On the other hand, at top managemen

On the other hand, at top management levels, marketing has not had the impact its importance deserves (Cassidy, 2005; Webster et al., 2005), among other reasons because it has been largely practiced emphasizing its creative side at the expense of the analytical side. It is an inescapable reality that marketing is undergoing a crisis in its “toolbox”; that is, the means by which its strategies and activities are represented in financial and value generation terms (Brady and Davis, 1993; Wilson and McDonald, 1994). In many organizations, current peripheral marketing position is largely a reflection of this traditional inability to justify the resources employed and to quantify the corresponding effects (Doyle, 2000; Sheth and Sisodia, 2002; McGovern et al., 2004; Shaw and Merrick, 2005; Petersen et al., 2009). Of course, if there was a definite and easy solution to this problem, it certainly would already have been found. As Baker (2000, p. 307) puts it, “among the several management functions, marketing has the most difficulty defining its position in the organization because it is simultaneously culture, strategy, and tactics”.

Some professionals say that marketing performance simply can not be measured, but the problem is that they do not know what to measure or how to interpret results. They tend to look for all sorts of plausible metrics and view them in isolation, recording their evolution to justify the effect of actions undertaken. This standing serves the purpose of helping to quantify past initiatives’ effects and their impact on current performance, but it does not help a lot in predicting future behaviors or performance. In this context, the possibility of correlating metrics is as important as the act of measurement itself.

It is our belief that if companies develop an integrated set of relevant measures and systematically collect, analyze and disseminate information about them, then marketing could be viewed as a more informed, objective . . . and recognized discipline! Among other things, tomorrow’s winners will be those with the skills and the discipline of learning new ways to make marketing more effective and efficient.

This article intends to contribute to the theory and practice of marketing in two ways:

(1) by reviewing the literature and presenting a detailed view of performance in general and marketing metrics in particular; and

(2) by proposing a marketing performance assessment model that expands the existing ones, adding new evaluative criteria and factors influencing process effectiveness.

2. Performance measurement significance and importance

The term “performance” is widely used in all areas of management. In virtually all disciplines we use metrics to explain phenomena, diagnose causes, find relationships, make predictions, and allow comparisons. Often, performance is identified with effectiveness and efficiency (Neely et al., 1995), and in most of the literature referred simultaneously as to the action, the result of the action, and the outcome when compared with some benchmark. It can be then concluded that performance is a multifaceted reality including not only the results but also the processes leading to them and the conditions that allowed both.

Ford and Schellenberg (1982) identify three conceptual approaches for defining organizational performance. The first is the objectives approach, assuming organizations pursue the achievement of defined goals. The second is the resource

Results (Indonesian) 1:

On the other hand, at top management levels, marketing has not had the impact its importance deserves (Cassidy, 2005; Webster et al., 2005), among other reasons because it has been largely practiced emphasizing its creative side at the expense of the analytical side. It is an inescapable reality that marketing is undergoing a crisis in its “toolbox”; that is, the means by which its strategies and activities are represented in financial and value generation terms (Brady and Davis, 1993; Wilson and McDonald, 1994). In many organizations, current peripheral marketing position is largely a reflection of this traditional inability to justify the resources employed and to quantify the corresponding effects (Doyle, 2000; Sheth and Sisodia, 2002; McGovern et al., 2004; Shaw and Merrick, 2005; Petersen et al., 2009). Of course, if there was a definite and easy solution to this problem, it certainly would already have been found. As Baker (2000, p. 307) puts it, “among the several management functions, marketing has the most difficulty defining its position in the organization because it is simultaneously culture, strategy, and tactics”.Some professionals say that marketing performance simply can not be measured, but the problem is that they do not know what to measure or how to interpret results. They tend to look for all sorts of plausible metrics and view them in isolation, recording their evolution to justify the effect of actions undertaken. This standing serves the purpose of helping to quantify past initiatives’ effects and their impact on current performance, but it does not help a lot in predicting future behaviors or performance. In this context, the possibility of correlating metrics is as important as the act of measurement itself.It is our belief that if companies develop an integrated set of relevant measures and systematically collect, analyze and disseminate information about them, then marketing could be viewed as a more informed, objective . . . and recognized discipline! Among other things, tomorrow’s winners will be those with the skills and the discipline of learning new ways to make marketing more effective and efficient.This article intends to contribute to the theory and practice of marketing in two ways:(1) by reviewing the literature and presenting a detailed view of performance in general and marketing metrics in particular; and(2) by proposing a marketing performance assessment model that expands the existing ones, adding new evaluative criteria and factors influencing process effectiveness.2. kinerja pengukuran arti dan pentingnyaIstilah "kinerja" secara luas digunakan dalam semua bidang manajemen. Di hampir semua disiplin ilmu kami menggunakan metrik untuk menjelaskan fenomena, mendiagnosa penyebab, menemukan hubungan, membuat prediksi, dan memungkinkan perbandingan. Sering kali, kinerja diidentifikasi dengan efektivitas dan efisiensi (Neely et al., 1995), dan di sebagian besar literatur merujuk secara bersamaan untuk tindakan, hasil dari tindakan, dan hasil bila dibandingkan dengan beberapa patokan. Dapat kemudian disimpulkan bahwa kinerja adalah realitas multifaset yang termasuk tidak hanya hasil, tetapi juga proses-proses yang mengarah ke mereka dan kondisi yang memungkinkan kedua.Ford dan Schellenberg (1982) mengidentifikasi tiga pendekatan konseptual untuk menentukan kinerja organisasi. Yang pertama adalah pendekatan tujuan, asumsi organisasi mengejar pencapaian tujuan yang ditetapkan. Kedua adalah sumber daya

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Di sisi lain, pada tingkat manajemen puncak, pemasaran tidak memiliki dampak pentingnya layak (Cassidy, 2005;. Webster et al, 2005), antara lain karena sebagian besar telah dipraktekkan menekankan sisi kreatif dengan mengorbankan dari sisi analitis. Ini adalah kenyataan yang tak terhindarkan bahwa pemasaran sedang mengalami krisis di "kotak peralatan" nya; yaitu, sarana yang strategi dan kegiatan yang diwakili dalam hal generasi keuangan dan nilai (Brady dan Davis, 1993; Wilson dan McDonald, 1994). Dalam banyak organisasi, posisi pemasaran perifer saat sebagian besar merupakan cerminan dari ketidakmampuan tradisional ini untuk membenarkan sumber daya yang digunakan dan untuk mengukur efek yang sesuai (Doyle, 2000; Sheth dan Sisodia, 2002;. McGovern et al, 2004; Shaw dan Merrick 2005 ; Petersen et al, 2009).. Tentu saja, jika ada solusi yang pasti dan mudah untuk masalah ini, tentu akan sudah ditemukan. Sebagai Baker (2000, p. 307) katakan, "di antara beberapa fungsi manajemen, pemasaran memiliki paling kesulitan mendefinisikan posisinya dalam organisasi karena bersamaan budaya, strategi, dan taktik".

Beberapa profesional mengatakan bahwa kinerja pemasaran hanya bisa tidak diukur, tapi masalahnya adalah bahwa mereka tidak tahu apa yang harus mengukur atau bagaimana menginterpretasikan hasil. Mereka cenderung mencari segala macam metrik masuk akal dan melihat mereka dalam isolasi, merekam evolusi mereka untuk membenarkan efek tindakan yang dilakukan. Berdiri ini melayani tujuan membantu untuk mengukur efek inisiatif masa lalu 'dan dampaknya terhadap kinerja saat ini, tetapi tidak banyak membantu dalam memprediksi perilaku atau kinerja masa depan. Dalam konteks ini, kemungkinan berhubungan metrik adalah sama pentingnya dengan tindakan pengukuran itu sendiri.

Ini adalah keyakinan kami bahwa jika perusahaan mengembangkan seperangkat terintegrasi tindakan yang relevan dan sistematis mengumpulkan, menganalisis dan menyebarkan informasi tentang mereka, maka pemasaran bisa dilihat sebagai lebih informasi, obyektif. . . dan diakui disiplin! . Antara lain, pemenang besok akan menjadi orang-orang dengan keterampilan dan disiplin belajar cara-cara baru untuk membuat pemasaran yang lebih efektif dan efisien

Artikel ini bermaksud untuk berkontribusi pada teori dan praktek pemasaran dalam dua cara:

(1) dengan meninjau literatur dan menyajikan tampilan rinci tentang kinerja secara umum dan pemasaran metrik khususnya; dan

(2) dengan mengusulkan model penilaian kinerja pemasaran yang memperluas yang sudah ada, menambahkan kriteria evaluatif baru dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi efektivitas proses.

2. Pengukuran kinerja arti dan pentingnya

Istilah "kinerja" secara luas digunakan dalam semua bidang manajemen. Dalam hampir semua disiplin ilmu yang kita gunakan metrik untuk menjelaskan fenomena, mendiagnosa penyebab, menemukan hubungan, membuat prediksi, dan memungkinkan perbandingan. Seringkali, kinerja diidentifikasi dengan efektivitas dan efisiensi (Neely et al., 1995), dan di sebagian besar literatur disebut secara bersamaan untuk tindakan, hasil dari tindakan, dan hasil bila dibandingkan dengan beberapa patokan. Hal ini dapat kemudian menyimpulkan bahwa kinerja adalah realitas multifaset termasuk tidak hanya hasil tetapi juga proses yang mengarah ke mereka dan kondisi yang memungkinkan baik.

Ford dan Schellenberg (1982) mengidentifikasi tiga pendekatan konseptual untuk mendefinisikan kinerja organisasi. Yang pertama adalah pendekatan tujuan, dengan asumsi organisasi mengejar pencapaian tujuan yang ditetapkan. Yang kedua adalah sumber daya yang