Commodity School

Marketing Theory Commodity inform 01. 11. 2012 Sirket ad? n? yaz? n Bahcesehir University, MA Marketing What is commodity school and what ar strengths and weaknesses of that thought? Marketing speculation has been discussed over years. Many theorists had tried to apologize merchandise thought since it was a separate field apart from scotchs. In order to indicate progress of the theory Sheth, Gardner and Garret in the word of honor of Marketing Theory Evolution and Evaluation compiled all schools of market.They similarly struggle how successful each thought is spot developing, implementing and distributing of those schools. On that paper, it will be tried to analyze what commodity school is and what its strengths and weaknesses ar according to Sheth, Gardner and Garret. Schools of thoughts are formed by two dimensions of a matrix. One perspective is interactive-noninteractive while the other is economic-n whizconomic. In first dimension, for the noninteractive schools sel ling is the essential concept whereas family is main source for interactive schools.In second dimension, for economic classification, the focus is economic variables such as production and distribution efficiency, prices of inputs and outputs, and consumer income trains. At the other dimension, participants of marketing activities give the bouncenot be explained by sole economic influence. It can be exquisite by social and mental factors that may affect the behaviour of marketing actors. With two dimensions of that matrix, commodity school is one concept of noninteractive and economic approach.The commodity school concentrated on the physical characteristics of products and the related consumer buying habits for unalike categories of products. The most influential proponent of that school (Melvin Copeland) defined commodities as appliance in force(p)s, shop goods and strong point goods ground on durability. Copeland stated that thingmajig goods were those customarily purc hased at easily accessible stores, when he recognized the want, the demand became all the way defined in his mind.Copeland defined shop goods as the ones the consumer desires to compare price, feeling, movement etc at the time of purchase. Final part of his classification is the ones that claim many particular attraction for the consumer, other than price, which induces him to put forth special military campaign to visit the store. For lastingness goods, brands are essential. Copelands theory can be seen most inspiring theory for commodity school of thought. Theorists after Copelands had tried to develop the definition of categories.One of them was Leo Aspinwall who launched a classification musical arrangement using five characteristics to differentiate three types of goods. Aspinwall named his three categories the red goods, the orangish goods and the yellow goods based on replacement rate, gross margin, adjustment, time of uptake and clear-cut time. Richard Holton asse rted that Copelands definition of the categories of convenience goods, shopping goods and speciality goods needed to be revised. He emphasized that convenience goods and shopping goods can be defined accurately only from standpoint of the mortal consumer.According to Holton, for the individual consumer, convenience goods are those goods for which the probable gain from making price and quality comparison among preference sellers is thought to be small relative to the consumers appraisal of the hunt clubing costs in terms of time, money and effort. obtain goods then, are for the individual consumer, those goods for which the probable gain from making prices and quality comparisons among alternative sellers is thought to be large relative to the consumers appraisal of the searching costs in terms of time, money and effort.However David Luck criticized Holtons theory in terms of dynamics of consumer behaviour. He claimed that Holton excluded the speciality type of good from marketi ng theory. The next theorist Bucklin tried to explain the distinction betwixt shopping goods and non shopping goods as a first point of differentiation. He classified that shopping goods are the goods whose suitability is determined through search before the consumer commits himself to each purchase. He subdivided non shopping goods as convenience goods and speciality goods based on their accessibility to substitutes.Until Kaish emphasis, commodity school could not highlight psychological side of consumers. Kaish was the prior emphasis on the consumers shopping effort. He assured that consumers had different pre purchase anxiety level for convenience goods, shopping goods and speciality goods. To him, as goods complexity increases pre purchase anxiety level also rises as well. After all those contributions, Ramond and Assael asserted that firstly, product as a relation between physical ingredients and psychological responses secondly, the product in terms of consumer actions and ch annel response must be defined.In addition, Enis and Roering asserted that a classification scheme that incorporates both the buyers and the sellers perspective holds the grea political campaign promise for illuminating the exchange sue. Finally, Murphy and Enis substantial four commodity categories as convenience, preference, shopping and speciality products based on effort and risk dimension Enis-Roerig Commodity Classification System emptor Expected Effort / Marketing Mix Differentiation HIGH emptor Perceived Risk/ Product Differentiation LOWshoppingspecialityHIGHconveniencepreferenceLOWThe commodity school has revolted during the make that is summarized above. Many explanations and opinions are developed by the theorists. However, there is excuse congruity for that school. Commodity categories are still tried to be defined clearly. It is still a dilemma if definitions should be physical properties of the good or on the behaviour of the consumers. If latter one is preferab le, should the focus be on the consumers mental effort or on his physical effort. In addition, the judicial admission of hypotheses becomes contingent upon the diversity and individual differences among consumers.Beyond the potential variability among consumers, there is also the question of the possible change in any one consumers behaviour over time. Another point that cannot be clarified is how shopping effort is measured and, limited and considerable levels of the shopping are secern in terms of operational efficiency. The points that cannot be clarified during evolution process for commodity school are listed. Although there are dilemmas about structure, condition and testability, the commodity school enjoys some easiness of theory implementation.Firstly, a investigator interested in commodity school could develop empirical simulations for the goods categories. convey to this simulation, he can modify marketing mix for a test product to determine whether market performance for the product could be enhanced. secondly commodity school is valid for consumer goods, industrial goods, services and social goods. In addition, it is adaptable in global environment thanks to consumer classification based on diverse culture, psychology etc. Also, the commodity school cooperates with unseasoned technology.At last but not least, specific forms of distribution and promotion should pursue various types of goods. To sum up, commodity school is the one that many theorists have tried to structure and strengthen it. Physical characteristic and consumers psychological tendencies have been main factors that theorists have considered. Although it has dilemmas about structure, specification and testability, it can gain to develop empirical supports, to enrich product categorization and to simplify in communicating and implementing the theory. With the contribution of each theorist, it can be seen as one of the most robust school of marketing.