Competitive advantage in the marketing of products within the enlarged European
Union
Urša Golob and Klement Podnar
Abstract
Purpose – This paper analyses competitive advantage in relation to the formulation of
competitive product marketing strategies in European Union (EU) firms. It considers how it is
possible to gain a competitive advantage through different product strategies.
Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on 18 EU member states (14
founding states and 4 new states that joined in 2004). To investigate what range of strategies
is used by EU companies in both old and new member states, cluster, discriminant analysis
and multiple comparison procedures are used.
Findings – The results show some differences in strategies between old and new EU member
companies. Although a balanced strategy is most widely used in both groups, companies from
new member states are fond of a price and quality mix whereas companies from the old
member states favour a quality and distribution mix.
Research limitations/implications – A larger pool of competitive elements could provide
more in-depth insights. Thus, further research could include different internal and external
factors that influence the choice of strategy.
Practical implications – To gain a more sustainable advantage in the new competitive milieu
all EU member companies should be able to successfully integrate all marketing elements
employed in the strategy.
Originality/value – This paper provides an insight into competitive strategies of EU member
companies and a basis for monitoring the levels of competitiveness of member states and the
competitive marketing practices of different companies within the EU.
Keywords European Union, marketing strategy, product, competitive advantage
Paper Type Research paper
Introduction
The European Union evolved from an early vision of Robert Schumann in the 1950s.
Schumann’s idea was to create a common Europe that enabled sharing the resources of the
continent in a peaceful manner by establishing co-operation among European states (Dalgic,
1992). The core concept behind today’s European Union is the European Common Market,
which stimulates business enterprise and competition by removing barriers and obstacles
(political, legislative, procedural) and developing measures to facilitate integration and
harmonization (Hildebrand, 1994).
Although the European market is an internal market; it is made up of different national
markets that have their own particular historical, legislative and cultural traditions. In this
sense, the European internal market remains an international and intercultural market,
assuming an almost global character (Daser and Hylton, 1991). Success of the member states
in the international economy increasingly depends on their competitiveness, which is a
phenomenon that can be analysed by country, by industry and on a company level. As Porter
says, however, it is the firm, not nations (or industries), which compete on international
market (Porter, 1990). This is one reason why highly competitive companies can be
understood as national ambassadors of growth and prosperity.
In our paper we focus on how to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage at the company
level or more specific, at the product (or service) level. The key assumption is that the more
internationally successful companies that one member country has, the better it is for the
individual nation state as well as for the EU.
This particular logic, however, is not without obstacle. Given the range of different historical
backgrounds not all member states or the companies within them have equal starting positions
in the European single market. Besides winners, competition also brings losers, which can
slow down the growth of the EU just as easily. This is especially relevant inside the EU in the
context of its most recent (2004) and likely future enlargements.
Partition of the EU on developed Old and underdeveloped New Europe could be fateful for
Europe and its competitiveness as a whole on the global market. In order to prevent rich
member states getting even richer and the poor becoming even poorer, which would slow
down EU economic growth overall, it is important to monitor the different levels of
competitiveness of member states and especially the competitive marketing practices of
different companies in different states of the EU. Knowing, benchmarking and accumulating
best practice marketing strategies and tools of companies with headquarters in successful
states makes is possible to share the way of doing successful business. Less successful
companies in both new and old member states must acquire and practice successful marketing
strategies, tools, and practices in order to achieve their unique competitive advantage. For this
reason, the question on which we focus here is: what relation of different components of the
market offerings helps to bring about sustainable competitive advantage of a product or
service in the EU economy.
In our research we focus on the differences in the strategies for gaining a sustainable
competitive advantage of products. For our purposes, “product” means the total offering that
the firm brings to the target market. Our main focus is on the most important elements of
product strategies practiced by different companies within different countries. Further, we
focus on the macro differences in product component policies between companies in old and
new member states. Our research is carried out at the product level and from the perspective
of product marketing managers.
Components of the product strategy
Although several authors in the literature deal with the question of firm and product
competitiveness (e.g., Carpenter, 1987) as well as competitive advantage (e.g., Aaker, 2001;
Beard and Easingwood, 1992; Piercy et al., 1998), little work has been done on which to base
the framework for this investigation. It is clear from the literature that many sources offer
direction for companies to increase their competitiveness in order to achieve business success
(e.g., Ambastha and Momaya, 2004). Company competitiveness can be defined as the ability
of a firm to design, produce and/or market products and services that are superior to those
offered by competitors, taking into account the price and non-price qualities (Ambastha and
Momaya, 2004). Through different strategies and policies, product managers try to deliver
results that provide customers with superior value in order to gain competitive advantage in
the market.
In the context of services, Devlin (1998) calls the process of adding value offering “valueadding mix”, gained either through low prices or differentiation factors such as product
features, quality and image. According to Mathur (1988) this is called “merchandise”,
referring to the elements that are made available to the customer in combination with “support
differentiation”, which refers to what is provided along with the merchandise.
In modern marketing theory it is broadly accepted that the offer of products or services is
multidimensional and can be broken down in many ways. Different authors (Song and Parry,
1997) stress different elements of product components on which competitiveness in the
market is based. According to Cateora et al. (2000, p. 304) the different dimensions of a
product can be separated into three distinctive components:

The core component, which consists of the physical product, the platform that contains
the essential technology, its design and functional features;

The packaging component, which includes quality, price, style features, packaging,
and trade marking; and

The support service component, which consists of dimensions such as deliveries,
warranty, repair and maintenance, installation and so forth.
Despite the importance of the product itself, different dimensions that add to a product’s value
in the eyes of the consumer should not be defined in isolation from the customer-supplier
context (Saren and Tzokas, 1998). This fits in with consumer behaviour theory that argues
that consumers demand a uniform offer from a single source. It means that all product
components must be integrated to be accepted on the local or international markets. Among
numerous dimensions that provide added value for the customer, the focus of our research is
on product quality, innovation, variety, distribution and price, which are all important in
differentiation strategies theory. Each product component can be a foundation for product
strategy, either stand-alone or in combination with other elements on which the
competitiveness of a particular product is based.
Product quality can be defined as a product’s overall excellence and superiority (Zeithaml,
1988). Quality is considered complementary to strategic management and one of the primary
bases for competitive advantage. In the marketing field, the main focus is product quality
which is in a broader sense defined as the extent to which a product meets the needs and
demands of the customer (Lemmink and Kasper, 1994). A quality product adheres to specific
standards that have been determined by the expected use of a product (Cateora et al., 2000).
Quality means conformance to standards of excellence as well as satisfying customers’ needs.
According to Aaker (2001), quality strategy is a prototype of differentiation in which business
delivers or is perceived to deliver a product or service superior to that of its competitors.
Product innovation is an idea, practice or product that is perceived as new by an individual or
other unit of adoption (Lamb et al., 2005; Rogers, 1976). In marketing literature, innovation
has always been important to significant advantage. Innovation is most often researched in the
context of new product development and the diffusion of innovation model. When
considering innovation as a differentiation strategy we must distinguish between product and
process innovations, even though they are interdependent (Utterback, 1987). “From a
managerial perspective, the benefit of innovations can be seen to arise from product-related
patents, proprietary methods of production, trade secrets, and the product functional
performance” (Kotabe, 1990, p. 24). Despite the great importance that innovations have, new
product development is one of the riskiest endeavours of modern corporations. In some
industries the failure rate for new products is an alarming 90 per cent. Thus, when managing
product innovation, particular attention should be paid to the reasons for product failure or
success (Cooper, 2001).
Product variety is defined as a number of different versions of a product offered by a firm at a
single point in time (Randall and Ulrich, 2001). In the context of marketing, product variety is
about matching supply with demand. The concept of the custom-made product has a special
relevance to relationship and one-to-one marketing (Jančič, 1996). As a result of intensified
competitiveness, new technologies put individuals in direct contact with sellers and increase
customer power thus forcing producers to interact directly with customers, recognise their
individual needs and respond to their wishes and preferences. Conceptually, variety-related
decisions focus on how to create diversity in a product line and on managing a firm’s
processes and supply chain to implement variety (Ramdas, 2003, p. 80).
Product distribution (accessibility and speed of delivery) refers to the broad principles by
which a firm seeks to achieve its distribution objectives to make its products available to the
target markets (Rosenbloom, 2001). It is about how and in what timeframe the product will be
delivered to the customer. For the customer it is important that a product is available
whenever and wherever it is needed. Product distribution is not viewed as a necessity or a
condition for doing business but rather as an opportunity for gaining competitive advantage.
Even Drucker (1990) himself said that channels of distribution should be a major concern to
every business and industry. Aaker (2001) argues that access to an effective and efficient
distribution channel is often a key success factor regardless of which channel is chosen and
can lead to a sustainable competitive advantage (see also Cravens, 1994).
Product pricing is a multidimensional and complex concept that has an important strategic
role in marketing. Cost leadership or low cost strategy is considered one of the generic
strategic approaches (Aaker, 2001; Porter, 1980). Its role has a direct impact on buyer
behaviour and consequently on revenues of the firm (Campo and Gijsbrechts, 2001; Cravens,
1994). It involves the determination of a price structure and price levels along with decisions
on short-term price changes (Campo and Gijsbrechts, 2001, p. 390). Pricing objectives can be
classified as: profit-oriented objectives, cost-oriented objectives, sales-oriented objectives and
competition-oriented objectives (Campo and Gijsbrechts, 2001). The main barrier for lowprice strategy has been the belief that industrial markets are inflexible and that price is not a
major determinant in influencing demand (Thompson and Coe, 1997). Nowadays many
European competitors are facing severe low-prices (usually non-branded competition) that
mostly originate from the Far East (Hilleke and Butscher, 1997).
Research methodology
Data for our analysis is drawn from the international Cranet-E database (see Ignjatovic and
Svetlik, 2003). Although the primary focus of the Cranet-E database is on human resource
management data, it is one of the few studies that utilised country data on market performance
and marketing strategies that was collected in a standardised manner. The Cranet-E database
contains statistically representative samples of middle-sized and large organizations from
different countries (Svetlik, 2004). The most recent study was conducted in 2001 and includes
organizations in 29 countries from all over the world (Ignjatović and Svetlik, 2003). The
average response rate among the participating countries was approximately 20 per cent. Our
sample frame consists of a selection of EU member states. We focused our research on 14 old
EU member states (all member states except Luxembourg) and four new ones that joined EU
in the year 2004 - Estonia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Slovenia. The selection of data
from new member states was rather limited because the Cranet-E database contains only
information on companies in these four markets. Thus, from a total of 4,055 companies
operating in all selected EU countries, the majority are from the old member states (88.9%)
and the rest (11.1%) are from the states that recently joined the EU. Furthermore, in the
analysis the sample was restricted to companies with no missing data on any of the marketing
strategy measures. The final sample has 3,415 valid observations.
Data was collected through standardised postal questionnaires translated into all relevant
languages. The questionnaires were addressed to senior managers, usually HR/personnel
specialists. Thus, the database contains a large amount of information mainly from the human
resource management field, but also some data about market performance and product
marketing strategies. For the purpose of our research we chose indicators that measure
marketing strategies of private (93%) and part-state owned (7%) companies.
The section used for the analysis comprised five indicators on a three-point scale that
measured the importance of each indicator or source of competitive advantage for product
component strategy. Companies supplied information about the importance of price, quality,
variety, distribution and innovation to their processes and, finally, products for market
performance. In order to investigate what range of strategies is most commonly used by EU
companies in both old and new member states, we used descriptive statistics in the first step
and methods such as cluster and discriminant analysis and multiple comparison procedures in
the second.
Analysis and results
Strategies based on sources of competitive advantage
The mean scores for each element that was evaluated are shown in Table I (n=3,415). All five
elements are considered to be relatively important (mean scores above 2.4), however, the
most important are quality and distribution, each with more than 20% of the total weighting.
Other elements have less mean emphasis but all are close to 20%.
“Take in Table I”
If mean scores between old and new member states are compared for each element, it is clear
that companies from both groups of countries consider quality to be the most important factor
in the strategy (mean scores above 2.8). Companies from the old EU states, however, seek to
emphasise distribution over price in contrast to new member states that place a higher priority
on price. At this point it is important to note that distribution tends to be a more durable
source of competitive advantage than pricing (Lawless and Fischer, 1990). Innovation had the
lowest mean score in all countries (<2.5).
Because of the relative importance that all companies in both new and old member states
placed on each of the strategic elements, it is unlikely that all of them would attempt to use
such similar strategies. Therefore, in further analysis we employed cluster analysis, which
Beard and Easingwood (1992) also considered in a similar situation. Cluster analysis was
used to identify possible sub-groups of companies in both old and new member states that
adopt similar strategies to other companies in the same group but that differ from other subgroups (Beard and Easingwood, 1992).
We performed a K-Means cluster analysis and examined the results from two to five clusters.
A four-cluster solution was chosen on the basis of a difference in Ward’s functions (sum of
distances of cases from its cluster centres). Further, discriminant analysis was conducted to
check the robustness of our four-cluster solution. A test of equality of group means showed
that clusters differed significantly on all five strategy components. Discriminant functions are
significant meaning that all three functions significantly distinguish among the four clusters.
Eigenvalues were high while Wilk’s Lambdas were low indicating little within-group
variation. The first discriminant function has a very high correlation with quality, the second
correlates with price and the third measures the other three components of marketing strategy.
The classification results show that a high percentage of originally grouped cases were
correctly classified into each of four clusters (96.9%).
One-way analysis of variance indicates that preferred elements are not the same across all
four clusters (see Table II). For the multiple comparisons procedure, we used the Bonferroni
test to find out how elements are connected with particular clusters. The Bonferroni test can
be used when there are unequal numbers of cases in each cluster. It is also the test that is the
most flexible and can be used in any multiple testing situation (Dallal, 2001). The test
revealed that most clusters differ significantly by mean levels of measured elements with a
95% confidence level. For example, price is the least important in Cluster Four but is strongly
associated with Clusters Two and Three. In Cluster One quality is not important and
distribution is not strongly associated with Cluster Three but is important in Clusters One,
Two and Four. Variety and innovation do not have high overall importance, however, both
are quite important in Cluster Two.
“Take in Table II”
All the results presented above allow us to interpret the clusters (see Table III). Cluster One
can be named Distribution & Price. Price and distribution are the most important elements of
this cluster followed by variety. This cluster contains the smallest number of cases, around
13%. Cluster Two is called Balanced. This is the largest group containing 40% of the sample.
The emphasis is on all elements that are of equal importance. Cluster Three is based on Price
& Quality and contains approximately 16% of all companies. In this group the emphasis is on
price and quality, all the other elements are not significant. The final Cluster Four is a Quality
& Distribution cluster that contains 30% of the companies. This group placed the least
emphasis on price.
“Take in Table III”
Old and new EU member companies
It is interesting to note that there was a relatively small difference between companies from
old and new member states in terms of balanced strategy as a basis for market competition
(see Table IV). In the old member states this strategy is used by 40.6% of companies and by
34.3% of companies in the new member states respectively. The strategy comparisons,
however, showed a remarkable gap between old and new member states in the price & quality
strategy. More than 30% of companies from new member states use price and quality-oriented
strategies while the proportion of companies in old member states is significantly lower
(14.7%). This is in contrast to the quality & distribution strategy in which companies from old
member states are in the majority; the proportion of those employing quality and distribution
strategies is 31.2% compared to 23.9% in the new EU countries. Distribution & price strategy
is least popular in all companies irrespective of the country of origin. The number in both
groups does not exceed 14%.
“Take in Table IV”
Through comparing product strategies in individual countries the conclusion can be drawn
that the new member states, especially the Czech Republic and Slovenia, are stepping out in
the third group of strategies where the emphasis is on price and quality. In Slovenia, for
instance, the third “price & quality” cluster includes more than 40% of all companies
compared to the Czech Republic where the proportion is 32% or to Austria where the
proportion of companies employing price & quality as a strategy is as low as 11.6%. Cyprus
tends to have more balanced strategies; the majority of its companies are in the second group.
Estonia, on the other hand, has the most similar distribution as companies from the old
member states.
“Take in Table V”
The firms in old member states predominantly use either balanced strategies or strategies
based on a quality and distribution mix (see Table V). The highest percentage in the balanced
cluster (>40%) includes: Ireland, UK, Spain, Portugal and Belgium. These countries also tend
to have fewer firms that emphasise price & quality (<18%). Countries with more than 40% of
their firms in the quality and distribution cluster include: Denmark, Italy, Finland and Greece.
All other countries from the “older” part of the EU tend to have more evenly distributed firms
between the two clusters. Apart from The Netherlands, which has the most evenly distributed
firms and the highest value in the first cluster emphasising distribution and price (>30%), the
proportion of firms in either the first or third cluster is less than 22%.
Research limitations
Our findings are limited by the fact that only four new member states were included in the
sample compared to 14 old member states. Thus, the sample is unbalanced. It should,
however, be noted that the countries that were included (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia
and Slovenia) although all relatively small countries, have different political, economical and
historical backgrounds and are therefore interesting to compare.
Second, the survey considered only a limited number of strategy elements. A larger pool of
competitive elements could provide more in-depth insights. Third, the choice of strategy may
be affected by several internal or external factors (such as type and size of organisation,
ownership, industrial sector, target market) that were not included in our study and could be
incorporated in further research. Furthermore, because the data was obtained from an
international database with a standardised questionnaire the authors had no influence on
question design. Questions on product strategies could be more thorough in future research in
order to obtain even more interesting and relevant results. Although limitations do exist, we
believe that none negate the essential findings of our study.
Summary and conclusions
This paper has explored elements of competitive advantage on which product component
strategies are based. The focus was on 18 countries from the enlarged European Union. Our
research generated some interesting insights. The literature suggested that there might be
some differences in product mixes for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in relation
to products and services among old and new EU members. Our research has two important
findings. The first is that companies derive competitive advantage in different ways. European
companies appear to use four distinct product mix policies or strategies. Around 40% favour a
so-called balanced strategy in which all elements (price, quality, variety, distribution and
innovation) are relatively important. This cluster is similar to a finding by Beard and
Easingwood (1992). The authors carried out research in a high-tech market and found out that
nearly half the examples favoured a balanced strategy. Their findings, however, also
suggested some examples of relatively “pure” strategies (pure quality, pure performance),
which was not the case in the present survey.
Our second finding was that important differences in product mix strategies exist between old
and new EU member companies. Although a balanced strategy is most widely used in both
groups, companies from new member states are particularly fond of a price and quality mix
whereas companies from the old member states favour a quality and distribution mix. The
latter is a source of a more durable competitive advantage since both distribution and quality
tend to be durable, whereas pricing tends to be a non-durable type of competitive advantage
(Lawless and Fischer, 1990).
Mean scores for each element and the findings described suggest that product price as the
main source of competitive advantage is typically associated with new member countries,
Slovenia and the Czech Republic in particular, while old member countries tend to emphasise
quality and distribution over price.
These findings are not unexpected. Marketing orientation still seems to be on a different level
in new member states. Dyker (2001, p. 1004) similarly argues that “competition policy tends
to be one of the weaker areas of policy making” in most new member states. Marketing
orientation in new member states is predominantly focused on sales volume and their
advantage is based on lower prices. Our findings suggest that production in new EU countries
is more labour intensive and so is giving relative cost advantages (Hilleke and Butsher, 1997).
Because of increased competition with products manufactured in the Far East, however, this
advantage will soon no longer be important. Accordingly, companies from new EU countries
must thus consider reorienting their strategies to be more successful. In line with this,
improved quality and distribution may become higher priorities in choosing sources of
competitive advantage. Our results also have some implications for those European
companies that favour a balanced strategy. In order to gain a more sustainable advantage in
the new competitive milieu they should be able to successfully integrate all marketing
elements employed in the strategy. In light of intensive low-price competition from countries
like China, the potential source of advantage for all European firms may also be innovation
which, as it appears from our results, is perhaps not as important as it should be when
considering the perspective of the Lisbon strategy, EU competitiveness based on the
knowledge economy and the growing societal demands.
References
Aaker, D.A. (2001), Strategic Marketing Management, John Wiley, New York.
Ambastha A. and Momaya K. (2004), “Competitiveness of firms: review of theory,
frameworks, and models”, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Beard, C. and Easingwood, C. (1992), “Sources of competitive advantage in the marketing of
technology-intensive products and processes”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No.
12, pp. 5-18.
Campo, K. and Gijsbrechts, E. (2001), “Pricing”, in Baker, M. J. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of
Marketing, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 390-406.
Carpenter, G.S. (1987), “Modelling competitive marketing strategies: the impact of
marketing-mix relationships and industry structure”, Marketing Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.
208-21.
Cateora, P.R., Graham, J.L. and Ghauri, P.N. (2000), International Marketing: European
Edition, McGraw-Hill, London.
Cooper, R.G. (2001), “New product development”, in Baker, M. J. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of
Marketing, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 342-55.
Cranet-E, Carnfield Network for the Study of Human Resource Management in Europe.
Cranfield University, School of Management.
Cravens, D.W. (1994), Strategic Marketing, Irwin, Burr Ridge.
Dalgic, T. (1992), “Euromarketing: charting the map for globalization”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 31-42.
Dallal, G.E. (2001), “Multiple Comparison Procedures”, available at:
www.tufs.edu/~gdallal/mc.htm
Daser, S. and Hylton, D.P. (1991), “The European Community single market of 1992:
European executives discuss trends for global marketing”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 44-8.
Devlin, F.J. (1998), “Adding value to service offerings: the case of UK financial services”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 11/12, pp. 1091-109.
Drucker, P. (1990), “Manage by walking around – outside”, Wall Street Journal, 11 May.
Dyker, D.A. (2001), “The dynamic impact on the Central-Eastern European economies of
accession to the European Union: social capability and technology absorption”, Europe-Asia
Studies, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 1001-21.
Hildebrand, D. (1994), “Legal aspects of Euro-marketing”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 44-54.
Hilleke, K and Butscher, S.A. (1997), “How to use a two product strategy against low-price
competition”, Pricing Strategy & Practice, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 108-15.
Ignjatović, M. and Svetlik I. (2003), “European HRM clusters”, EBS Review, No. 17, pp 2537.
Jančič, Z. (1996), Celostni marketing (Holistic Marketing), FDV, Ljubljana.
Kotabe, M. (1990), “Corporate product policy and innovative behavior of European and
Japanese multinationals: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp
19-33.
Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F. and McDaniel, C. (2005), Essentials of Marketing, Thomson, Mason.
Lawless, M.W. and Fischer R.J. (1990), “Sources of durable competitive advantage in new
products”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 7, pp. 35-44.
Lemmink, J. and Kasper, H. (1994), “Competitive reactions to product quality improvements
in industrial markets”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 50-68.
Mathur, S.S. (1988), “How firms compete: a new classification of generic strategies”, Journal
of Generic Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 30-58.
Piercy, N.F., Kaleka, A. and Katsikeas, C.S. (1998), “Sources of competitive advantage in
high performing exporting companies”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 378-93.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York.
Ramdas, K. (2003), “Managing product variety: an integrative review and research
directions”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-101.
Randall, T. and Ulrich, K. (2001), “Product variety, supply chain structure, and firm
performance. Analysis of the U. S. bicycle industry”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 12,
pp. 1588-604.
Rogers, E.M. (1976), “New product adoption and diffusion”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 290-301.
Rosenbloom, B. (2001), “Channel management”, in Baker, M. J. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of
Marketing, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 407-19.
Saren, M.J., Tzokas, N.X. (1998), “Some dangerous axioms of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 187-96.
Song, M. and Parry, M.E. (1997), “The determinants of Japanese new product successes”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp.64-76.
Svetlik, I. (2004), “Razpoke v zgodbi o uspehu” (The Crackes in the Success Story), in
Svetlik, I. and B. Ilič (Eds), Razpoke v zgodbi o uspehu (The Crackes in the Success Story),
Sophia, Ljubljana, pp. 1-12.
Thompson, K.N and Coe, B.J. (1997), “Gaining sustainable competitive advantage through
strategic pricing: selecting a perceived value price”, Pricing Strategy & Practice, Vol. 5 No.
2, pp. 70-9.
Utterback, J.M. (1987), “Innovation and industrial evolution in manufacturing industries”, in
Bruce, R. and H. Brooks (Eds), Technology and Global Industry, National Academy Press,
Washington, pp. 16-48.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.
Tables
Table I. Mean scores for components of product strategies
Mean
(all
Per cent of
Element
countries) Std. Dev. total weighting
Price
2.59
0.54
19.8%
Quality
2.86
0.36
21.9%
Variety
2.44
0.63
18.7%
Distribution
2.74
0.47
21.0%
Innovation
2.43
0.63
18.6%
Mean
(old member
states)
2.58
2.85
2.44
2.76
2.44
Mean
(new member
states)
2.66
2.87
2.47
2.54
2.29
Table II. Results of One-way ANOVA
Element
F-value
P-value
Price
9.23
.000
Quality
17,034.94
.000
Variety
117.87
.000
Distribution
2,232.35
.000
Innovation
158.21
.000
Table III. Clusters according to associated elements
Cluster
number
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cluster
name
Distribution & Price
Balanced
Price & Quality
Quality & Distribution
No.
of cases
454
1,362
561
1,038
Table IV. Product strategies in old and new member states
Old EU member
%
New EU memeber
%
Total
%
Distribution & Price
411
13.5
43
11.5
454
13.3
Value of 2 = 59.14
Results are significant
at 1 per cent level (n = 3,415).
Balanced Price & Quality
1,234
448
40.6
14.7
128
113
34.3
30.3
1,362
561
39.9
16.4
Quality & Distribution
949
31.2
89
23.9
1,038
30.4
Table V. Product strategies in individual countries
Distribution
& Price
UK
% firms within country
France
%
Germany
%
Sweden
%
Spain
%
Denmark
%
The Netherlands
%
Italy
%
Ireland
%
Portugal
%
Finland
%
Greece
%
Czech
%
Austria
%
Belgium
%
Cyprus
%
Estonia
%
Slovenia
%
Total
%
Value of 2 = 294.29
Results are significant
at 1 per cent level (n = 3,415).
Balanced
Price
& Quality
Quality
& Distribution
11.3
49.8
13.2
25.7
27.2
38.3
13.8
20.7
16.2
36.7
14.7
32.4
13.4
38.5
15.6
32.4
7.6
45.1
14.1
33.2
14.1
32.3
13.4
40.3
30.7
20.5
23.9
25.0
7.3
27.3
16.4
49.1
8.0
50.6
14.9
26.5
6.1
42.4
17.2
34.3
9.7
26.4
21.5
42.4
10.0
33.3
14.4
42.2
13.3
32.5
31.7
22.5
18.1
34.8
11.6
35.5
7.7
48.7
14.4
29.2
66.7
15.4
17.9
14.4
35.6
20.0
30.0
11.3
25.0
41.1
22.6
13.3
39.9
16.4
30.4