Relationship Between Parties ( Dwyer )

Resources refer to the assets of a company and it can be separate as tangible, intangible resources and human resources.

Relationship Marketing – According to Abeysekera and Kumaradeepan’s study in the year 2012, relationship marketing can be used as a strategy to race in the market. Relationship marketing has been operationalized using the model of trust and commitment. The findings suggest a significant difference in "relationship marketing orientation" in state bank and private bank. Private Banks can be viewed as concerned with more relationship marketing than state banks.

A wide range of companies today prefer to adopt the marketing orientated approach to sell their new products rather than using product orientation before.In fact,marketing orientation also helps such companies to earn more profits in the long time.According to Jobber and Ellis Chadwick (2013),marketing orientation focuses on customers need as the primary drivers of organizational performance.However,this is not always the case.Product orientation still be used by some senior executives and this method can help these companies to sell more products and even acquire reliable reputation in the customers.In this essay,first the history of marketing concept development will be discussed and the specific definition of the two kinds of marketing concept will be given respectively.Then these two concepts will be compared by using some examples.The final part will investigate why although marketing orientation is very popular in modern society,some enterprises still adopt the product orientated approach to extend their new products.

According to Narver and Slatter (21), market oriented companies or businesses are doing much better. They go on to argue that there is no much evidence to support the view in that there is no direct relationship between succeeding companies and being market oriented. Minimal research has been done to support the claim and the authors say there might be other factors that make a company succeed apart from being market oriented. This claim is also supported by another study conducted by Helfert, Ritter and Walter (11). The authors say other factors like links with other organizations might be helpful in making an organization succeed.

He suggested that sustained competitive advantage derives from the resources and capabilities a firm controls that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and not substitutable. He further added that the resources and capabilities can be viewed in form of tangible and intangible assets. There are four different categories of resources financial, physical, human, and organization.

For a business to be successful and have a competitive advantage, it is important to evaluate the company’s resources and capabilities (Pitt & Koufopoulos, 2012). Resources in a company are the productive assets owned (tangible or intangible) whereas capabilities are what the company can do with this (Grant, 2010). “Establishing competitive

A company’s resources include two types: tangible and intangible. The former is asset that can be observed and counted, such as, office furniture, production equipment, computer, and warehouse, etc. Unlikely, the intangible resources are assets that are rooted deeply in the company’s history, accumulate over time, and are relatively difficult for competitors to learn and copy, such as brand, intellectual property and reputation, etc.

In today’s competitive business environment, the prime objective of any firm is to gain the profit and to achieve its goals successfully (Sokolowski, 2013). For this, companies focus on the market orientation to have the clear picture about the market and strategies that can increase its customer base and help to achieve its objectives. But, there are different types of factors like PESTEL and marketing myopia, which affect their objectives and the business growth of the company. In this report, the implementation market orientation of Blockbuster is discussed which helped Blockbuster to achieve its strategic goals (Hutt and Speh, 2012). Additionally, how badly it coasted blockbuster, failure to implement these framework and objectives.

To begin with, heterogeneity of capabilities and resources of firms, which is explained as “enduring and systematic performance differences among relatively close rivals”, provides a foundation of the resource-based view (Song, et al.,2006). The implication of this assumption is that core competence conveys the valuable and unique feature of products to customers. The RBV disagrees with the opinion that the resources are homogeneous; if homogeneity is assumed to be essential to develop a proper strategy, the strategy can be easily copied by competitors, which will ultimately result in the dissipation of above-normal rents. Conversely, the unique and fixed resources on hand will lead to outstanding performance and ultimately turn to be a competitive advantage, under the circumstances that sustainable competitive advantage is achieved in an environment where competition does not exist.

While resources are the source of a firm 's capabilities, capabilities are the main source of its competitive advantage. Capabilities are not evaluated in themselves, and they cannot be thought of as absolute values. They have to be evaluated relative to

The resources of an organisation are those assets that deliver value added in the organisation (Lynch, 2015). According to the resource-based view, firm performance is achieved through competitive advantage that derives from the application of resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and unable to substitute (Barney, 1991).

Firms today can benefit greatly from market-orientations. This allows for greater flexibility in generating and integrating crucial information into the business. Internal structures and systems that have the ability to process knowledge from external boundaries can positively influence internal responses to marketplace changes and requirements, dramatically improving the ability of the organization to learn and adapt (Malmgren,

Competitive advantage can be derived by analyzing the organization’s strengths and opportunities not yet tapped into that competitors are already using to their benefit (Ferrell, 2011). Moreover, competitive advantage can also be a direct result of customers’ impression or lack of knowledge about the organization’s products (Bethel, 2015). Realistically, competitive advantage is in the hands of the customers and comes with some stiff practices to entice them to covet the organization’s product (Dawar, 2013).

In recent years, with the economy era full challenge, marketing theory and practice are accelerating the pace of innovation. Marketing not only has widely exploited in the economy and society field, but also more and more enterprises constantly innovate new performance, new competitive, new brilliance in unprecedented enthusiasm. Therefore, diverse strategies are adopted by most firms to discover and meet the needs and desires of its customers (Jobber & Fahy, 2009). Marketing orientation is one of the most successful strategies, such as the Apple company, it put to use and reap significant profit. Some specialists argue that product orientation can be used in all firms, while others debate that marketing orientation is more suitable for all products. However, several obstacles are faced by firms when they intend to move from a product to a marketing orientation. This essay will briefly describe that definition of the marketing orientation and product orientation, examples for some firms use marketing orientation and product orientation respectively as well. Furthermore, it mostly discusses key obstacles for if a firm moves from product to marketing orientation and give some reasonable solutions.

Kotler (1997) proposed that a firm should consider managing a set of fundamental business processes, rather independent functional departments, to create more efficient and effective responses to fulfill customer satisfaction. A market orientation brings superior business performance to the firm. Research has found empirical evidence of positive relationship between