activity and by extension, with tho

activity and by extension, with those professionals involved. In this context, marketing practice is frequently labeled as thriftless and short of adequate assessment measures, namely in terms of the connection between actions and results.

Despite the proliferation of financial and no financial isolated measures, marketing performance as a whole, translated into a clear and reliable universal instrument by which the respective merits can be evaluated, has received limited attention in the literature (Ambler and Riley, 2000). Additionally, marketing as a discipline has focused more on results than on the processes and systems enabling them (O’Sullivan et al., 2009; Grewal et al., 2009).

Traditionally, marketing productivity analysis (mainly from an efficiency perspective) and the marketing audit concept (mainly from an effectiveness perspective) have dominated the approaches to marketing performance assessment. But neither of these two approaches by themselves provide a complete framework for an integrated evaluation, due to conceptual and implementation limitations (Morgan et al., 2002):

(1) Marketing productivity analysis – This type of analysis assumes that both inputs and outputs can be assessed accurately. Tangible inputs and outputs (costs and revenues) can be measured relatively easily and accurately, but less tangible ones are typically more difficult to assess. Productivity analysis also largely ignores time lag differences between marketing inputs and their effect on outputs. Finally, productivity analysis focuses upon the amount and not the quality of marketing inputs and outputs.

(2) Marketing audits – Apart from conceptual weaknesses - the majority of existing checklists were developed with few concerns for psychometric properties – there are also implementation problems that can occur along the process: in the objective-setting stage, data collection stage, or report presentation stage (Kotler et al., 1989).

3.2 Marketing metrics

A historical revision of the subject (Clark, 1999) suggests that marketing measures have evolved in three consistent directions over the years:

(1) from financial measures to no financial measures;

(2) from output measures to input measures; and

(3) from one dimensional measures to multidimensional measures.

Initial works on performance measurement were largely directed to the analysis of productivity and profitability of a company’s marketing efforts. Sevin (1965) can be considered the main author of this work stream, and his book Marketing Productivity Analysis is still a masterpiece of the specialized literature. Other important contributions include Feder (1965), Goodman (1970) and Mossman et al. (1974).

The 1970s and 1980s brought an enlarged conception of output that included no financial measures, since there are important marketing elements that are not translatable by traditional financial dimensions. Financial indicators are snapshots of the present and say little about marketing’s future health. Market share indicator attracted much attention during this period, due to work at Boston Consulting Group in the early 1970s. At the academic level we must emphasize studies by Buzzell et al. (1975) and Buzzell and Gale (1987) under the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) project.