the wider environment, to share that information internally, and to respond
to it effectively. Because of this, market-oriented firms are better able to learn, adapt,
innovate, and improve performance over time.
How the paper defines organizational learning:
The authors define organizational learning as a process that includes information
acquisition, information dissemination, shared interpretation, and organizational
memory. In other words, firms learn when they gather relevant knowledge, distribute it
across the organization, interpret it collectively, and store it in ways that influence future
decisions and actions. The diagram on page 4 presents this process visually.
The process of organizational learning:
1. Information acquisition – gathering knowledge from direct experience, others’
experience, customers, competitors, partners, experiments, and internal records.
2. Information dissemination – spreading that knowledge through formal and informal
channels.
3. Shared interpretation – developing common understanding across the firm.
, 4. Information utilization – embedding knowledge in routines, systems, culture, and
people.
The article stresses that learning is not just collecting data. It requires shared meaning and the
ability to use what is learned in practice.
Adaptive learning vs generative learning:
A key distinction in the paper is between two types of learning:
• Single-loop learning (Adaptive learning) means improving existing routines and
responding to current environmental conditions.
• Double-loop learning (Generative learning) goes further and questions assumptions,
challenges established routines, and opens the door to innovation and strategic change.
The authors argue that firms need both, but generative learning is especially important in
dynamic markets because it helps organizations create new ways of competing rather than just
reacting to change.
Important point about behavior vs cognition:
The article notes that learning can be viewed either as a change in behavior or as a change in
cognition/understanding. The authors lean toward a view that includes both. Learning is
meaningful when knowledge actually shapes how people think and how the organization acts.
So true organizational learning is not just knowing more; it is using that knowledge to guide
behavior and improve performance.
How learning leads to competitive advantage:
The paper argues that sustainable competitive advantage can come from being able to learn
continuously and use that learning faster and better than competitors. In turbulent
environments, existing knowledge becomes obsolete quickly, so firms that can keep learning
are better able to adapt, innovate, and maintain customer value. This makes organizational
learning a key long-term capability.
The learning organization:
The authors describe the learning organization as one that is not just good at solving today’s
problems, but is also designed to keep generating and using knowledge. Figure 2 on page 5
shows the learning organization as a system where culture and climate influence
organizational learning, which then affects outcomes such as customer value, new product
success, and profitability.
Culture and climate in the learning organization:
The article makes an important distinction between:
• Culture – deeper values and beliefs that shape how the organization sees the world.
• Climate – the more visible patterns, practices, and norms that people experience daily.
Both matter, but the authors argue that culture is more fundamental because it shapes the
behaviors and processes that support learning. A learning-oriented culture encourages
openness, information sharing, experimentation, reflection, and willingness to question old
assumptions.
definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38, 119–140.
Main purpose of the article:
Varadarajan aims to clarify what strategic marketing as a field actually covers, how
marketing strategy should be defined, which issues are fundamental to the field, and which
basic premises underlie marketing strategy research. The paper argues that the field has
suffered from conceptual ambiguity and that clearer definitions are needed for stronger theory
building and research.
Important argument about strategy vs tactics:
Varadarajan criticizes the common idea that STP is always “strategy” and the 4Ps are always
“tactics.” He argues this distinction is too simplistic and conceptually flawed, because
decisions in any of these areas can be more or less strategic depending on how consequential
they are for long-term performance. In other words, marketing decisions should be seen as
lying on a continuum from less strategic to more strategic, not as belonging to fixed boxes.
What makes a marketing decision strategic?
According to the paper, strategic marketing decisions are those with major long-term
consequences. They usually:
• require large resource commitments,
• are difficult or costly to reverse,
• involve longer-term commitments,
• involve major trade-offs,
• are interdependent with other strategic decisions, and
• are usually made at higher organizational levels.
Examples used in the article:
The paper shows that even decisions often labeled “tactical” can be strategic. For example:
• major product decisions such as Boeing 787 or Airbus 380 development involve huge
irreversible investments and are clearly strategic;
Domain of strategic marketing:
Varadarajan defines the domain of strategic marketing broadly. It includes the study of:
• organizational phenomena,
• inter-organizational phenomena, and
• environmental phenomena,
related to:
1. how organizations behave in the marketplace in relation to consumers, customers,
competitors, and other external actors, in the context of creating, communicating, and
delivering value; and
2. the broader management responsibilities linked to marketing’s boundary-spanning role
in the firm.
,What belongs inside this domain?
The article’s framework shows that strategic marketing includes much more than just STP or
the 4Ps. It also includes:
• strategy formulation, content, and implementation,
• competitive, cooperative, and collusive behaviors,
• internal and external environmental influences,
• relationships between antecedents, outcomes, moderators, and mediators,
• vertical and horizontal interfaces inside the firm,
• relationships with suppliers and channel members,
• alliances and multipoint competition,
• the overlap between marketing, business, and corporate strategy.
Definition of marketing strategy:
The core definition proposed in the article is:
Marketing strategy is an organization’s integrated pattern of decisions about products,
markets, marketing activities, and marketing resources that guide the creation,
communication, and/or delivery of offerings that provide value to customers and help the
organization achieve its objectives.
Two layers of marketing strategy:
1. Customer Interfacing Layer — decisions that directly affect customers (e.g., pricing
strategy, channel strategy, positioning strategy, promotion strategy, branding strategy)
2. Precursor to the Customer Interfacing Layer — decisions that are upstream inputs,
such as target market selection, order of entry, and market entry mode (e.g., internal
development vs. acquisition vs. strategic alliance)
This distinction helps show that many strategic decisions matter even if customers do not
directly observe them.
Fundamental issues in strategic marketing:
The paper suggests that one of the biggest fundamental questions is how marketing strategy is
shaped by both:
• demand-side factors (customer behavior, preferences, market response), and
• supply-side factors (firm resources, competitors, industry structure, cost and
differentiation possibilities).
So the field should not focus only on one side. Strategic marketing must explain how firms
compete while also accounting for how customers think and behave.
Foundational premises of marketing strategy:
Although the paper lists many premises, the general idea is that marketing strategy rests on
several broad assumptions:
• organizations act in dynamic, changing environments;
• marketing strategy is central to organizational performance;
• strategy is about meaningful choices and trade-offs;
• strategy is shaped by both firm-side and market-side conditions;
, • more than one effective strategy may exist in a market;
• competitors will differ in the strategies they pursue;
• competitive advantage is important, but it should be seen as one purpose of marketing
strategy rather than the only purpose.
Important nuance about competitive advantage:
The author explicitly argues against defining marketing strategy only as a way to achieve
sustainable competitive advantage. He says that is too narrow. Marketing strategy can also
aim to:
• build market-based assets,
• create and maintain exchange relationships, and
• shape customer affect, cognition, and behavior.
Overall conclusion of the article:
Varadarajan’s main message is that strategic marketing should be understood as a broad field
concerned with marketplace behavior, cross-functional and inter-organizational interfaces,
and consequential marketing decisions.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Main purpose of the article:
Slater and Narver argue that market orientation is closely connected to the idea of the
learning organization. Their core claim is that a market-oriented business is better positioned
to create and use knowledge, adapt to change, and sustain superior performance. The paper
explains how organizational learning works, how it links to market orientation, and what
firms need to do to become better learning organizations.
The central argument of the paper:
The article argues that market orientation and organizational learning reinforce each
other. A market-oriented culture encourages firms to gather information about customers,
competitors, and the wider environment, to share that information internally, and to respond
to it effectively. Because of this, market-oriented firms are better able to learn, adapt,
innovate, and improve performance over time.
How the paper defines organizational learning:
The authors define organizational learning as a process that includes information
acquisition, information dissemination, shared interpretation, and organizational
memory. In other words, firms learn when they gather relevant knowledge, distribute it
across the organization, interpret it collectively, and store it in ways that influence future
decisions and actions. The diagram on page 4 presents this process visually.
The process of organizational learning:
1. Information acquisition – gathering knowledge from direct experience, others’
experience, customers, competitors, partners, experiments, and internal records.
2. Information dissemination – spreading that knowledge through formal and informal
channels.
3. Shared interpretation – developing common understanding across the firm.
, 4. Information utilization – embedding knowledge in routines, systems, culture, and
people.
The article stresses that learning is not just collecting data. It requires shared meaning and the
ability to use what is learned in practice.
Adaptive learning vs generative learning:
A key distinction in the paper is between two types of learning:
• Single-loop learning (Adaptive learning) means improving existing routines and
responding to current environmental conditions.
• Double-loop learning (Generative learning) goes further and questions assumptions,
challenges established routines, and opens the door to innovation and strategic change.
The authors argue that firms need both, but generative learning is especially important in
dynamic markets because it helps organizations create new ways of competing rather than just
reacting to change.
Important point about behavior vs cognition:
The article notes that learning can be viewed either as a change in behavior or as a change in
cognition/understanding. The authors lean toward a view that includes both. Learning is
meaningful when knowledge actually shapes how people think and how the organization acts.
So true organizational learning is not just knowing more; it is using that knowledge to guide
behavior and improve performance.
How learning leads to competitive advantage:
The paper argues that sustainable competitive advantage can come from being able to learn
continuously and use that learning faster and better than competitors. In turbulent
environments, existing knowledge becomes obsolete quickly, so firms that can keep learning
are better able to adapt, innovate, and maintain customer value. This makes organizational
learning a key long-term capability.
The learning organization:
The authors describe the learning organization as one that is not just good at solving today’s
problems, but is also designed to keep generating and using knowledge. Figure 2 on page 5
shows the learning organization as a system where culture and climate influence
organizational learning, which then affects outcomes such as customer value, new product
success, and profitability.
Culture and climate in the learning organization:
The article makes an important distinction between:
• Culture – deeper values and beliefs that shape how the organization sees the world.
• Climate – the more visible patterns, practices, and norms that people experience daily.
Both matter, but the authors argue that culture is more fundamental because it shapes the
behaviors and processes that support learning. A learning-oriented culture encourages
openness, information sharing, experimentation, reflection, and willingness to question old
assumptions.
