marketing as well. Is there any justification for this? The Nature of the Marketing Mix Any marketing paradigm should be well set to fulfil the marketing concept, i.e. the notion that the firm is best off by designing and directing its activities according to the needs and desires of customers in chosen target markets. How well is the marketing mix fit to do that? One can easily argue that the four Ps of the marketing mix are not well able to fulfil the requirements of the marketing concept. As Dixon and Bloisput it, "...indeed it would not be unfair to suggest that far from being concerned with a customer's interests (i.e. somebody for whom something is done) the views implicit in the Four P approach is that the customer is somebody to whom something is done!" (emphasis added). To use a marketing metaphor, the marketing mix and its four Ps constitute a production-oriented definition of marketing, and not a market-oriented or customer-oriented one . Moreover, although McCarthy recognizes the interactive nature of the Ps, the model itself does not explicitly include any interactive elements. Furthermore, it does not indicate the nature and scope of such interactions. The problems with the marketing mix management paradigm are not the number or conceptualization of the decision variables, the Ps, as American Marketing Association as well as the authors of most publications criticizing the marketing mix management paradigm argue. Rather, the problem is of a theoretical nature. The Four Ps and the whole marketing mix management paradigm are, theoretically, based on a loose foundation, which in a recent Journal of Marketing article was also demonstrated by van Waterschoot and Van den Bulte. They conclude: "To our knowledge, the classification property(-ies) or rationale for distinguishing four categories labelled 'product', 'price', 'place' and 'promotion' have never been explicated...Though casual observation of practitioners, students, and...
