The way companies compete today have come a long way from producer dominance in a somewhat static market to customer dominance with highly turbulent marketing environment. These changes have been gradual and continuous for a long period of time but in the last three decades the change has been unprecedented and discontinuous. These changes, in particular, have been affected by the exponential advances in business and information and communication technologies and opening up of world economies through the policies of globalization, privatization and liberalization by different nation states.

While these developments have turned business world almost seamless by widened the ambit of the markets from local to global, the technological breakthroughs at faster pace has resulted in higher product obsolescence rates. This has necessitated faster product diffusion rates as the product life cycle is getting shorter day by day. Under these new business conditions companies/firms are finding it increasingly difficult to compete as they are facing fierce competition not only from local but also from foreign players, who possess different resources and enjoy certain comparative advantages over domestic players.

Competing and having superior performance under such changed dynamic market conditions is a challenging task for companies and strategists. They are increasingly realizing that the capabilities of quick innovations and speed to market are becoming the key success factors along with the capability of managing customer relations, which are now a days augmented and leveraged by social media. Competing this way, however, requires companies and marketers to be in close touch with their customers and provide customized solutions better than available with the rival companies. These capabilities are unique to every company and are at the base of delivering superior value to their target customers. This indicates that competitive advantage will be with those companies that understand, design and deliver ‘customer-company co-created products’ with better product and process technologies. This co-creation is possible through marketing activities and strategies and competitive advantage will be with those companies which have developed better marketing activities valued by customers. These marketing activities or capabilities can be viewed as assets which are used to advantage in the market place and therefore, will be the future durable sources of competitive advantage as they are intangible in nature making them hard to copy. Hence, it is imperative to understand these sustainable sources of competitive advantage which are mainly created through marketing activities and have been referred to as marketing assets in this paper. This creates a pressing need to study marketing assets and understand their relationship with the competitive advantage, as it is argued in the paper that they are mainly the sources of differentiation which lead to competitive advantage. Therefore it is imperative to understand these sources and their antecedents so that managers and researchers can invest their resources and efforts in them to attain superior performance. Against this backdrop the current paper proposes a framework for attaining sustainable differential advantage based on the durable sources of marketing assets. In line with this the paper next presents an over view of differentiation and marketing assets followed by approach to the study and then is presented the frame work for differential advantage and marketing assets.

DIFFERENTIATION:

The aim of using differentiation strategy is to offer unique value to target customers’ and competitive advantage to firms. It is particularly an attractive competitive approach under current market situations where buyer preferences are too diverse to be fully satisfied by a standardized product. It entails being different from competitors on important features/attributes which influence consumers in a positive manner towards the products of the firm. Thus it can be better understood by considering the product/service as a bundle of attributes (Des; Keith; Steve, 1996). Not only product attributes but Ohmae, (1989) argues that it refers to any feature of an organization or brand perceived by customers to be desirable and different from that of the competition. Successful differentiation allows a firm to command a premium price for its products, and/or increase unit sales, and/or gain buyer loyalty to its brand. To be successful, with a differentiation strategy, a company has to study buyer behavior and needs carefully to learn what customers will value, what they consider important, what they think has value, and what they are willing to pay for. After developing an understanding about them successful companies have to develop distinctive capabilities to incorporate buyer desired attributes into their offers and serve buyers in unique manner. This sets their offerings visibly and distinctively apart from rivals and differential advantage results once a sufficient number of buyers become strongly attached to the differentiated attributes, features or capabilities. The stronger the differentiated offering’s buyer appeal, the stronger the customers bond with the company and stronger the resulting differential and competitive advantage.

While differentiation is accepted in literature as a way leading to competitive advantage, Porter (1985)argues that differentiation is one of the two routes to competitive advantage, the other one being cost leadership, without which a firm will decline and eventually fails. This notion that superior performance requires a business to gain and hold an advantage over competitors is central to strategic thinking (Day and Wensley, 1988). However, the route of cost leadership requires a firm to produce products and/or services at the lowest cost which infers that there can be only one cost leader in an industry at a time thus leaving others at a cost disadvantage. This makes one to conclude that only one company would have survived in an industry at a time had customers valued only price. But the fact that many firms do exist in an industry makes it clear that customers do value other attributes of products/services other than price also. This makes differentiation as the most widely used strategy by firms for attaining competitive advantage. Rather the better way of looking at it is to consider price also as one of the product/service attributes attached to a product/service which customers evaluate for value before purchase. This way price can be considered as an attribute on which firms can differentiate their offers to particular market segments which sees such products/services as having higher benefit in price than competitors’ prices, thus differentiating these products on price. In this sense, cost leadership or low price can be considered as a form of differentiation based on low price, and as such one can conclude that differentiation is the only strategy available to firms to compete successfully in the market (Mintzberg H 1988, Qureshi 2012).

This kind of approach to competitive advantage also resolves the current discussion in strategy literature about Porter’s (1985) model that either of the strategy should be used by firms for achieving competitive advantage and any firm using both will stuck in the middle and will eventually fail. However, many argue that low costs and differentiation strategies may be compatible approaches in dealing with competitive forces (Beal and Yasai-Ardekani, 2000; Hall, 1980; Hill, 1988; Kim and Lim, 1988; Liao and Greenfield, 1997; Miller and Friesen, 1986a, 1986b; Murray, 1988; Phillips, Chang, and Buzzell, 1983; White, 1986). Some others have postulated the pursuit of “hybrid”, “mixed”, “integrated” or “combination” strategies (Kim, Nam and Stimpert, 2004; Spanos, Zaralis and Lioukas, 2004). These strategies are combination of low costs and differentiation elements (Gopalakrishna and Subramanian, 2001; Proff, 2000). Therefore, a part of current literature holds that differentiation and low price strategies can be used together, with price as one of the differentiators, to achieve competitive advantage. This supports the view point of the present study that cost is one of the attributes which influences consumer value and acts as a source of differentiation. Therefore, in this paper cost leadership is included in differentiation which is considered as the only route to competitive advantage.

Stronger customer bonds and thus stronger differential advantage should be the aim of every company now a days as most of the industries are now working in markets where change is discontinuous. The time between the invention and commercialization of technologies is reducing, making the existing sources of differential advantage obsolete more quickly (Muller 1991). Peel, (1987) has also observed that in an increasing number of markets differentiating on the commonly used bases like quality, design, price, packaging, delivery, promotion etc. have become increasingly difficult to achieve and sustain, as they are losing their differentiating capability due to the converging capabilities of the competitors; increasing resource duplication, substitutability, imitation; and faster than ever changing market forces. Saloner, et al. (2001) also argue that the major threat to the sustainability of a competitive advantage is that rivals can diagnose and duplicate. Therefore, sources of sustainable competitive advantage should be valuable, rare among a firm’s current and potential competitors, imperfectly imitable; and should not have strategically equivalent substitutes(Barney 1991). Given this test, advantages based on tangibles are weak per se which are thwarted quickly by competitors’ who are now very capable to acquire or duplicate them. As such intangibles stand better chance to be durable sources of differentiation and competitive advantage. This has made marketing scholars and marketers to focus on marketing assets as sources of sustainable differential advantage.

MARKETING ASSETS:

In order to achieve competitive advantage today emphasis is placed on capabilities (intangibles) rather than on the previous structural bases like market power, economies of scale, or a broad product line (Slater and Narver 2000). While Berry et al. (1988) believe that intangible attributes have become `the great differentiators’, the Intangibility is the feature most commonly associated with marketing assets (Hooley and Saunders; 1993: Walley and Thwaites, 1990; Piercy, 1991; Walley and Thwaites, 1992; Itami and Roehl, 1987). Itami (1987) states that `invisibles (attributes) are often a firm’s only real source of competitive edge that can be sustained over time’. As such marketers are now learning to ground their strategies on the intangible features/attributes of theirproducts and/or firm related attributes, relevant from customers’ perspective to achieve differential advantage. Marketing assets being intangible and developed through marketing practices represent the potential sources of differential/competitive advantage. While Hooley et al (1998) describe marketing assets as essentially properties that can be used to advantage in the market place, Walley and Thwaites (1990) identify marketing assets as properties (or groups of properties) relating to a firm or its products and services that provide a basis for competitive differentiation. Lancaster, (1971) has considered attachment of positive/negative utility values by customers to various product attributes as analogous to assets/liabilities, which have been referred to as marketing assets/liabilities. These assets can be conceptualized as market based assets, or assets that arise from commingling of the firm with entities in its external environment (Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998).

Marketing asset based approach to marketing attempts to match the assets of the organization to the needs and wants of its chosen customers (Hooley; Saunders and Piercy, 1998). In that sense it is different from both product orientation and pure market orientation. It is similar in concept to the core competences argument (Hooly; Saunders; Piercy 1998). They are necessary to invigorate and unleash the customer value generating potential embedded in tangible assets of a firm and that of its partners (Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998). Marketing assets offer uniqueness and defensibility. Their intangible nature renders them extremely difficult to be imitate (Hall 1992, 1993) by competitors and thus provide the building blocks for developing and sustaining differential advantage (DessThwaites; walley; Foots, 1996). Moreover, efforts to replicate these assets often necessitate extensive investments in marketing, sales, services and human resources development with little, if any, guarantee of success (Srivastava 1998). They present profound difficulties to rivals seeking to develop direct substitutes, like the asset of customer knowledge, which enables them to pursue similar strategies. Marketing assets thus signify the durable and preemptive corporate resources that enables a business to deliver superior value consistently to its customers and represent the potential sources of sustainable competitive advantage.

There are several interrelated research streams in the marketing literature that contribute to the concept of marketing assets: brand equity (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Shocker; Srivastava and Ruekert 1994), customer satisfaction (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Yi 1990), and the management of strategic relationships (Anderson and Narus 1996; Bucklin and Sengupta 1993). Research on marketing activities, which result in the creation of marketing assets, demonstrates that activities like advertising can lead to more differentiation and therefore more monopolistic products, characterize by lower own price elasticity (Boulding, Lee, and Staelin 1994), brand equity (efforts), enable firms to charge higher prices (Farquhar 1989), attain greater market shares (Boulding, Lee, and Staelin 1994), develop more efficient communication programs as well differentiated brands are more responsive to advertising and promotions (Keller 1992, Smith and Park 1992),command greater buyer loyalty and distribution clout in the marketplace (Kamakura and Russell 1994), deflect competitive initiatives (Srivastava and Shocker 1991), stimulate earlier trial and referrals of products (Zandan 1992), and develop and extend product lines (Keller 1993;Keller and Aaker 1992). These conclusions are similar to findings from research on the effects of customer satisfaction and relationship marketing. The consequences of customer satisfaction include payoffs such as buyer willingness to pay a price premium, use more of the product, and provide referrals, as well as lower sales and service costs and greater customer retention and loyalty (Reichheld 1996; Reichheld and Sasser 1990). Hoffman (2000) argues that intangible resources may indeed be better suited than tangible ones to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, and in particular those intangible assets that have external focus may contribute the most to value generation and sustainable competitive advantage. The resource based perspective suggests that an asset is more likely to contribute to value generation when it satisfies the four tests of convertibility, rarity, inimitability and non-substitutability (Amit and Schoemaker 1993, Hunt and Morgan 1995; Itami 1987; petefaf 1993). Srivastava, et al (1998) suggest that not only can market based assets be used for much the same purposes as tangible, balance sheet assets, but they are more likely to serve as basis of long term, sustained customer value for three specific though related reasons, first, they are more likely to satisfy the four resource based tests, second, they add to the value generating capability of physical assets, third, they are ideally suited to exploit the benefits of organizational networks.

Walley et al (1996) argue that the nature of differential advantage can be explained by considering the product on which it is based as a bundle of attributes, which form the bases of differential advantage insomuch as they influence the consumer buying behavior by distinguishing one product from another. The manner in which attributes influence buying behavior have been modeled by Lancaster (1971). He postulates that when consumers evaluate one product against another they attach a utility value (a measure of satisfaction) to salient attributes. Whereas the magnitude of the utility value attached to attributes will vary, in most instances it will be positive indicating that the consumer is favourably disposed toward the attribute. He argues, in minority of the cases consumers may attach a negative value to certain attributes, which indicates that the consumer is unfavourably disposed toward the attribute. The model predicts that the consumer will choose to buy the product that offers the greatest utility value in respect of the summed salient attributes. This model relates the product attributes on which differential advantage is based with the positive and negative utility values that consumers attach to them. This, in turn, allows the components of differential advantage to be likened to assets and liabilities, which, as they are usually the products of marketing activities, have been referred to as marketing assets and liabilities (Ansoff H.I, 1979).

Hooley, Saunders and Piercy (1998) have summarized marketing assets into four categories. Customer Based Marketing Assets often exist in the mind of the customer and they are essentially intangible in nature. They may, however, be one of the most critical issues in building a defensible competitive position in the marketplace. These may include company name and reputation, brands, market domination, superior products and services. Distribution Based Marketing Assets are concerned with the manner in which the product or service is conveyed to the customer. They include the distribution network, its control and its uniqueness and pockets of strength. Internal Marketing Assets include internal resources such as cost advantage, information systems, existing customer base, technological skills, production expertise, copyrights and patents, franchises and licenses, partnerships. They become assets when they are actively used to improve the organizations performance in the market place. Alliance Based Marketing Assets include market access, management skills, shared technology, exclusivity. Walley and Thwaites (1990) have classified marketing assets as external marketing assets, whereby properties operate directly on the buying decision, for example brand names, and internal marketing assets where the influence is indirect, for example, information systems. Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey (1998) have delineated market-based assets into two related types: relational and intellectual, which share several common characteristics with intertwined development and evolution in many ways. As put forth by them relational market-based assets (e.g brand equity and channel equity), are the outcome of the relationships between a firm and its key stakeholders including customers, channel members, strategic partners, community groups and even governmental agencies and the bond and source of these relationships vary from one stake holder to another. Intellectual market base assets are the types of knowledge a firm possesses about the environment, such as the emerging and potential state of market conditions and the entities in it, including competitors, customers, channels, suppliers, and social and political interest groups (Nonaka and Takevchi, 1995). A firm may develop over time unique facts, beliefs, and assumptions about its customers’ tastes, manufacturing processes, or proclivities to respond in certain way to promotion, sales, and pricing moves (Glazer 1991). Both types are intangible and employ an outward focus on firm customers and/or channel members and that they are rare, unique, valuable, and difficult to imitate, thus they provide an excellent potential source of sustainable differential/competitive advantage for a firm.

The properties that form the bases of marketing assets are often linked and because of this the marketing assets themselves are symbiotic, e.g. product quality is linked with reliability and consistency, therefore, the other characteristics displayed by marketing assets influence their management (Walley and Thwaites, 1992). Marketing assets are context specific, that is, their importance can change depending on the strategic environment (Thwaites, Walley and Foots, 1996). While noting the other characteristics of marketing assets they argue that they are perceptual phenomena whose value depends on who is judging them and in what context, which has particular relevance where marketing assets act directly or indirectly on the buying process that is internal and external marketing assets. They opine that while customers will be in a position to identify external assets, they may not appreciate the important supporting role of internal assets and the reverse of this situation may be applicable to managers who are more likely to appreciate internal properties than those that influence purchases. However, there is a possibility that properties (which are at the base of marketing assets) will be overlooked as they cannot be seen, touched or felt, but attempts have been made to overcome this problem by focusing on a property’s tangible handle, thereby offering a source of monitoring or measurement (Shostack, 1977).

METHOD AND APPROACH:

Given the recent nature of marketing assets and limited literature and research on the subject, the current study is exploratory in nature. As the study is exploratory in nature therefore the study exclusively relies on literature survey, expert opinion and conceptual understanding of the subject. Apart from these insights were developed into the subject through discussions and observations to develop a framework for further empirical analysis and testing. The constructs and variables used in the framework were discussed with the experts and practical managers to understand relations between them. Discussions were also held with some of the knowledgeable customers, employees and service providers from different business sectors. The methodology used for the study is appropriate as the objective was to come up with a framework relating marketing assets, differential advantage and ultimate firm performance, which was aptly achieved by the followed methodology.

DISCUSSSION- MARKETING ASSETS DIFFERENTION RELATIONSHIP:

In order to study the relationship between marketing assets, differential advantage and firm performance, a framework has been developed which interrelates these constructs. This framework, presented in figure 1, has been built on the works of Barney (1991), Coyne (1985, 1989), Day and Wensley (1988), Dierickx and Cool (1989), Lippman and Rumelt (1982), Reed and Defillipi (1990), Bharadwaj, Varadarajan and Fahy (1993), Rao, Agarwal and Dahlhoff (2004), Lee and Grewal (2004), Raj, Whipple, Ghosh and Young (2005) among others. The model views a firm’s marketing assets, created through marketing activities, as sources of sustainable competitive advantage through the route of differential advantage. It suggests that sustainable differential advantage is a function of distinctive marketing assets which lead to superior performance, indicated by market place and financial performance measures. The factors that influence the performance are included as control variable to examine the effect of marketing assets on the performance measures. The sustainability of firm’s differential advantage is seen as contingent on distinctiveness and inimitability of marketing assets. The model depicts that the sustainable differential advantage is crucial for sustained superior long run performance. It also suggests that reinvestment in marketing assets, both existing and new, are key to strengthen/prevent erosion of differential advantage and superior performance. The model indicates that the performance measures are dependent variables whereas marketing assets are independent variables. While marketing assets and differential advantage have already been discussed, the other key measures of the model are discussed next.

Performance Measures:

It is acknowledged that performance is multidimensional construct, consisting of two broad measures: judgmental performance (customer perception) and objective performance (e.g. ROA) (Guo, 2002; Agarwal et al., 2003). Scholars have noted that while judgmental measures of performance are important to profitability, objective measures of performance provide the link to profitability (Heskett et al., 1994; Agarwal et al., 2003). Therefore, both types of measures have been used in the model to elicit the complete relationship among model variables, which is expected (Bharadwaj et al 1993) to lead to superior market place performance ( market share, customer satisfaction) and financial performance (return on investment, shareholder wealth maximization).

Financial Measures:

Heskett et al., (1994) note that performance ultimately is measured by profitability; it is driven by such strategic variables as customer retention and customer satisfaction. In order to measure the financial performance most of the research has relied on accounting based ratio measures such as return on investment (ROI) (Buzzell and Gale 1987; Jacobson 1988, 1990) and return on assets (ROA), other studies use direct measures such as sales (Dekimpse and Hanssens 1995), price (Boulding and Stealin 1995), and cost (Boulding and Stealin 1993). However, such measures typically contain little or no information about the future value of a firm (Geyskens, Gielens, and Dekimpe 2002). These measures, representing accounting profits are affected by accounting conventions and tax requirements which make them ill suited to the valuation of the sources of advantage (Day and Wensley 1988). They further argue that these measures are inadequate in handling intangibles. In order to overcome these shortcomings, alternative future orientated financial measures like shareholder value creation potential has been put forth. Day and Fahey (1988) and Hunt and Morgan (1995) argue that today top managers insist that the ultimate goal of every functional area is shareholder value creation. Keeping this in view the model adopts shareholders value as the measure of the ultimate firm performance. It is taken as the long term goal and ultimate test of differential advantage which is in consonance with the current thinking in finance. However, there are alternative measures of shareholder value which include Tobin’s q (Andrson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004), price to book ratios (Erickson and Whited 2001), and economic value added (Ohlson 1995) as well as traditional financial metrics, such as return on assets. The model uses Tobin’s q as a measure of shareholder value given its support in literature, comparability across firms and industries and future orientation.

Tobin’s q is the ratio of a firm’s market value to the current replacement costs of its assets (Tobin 1969). It is a capital market based measure of the firm value, as it is determined by the share/stock price. It has gained wide acceptance as a measure of firm’s economic performance and is based on the supposition that the securities market efficiently evaluates the firms expected future revenue stream in determining the firm’s value (Anderson et al. 2004, Rao et al 2004). Because the q value is based on the stock price of a firm, it is more forward looking measure as it is based on the anticipated future performance of the firm than measures such as ROI, which measures historical financial performance. Tobin’s q is also adjusted for expected market risk and is less affected by accounting conventions, which makes it comparable across firms in different industries. As Montgomery and Wernerfelt (1988) points out that by combining capital market data with accounting data, q implicitly uses the correct risk adjusted discount rate, imputes equilibrium returns, and minimizes distortion. Stevens (1990) found that q has a much higher average correlation with its true measure. Furthermore, McFarland (1988), who used Monte Carlo experiments to determine which accounting measure provides the best approximation, found that q estimates have smaller errors than most accounting rate of return measures. Wernerfelt and Montgomery (1988) also suggested the use of Tobin's q as performance measure. Rao et al (2004) have used Tobin’s q to measure the value of intangible assets of a firm. It, being a ratio of market value to replacement value of assets, measures the value created by intangible assets. A ratio of greater than one reflects that the firm is creating value more than the replacement value of assets and this additional value is attributed to intangible assets. Thus, Tobin’s q being forward looking, based on economic theory (Anderson et al 2004), comparable across firms/industries is the choice of the model as financial measure of differential advantage.

Market Measures:

There is a great deal of empirical research that shows that by satisfying customers, firms elicit desirable customer behaviours such as increased loyalty, greater receptivity to cross selling efforts, and positive word of mouth advertising (Anderson1996, Fornell 1992, Fornell et al. 1996). These lead to superior performance. Anderson, et al (2004) found a positive association between firm’s current level of customer satisfaction and contemporaneous financial market measure such as tobin’s q and market to book ratio. Srivastava, et al (1998) suggest that market based assets create value for customers and thus result in improved market place performance and increased shareholder value. Firms reap benefits beyond present transactions by satisfying customers, who in turn become loyal and increase their level of purchase from the firm over time (Anderson and Sullivan 1993, Reichheld and Sassar 1990). Satisfied customers are also less likely to defect (Fornell et al. 1996) and are viewed by Fornell (2002) as economic assets that yield future cash flows. Keeping this in view the model has included marketplace performance as a measure of firm performance and is measured by consumers’ perception of marketing assets performance. Day and Wensley (1988) also suggest using perspectives of customers and competitors as performance outcome measures than past measures such as market share and profitability. In the model customer perception on marketing assets is a dependent variable for assessing market performance i.e. judgmental performance and independent or predicting variable for financial performance (q ratio).

MARKETING ASSETS:

Marketing assets represent the independent variables in the model and are measured by the perceptions of customers and service providers-employees. They are the determining factors of both judgmental and objective performance measures of the model. They have been classified into four categories with each category being measured and determined by its underlying items, which act as independent variables for them. They have been discussed in the preceding part of the paper.

REINVESTMENT IN MARKETING ASSETS:

Dierickx and Cool (1989) note that the barriers to imitation of a firm’s skills and resources are prone to decay in the absence of adequate “maintenance” expenditure. This requires firms to constantly monitor and reinvest in present and potential sources of advantage to maintain the sustainable differential/competitive advantage (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan and Fahy 1993). Porter (1985) has also noted that a firm must offer a ‘moving target’ to its competitors, by reinvesting in order to continually improve its position. On the same lines it is argued that in order to maintain sustainable differential advantage firms must constantly reinvest in marketing assets, as they represent capabilities, skills and resources to counter erosion and competitive moves by competitors. Thus, the model depicts that it is imperative for firms to reinvest in marketing assets to enjoy differential/competitive advantage over the long run.

CONTROL VARIABLES:

In the model the variables of market share, advertising to sales ratio, size and age of comparing firms are considered as control variables. They are taken as control variables in order to gauge the exclusive impact of marketing assets on the firm performance while excluding impact of other significant variables. It has been proposed that the proposed control variables have an impact on the final performance of the firm so it has been thought mandatory to take the impact of control variables out. This allows firms of different age, size, expenditure or market share to be compared. In other studies researchers can find their own control variable.

The proposed methodology provides a good understanding and opportunity for managers as well as scholars for exploiting the new sources of competitive advantage. However, the proposed framework needs to be followed by some empirical studies from different industrial and services sectors.

CONCLUSION:

It has been argued in this paper that differential advantage is the only way to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and cost or low cost is considered as a feature of product/offer. Cost is considered as one of the product/service attributes which consumers evaluate along with other attributes to make the purchase decisions. So this paper argues that cost is a differentiation feature and as such companies should focus on differentiation strategy more. Thus hybrid strategy per se is included in the differentiation strategy. This paper also discusses the sustainability of differential advantage and its sources. It is argues that intangibles are the future durable sources of sustainable competitive advantage and marketing assets have been identified as the most vital sources of differential and competitive advantage. A framework relating marketing assets with differential advantage, competitive advantage and firm performance, both subjective and objective, has also been proposed. The framework needs to be followed by some empirical studies to validate it.

REFERENCES:

1. Aaker, David A., (1991), “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name”, New York: The Free Press.

2. Agarwal S, Erramilli M.K. and Chekitan S.D., (2003), “Market Orientation and Performance in Service Firms: Role of Innovation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17. No.1, 68-82.

3. Amit, Raphael and Paul J. Schoemaker, (1993), "Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent"Strategic Management Journal14 (January), 33-46.

4. Anderson, Eugene W. and Sullivan Mary W., (1993), “The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms”, Marketing Science, 12 Spring, 125-43.

5. Anderson, Eugene W., Fornell, Claes, and MazvancherylSanal K., (2004), “Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 Oct. 172-185.

6. Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus, (1996), “Rethinking Distribution: Adaptive Channels”, Harvard Business Review, 74 July-Aug. 112-22.

7. Ansoff H. Igor, (1979), “Strategic Management,” Macmillan Press, London.

8. Bharadwaj, Sundar G., P. RajanVaradarajan, and John Fahy, (1993), "Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions." Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 83-99.

9. Barney, Jay, (1991), "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage", Journal of Management 17 (1): 99-120.

10. Beal, R. M. and M. Yasai-Ardekani (2000), ‘Performance Implications of Aligning CEO Functional Experiences with Competitive Strategies’, Journal of Management, 26(4), pp. 733-762.

11. Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. and Zeithaml, V.A., (1988), “The Service-Quality Puzzle”, Business Horizons, 31(5), 35- 43.

12. Bharadwaj, Sundar G., P. RajanVaradarajan, and John Fahy, (1993), "Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions." Journal of Marketing 57 (October): 83-99.

13. Boulding William and Richard Staelin, (1993), “A Look on the Cost Side: Market Share and Competitive Environment”, Marketing Science, 12 Spring 144-66.

14. Boulding William, Lee Eunkyu and Staelin Richard, (1994), “Mastering the Mix: Do Advertising, Promotion and Sales Force Activities Lead to Differentiation?”, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 May, 159-72.

15. Boulding William, and Staelin Richard, (1995), “Identifying Generalizable Effects of Strategic Actions on Firm Performance: The Case of Demand Side Returns to R and D Spending”, Marketing Science, 14 (3) G, 222- G236.

16. Bucklin Louis P. and SanjitSen Gupta, (1993), “Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances”, Journal of Marketing, 57 April, 32-46.

17. Buzzell Robert D. and Bradley T. Gale, (1987), “The PIMS Principles”, New York the Free Press.

18. Coyne, K.P., (1985), “Sustainable Competitive Advantage - What it is, What it isn’ t”,Business Horizons, January-February, 29, 54- 61.

19. Coyne, Kevin P., (1989), "Beyond Service Fads-Meaningful Strategies for the Real World”, Sloan Management Review, 30 (Summer), 69-76.

20. Day, George S. and Fahey, Liam, (1988), “Valuing Market Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 52, July, 45-57.

21. Day, George S. and Robin Wensley, (1988), "Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority",Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 1-20.

22. DekimpeMarnik G. and Dominique M. Hanssens, (1995), “The Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales”, Marketing Science, 14, Winter, 1-22.

23. DessThwaites,.,Walley, K. and Foots, S., (1996), “Systematic Management of Differential Advantage: A Case Study from the Chemical Industry”,Industrial Marketing Management 25, 209- 22.

24. Dierickx, Ingemar and Karel Cool, (1989), "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,"Management Science, 35, (December), 1504-1511.

25. Erickson, Timothy and Toni Whited, (2001), “On the Information Content of Different Measures of Q,” working paper, Tippie College of Business, Finance Department, University of Iowa.

26. FornellClaes, (1992), “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience”, Journal of Marketing, 56 (Jan.), 1-21.

27. FornellClaes, Michael D.J., Eugene W. Anderson, Jaesung Cha and Barbara Bryant, (1996), “The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Description, Findings and Implications”, Journal of Marketing, 60, (Oct.), 7-18.

28. FornellClaes, (2002), “CFI Group”, Marketing News, Oct., 28, 41.

29. Farquhar, Peter H., (1989), “Managing Brand Equity,” Marketing Research, 1, Sep. 24-33.

30. Geyskens, Inge, KatrijnGielens, and Marnik G Dekimpe, (2002), “The Market Valuation of Internet Channel Additions”, Journal of Marketing, 66, April, 102-119.

31. Gopalakrishna, P. and R. Subramanian (2001), ‘Revisiting the Pure Versus Hybrid Dilemma: Porter’s Generic Strategies in a Developing Economy’, Journal of Global Marketing, 15(2), pp. 61-79.

32. Glazer, Rashi, (1991), "Marketing in an Information Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset," Journal of Marketing, 54, (October), 1-18.

33. Guo C., (2002), “Market Orientation and Business Performance: A Framework for Service Organization”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, Nos. 9/10, pp. 1154-63.

34. Hall, W. K. (1980), ‘Survival Strategies in a Hostile Environment’, Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 75-85.

35. Hall Richard, (1992), “The strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 (2), pp 135-144.

36. Hall Richard, (1993), “A Framework Linking Intangible Resources and Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 (8), pp 607-18.

37. Heskett, J.L. Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W. Sassrer, W. E. Jr. and Schlesinger, L.A., (1994), “Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 164-74.

38. Hill, C. W. L. (1988), ‘Differentiation Versus Low Cost or Differentiation and Low Cost: A Contingency Framework’, Academy of Management Review, 13(3), pp. 401-412.

39. Hoffman N.P., (2000), “An Examination of the Sustainable Competitive Advantage Concept: Past, Present and Future”, Academy of Marketing Science Review volume 2000, No. 4.

40. Hooley G J, Saunders J. A., (1993), “Competitive Positioning: The Key to Market Success”, Prentice Hall Hempstead.

41. Hooley G J, Saunders J. A. and Piercy N.F, (1998) “Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning”, 2^nd ed. Prentice Hall Europe

42. Hunt, Shelby D. and Robert M. Morgan, (1995), "The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition," Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 1-15.

43. Itami, H. and Roehl T., (1987), “Mobilising Invisible Assets”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44. Jacobson Robert D. and David A. Aaker, (1985), “Is Market Share All That it is Cracked Up To Be?”,Journal of Marketing 49 (Fall), 11-22.

45. Jacobson Robert D., (1988), “Distinguishing Among Competing Theories of the Market Share Effect”, Journal of Marketing, 52, Oct. 68-80.

46. Jacobson Robert D., (1990), “’Unobservable Effects and Business Performance’, Reply to Comments of Boulding and Buzzell”, Marketing Science, 9, Winter, 92-95.

47. Jacobson Robert D., (1990), “Unobservable Effects and Business Performance”, Marketing Science, 9 (Winter), 74-85.

48. Kamakura Wagnar A and Russel Gary J., (1994), “Understanding Brand Competition Using Micro and Macro Scanned Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 May, 289-303.

49. Keller, Kevin L. and Aaker David A., (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introductions of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29, Feb. 35-50.

50. Keller, Kevin Lane, (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57, (January), 1-22.

51. Kim, E., D. Nam and J. L. Stimpert (2004), ‘The Applicability of Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions’, Journal of Management, 30(5), pp. 569-589.

52. Kim, L. and Y. Lim (1988), ‘Environment, Generic Strategies, and Performance in a Rapidly Developing Country: A Taxonomic Approach’, Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), pp. 802-827.

53. Lancaster, K.J., (1971) “Consumer Demand: A New Approach”, Columbia University Press.

54. Lee Ruby P. and GrewalRajdeep, (2004), “Strategic Responses to New Technologies and their Impact on Firm Performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68. Oct, 157-171.

55. Liao, Z. and P. F. Greenfield (1997), ‘The Impact of Generic Competitive Strategies on Corporate RandD: An Empirical Study in Japan’, International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5/6), pp. 542-553.

56. Lippman, S. A. and Richard P. Rumelt, (1982), "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences In Efficiency Under Competition,"Bell Journal of Economics, 13 (Autumn), 418-438.

57. McFarland, Henry, (1988), “Evaluating q as an Alternative to the Rate of Return in Measuring Profitability,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov., 70, 614-22.

58. Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen (1986a), ‘Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with American Data. Part I: Testing Porter’, Organization Studies, 7(1), pp. 37-55.

59. Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen (1986b), ‘Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with American Data. Part II: Performance Implications’, Organization Studies, 7(3), pp. 255-261.

60. Mintzberg, H. (1988). Generic strategies: Toward a comprehensive framework. In R. Lamb, and P. Shrivastava (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

61. Montgomery Cynthia A. and BirgerWernerfelt, (1988), “Diversification, Recardian Rents, and Tobin's q,” RAND Journal of Economics, 19, Winter, 623-32.

62. Muller, W., (1991), “Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Customer Satisfaction Management,” University of Koblenz Scientific News, Focus on Marketing, February, 15, 22- 7.

63. Murray, A. (1988), ‘A Contingency View of Porter’s Generic Strategies’, Academy of Management Review, 13(3), pp. 390-400.

64. Murphy J., (1991), “Brand Valuation,” 2^nd ed., Business Books London.

65. NonakaIkujiro and Hiro Takeuchi, (1995), “The Knowledge Creating Company,” New York: Oxford University Press.

66. Ohmae, Kenichi, (1989), “The Global Logic of Strategic Alliances,” Harvard Business Review, 67, (March-April), 143-54.

67. Ohlson, J., (1995), “Earnings Book Values and Dividends in Security Valuation,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, (2), 661-87.

68. Peel, M. (1987), “Customer Service”, Kogan Page, London.

69. Peteraf, Margaret A., (1993), "The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View," Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-191.

70. Phillips, L. W., D. R. Chang and R. D. Buzzell (1983), ‘Producto Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses’, Journal of Marketing, 47, Spring, pp. 26-43.

71. Piercy N., (1982), “Cost and Profit Myopia in Marketing,” Quarterly Review of Marketing, Summer, 1-12.

72. Piercy N., (1991), “Market-Led Strategic Change: Making Marketing Happen in Your Organization,” Thorsons, London.

73. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York.

74. Porter, M. (1985).Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, New York.

75. Proff, H. (2000), ‘Hybrid Strategies as a Strategic Challenge. The Case of the German Automotive Industry’, Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, 28, pp. 541-553.

76. Qureshi, Ishtiaq Hussain (2012) Marketing Assets: A Source of Differential Advantage: Alfa Publications Ansari Road New Delhi,

77. Raj, Rajshekhar G. Javalgi, Thomas W. Whipple, Amit K. Ghosh and Robert B. Young, (2005), “Market Orientation, Strategic Flexibility and Performance: Implications for Services Providers”, Journal of Services Marketing, 19/4, 212-221.

78. Rao, Vithala R., Agarwal, Manoj K. and Dahlhoff Denise, (2004), “How is Manifest Branding Strategy Related to the Intangible Value of a Corporation?,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, Oct. 126-141.

79. Reed, Richard and Robert J. DeFillippi, (1990), "Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,"Academy of Management Review, 15 (January), 88-102.

80. Reichheld, F.F., Eds., (1996), “The Quest for Loyalty: Creating Value Through Partnership,” Harvard Business School Publishing.

81. Reichheld, F.F., Sasser, W.E., Jr., (1990), “Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Service,” Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct.

82. Saloner, G., Shepard, A., and Podolny, J. (2001).Strategic management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

83. Shocker Allan D, SrivastavaRajendra K. and Ruekert Robert W. (1994), “Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Management: An Introduction to the Special Issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, May, 149-58.

84. Shostack G.L., (1977), “Breaking Free From Product Marketing”, Journal of Marketing.

85. Slater, S. F. and Narver J. C., (2000),“The Positive Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability: A Balanced Replication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48, April, pp. 69-73.

86. Smith Daniel C. and C. Whan Park, (1992), “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29, Aug., 296-313.

87. Spanos, Y. E., G. Zaralis and S. Lioukas (2004), ‘Strategy and Industry Effects on Profitability: Evidence from Greece’, Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), pp. 139- 165

88. Spanos, Y. E., G. Zaralis and S. Lioukas (2004), ‘Strategy and Industry Effects on Profitability: Evidence from Greece’, Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), pp. 139- 165

89. SrivastavaRajendraK.and Shocker Allan D, (1991), “Brand Equity: A Perspective on its Meaning and Measurement”, Report No. 91-124, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

90. Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A. and Fahey, L., (1998), “Market Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A framework for Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Jan Vol. 62, No. 1, 2-18.

91. Stevens, Jerry L., (1990), “Tobin’s q and the Structure-performance Relationship: Comment”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 3, June, pp.618-623.

92. Tobin, James, (1969), “AGeneral Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, vol. 1, pp. 15-29.

93. Walley, K.E. and Thwaites D., (1990), “Marketing Assets-The Key to Successful Differentiation”, The Chartered Building Societies Institute Journal, 43, 16-18.

94. Walley, K.E. and Thwaites D., (1992), “Putting Marketing Assets into Play: The Chartered Buildings Societies Institute Journal, 46, 11-13.

95. Walley, K.E. and Thwaites D., (1996), “A Review, Synthesis and Interpretation of the Literature on Competitive Advantage”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 4, 163-179

96. Wernerfelt and C. Montgomery, (1988), “Tobin's q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance”, American Economic Review, 78, March, 246-50.

97. White, R. E. (1986), ‘Generic Business Strategies, Organizational Context and Performance: An Empirical Investigation’, Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), pp. 217-231.

98. Yi, Youjae, (1990), “A Critical Review of Customer Satisfaction,” in Review of Marketing, Valarie Zeithaml, ed. Chicago:American Marketing Association, 68-123.

99. Zandan Peter, (1992), “Brand Equity in Technology Product-Markets,” Presentation Slides, Intelliquestinc., Austin, Tx.

Received on 25.01.2017 Modified on 10.02.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(2):220-228.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00034.8