See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235286366

Competitive Marketing Strategy: Porter

Revisited
Article in Marketing Intelligence & Planning December 1991
DOI: 10.1108/02634509110139556

CITATIONS

READS

11

5,983

1 author:
Byron Sharp
University of South Australia
100 PUBLICATIONS 1,523 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Byron Sharp

Retrieved on: 07 August 2016

MARKETING INTELLIGENCE & PLANNING 9,1

he three marketing strategies, cost

leadership, differentiation and focus,
having so far been misrepresented, are
given more precise meaning.

Competitive
Marketing
Strategy:
Porter
Revisited
Byron Sharp

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 9 No. 1, 1991, pp 4-10,

MCB University Press, 0263-4503

Introduction
In 1980 Michael Porter's Competitive Strategy: Techniques for
Analysing Industries and Competitors was published[1]. The
result of research on industrial economics Porter examined
why certain industries had higher average profit levels than
others and why certain firms within each industry earned
profits above that industry average. He developed a theory
of competitive pressure which determined the profitability
of firms in an industry and he categorised the activities of
firms who earned above-average profits in their respective
industries as following three generic stratgies. Porter formulated a piece of marketing theory, his analysis of industry
structure was certainly economic work, but its outcome
competitive strategy is theory which describes marketing
decisions, a fact which was quickly appreciated by marketing
academics and practitioners worldwide.
It appears, however, that those academics and practitioners
made no real attempt to apply critique and integrate Porter's

work into the existing framework of marketing theory until

relatively recently[2]. Porter was not a marketer, nor did
he ever claim to be. Unfortunately marketing and
management academics took Porter's theory merely as
it was and placed it into the accepted body of marketing
theory. Not surprisingly confusion exists amongst
marketing texts and academics as to the precise definitions
of the three generic competitive strategies and their
implications for marketing decision making. This article
reformulates these definitions from a marketing point of
view in the light of Porter's original assertion that
competitive strategy depends on, and has an effect on,
market structure.

Porter's Competitive Strategies

Porter described competitive strategies as "taking
offensive or defensive actions to create a defendable
position in an industry, to cope successfully with the five
competitive forces and thereby yield a superior return on
investment for the firm"[1]. His research concluded that
"there are three potentially successful generic strategic
approaches to outperforming other firms in an industry:
(1) overall cost leadership
(2) differentiation
(3) focus."
The following discussion of the definitions of each strategy
considers their fit within the framework of modern
marketing theory, so that they are true to Porter's original
findings; that "each generic strategy is a fundamentally
different approach to creating and sustaining a competitive
advantage"[3] (see Figure 1).
The discussion notes that differences between the
strategies of differentiation, low cost and focus have been
poorly presented and occasionally misrepresented in
marketing and strategic management texts. In addition,
Porter made several errors in logic with his definition of
the three strategies.

Figure 1.

Three Generic Strategies

Competitive advantage
Lower cost

Broad
target

Differentiation

1. Cost leadership

2. Differentiation

3 A . Cost focus

3B. Differentiation
focus

Competitive
scope
Narrow
Target

COMPETITIVE MARKETING STRATEGY: PORTER REVISITED

Differentiation Strategy: Surely it is More

than Just Being Different?
The concepts behind the strategy of differentiation have
always appeared to sit at the very heart of modern
marketing theory and practice. The rise in interest in
marketing this century came as mass marketing practices
were gradually becoming ineffectual. Markets were
becoming increasingly competitive and consumers better
informed; suppliers needed a strategic response to the
fact that buyers were becoming more skilled and choosy.
Porter wrote ' 'In a differentiation strategy, a firm seeks
to be unique in its industry along some dimensions that
are widely valued by buyers" [3]. Differentiation can be
achieved through a whole host of features such as better
quality, lower price (or higher price for that matter),
customer service, reputation, greater awareness, greater
availability. The marketing challenge is to identify different
features which will provide meaningful benefit to
consumers (such that a competitive advantage will be
gained). The benefit must be one which the company is
capable of delivering; one that will be difficult for a
competitor to copy or better (i.e. it should be a sustainable
advantage) and hopefully one for which customers will pay
a sufficient premium (enough to cover any increased costs
incurred in deliverying this added benefit.
Differentiation has been interpreted by marketing and
strategic management texts as "making the product
appear different'', ensuring that the offering is perceived
by the customer, as unique in some respect. The
inadequacy of this definition is apparent, in that logically
any new offering must be different in some way for
customers to buy it.

Low Cost Strategy: Is it Low Price?

Porter stressed that this strategy should be adopted only
if a firm possesses, or has the ability to gain, the lowest
costs of production within an industry. Hence the effective
adoption of this strategy is available only to one firm in
an industry at one time. By achieving a marketing mix
(including price) with some proximity to the offerings of
other firms this producer will enjoy higher than average
profits through its higher margin. A low cost position
therefore does not automatically encapsulate the tactic of
lowest price and it is hardly the primary aim of this
strategy; although during a price war the low cost producer
starts from an enviable position which may be exploited.
Porter's original definition of proximity has been ignored
by many marketing writers who have associated the low
cost strategy with an attempt to differentiate on price:
The primary focus of the cost leadership strategy is to
compete on price as the major marketing tool[4j.
The low cost company is in the best position to compete
on the basis of price, to defend against price war conditions,

to use the appeal of lower price... and to earn above-average

profits where price competition thrives[5].
Overall Cost Leadership: here a company works hard to
achieve the lowest costs of production and distribution so
that it can price lower than its competitors [6].
Cost leadership emphasizes producing standardized products
at very low per unit costs for many buyers who are
price-sensitive[7].
There is either confusion over the terms cost and price,
or a general failure to appreciate the concept of the whole
marketing mix, by implying that using price to differentiate
is different from using any other feature in any other part
of the mix. Most markets have a whole host of different
price, quality and volume offerings (to choose just three
features). Having a lower price with the same quality and
volume as other firms is simply one way of differentiating
your offering. Each element of the mix offers a potential
route to differentiating a firm's offering to the marketplace;
which is different from any other feature. The lowest cost
producer merely has the exclusive ability to go to a lower
price than all other competitors and it is worth noting that
it may have to go substantially below the price of a firm
which is effectively implementing a differentiation strategy,
possibly to the point of losses. Therefore being the lowest
cost producer does not necessarily translate to a superior
ability to differentiate.
A cost leader ... cannot ignore the bases of differentiation.
If its product is not perceived as comparable or acceptable
by buyers, a cost leader will be forced to discount prices
well below competitors' to gain sales. This may nullify the
benefits of its favourable cost position[3].
If the primary focus of low cost strategy is simply to have
the lowest price there is no marketing argument to
consider differentiation and lost cost as different strategies.
In Porter's defence he did not actually write that the aim
of low cost was lowest price he said that the essential
aim of a firm following a low cost strategy is not to
differentiate through low price, but to achieve a price as
high as competitors, whilst retaining lower costs of
production.

A True Cost Advantage is not Gained from

Differentiating "Downwards"
Here it is worthwhile to distinguish between a true cost
advantage and one which is simply derived from delivering
fewer benefits. A true cost advantage can derive from only
two sources, either having access to cheaper inputs
(including access to patents and expertise) or being more
efficient (having higher process quality)[8]. Savings in cost
through cutting back on the amount of service or features
given to the market does not give a true cost advantage;
it is an avenue available to all firms. For example, in the
retail grocery industry a number of firms have cost
advantages through their lower staff and service levels,
making shoppers pack their own purchases, etc. To
assume these firms have a low cost advantage and are

MARKETING INTELLIGENCE & PLANNING 9 , 1

using it to implement a low cost strategy would be

incorrect. Their provision of less service forces them to
give customers a compensation drop in prices (or at least
a perceived drop) and it enables them to differentiate and
gain a part of the market (note: this usually goes beyond
just the price-conscious segment). Their strategy is
obviously one of differentiation; focus can be ruled out
as it seems that targeting the purely price-conscious
segment does not appear to be viable as even these low
price supermarkets still stock luxury items and high price
brands which are supposedly not bought by this segment,
and a wide cross-section of the population shop at such
retailers. With virtually the same core costs of other
players in the industry they have decided to differentiate
downwards as opposed to upwards. Instead of building in
extra benefit and hoping it translates to customers being
willing to pay a premium they have cut benefits in order
to cut price (to differentiate themselves). They hope that
in order to retain customers they will not have to drop
price further than the cost savings they make.
Is Low Cost a Strategy?
When Porter wrote that firms following a low cost strategy
could not ignore the bases of differentiation, he meant that,
in order to achieve proximity in price, the low cost firm
has to be aware at all times of all elements of the marketing
mix and the value the market places on the benefits they
deliver. A firm implementing a low cost strategy usually
maintains a much greater degree of inward orientation (to
control costs and productivity levels) but still cannot ignore
the marketplace and its segments, and the differences
between the benefits valued by the marketplace (the bases
of differentiation).
Can low cost be considered a separate marketing strategy?
Speed[2] argues that there is no reason to consider low
cost (as Porter defines it) as a separate strategy. This line
of thought maintains that having a cost advantage is merely
a facilitator to differentiate, usually on price. He notes that
a low cost advantage "does not lead to any increased
benefits to the consumer unless costs lead to lower
prices''. Porter's definition of low cost is quite simply not
a strategy. Porter's research sought to identify firms which
earned profits higher than the industry average. The lowest
cost producer was naturally of particular interest. He
identified an operational circumstance which tended to
allow for above-average profits.
A New Definition of Low Cost Strategy
There is an argument for a new definition of a low cost
strategy where there is an essential difference between
the marketplace activities of a firm following a low cost
strategy and a firm following differentiation. A new
definition states that the low costfirmaims for the entire
market and does not avoid tactics which push the industry
down the commodity slide. The thought of being precluded

from any part of the market for afirmfollowing low cost

is quite foreign. The aim is to exploit in every segment
the extra marketing muscle given by a cost advantage.
Most importantly, the low costfirmfightsto remove bases
for differentiation, to reduce the differences between each
segment; whereas firms following differentiation aim to
build or at least preserve such bases.
The vital difference then between thefirmwhich follows
low cost and those who follow differentiation and focus
is the way the firm approaches the market. Whether a
firm follows low cost, differentiation or focus strategies
it still has to offer something unique to the customer in
order to gain a sale. The difference between the three
competitive strategies is not just in the way they
differentiate; it has to do with how they try to influence
the nature of the market. The low cost firm has objectives
of proximity, maximum marketshare and reducing the
bases for differentiation. One way of achieving this removal
of bases for differentiation is to lift the standard of
proximity for the industry, thereby making a differentiation
strategy very difficult to implement.
Lifting the Market's Proximity Level
Proximity or parity was defined by Porter as achieving
"an identical product offering to competitors, or a different
combination of product attributes that is equally preferred
by buyers" [9]. A more useful definition is that proximity
is the minimum necessary level and mix of benefits which
a firm must provide if it is to compete right across the
market. Hence the proximity level in effect defines the
broad marketplace; for example, different proximity levels
distinguish the air travel market from the taxi market.
The proximity level tends to rise over time and can
sometimes rise very quickly with a price or advertising
war or when there is a major technological advance.
Eventually the rise in proximity can lead to a commodity
market, as has been the case in the domestic salt market.
The proximity level has become high enough to satisfy
most comsumers (who ask for free-flowing qualities,
availability, convenient packaging, iodine and low price)
leaving little room for differentiation. Hence each country
tends to have one main marketer of domestic salt with
a number of smaller firms confined to distinct segments
(supplying rock salt, sea salt, etc.).
Low Cost Strategy and the Influence on Market
Structure
The strategy of low cost would appear to be of little
consequence in most industries, since only onefirmat most
can achieve the lowest costs of production necessary to
implement it. Even if there is a firm which is sure of its
cost advantage, it may still decide not to follow a low cost
strategy but follow a differentiation strategy instead (or even
focus, though a firm with a true cost advantage would be
unlikely to want deliberately to limit potential market share).

COMPETITIVE MARKETING STRATEGY: PORTER REVISITED

What is really significant about this strategy is the fact

that low cost behaviour (e.g. copy-cat marketing,
advertising wars, price cutting) is observed in many
businesses (particularly smaller firms) which are unlikely
to have a cost advantage. It makes no sense for such firms
to concentrate on proximity. Without a cost advantage,
attempts to reduce or remove potential bases for
differentiation (through lifting the standard of the industry's
proximity level) are not in the firm's interests. Attempting
to reduce the bases for differentiation can be in the
interests of only one firm, the one with lowest costs, since
this firm will never lose its ability to outperform others
under these conditions.
It can be inferred that industry profitability is influenced
by the number and ratio of firms following the low cost
strategy, effectively attempting to reduce the industry to
a commodity market. Interestingly, this situation is not
undesirable for the least cost producer, so such a firm
need not discourage other firms from attempting to
implement a low cost strategy. This contradicts Porter's
assertion that the low costfirmmust discourage actively
or pre-empt other firms from adopting this strategy.
Unless onefirmcan gain a cost lead and "persuade" others
to abandon their strategies, the consequences for profitability
(and long-run industry structure) can be disastrous, as they
have been in the petrochemical industries. Thus cost
leadership is a strategy particularly dependent on
pre-emption[3].

Focus Strategy: Is it Just Super

Differentiation?
Focus, the third generic competitive strategy identified
by Porter has been defined essentially according to
competitive scope. A firm following a focus strategy
' 'selects a segment or group of segments in the industry
and tailors its strategy to serving them to the exclusion
of others" [3].

Is it essentially a matter of degree, of how small is that

part of the market (target segment) to which you appeal?
Uncertainty over these issues has resulted in many
marketing writers taking the approach of all but ignoring
this third strategy.
Some of the blame must also lie with Porter's use of a
matrix (see Figure 1) to illustrate the three strategies
which inherently suggests focus is not really a strategy
in its own right. The matrix reduces the definition of focus
to a tactic of a firm merely working in one segment,
because a decision to adopt low cost or differentiation still
needs to be made after deciding upon a focus strategy.

New Definitions of Focus Strategy and

Differentiation Strategy
Can focus be redefined or expressed in a different manner
so that it can be considered a strategy in its own right?
Porter gave a clue when he discussed the difference
between differentiation and what he referred to as
differentiation-focus [3].
Focus does involve differentiating but Porter suggested
that a differentiation strategy used widely valued attributes
only as differentiating factors, whereas focus uses
segment-specific attributes. When examined along with
the concept of proximity, quite robust definitions are
suggested. Differentiation involves gaining proximity to
other producers in the provision of most benefits desired
by the market and then involves differentiating through
exceeding them in the provision of at least one benefit.
A superiority in providing this benefit which will hopefully
translate to consumers being willing to pay a premium.
In many cases to implement differentiation successfully
a firm needs to capture the position associated with
providing this benefit, in all customers minds, e.g. Volvo
owns the position of providing safety.

What the actual difference is between this approach and

a differentiation approach seems to have quite naturally
confused marketing writers. Surely the successful
outcome of using one feature (or more) to differentiate
afirm'soffering will be to capture one part of the market?
"Since differentiation usually implies that the product has
a particular appeal, then the maximum market share is
limited" [2].

With this new definition a clear distinction can be made

between the strategic aims and activities of firms following
differentiation and firms following focus. Focus does not
require outperforming all other competitors in the
provision of one (or few) benefit(s); it simply requires
getting the balance of benefits a firm offers to match
perfectly (or meaningfully better than any other offering)
the demands of the customers in one segment. Porter
quite rightly pointed out the difficulties of one firm
attempting to apply the strategy of focus to more than
one segment because of the internal confusion and lack
of direction this has the potential to cause. Some firms
have succeeded, although usually through using separate
business units, which can really be considered as separate
firms, to handle each different segment. Afirmfollowing
a focus strategy is concerned with its own one segment
and is not concerned with gaining full proximity.

So what is the difference between the strategies of focus

and differentiation? Are they both simply target marketing?

Heinz launched a reduced calorie soup range in Australia

in the mid-1970s, adopting incorrectly, a differentiation

The concept of segmentation has become a vital, analytical

tool for effective marketing and is included in all basic
marketing texts. Increasingly the concept of target or niche
marketing has been the basis of marketing strategy and
tactics development in recent years. Focus is dependent
on effective use of this technique.

MARKETING INTELLIGENCE & PLANNING 9,1

strategy. They were conscious of gaining proximity and did

so by marketing a full-flavoured range (they have the
technology to remove calories without removing the flavour)
of tinned, condensed soups under the Heinz brand. The
soups were positioned in the usual soup section of the
supermarket and featured traditional varieties (e.g. beef
broth) and standard Heinz advertising (at the time using
rotund English actor Robert Morley). Heinz's market
research indicated that a substantial proportion of the
population were concerned about maintaining or losing
weight; having fewer calories was, it seemed, a base for
differentiation. Heinz gained proximity and excelled in the
provision of this feature. The soup range failed in the
marketplace, while Trim (by a Heinz rival) continued to
earn profits. Trim was a dried sachet packaged soup,
perceived as slightly watery by consumers, and sold only
in the diet section of the supermarket. In the Australian
soup market in the mid-1970s the diet segment was a
distinct segment where few aspects of proximity were
relevant; Heinz failed to appreciate the true nature of the
market to their detriment.

it; it is a difficult decision to take deliberately, to limit potential

sales volume. Porter gives the example of how Laker
Airways focused on the price-sensitive segment (always a
difficult segment to cater for at a profit!) and was
exceptionally successful with its no-frills operation in the
North Atlantic market. Over time the temptation to tap into
other segments became too great and Laker began adding
frills and new routes; it blurred its image and no longer
served its segment so well, and eventually went bankrupt.

Gaining proximity is a necessary prerequisite to gaining

a large market share in any market (if it were not, the
definition of what constituted that market would obviously
be in error). Full proximity is therefore necessary for both
low cost and differentiation strategies but not for focus.
So what must be recognised is that the successful
implementation of focus depends on the nature of the
market (as do all the competitive strategies). A clear
segment must exist which can be catered for without
having to gain full proximity.

Focus can be powerful competitive strategy but it involves

a deliberate sacrifice of potential sales volume. It is a
particularly useful strategy for firms with limited resources;
they often cannot cope with a large market and, more
importantly, they do not have the ability to reach proximity
(let alone go further to excel in providing one benefit which
is meaningful to a large part of the market). A well
implemented focus strategy, though, can provide a premium
in profit margin which covers the higher costs of catering
so well to a segment.

A firm implementing a focus strategy is vulnerable to

changes in the market and consumer demands which may
mean a segment is no longer viable or that the differences
between segments disappear. The chosen segment
therefore must be well defined, which means it will usually
be small, although not necessarily so. Speed[2] presents
the interesting idea of two versions of focus, one where
a distinct segment is targeted (target marketing) and
another where the segment chosen is so small it can only
accommodate one firm (niche marketing).
The difference between a firm following a focus strategy and
one following a differentiation strategy still can appear fine
at times. Both can appear to be targeting the needs of a
specific segment but the orientation of firms following these
strategies should differ. The effect of differentiation can be
to capture one segment (the segment which values highly
the particular benefit they excel in providing); this, however, reflects clumsy execution of a differentiation strategy.

The Competitive Advantage of Focus Strategy

Lies in Understanding One Segment's Needs
Many firms are tempted to go beyond their chosen segment,
particularly if they have been successful within

Porter[l] actually wrote that a firm following a focus strategy

could focus on a market segment or "a segment of the
product line". Having a narrow product line is merely a
feature of the marketing mix used to target a small part
of the total market; the firm is still operating in one market
segment. To concentrate on the narrow product line rather
than the narrow part of the market to which it appeals would
be to have a production orientation. Always dangerous and
myopic, but surely a fatal mistake for a firm following a focus
strategy where much of its strategic competitive advantage
lies in understanding the segment's needs.

A Fourth Strategy
Kotler et al.[6] quite rightly pointed out that Porter actually
developed a fourth competitive strategy, which is unlike the
others in that it is a strategy for failure. Porter[l] described
this as stuck-in-the-middle, where a firm attempts to
implement more than one strategy and therefore does not
achieve any of the competitive advantages since "each
generic strategy is a fundamentally different approach to
creating and sustaining a competitive advantage". There have
been a number of critiques of this statement (e.g. [10]).
Porter himself has softened his stance to say that low cost
and differentiation are merely "usually inconsistent, because
differentiation is usually costly"[3]. Differentiation and low
cost are not incompatible under Porter's original definitions,
which made no distinction between having lowest costs of
production and implementing a low cost strategy. (For an
example of how this concept has been embraced see [11,
p. 113].) Under the new definitions in this article these two
strategies are clearly at odds.
Peter Wright and A. Parsina[7] cite several examples of
corporations implementing both focus and differentiation
strategies. Since these strategies are not at odds in that

COMPETITIVE MARKETING STRATEGY: PORTER REVISITED

they both respect the Bases for differentiation within the

industry, this is feasible.However, there is nothing in this
argument which refutes Porter's assertion that separate,
autonomous management is required for divisions
implementing different strategies.
Summary: Each Strategy Reads to, and Tries
to Influence, Market Structure in a Different
Way
This article has examined Porter's competitive strategies
in a marketing context, an exercise which has produced
new definitions of these strategies, definitions in which
the differences between the three competitive strategies
do not depend purely on scope of activity or whether price
is used to differentiate. Instead it is argued that competitive
strategy concerns the wayfirmswork within, and try to
influence, the nature of the market.
At the base of competitive marketing strategy is the concept
of market nature or market structure. Market nature
describes how much a market differs from a commodity
market and the degree of fragmentation in the market.
Market nature is influenced to a significant degree by the
strategies adopted by the firms within the market. The
activities of firms influence market nature through
determining the market's level of proximity. In a broad
sense a market can be defined by its core benefit (e.g.
communication, nutrition, power/energy), for practical
purposes. However, markets or industries are defined by
the current bundle of benefits which a firm must deliver
in order to be considered a direct, industry-wide competitor.
This bundle of benefits and the level to which they must
be supplied are the market's proximity level (similar to but
not to be confused with "key success factors", which are
commonly used to describe factors within a firm necessary
in order to gain proximity, rather than describing the level
of performance in the marketplace).
If a firm reaches this level of proximity and then exceeds
it in the provision of one (or few) widely appreciated
benefit(s) (e.g. quality, number of features, price, etc.),
then it is implementing a differentiation strategy. The aim
is to gain a sustainable position in the market and earn a
premium for this extra performance, hopefully enough to
offset any additional costs incurred in offering this benefit.
Differentiation strategy depends on viable bases for
differentiation existing. A firm implementing this strategy
encourages the development of such bases. Differentiating
firms in an industry will do best if they recognise one
another's respective positions and therefore do not
embark on "copy-cat" behaviour. Firms following a low
cost strategy take the exact opposite approach.
A firm following a low cost strategy like a differentiator
attempts to gain maximum market share. Unlike a
differentiator, it attempts to reduce or remove possible

bases for differentiation, essentially through lifting the level

of proximity which firms must first gain in order to
differentiate. In effect the low costfirmundertakes activity
which will help push the industry down the commodity
curve. Logically, a firm should consider attempting this
only if it has the lowest costs of production, but lowest
costs of production do not force a firm to follow a low cost
strategy. The term low cost strategy is potentially
misleading; a better name perhaps is proximity or
commodity strategy.
If afirmdoes not have the ability to gain proximity it can
follow a focus strategy. A firm following a focus strategy
attempts to provide the right balance of benefits (the right
marketing mix) to a particular segment of the market in
order to match their needs and wants perfectly (or
meaningfully better than other competitors. A firm
following focus is not concerned with gaining full proximity
(see Figure 2).
Focus strategy depends on afirmfindingviable, distinct
segments which do not require proximity. Afirmfollowing
this strategy attempts to encourage the formation and
continued existence of such segments.
The competitive advantage of focus lies in the superior
knowledge of one segment's needs and wants.
Figure

2.

Risks of the Generic Strategies

Risks of low cost

Risks of
differentiation

Risks of focus

Cost leadership is
not sustained

Ability to gain
proximity, then
excel in the
provision of one
benefit, is not
sustained

Understanding of
the segment's
unique
characteristics is
lost

Level of proximity
drops. Bases for
differentiation
become very
pronounced,
allowing
differentiators and
focusers to
increase share.

Level of
proximity rises,
Bases for
differentiation
become less
important to
consumers.

Target segment
becomes
unattractive.
Target segment's
differences from
other segments
disappear.

Market becomes
fragmented.
Proximity level is
very low.

Proximity is very
low. Market
becomes
fragmented to
the point that
focusers steal
the w h o l e
market, segment
by segment.

New focusers
sub-segment the
market.

Source: [3, p. 21]

10

MARKETING INTELLIGENCE & PLANNING 9,1

Porter's work on competitive strategy was exciting,

although certainly not complete. It was new marketing
theory but in its original form displayed a number of errors
which become evident when examined in a marketing
context. That this was not done in a decade of marketing
teaching and practice is a sad reflection on the unscholarly
haste in which apparently useful theories were placed into
the body of marketing theory (and textbooks).
This article, whilst critical of Porter's definitions of generic
competitive strategy, does attempt to emphasise Porter's
great contribution to marketing strategy the concept
of market nature and the realisation that this nature is
influenced by the strategies adopted by firms operating
within the market. This theory represents a landmark in
the development of competitive marketing strategy and
has profound implications for the traditional works in this
area. Many other marketing writers' competitive
strategies appear to be highly simplistic, a collection of
tactics without a strategic framework. Competitive
marketing tactics and strategy now will have to be
rethought in the light of the concepts of market nature
and proximity, and the evolutionary (sometimes
revolutionary) process of change in market nature.

6. Kotler, P., Chandler, P., Gibbs, R. and McColl, R.,

Marketing in Australia, (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall,
Australia, 1989.
7. Wright, P. and Parsina, A., "Porter's Synthesis Of
Generic Business Strategies: A Critique", Industrial
Management (USA), May-June, 1988, p. 20.
8. Balan, P., "Quality as International Competitive
Advantage" unpublished working paper, University of
South Australia, 1990.
9. Porter, M.E., "Michael Porter on Competitive Strategy",
Harvard Business School Video Series, 1988.
10. Mathur, S., "How Firms Compete: A New Classification
of Generic Strategies'', Journal of General Management,
Vol. 14 No. 1, Autumn 1988, pp. 30-57.
11. McDonald, M.H.B., How to Prepare Marketing Plans,
Heinemann, London, 1988.
Bibliography

Aaker, D.A., Strategic Market Management, (2nd ed.), John

Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1988.
Kotler, P., Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and
Control, (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall, London, 1984.
Kotler, P. and Singh, R., "Marketing Warfare in the 1980s",
Journal of Business Strategy, Winter 1982, pp. 30-41.
Porter, M.E., "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy",
References
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, 1979, pp. 137-44.
1. Porter, M.E., Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Porter, M.E., "Reflections and Round Table Discussion",
Analysing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New
European Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1987.
York, 1980.
Porter, M.E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free
Press, New York, 1990.
2. Speed, R.J., "Oh Mr Porter! A Reappraisal of
Competitive Strategy", Marketing Intelligence &
Quinn, J.B., Mintzberg, J.M. and James, R.M., The Strategy
Planning, Vol. 7 No. 5/6, 1989.
Process: Concepts, Contexts, and Cases, (2nd ed.), Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
3. Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, New York, Ries, A. and Trout, J., Marketing Warfare, McGraw-Hill, New
1985.
York, 1986.
4. Brown, L., Competitive Marketing Strategy: Developing, Thompson, A., Strictland, A.J. and Fulmer, W.E., Readings
Maintaining and Defending Competitive Position, Thomas in Strategic Management, (2nd ed.), Business Publications
Nelson (Australia), South Melbourne, 1990.
Inc., Texas, USA, 1987.
5. Thompson, A. and Strictland, A.J., Strategic
Wright, P., "Research Notes and Communications: A
Management: Concepts and Cases, (4th ed.), Business
Refinement of Porter's Strategies", Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 8, 1987, pp. 93-101.
Publications, Inc., Texas, USA, 1987.

Byron Sharp is lecturer in Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.