The broadened scope of marketing implies that product offerings could be anything considered to
be of value by the parties to the transaction. What are the actual items that are marketed? What
"things" do individuals exchange? Quite apart from the common characteristic shared by all
commodities, that is, that they must have perceived value to the participants, how do different
offerings compare, one with another? If virtually anything and everything is subject to negotiated
exhange, it is useful to categorize formally the enlarged domain of products in some orderly
arrangement. That is the undertaking of this section.
A typological model is developed and proposed as an integrative framework for the analysis of all
types of offerings. (The author begs license for using the term typology rather loosely. Strictly
defined, a typology must provide exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories. The model proposed
in this chapter somewhat violates that definition and hence might more accurately be called a "quasitypology.'') It will thus serve too as a basis for analysis for those particular commodities highlighted
It will pinpoint the position that concepts have within the entire gamut of products
(Fine 1979b).
Even with conventional goods, a model that classifies product types is useful in framing,
analyzing and comparing marketing strategy, in suggesting new venture directions and as a
benchmark for assessing one's own product mix against that of the competition. However, for such a
model to be useful, it must be sufficiently broad to encompass the entire set of choices the "evoked
set" facing consumers. That set of alternatives contains not only goods and services but concepts as
well. The typology advanced in this chapter permits marketers to position products against
competing offerings, including those constituting exchange types different from their own. Kotler
(1972) was an early proponent of the notion of classifying nontraditional products:A typology of marketing activity can also be constructed on the basis of the product marketed. Under
the broadened concept of marketing, the product is no longer restricted to commercial goods and
services. . . . A product classification of marketing consists of goods marketing, service marketing,
organization marketing, person marketing, place marketing and idea marketing
What is probably the first product categorization model partitions products as either convenience,
shopping, or specialty goods (Copeland 1923). Other schemes are based on product characteristics
(Aspinwall 1962; Miracle 1965; Shostack 1977), production and cost factors (Beckman, Davidson
and Talarzyk 1973), "psychophysical" aspects (Ramond and Assael 1974) and the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) established by the government. None of these, however, consider
"social products," that is, ideas and issues. One wonders whether product typologies that omit social
innovations as exchange types are still useful. Kotler's "three stages of marketing consciousness"
model (1972) did account for social products and provided a three-category classification device, as
did Enis (1973), classifying on organizational goals and audience types. Hunt (1976) also took
social marketing into consideration. However, he apparently did not intend his model to apply to
products per se, rather specifying it as useful in classifying "approaches to the study of marketing
and all the problems, issues, theories, models and research" . By contrast, the model presented
here deals with the actual product offerings designed to be marketed.
The Typology
The model is based on the assumption that all goods, services and concepts (products) may be
classified on two dimensions -- the profit-making nature of the transaction and the degree of
tangibility of the item.
Profit Making Versus Nonprofit MarketingAn obvious point of departure is provided by a dichotomy of all exchange processes as being
either for profit, or not for profit. This concept enjoys wide usage and denotes whether or not the
seller in the marketing process intends to gain a profit over costs in the transaction. (The legal
requirement is, of course, that an institution be incorporated as a nonprofit organization and/or obtain
federal tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service.) The notion ignores consideration
of profits accruing to the purchaser. Thus, a transaction in which the idea of private religion is
adopted is profitable to the marketer, for example, "Reverend lke." But here, as in all market
transactions, profit in the form of psychological utility to the purchaser is usually omitted from the
definition, except perhaps by implication. If the case were otherwise, that is if nonpecuniary profits
entered into account, then there would be no such concept as a nonprofit transaction; all exchanges
would be considered profit-making. For an exchange takes place if and only if, all parties benefit or
"profit" as a result of the exchange. A blood donor profits financially if paid in cash for his or her
blood; if a volunteer, the compensation takes the form of personal satisfaction, which is surely
beneficial or profitable to the donor (Titmuss 1972).
In the present chapter accepted usage will be followed and a transaction will be considered profitmaking only if it is characterized by the seller's intent to obtain monetary profit. That actual profit
might not materialize is incidental. The situation calls to mind a notice hanging on an office wall,
stating: "This is a nonprofit organization; it was not intended to be, but became so due to conditions
beyond our control." Although clever, the remark is nevertheless definitionally inconsistent, fora
nonprofit organization is one that does not intend to earn a profit on its transactions (it might profit,
for example, from investments). On the other hand, an organization is considered profit-making if
such intent is evident, whether or not profit accrues, or loss (negative profit) is suffered. This affords
an entirely workable distinction to determine if a transaction is profit making. (But the
profit/nonprofit dichotomy in exchange transactions can have different meanings in different
situations, as Professor Sheth has pointed out (1980), "For example, in many countries, the state
owns and manages large corporations which are run like profit businesses although their mission is
nonprofit. The obvious examples are foreign airlines and shipping companies").
A Tangible-Abstract Product DimensionThe second dimension to be used in the model measures transactions along a tangible-abstract
continuum. If a tangible good is involved, the exchange is concrete; if the "product" is an idea or a
cause, the transaction is abstract. Both bicycles and birth-control information are products to be
marketed; the former is a tangible good, while the latter is an abstract idea. This reasoning is not
altered by the fact that birth-control information is usually associated with actual products, such as
condoms, foams and so on. Even among concrete products, some are more abstract than others. A
home fire alarm system is a tangible product, but it is inextricably tied to the abstract idea of safety.
For the sake of the typology, the continuous tangible-abstract spectrum is categorized into four
classes, standard practice in research methodology; one converts intervally scaled variables into
ordinal or nominal classes to meet particular analytic needs. Here, the need is simply to create a
manageably small number of categories.
The MatrixCombination of the two-category profit dimension with the categorized tangible-abstract
dimension yields the matrix , in which several dozen illustrative exchanges are
listed. the list is by no means exhaustive; nor are its entries proposed as the best examples. The
reader will no doubt call to mind more creative choices; the selections are merely representative and
not all will be discussed in the text.
The top row lists exchanges for which no profit to the seller was intended to accrue; the bottom
row lists exchanges in which profit was the principal motivation. The first column takes in tangible
commodities, the second column considers services rendered, the third column covers ideas and the
fourth column lists causes or social issues.
Examples of items appropriate to cell (1), nonprofit tangibles, include purchases made at a
consumer cooperative or in stores operated by charities such as the Salvation Army. Voluntary
blood contributions are nonprofit tangibles too; however if the donor is paid, the exchange is profit
making and belongs in cell (5). Public goods such as those disposed of by the General Services
Administration could also have been listed in cell (1).
Cell (2) depicts nonprofit services rendered by such institutions as libraries, post offices, YMCAs,
chambers of commerce, museums, the Red Cross and so on. Offerings of nonprofit health care
organizations also fall into this category, as do those of universities and Boys Town.
Innovative ideas affecting personal lifestyles of individuals belong in cell (3), provided they
originate without the profit motive. These include physical fitness, use of seat belts, boy and girl
scouting, military recruiting and the value of education. The furtherance of a political campaign
(party or candidate) is an idea to be adopted and hence belongs in this cell. Fund raisers market the
idea that a cash contribution should be made, the amount of cash being the price for adoption of the
idea.
Cell (4), nonprofit social causes, includes campaigns designed to ameliorate child abuse,
speeding, malnutrition, smoking, littering, forest fires, pollution; the list is long indeed. One may
add the exchange of information on civil rights, product safety, the metric system, religion, voter
registration, energy conservation and so on.
Cell (5) designates profit-making exchanges of tangible products -food, clothing, automobiles and
so on -probably the largest proportion of commercial transactions. A share of stock representing part
ownership in a corporation is included here, as are real estate and commodity investments.
Cell (6) lists profit-making services such as those offered by travel agencies, insurance
companies, purveyors of the performing arts and any items from cell (2) that bear the intent of profit:
private nursing homes, day-care centers and so forth. The service of providing space for which rent
is paid is also listed there.
In cell (7), one example of an idea marketed by a profit-making organization may be seen in a
new fashion design, say, by Christian Dior. While this firm markets a design service to the apparel
industry (cell (6)), at the same time it initiates styles sought by devotees of fashionable dress. These
are matters that surely affect the life styles of these people and being profit inspired, they have a
place in cell (7). When adoption becomes widespread, producers of fashion apparel quickly
capitalize on the popularization of such style trends (cell (8)) for their own profit. Similar cycles are
followed by patents and other creative commodities
be of value by the parties to the transaction. What are the actual items that are marketed? What
"things" do individuals exchange? Quite apart from the common characteristic shared by all
commodities, that is, that they must have perceived value to the participants, how do different
offerings compare, one with another? If virtually anything and everything is subject to negotiated
exhange, it is useful to categorize formally the enlarged domain of products in some orderly
arrangement. That is the undertaking of this section.
A typological model is developed and proposed as an integrative framework for the analysis of all
types of offerings. (The author begs license for using the term typology rather loosely. Strictly
defined, a typology must provide exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories. The model proposed
in this chapter somewhat violates that definition and hence might more accurately be called a "quasitypology.'') It will thus serve too as a basis for analysis for those particular commodities highlighted
It will pinpoint the position that concepts have within the entire gamut of products
(Fine 1979b).
Even with conventional goods, a model that classifies product types is useful in framing,
analyzing and comparing marketing strategy, in suggesting new venture directions and as a
benchmark for assessing one's own product mix against that of the competition. However, for such a
model to be useful, it must be sufficiently broad to encompass the entire set of choices the "evoked
set" facing consumers. That set of alternatives contains not only goods and services but concepts as
well. The typology advanced in this chapter permits marketers to position products against
competing offerings, including those constituting exchange types different from their own. Kotler
(1972) was an early proponent of the notion of classifying nontraditional products:A typology of marketing activity can also be constructed on the basis of the product marketed. Under
the broadened concept of marketing, the product is no longer restricted to commercial goods and
services. . . . A product classification of marketing consists of goods marketing, service marketing,
organization marketing, person marketing, place marketing and idea marketing
What is probably the first product categorization model partitions products as either convenience,
shopping, or specialty goods (Copeland 1923). Other schemes are based on product characteristics
(Aspinwall 1962; Miracle 1965; Shostack 1977), production and cost factors (Beckman, Davidson
and Talarzyk 1973), "psychophysical" aspects (Ramond and Assael 1974) and the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) established by the government. None of these, however, consider
"social products," that is, ideas and issues. One wonders whether product typologies that omit social
innovations as exchange types are still useful. Kotler's "three stages of marketing consciousness"
model (1972) did account for social products and provided a three-category classification device, as
did Enis (1973), classifying on organizational goals and audience types. Hunt (1976) also took
social marketing into consideration. However, he apparently did not intend his model to apply to
products per se, rather specifying it as useful in classifying "approaches to the study of marketing
and all the problems, issues, theories, models and research" . By contrast, the model presented
here deals with the actual product offerings designed to be marketed.
The Typology
The model is based on the assumption that all goods, services and concepts (products) may be
classified on two dimensions -- the profit-making nature of the transaction and the degree of
tangibility of the item.
Profit Making Versus Nonprofit MarketingAn obvious point of departure is provided by a dichotomy of all exchange processes as being
either for profit, or not for profit. This concept enjoys wide usage and denotes whether or not the
seller in the marketing process intends to gain a profit over costs in the transaction. (The legal
requirement is, of course, that an institution be incorporated as a nonprofit organization and/or obtain
federal tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service.) The notion ignores consideration
of profits accruing to the purchaser. Thus, a transaction in which the idea of private religion is
adopted is profitable to the marketer, for example, "Reverend lke." But here, as in all market
transactions, profit in the form of psychological utility to the purchaser is usually omitted from the
definition, except perhaps by implication. If the case were otherwise, that is if nonpecuniary profits
entered into account, then there would be no such concept as a nonprofit transaction; all exchanges
would be considered profit-making. For an exchange takes place if and only if, all parties benefit or
"profit" as a result of the exchange. A blood donor profits financially if paid in cash for his or her
blood; if a volunteer, the compensation takes the form of personal satisfaction, which is surely
beneficial or profitable to the donor (Titmuss 1972).
In the present chapter accepted usage will be followed and a transaction will be considered profitmaking only if it is characterized by the seller's intent to obtain monetary profit. That actual profit
might not materialize is incidental. The situation calls to mind a notice hanging on an office wall,
stating: "This is a nonprofit organization; it was not intended to be, but became so due to conditions
beyond our control." Although clever, the remark is nevertheless definitionally inconsistent, fora
nonprofit organization is one that does not intend to earn a profit on its transactions (it might profit,
for example, from investments). On the other hand, an organization is considered profit-making if
such intent is evident, whether or not profit accrues, or loss (negative profit) is suffered. This affords
an entirely workable distinction to determine if a transaction is profit making. (But the
profit/nonprofit dichotomy in exchange transactions can have different meanings in different
situations, as Professor Sheth has pointed out (1980), "For example, in many countries, the state
owns and manages large corporations which are run like profit businesses although their mission is
nonprofit. The obvious examples are foreign airlines and shipping companies").
A Tangible-Abstract Product DimensionThe second dimension to be used in the model measures transactions along a tangible-abstract
continuum. If a tangible good is involved, the exchange is concrete; if the "product" is an idea or a
cause, the transaction is abstract. Both bicycles and birth-control information are products to be
marketed; the former is a tangible good, while the latter is an abstract idea. This reasoning is not
altered by the fact that birth-control information is usually associated with actual products, such as
condoms, foams and so on. Even among concrete products, some are more abstract than others. A
home fire alarm system is a tangible product, but it is inextricably tied to the abstract idea of safety.
For the sake of the typology, the continuous tangible-abstract spectrum is categorized into four
classes, standard practice in research methodology; one converts intervally scaled variables into
ordinal or nominal classes to meet particular analytic needs. Here, the need is simply to create a
manageably small number of categories.
The MatrixCombination of the two-category profit dimension with the categorized tangible-abstract
dimension yields the matrix , in which several dozen illustrative exchanges are
listed. the list is by no means exhaustive; nor are its entries proposed as the best examples. The
reader will no doubt call to mind more creative choices; the selections are merely representative and
not all will be discussed in the text.
The top row lists exchanges for which no profit to the seller was intended to accrue; the bottom
row lists exchanges in which profit was the principal motivation. The first column takes in tangible
commodities, the second column considers services rendered, the third column covers ideas and the
fourth column lists causes or social issues.
Examples of items appropriate to cell (1), nonprofit tangibles, include purchases made at a
consumer cooperative or in stores operated by charities such as the Salvation Army. Voluntary
blood contributions are nonprofit tangibles too; however if the donor is paid, the exchange is profit
making and belongs in cell (5). Public goods such as those disposed of by the General Services
Administration could also have been listed in cell (1).
Cell (2) depicts nonprofit services rendered by such institutions as libraries, post offices, YMCAs,
chambers of commerce, museums, the Red Cross and so on. Offerings of nonprofit health care
organizations also fall into this category, as do those of universities and Boys Town.
Innovative ideas affecting personal lifestyles of individuals belong in cell (3), provided they
originate without the profit motive. These include physical fitness, use of seat belts, boy and girl
scouting, military recruiting and the value of education. The furtherance of a political campaign
(party or candidate) is an idea to be adopted and hence belongs in this cell. Fund raisers market the
idea that a cash contribution should be made, the amount of cash being the price for adoption of the
idea.
Cell (4), nonprofit social causes, includes campaigns designed to ameliorate child abuse,
speeding, malnutrition, smoking, littering, forest fires, pollution; the list is long indeed. One may
add the exchange of information on civil rights, product safety, the metric system, religion, voter
registration, energy conservation and so on.
Cell (5) designates profit-making exchanges of tangible products -food, clothing, automobiles and
so on -probably the largest proportion of commercial transactions. A share of stock representing part
ownership in a corporation is included here, as are real estate and commodity investments.
Cell (6) lists profit-making services such as those offered by travel agencies, insurance
companies, purveyors of the performing arts and any items from cell (2) that bear the intent of profit:
private nursing homes, day-care centers and so forth. The service of providing space for which rent
is paid is also listed there.
In cell (7), one example of an idea marketed by a profit-making organization may be seen in a
new fashion design, say, by Christian Dior. While this firm markets a design service to the apparel
industry (cell (6)), at the same time it initiates styles sought by devotees of fashionable dress. These
are matters that surely affect the life styles of these people and being profit inspired, they have a
place in cell (7). When adoption becomes widespread, producers of fashion apparel quickly
capitalize on the popularization of such style trends (cell (8)) for their own profit. Similar cycles are
followed by patents and other creative commodities
No comments:
Post a Comment