In this paper is amid to review the performance of Nokia in Chinese mobile phone market since 2002. A literature review about marketing research models such as 4 Ps, Porter’s 5 Forces, SWOT analyses is carried out by the author. After that, this paper explained the changes of market environment in last decade with competitor analyses. In addition, the author evaluates the market mix of Nokia. Opinions of how well Nokia did in building a strong brand is presented afterwards. Following the above review and analyses, some recommendations for future marketing strategy are listed at the end of this paper.
Marketing Mix and 4 Ps Model
The 4 Ps marketing model is wieldy considered as a typical framework in practice to understand Marketing Mix. Although practically, Marketing Mix and 4 Ps are often used as synonyms, in fact they are not necessarily being the same thing (Shahhosseini and Ardahaey, 2011). Marketing Mix is not a scientific theory but a conceptual framework. 4 Ps model is just one of those Marketing Mix list that developed over years (Shahhosseini and Ardahaey, 2011).
It is claimed that Borden in 1965 first used the term “Marketing Mix” to indicate an executive is “a mixer of ingredients” like a baker mixing cake (Chai, 2009) which means marketing manager can control variables to influence a brand’s sales or market share (Shahhosseini and Ardahaey, 2011). Originally, the Marketing Mix concept described by Borden contents 12 elements namely: Product planning, Pricing, Branding, Channels of distribution/place, Personal selling, Promotions, Advertising, Packaging, Display, Servicing, Physical handling, and Fact-finding and analysis. All the elements are used to formulating a specific market program. In 1964, McCarthy simplified those elements into four key groups, namely Product, Price, Promotion and Place (Zineldin and Philipson, 2007; Kotler and Keller, 2006). Through the combinations of the 4 “P”, a marketing manager could satisfy a certain market (Chai, 2009).
The development of 4 Ps received considerable academic and industrial attention, thus numerous criticizes and modifications were provided (Chai, 2009). The criticize of 4 Ps model is mainly on it dissatisfaction and production oriented view. The dissatisfaction appeared in two parts. The first part is that it seems too simple to cope with the highly competitive changed market environment. Thus, new “P”s are introducing to modify this model. A famous one is Booms and Bitner adding Participants, Physical-evidence And Process to form 7 Ps model (Shahhosseini and Ardahaey, 2011). The second part is although all the four elements are suggested equal importance and work together in single market plan(Zineldin and Philipson, 2007), numbers of studies approved the components of 4 Ps model differ significantly in importance. It is found that, on average business manager do rank the 4 Ps into the following order: Price, Product, Position and promotion (Chai, 2009). Beside that this model is also argued being production-oriented. Lauterborn in 1990 claimed that each of those variables should also be seen from the costumer’s perspective and suggested a 4 Cs model: Cost (price), Convenience (place) and Communication (promotion) (Shahhosseini and Ardahaey, 2011). 4 Ps is just one of Marketing Mix models, and numerous modifications were proposed by critics. However, despite its limitations, the marketing mix is still most commonly mean the 4 Ps model in today’s marketing practice. Perhaps because of its simplicity, this framework is remaining strongly used and introduced in various business textbooks.
Porter’s 5 Forces Analyze Model
The Porter's five forces model is a framework for industry analysis and business strategy development formed by Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School in 1979. He argued that the nature of capitation of a specific...