HOW FIRMS IMPLEMENT MARKETING STRATEGIES IN EMERGING

MARKETS: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE 4A MARKETING MIX

FRAMEWORK
Kofi Q. Dadzie, David K. Amponsah, Charlene A. Dadzie, and Evelyn M. Winston

This study evaluates the applicability of the 4As marketing mix activities (i.e., affordability, acces-
sibility, acceptability, and awareness) in emerging market conditions, using Ghana as the empirical
context. Two-thirds of firms in the sample report medium-to-high use of all the 4As. Only afford-
ability and accessibility marketing mix activities lead to market share performance (demand aggre-
gation advantage), while all 4A activities lead to financial performance. Further, the regulatory
environment moderates the relationship between affordability and market share performance.
Thus, the study results suggest that emerging markets firms emphasize different components of
the 4A marketing mix for optimal effectiveness.

Despite the long history of literature on marketing
strategy and practice as a useful, globally applied disci-
pline (Akaah, Dadzie, and Riordan 1988; Berg 1968;
Cavusgil and Yavas 1984; Drucker 1958), scholars con-
tinue to be interested in this topic (Burgess and
Steenkamp 2006; Dodd 2016; Kuada and Buasti 2005;
Shah 2012; Sheth 2011). In the extant literature, it is
widely acknowledged that the marketing mix plays a
critical role in implementing successful marketing stra-
tegies in various contexts (Constantinides 2006;
Gronroos 1994; Sheth 2011; van Waterschoot and
van den Bulte 1992). As the controllable elements in
the marketing strategy implementation process, the
marketing mix enables firms to adjust their marketing
efforts to the demands of the environmental condi-
tions to better serve their target markets, both domes-
tically and globally. Thus, the environmental
conditions that are crucial to the success of marketing
strategy and competitive performance are also
Kofi Q. Dadzie (Ph.D., The Ohio State University), Associate
Professor of Marketing, J. Mack Robinson College of Business,
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, kadazie@gsu.edu.
David K. Amponsah (Ph.D., Michigan State University),
Associate Professor of Marketing, Sorrell College of Business,
Troy University, Troy, AL, damponsa@troy.edu.
Charlene A. Dadzie (Ph.D., University of North Texas),
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Mitchell College of
Business, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, cdadzie@
gmail.com.
Evelyn M. Winston (Ph.D., Duke University), Professor of
Management, School of Business, Clark Atlanta University,
Atlanta, GA, edadzie@cau.edu.
important in determining the usefulness of the market-
ing mix.
While the most commonly used marketing mix fra-
mework for implementing marketing strategies remains
the 4Ps (i.e., product, price, promotion and place or
distribution), scholars argue that this framework is not
always useful for emerging market conditions
(Anderson and Billou 2007; Prahalad 2002).
Traditionally, the 4Ps are commonly used to imple-
ment demand differentiation strategies, including mar-
ket segmentation, targeting, and positioning practices,
which scholars argue, are less useful in emerging mar-
ket (EM) business conditions. Indeed, Sheth (2011) has
argued that under EM conditions of heterogeneous,
fragmented demand and resources shortages, EM firms
can achieve superior financial performance based on
the generation of demand aggregation advantage
(Sheth 2011). In contrast, other scholars (e.g.,
Anderson and Billou 2007; Prahalad 2002) have long
proposed that the more useful marketing mix frame-
work for implementing marketing strategy and theory
in EM conditions is the 4A marketing mix—affordabil-
ity, accessibility, acceptability, and awareness market-
ing capabilities. Affordability is defined in terms of the
customers’ willingness to pay a given price for the
product or service (e.g., Anderson and Billou 2007).
Accessibility refers to customers’ ability to acquire and
use the product/service in two dimensions: availability
and convenience (Sheth and Sisodia 2012). The
Acceptability marketing mix activity is aimed at meeting
or exceeding customers’ needs for a product/service
(Sheth and Sisodia 2012). Finally, the Awareness

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 25, no. 3 (Summer 2017), pp. 234–256.
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1069–6679 (print) / ISSN 1944–7175 (online)
DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2017.1311220

marketing mix activity involves two components: pro-
duct knowledge and brand awareness (Sheth and
Sisodia 2012). None of the aforementioned studies
offers a systematic empirical assessment of the applic-
ability of the 4A marketing mix activities in achieving
competitive performance in the EM context (see
Table 1)
The current study focuses on how firms use the 4A
marketing mix to implement Sheth’s (2011) demand
aggregation advantage proposition. Specifically, the
study addresses the following research questions: (1)
How applicable are the 4A marketing mix constructs
for measuring managerial marketing mix practices
given the marketing challenges that firms face in EM
environments? 2) To what extent does the use of 4A
marketing mix activities lead to competitive perfor-
mance, including market share (demand aggregation
advantage) and financial performance? 3) How does
the competitive environment influence the firm’s per-
formance outcomes of 4A marketing mix activities?
Taking the perspective of the strategy-structure-per-
formance (SSP) framework (Burns and Stalker 1961;
Chandler 1962; Nadler, Tushman, and Nadler 1997;
Vorhies and Morgan 2003), we argue that the applic-
ability of the 4A marketing activities is a function of (a)
their fit with competitive strategies, that is, the cost
leadership and differentiation strategy; (b) the nature
of the emerging free market competitive environment;
and (c) the firm’s performance outcomes.
The current research contributes to managerial prac-
tice by providing evidence that not only are the 4A
marketing mix constructs valid for measuring the mar-
keting mix activities in EMs, but also that nearly two-
thirds of the firms reported medium-to-high use of all
4A marketing mix activities. However, contrary to
Sheth (2011), the study findings indicate that 4A mar-
keting mix activities have a more direct influence on
financial performance than on a demand aggregation
advantage. Thus, we provide insight into how man-
agers can more clearly formulate their strategic perfor-
mance goals before deciding to build 4A marketing mix
capabilities.
Another contribution to managerial practice con-
cerns when to adjust marketing mix activities to the
emerging free market environment. Our findings indi-
cate that an emerging norm among firms seeking to
grow market share is to increase the level of affordabil-
ity marketing mix activities when government control
is expected to be highly favorable.
Summer 2017 235
A third contribution of the current research relates to
how far to integrate 4A marketing mix activities into
the overall strategic goals and structuring of firm activ-
ities. We show that firms may be better off making
these decisions based on the emerging free market
environment rather than on their strategic goals. A
minor qualification is that cost leadership strategy
firms should place emphasis on Affordability while dif-
ferentiation strategy firms should place emphasis on
Acceptability.
In the remainder of this article, we examine the
nature of the competitive business environment in a
typical EM such as Ghana, followed by a presentation
of the conceptual framework, the two field studies in
Ghana (qualitative and cross-sectional survey), and an
analysis. The article concludes with a discussion of
managerial and theoretical implications.
MARKETING THEORY AND EMERGING
MARKET ENVIRONMENT
A common view of marketing theory in the stream of
research on marketing strategy and practice is the belief
that marketing generates superior financial perfor-
mance by creating a differential advantage as argued
by Wroe Alderson (Hunt 2010). The most widely used
marketing mix for implementing the differential
advantage approach is the traditional 4Ps— product,
price, promotion, and distribution (place). However,
Sheth (2011) argues that demand differentiation
advantage is inappropriate for EM contexts in light of
heterogeneity of demand and the presence of a huge
mass market of subsistence consumers. EMs are dis-
tinct. They are characterized by the presence of two
criteria: a rapid pace of economic development, and
government policy favoring economic liberalization
and the adoption of a free market system (Arnold and
Quelch 1998). Consequently, EM firms can achieve
superior financial performance through demand aggre-
gation advantage (Sheth 2011). Other scholars
(Anderson and Billou 2007; Prahalad 2002) have
argued that marketing strategy should be implemented
through the 4As marketing mix activities—
Acceptability, Accessibility, Affordability, and
Awareness. Proponents argue that each of the 4As mar-
keting mix are highly applicable to the unique market-
ing challenges in these EMs.
First, the applicability of the Affordability element
derives from the need to adapt marketing strategies to
 Table 1
Competing Conceptualizations of the 4A Marketing Mix Framework
Focal Underlying
Authors Constructs Definitions Dimensions Assumptions

Anderson and Availability Distribution channels in BOP markets can be fragmented or non-existent and the task of Unidimensional None stated explicitly
Billou (2007) simply getting products to people can be a major hurdle to overcome.
Affordability BOP consumers have low disposable incomes, and products may also need to match the
cash-flows of customers who frequently receive their income on a daily rather than
weekly or monthly basis.
Acceptability Therefore, there is a need to offer products and services that are adapted to the unique
needs of both customers and distributors.
Awareness Many BOP customers largely inaccessible to conventional advertising media.
Sheth and Sisodia Seeker Role/ Customers’ awareness of firms marketing offer. 1.Product knowledge All mix elements are
236 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

(2012) Awareness of equal importance

2.Brand awareness
User Role/ Meeting or exceeding the customer’s needs. 1.Functional attribute Mix elements co-
Acceptability varyTo be used in
conjunction with
the 4Ps
2.Psychological
attributes
Payer Role/ Customer’s willingness to pay a given price for the product/service. 1.Economic
Affordability affordability
2.Psychological
affordability
Buyer Role/ Customer’s ability to acquire and use the product. 1.Availability
Accessibility
2.Convenience
Prahalad (2012) Accessibility Enabling access such that consumers with the lowest income in remote areas are able to Unidimensional To be used in lieu of
access the product/service to satisfy their needs. the 4Ps
Awareness Creating and Appreciation for the product or service such that BOP consumers and
producers know what is available and on offer and how to use it.
Availability Ensure uninterrupted supply of products or service in order to build trust and loyalty.
Affordability Ensuring that the product or service is affordable to all consumers in the market.
Kamande and Availability Availability is the level to which customers are able to readily acquire and use a service or Unidimensional To be used in lieu of
Jarhult (2013) product. the 4Ps
Acceptability Organizations need to offer products and services that are adapted to the specific needs
of both customers and distributors.
Accessibility Accessibility is when consumers in remote areas are able to gain access to products and
services (Adapted from Prahalad 2012).
Affordability BOP consumers have low disposable income and as such products may need to match
their cash flows because they receive their income daily as opposed to weekly or
monthly (Adapted from Anderson & Billou 2007).

the vast differences in EM’s level of economic develop-
ment, purchasing power, and consumers’ ability and
willingness to pay for products and services in the
marketplace (Dodd 2015; Shah 2012). Given these con-
ditions, EM firms must explicitly consider consumers’
miniscule disposable incomes, lack of steady income,
and their psychological willingness to pay the price of
products or services. For example, in India, firms adapt
to the local environment by emphasizing affordability
marketing strategies in several forms, such as reducing
product package size and using unit packaging (i.e.,
incorporating the use of small sachets that are afford-
able to low-income consumers (Callahan 2008).
Next, the applicability of the Acceptability element
focuses on the unique needs of local consumers. This
factor considers the need to adapt products to EM con-
sumers’ functional and psychological needs in the areas
such as food, living conditions, health, energy use,
transportation, and storage systems (Dodd 2015;
Payaud 2014). Products should also meet the buyers’
psychological needs and environmental requirements
(Dodd 2015). Acceptability also relates to proper pro-
duct customization for rural buyers and pursuing a
better fit for rural lifestyles and values (Fayaz 2012).
Coca-Cola in India, for example, provides low-cost ice
boxes in communities where there is a lack of electric
refrigerators (Fayaz 2012).
The applicability of the Accessibility element in the
4A framework derives from the need to overcome dis-
tribution and logistics infrastructure challenges in EMs.
These challenges include long travel distances to rural
markets, poor transportation infrastructure, inadequate
and less developed wholesale and retail outlets, and
convenient access to retail outlets (Fayaz; Payaud
2014; Shah 2012). In addition, EMs often lack financial
institution services needed to provide customer credit
facilities. Accessibility also considers the irregular and
sometimes unpredictable income stream of low-income
consumers and adjusts strategies to fit buyer income
availability.
Finally, the usefulness of the Awareness marketing
mix stems in large part from the need to educate or
inform consumers about brands and address the inher-
ent challenges in the development of marketing com-
munication that targets low-income EM consumers.
The challenges include culture and value differences,
low literacy rates (Payaud 2014), limited media choices
and appropriateness of media types in EMs (Callahan
2008), and media regulations that restrict media use.
Summer 2017 237
While scholars acknowledge that the usefulness of
each 4A marketing mix element varies with marketing
strategy (Nezakati et al. 2011; Prahalad 2012), there is
neither empirical evidence of the firm performance out-
comes of using the 4A marketing mix nor insight regard-
ing how such outcomes may be influenced by the
nascent free market environment. We investigate this
gap in the literature in an African EM context, Ghana.
Ghana as an Emerging African Market
Economy
Few studies have examined the usefulness of the 4As in
an emerging market such as Ghana, an African country
that is rapidly developing (Chironga et al. 2011). The
competitive landscape in Ghana is dynamic, and free
market conditions continue to proliferate (Acquaah,
Adjei, and Mensah-Bonsu 2008; Boateng 2014).
According to the World Bank, Ghana has consistently
had, and is projected to continue having annual GDP
percentage growth greater than the other developing
economies in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank 2015).
In addition, Ghana provides an appropriate African
context to empirically test the 4As applicability because
past research suggests that firms in Ghana do use mar-
keting practices such as market orientation (Kuada and
Buatsi 2005). Several scholars have conducted case stu-
dies of how multinational firms such as MTN (based in
South Africa) successfully adapted their marketing mix
to offer affordable, accessible, and culturally acceptable
cellular phone services in Ghana (DeBerry-Spence,
Bonsu, and Arnould 2012). MTN is a leading wireless
phone company in Ghana. These conditions suggest
that Ghanaian firms may indeed be willing to adopt
tailored marketing tools to implement their competi-
tive strategies.
THEORY
According to Sheth (2011), in EM context, “how a
company standardizes and aggregates demand from
highly fragmented and disbursed demand across thou-
sands of rural villages and remote locations is the key to
growth and survival” (p. 172). Therefore, we contend
that EM firms pursue demand aggregation advantage
over differentiation advantage to achieve superior
financial performance (Sheth 2011). This is the strategy
that Walmart has mastered to out-compete its rivals in
the United States and is now exporting to EMs such as
238 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Ghana (Dadzie, Winston, and Hinson 2015). However,
there is no empirical evidence of how firms implement
demand aggregation advantage in emerging markets.
Accordingly, we build on Sheth’s (2011) proposition
to investigate how EM firms use the 4As to attain
demand aggregation advantage and financial perfor-
mance. We conceive of demand aggregation advantage
as market share. Pursuing demand aggregation advan-
tage allows EM firms to leverage scale economies for
products/services that are affordable and accessible to
all consumers (Sheth 2011). We further use the strat-
egy-structure-performance (SSP) framework (Burns and
Stalker 1961; Chandler 1962; Miles and Snow 1978;
Nadler, Tushman, and Nadler 1997) as the unifying
conceptual framework for explaining the relationship
between the emerging free market environment, the
use of the 4A marketing mix, and firm performance.
The SSP Framework and Marketing Mix
Activities
The SSP framework in strategic management (Burns
and Stalker 1961; Chandler 1962; Nadler, Tushman,
and Nadler 1997; Vorhies and Morgan 2003) posits
that the strategy implementation process follows the
strategy-structure-performance sequential relationship.
In this process, firms allocate resources to various struc-
tural activities based on the fit with their overall
Figure 1
A Conceptual Framework of 4A Mix Practices in Emerging Markets
Competitive Strategy
Cost leadership strategy
(H2a)
Differentiation strategy
(H2b)
Type of Customer
Business-to-Consumer
Business-to-Business
strategic priorities. Such an emphasis, in turn,
enhances performance (Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986;
Miles and Snow 1978) because structural activities that
receive more resources are more likely to perform better
(Barney 1991; Day 1994).
Drawing on this framework, we propose that the
extent to which EM firms use all or only some of the
4A marketing mix activities is a function of the emer-
ging competitive environment, competitive strategy,
and competitive performance expectations (see
Figure 1). The emerging free market environment
includes the regulatory environment, business dyna-
mism, and technological environment (Dadzie et al.
2015). Except for the regulatory environment, these
variables have been examined extensively in both emer-
ging and industrialized markets (Slater and Narver 1994)
and EM markets (Acquaah, Adjei, and Mensah-Bonsu
2008; Aulakh, Kotabe, and Teegen 2000; Kim and Lim
1988). The evidence suggests that the competitive envir-
onment in EMs cannot be characterized as a free market
environment despite the drive toward free market poli-
cies in these countries (World Bank 2015).
The Direct Impact of the Emerging Competitive
Environment on the 4A Marketing Mix Activities
Implicit in our theoretical argument is the suggestion
that EM firms develop their marketing mix practices
Competitive Environment
Favorability of regulatory
environment (H1a), (H5a), and
(H5b)
Business Dynamism (H1b)
Technological Environment
(H1c)
Market Share
Performance (H4)
Demand
Usefulness of 4A Aggregation
Marketing Mix Activities Advantage
Affordability (H3a)
Accessibility (H3b)
Acceptability (H4)
Awareness
Financial
Performance

primarily in response to the emerging competitive free
market environment. The emerging competitive free
market environment is defined as the extent to which
market forces are replacing stringent state regulation of
businesses. The pertinent free market forces for this
study include the favorability of government regula-
tion, market dynamism, and technological change.
Each of these forces are relevant factors in implement-
ing marketing strategy decisions. There is evidence to
suggest that the level of the favorability of government
regulation is on the increase in African EMs, a result of
years of market liberalization policies (World Bank
2014). Hence, if the regulatory environment is suffi-
ciently favorable, managers will be more willing to
allocate resources to all 4A marketing activities in
order to take advantage of market growth opportu-
nities. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:
H1a: Favorability of the regulatory environment has a
positive influence on the usefulness of all 4A
marketing mix activities.
Similarly, EM economies are becoming increasingly
more dynamic as these economies advance toward free
market status. With economic growth and rising
incomes among the EM middle class, consumer taste
and preferences for branded goods are on the increase
(Acquaah et al. 2008). These trends put pressure on
firms to increase their marketing activities in all areas
of the marketing mix. Hence, we offer the following
hypothesis:
H1b: Market dynamism has a positive influence on
the usefulness of 4A marketing mix activities.
Finally, EMs now have access to affordable technol-
ogy, especially for marketing. Internet access now facil-
itates outsourcing from low-cost suppliers in Asia
(Dadzie, Winston, and Hinson 2015), for example.
The increasing presence of global retailers, such as
Walmart and Pier 1 Imports, is introducing more com-
petitive forms of marketing practices to African EMs.
This development, in turn, is putting pressure on local
firms to improve their marketing practices to protect
their market share. All these forces motivate firms in
African EMs to increase their marketing know-how by
implementing strategies that generate products or ser-
vices that are Affordable and Accessible to a large num-
ber of mass market customers. However, many EM
customers are first-time buyers (Sheth 2011).
Summer 2017 239
Therefore, firms may have to increase their marketing
efforts in Acceptability and Awareness to enhance buy-
ing decisions. Accordingly, we offer the following
hypothesis:
H1c: Technological change has a positive influence on
the usefulness of 4A marketing mix activities.
The Direct Impact of Competitive Strategy on 4A
Marketing Mix Activities
The influence of competitive strategy on the imple-
mentation of marketing decisions is well established
in the literature (e.g., Slater and Olson 2000;
Varadarajan 2010; Vorhies and Morgan 2003; Walker
and Ruekert 1987). Because competitive strategies vary
in their orientation toward customers or markets, we
propose that firms use the 4A mix activities differently
based on their competitive strategies. Two of the most
widely used competitive strategies are cost leadership
and differentiation strategies (Porter 1980; 1985).
A firm pursuing a cost leadership strategy creates
value for its customers by emphasizing cost efficiency
(Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskinson 2011; Porter 1980; 1985)
or Affordability. However, for most consumers in EMs,
Affordability alone is not enough to generate value.
Firms must also make the market offer more
Accessible and Acceptable, as well as generate
Awareness (Anderson and Billou 2007; Sheth 2011).
Therefore, firms pursuing a cost leadership strategy
can be expected to use all the 4A mix activities to
minimize the cost of serving their customers. In other
words, a product that is affordable cannot generate
enough sales unless it is also Accessible and
Acceptable, and has considerable brand Awareness
(Sheth and Sisodia 2012) when targeting the mass mar-
ket of low-income consumers in EMs. Based on this
argument, we propose:
H2a: Cost leadership strategy has a positive influence
on all 4A marketing mix practices.
By contrast, a firm pursuing a differentiation strategy
creates value for its customers by differentiating its
market offer so that it can build brand loyalty and
charge high prices (Porter 1980; 1985). Accordingly,
we propose that differentiation strategy firms do not
necessarily use all 4A activities. Rather, they emphasize
the mix activities that are unique to their customer
240 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
segments. Drawing on the strategy-structure-perfor-
mance paradigm (Burns and Stalker 1961; Chandler
1962; Nadler, Tushman, and Nadler 1997), we propose
that in the EM context, firms place less emphasis on
Affordability because of a lack of fit with the competi-
tive strategy. Differentiation strategy firms compete
mainly in the small but growing affluent market seg-
ment where customers may be more concerned with
brand image and service conveniences related to
Acceptability rather than Affordability of the product/
service. Based on this argument, we propose:
H2b: Differentiation strategy has a positive influence
on Acceptability marketing mix practices.
It is useful to note that EM firms could target both
the low-end and high-end of a particular market. In
such situations, the firms can use both cost-leadership
and differentiation strategies.
The Impact of the 4A Marketing Mix Activities on
Market Share and Financial Performance
Several studies have supported the significant relation-
ships between firms’ marketing mix strategies and per-
formance (Barrett, Ballou, and Weinstein 2000;
Bowman and Gatignon 1996). By treating the order of
market entry as a moderator, Bowman and Gatignon
(1996) found that the implementation of a strong and
quality marketing mix strategy can enable a late-
entrant firm to gain market share performance over a
pioneer firm. In the footwear industry, a relationship
between marketing mix strategies and market perfor-
mance was found, using sales revenue as a performance
measure (Chaudhury et al. 2015). Leonidou et al.
(2013) also found evidence of significant performance
payoff for UK manufacturing firms that implemented a
“Greening” marketing mix. Mintz and Currim (2013)
reported that the use of marketing and financial
metrics is positively associated with marketing mix
performance. Through measuring patient satisfaction,
a strong relationship was identified between marketing
mix strategy and hospitals’ performance (Ahmad et al.
2013). Finally, Grzegorczyk’s (2013) study of banks in
Poland also found an increase in financial performance
for banks that effectively used marketing mix strategies.
While the above studies collectively suggest that
marketing mix strategies under the 4As can be expected
to have a strong influence on market share
performance, it is unclear whether this linkage applies
to all or only some of the 4A activities. First, a systema-
tic empirical investigation of this relationship in EMs is
lacking (Anderson and Billou, 2007; Prahalad 2002).
Second, Sheth, in particular, has argued that two of
the 4A marketing mix activities—market affordability
and accessibility—are necessary for a marketing strat-
egy approach based on demand differentiation advantage
(Sheth 2011). However, since Sheth (2011) recom-
mends a demand aggregation advantage over differentia-
tion advantage for EM firms, we argue that Affordability
and Accessibility are even more necessary for demand
aggregation advantages. To aggregate demand, EM
firms need to offer standardized products or services at
a low cost that every consumer can afford and access.
This is generated using products in small sizes at extre-
mely low prices, accompanied by widespread distribu-
tion using improved channels.
Demand aggregation through affordability and
accessibility will be difficult to achieve without a corre-
sponding emphasis on acceptability and awareness for
several reasons. Many customers in EMs are first-time
buyers (Sheth 2011). Therefore, extensive improvisa-
tion in the design and adaptation of products/services
is needed to make the marketing offer more compatible
with the needs and wants of first-time buyers, just as
extensive promotion to educate them about the brand.
For example, in China, policy makers dramatically
expanded the distribution infrastructure to reach over
75 percent of rural towns and villages in the early
2000s (Feuling 2010). As a result, domestic and multi-
national firms have set up distribution hubs in various
regions to increase accessibility convenience. Many
other EMs in Africa have been following the same
trend. In Ghana, some scholars have shown that
large-scale expansion of the financial network in the
late 1980s led to strong consumer loyalty to formal
financial services that was positively associated with
all the 4A marketing mix elements (Dadzie et al.
2013), especially Affordability and Accessibility market-
ing activities. Accordingly, we propose that:
H3a: The stronger a firm’s emphasis on Affordability
marketing activities, the greater the market share
performance.
H3b: The stronger a firm’s emphasis on Accessibility
marketing activities, the greater the market share
performance.

The relationship between the 4A marketing mix and
financial performance is another aspect of the 4As that is
yet to receive empirical support. Sheth (2011) argues
that EM firms can attain superior financial performance
by pursuing demand aggregation advantage (Sheth
2011). This is possible because demand aggregation
advantage (market share) enables EM firms to leverage
the resulting scale economies to offer product and ser-
vices at low unit costs that are Affordable and Accessible,
which ultimately leads to financial performance. Other
scholars have supported this hypothesis (Dadzie et al.
2013; Eccless 1991; Mutlu et al. 2015). This strategy is
also supported by Walmart’s tremendous success with
everyday low prices (affordability) and nearly 100 per-
cent fill-rate (in-stock availability) policies. Accordingly,
the following hypothesis is offered:
H4: Market share performance has a positive impact
on financial performance.
The Moderating Role of the Competitive
Environment
Earlier, we argued that an emphasis on 4A marketing
mix activities has the potential to increase the firm’s
market share or demand aggregation advantage.
However, whether increased marketing efforts lead to
sustainable demand aggregation advantage for firms
also depends, perhaps more strongly, on the favorabil-
ity of the regulatory environment.
Given that firms aggregate demand to achieve a com-
petitive advantage (market share), through affordability
and accessibility marketing emphasis, it can be expected
that this strategy is more effective under favorable reg-
ulatory environment than less favorable regulatory
environment. Under favorable regulatory environment,
EM firms will find it more cost-effective to offer products
in smaller sizes, including sachets that increase consu-
mer perceptions of affordability. Favorability of the reg-
ulatory environment enhances stability of the
competitive environment. This encourages firms to
implement more affordability and accessibility market-
ing activities, which in turn enhances market share per-
formance. This argument is consistent with the SSP
tenet that activities that fit a firm’s competitive strategy
have priority in resource allocation decisions. This allo-
cation priority in turn enhances their performance
(Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986; Kim and Lim 1988;
Miles and Snow 1978). Accordingly, we propose:
Summer 2017 241
H5a: The more favorable the regulatory environment,
the greater the influence of affordability market-
ing mix activities on market share performance.
H5b: The more favorable the regulatory environment,
the greater the influence of accessibility market-
ing activities on market share performance.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection and Sample Characteristics
We conducted a qualitative study of 4A marketing activ-
ities in four best practice firms (see Table 3) in Accra,
Ghana, to supplement the main cross-sectional survey.
The participants in the main cross-sectional study were a
sample of middle managers and senior executives of
firms located in Accra, the industrial and administrative
capital of Ghana (see Table 1). They were administered a
short survey through interviews under conditions of
anonymity. As an incentive to participate, they were
promised a copy of the report. In EM markets, marketing
strategy is developed at the headquarters located in
urban areas, as confirmed in our qualitative study.
The interviews for the cross-sectional surveys were
conducted by trained graduate students for course
credit. The managers were interviewed at their work-
places. The students were asked to conduct the surveys
at their place of work or assigned to a list of companies
used by the authors in a previous study. Thus, the
survey respondents comprised a convenience sample
of firms located in Accra that were likely to practice
marketing mix activities in Ghana. This convenience
sampling method has proven to be effective for con-
ducting research in international markets (Coviello
et al. 2002). The final sample size, after discarding
nonusable survey responses (considering missing
values and managerial responsibilities), was 113.
As the profile of the sample in Table 2 indicates,
most respondents (85%) were between 26 and 45
years of age, and over 40 percent had worked for at
least 6 years with their current employers. Slightly over
25 percent of the respondents’ firms were consumer
product firms; 27 percent consumer service firms; 17
percent were business-to-business firms, and the
remaining 31 percent were in the “other” category.
The most common positions held were general man-
ager (38%), director (19.5 %), assistant manager (30%),
and other (12.5%).
242 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Table 2
Respondents and Organization Profile
Respondents Characteristics Frequency Percent Organization Characteristics Frequency Percent

Age categories Type of firm

Less than 25 1 0.88 Consumer package goods 20 17.7
Between 26 and 35 50 44.24 Consumer durable goods 9 7.9
Between 36 and 45 46 40.70 Consumer services 31 27.4
Over 45 7 6.10 Business-to-business-goods 7 6.1
No Response 9 7.96 Business-to business services 12 10.6
Other 34 30.0
Years with Organization Number of Employees
Under 2 years 9 7.96 Under 10 38 33.63
Between 2 and 5 years 44 38.94 Between10 and 50 59 52.21
Between 5–10 years 40 35.4 Between 51 and 100 11 9.73
Over 10 years 20 17.70 Over 100 5 4.42
Title Type of ownership
Assis Manager 34 30.09 Totally domestic 61 53,98
Manager/General Manager 43 38.05 Joint foreign/domestic 29 25.66
Director 22 19.47 Totally foreign-owned 23 20.36
Other 14 12.39 Total 113 100%
Total 113 100%

Scale Development and Questionnaire Design
The four focal constructs operationalized and measured
in the present study include (1) the applicability of 4As of
the market mix (Affordability, Accessibility,
Acceptability, and Awareness), (2) competitive business
strategies (differentiation and cost orientation), (3) firm
market share performance (a proxy for demand aggrega-
tion advantage), and (4) the competitive environment
including regulatory environment, market dynamism,
and technological change. Scales for the applicability of
4As of the marketing mix were developed based on the
literature (Brodie et al. 2007; Pride and Ferrell 1985; Sheth
2011), following conventional scale development proce-
dures. All multi-item scales were measured on a five-point
Likert scale. In the interest of parsimony, a full descrip-
tion of the study scales is provided in the Appendix.
Prior to data collection, the scales were validated in
Ghana by a local university collaborator to ensure that
they captured the scope of the latent constructs. As part
of the validation process, several academic experts in
Ghana examined the questionnaire for content specifi-
cation concerns. Individual items were also examined
for specification concerns to certify that the measures
were comprehensive enough to represent the scope of
the research constructs in a Ghanaian context. Table 4
shows significant inter-correlations among the focal
study constructs between .69 and .75, implying that
the 4As constructs are related constructs. A test of mul-
ticollinearity using established procedures (Charttejee
and Price 1991) reveals inflation indices of less than
5.0, well below expected threshold of 10.0 (Belsley,
Kuh, and Welsch 1989).
Scale Accuracy Analysis
The applicability of the 4A marketing mix constructs
was assessed based on (a) established criteria, including
scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) of 0.7,
(b) a composite reliability (CR) index of 0.7, and (c) an
Average-Variance-Explained (AVE) value of 0.5 (see
Appendix). As shown in the Appendix, all Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients were above the threshold; all the CR
estimates exceeded the criterion values; all the AVE
estimates, except one, were greater than 0.5 (Hair
et al. 2006). Thus, the results provide evidence of accep-
table scale reliability for the 4A framework.
Testing for convergent validity involved examina-
tion of the factor loadings of each manifest indicator
(i.e., scale item) to its corresponding construct, using a
value of 0.5 as the threshold (White, Varadarajan and
Dacin 2003). Each item exceeded that threshold,
affirming that these items measured the constructs
they were expected to measure.

Summary Responses to Structured Qualitative Interview Questions
Company A
4A Marketing Practice Textile
Affordability Question: Our products are differentiated to We create and communicate value We have products that suit different The willingness to pay for our
How do you ensure target customer groups—from
your customers are high-end to the low-end of the
able and willing to pay market, based on quality and
for your products and price. Customers buy the type of
services? textiles that they can afford.
Customers often save money to
buy the type of textile clothing
they want. For wholesale and
retail distributors and vendors,
we give them credit facilities and bonuses for recharging and
discounts based on volume.
Accessibility Question: We sell our products through
How do you ensure wholesalers, retailers and our
that your products own company shops. The
and services are distributors operate in urban and
readily available and rural areas of the country. In
convenient to buy? addition, our company truck-
salespeople move our textiles to
district and township local
markets, to sell.
Table 3
Company B
Wireless (Mobile) Company C Company D
Communication Com Food Products Textile
for, and to our customers. This segments of the society in terms products is entirely up to the
ensures that our customers find of their purchasing power. For consumer, depending on his/her
value in the products and services example, customers can buy purchasing power. On our part,
they buy. Our value propositions products brands priced from high we try to advertise our product
are extensively communicated to low, and they can also buy brands and communicate our
through various platforms. We large packages or small sachets. quality. Customers buy the brand
offer different price levels, and Strategically, we develop and quality they can afford. Due to
customers buy what they can package our products such that the menace of low-price pirated
afford. We give our customers everybody can afford one product product brands, consumers have
or the other. become price sensitive. We
subscribing to certain cervices. emphasize the quality of our
fabrics which influences our
customers’ willingness to pay for
our products.
We sell to our customers through Besides the distributors and We engage the services of third
various platforms, such as credit wholesalers that we have, we party logistics companies to
transfers from vendors to employ over 200 direct transport fabrics from our factory
subscribers, mobile money salespeople who have been to the regional capitals where our
recharge that allows loved ones equipped with vehicles and district sales managers move the
and family members to share tricycles, who are able to visit textiles to our wholesalers,
credits. We also sell through every remote area in the country. retailers and other trade partners
online recharge, street vending, Each salesperson visits at least 50 in the districts. The wholesalers
wholesale and retail shops, shops in a day. They also visit and retailers are given trade
including supermarkets and each shop at least once every supports and promotional items
convenient store. We provide week to restock store inventory. to push the products in the
tables and umbrellas to our Consumers of our product brands market. we conduct periodic
salespeople so they can sell buy our products directly from surveys to measure market
phone cards at lorry parks, local shops and vendors. coverage.
hospital grounds, and other
public places.
(Continued )
Summer 2017 243

Company A
4A Marketing Practice Textile
Acceptability Question: In the textile industry, consumers’ Our research and data analyses are When it comes to milk products, we Our customer feedback and
How do you ensure inputs are critical to the success
that your products of our manufacturing and
and services meet and marketing operations. We solicit
exceed your customers’ inputs in the design
customers’ needs? and manufacture of our textile
products. We receive feedback
from customers about the
performance of our products. In
Ghana, schools, churches, public
and private organizations come
to us with their designs, and we
manufacture customized textile
materials for them. Many of our
textile designs received the
approvals of our distributors and
customers before we produced
them.
Awareness Question: Customers know about our
How do you ensure products through our promotion
that your customers messages using billboards, radio,
know about your television, and work-of-mouth
products, services, communication. We use english
and brand? and local languages in our
promotion messages. We also
sponsor the Miss Ghana Beauty
Contest, and a national television
show.
Table 3
(Continued)
Company B
Wireless (Mobile)
Communication Com
the basis of all our product design try to meet all the needs of the analyses enable us to design and
and offerings. We conduct
extensive research into the needs
of our customers to satisfy them.
Through research, we segment
our customers based on lifestyles
and usage. So we are able to
design products and services that
match their different lifestyles
and consumption patterns. In
fact, the relevance of our
solutions to anticipated and
identified needs of the market
and specific customer segments is
very important.
Our company invests much money We do effective advertising through We provide a lot of trade support.
into both above the line
(traditional media) and below the
line (word-of-mouth) promotion
activities to engage our
customers at various relevant
touch points. Field salespeople,
consumer engagement at high
traffic locations in cities, towns communication. We organize
and villages, and consumer touch
points have become a key
strategy that we have developed.
We have also introduced regional
service value propositions which
are also gaining grounds and
yielding good returns.
Company C Company D
Food Products Textile
consumers in terms of creaminess produce our products to meet
and taste. We meet all of these customers’ needs. We continually
needs with different flavors that research consumer tastes and
we produce. We have products values to help us produce textiles
that meet the satisfaction of that are in fashion and consumers
244 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
nursing mothers because we desire. Consumer research drive
make sure it contains the major the production of our product
nutrients that the baby needs. brands.
We conduct research in hospitals
and health centers where we
learn what nurses recommend to
nursing mothers about child
nutrition, and we make sure we
incorporate the information in
the development of our products.
the electronic media (TV and We give promotional materials
radio), product merchandising, like carrier bags, key holders,
branding to create awareness clocks, and aprons to push the
and visibility of our product products to consumers through
brands in the minds of our wholesalers, retailers, market
consumers. Our product brands sellers, and promotion event
also benefit from word-of-mouth centers. We do a lot of TV, radio,
and billboard advertising. We
market actions and community offer sponsorships to institutions
actions. The community actions and organizations by giving out
involve visiting the community fabrics, especially in fashion
anytime of the day or night with show.
giant screened movies, or games
with product sampling. We also
conduct research to get feedback
from consumers as a way of
measuring our products’
effectiveness.
 Summer 2017 245

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for 4As
Variable Mean Std. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. MKTSH 3.12 .92 1.0

2. FINCP .12 .17 .20 1.0
3. AFFORD 2.87 1.41 .69 .69 1.0
4. ACCESS 2.16 1.24 .60 .78 .71 1.0
5. ACCEPT 2.66 1.40 .62 .83 .75 .72 1.0
6. AWARE 2.35 1.32 .53 .74 .69 .79 .68 1.0
7. LOWCOST 3.04 1.32 .47 .52 .63 .39 .58 .25 1.0
8. DIFFEREN 3.02 1.01 .50 .58 .60 .35 .45 .58 .54 1.0
9. CONS .27 .44 –. 07* –.04* –.05* .04* –.07* –.01* –.05* .0 1.0
10. B2B .24 .42 .07* –.03* .04* –.02* –.09* .01* –.34 .09* .08 1.0
11. REGENV 2.70 1.30 .63 .45 .65 .72 .36 .20 .21 .08 .07 .27 1.0
12. BUSDYN 2.30 1.20 .45 .43 .45 .52 .56 .50 .55 .53 .50 .48 .38 1.0
13. TECHENV 2.96 1.00 .47 .43 .52 .44 .51 .43 .78 .40. .45 .60 .55 .35 1.0
Notes: Not significant at P <.05.MKTSH = market share, FINCP = financial performance, AFFORD = affordability, ACCESS = accessibility, ACCEPT =
acceptability, AWARE = awareness, LOWCOST = low cost strategy, DIFFEREN= differentiation strategy, CONS = consumer markets, B2B=business-
to-business markets, REGENV = regulatory environment, BUSDYN = business dynamism, TECHENV = technological environment.

The following criteria were applied to establish discri-
minant validity: (a) each latent construct’s AVE value had
to exceed shared variances (squared correlations between
latent constructs) between all possible pairs of reflective
constructs, and (b) item cross-loadings, that is, each item
of a construct loaded more to its own construct (i.e.,
factor loadings) than to other constructs. The AVE values
fell within accepted ranges; there were no statistically
significant item cross-loadings. (For a complete summary
of the measurement properties, see the Appendix.) Thus,
evidence for discriminant validity was established, sug-
gesting that the research scales captured distinct compo-
nents in this study. We conclude that the 4As constructs
meet the measurement properties for an applicable mea-
surement instrument in an EM context, such as Ghana.
Analysis of Qualitative Study
This section presents the qualitative interviews con-
ducted at four leading companies in Ghana. The pri-
mary goal was to verify the applicability of the 4A
activities from an emic perspective. The four companies
are in (1) wireless (mobile) phone services and products,
(2) textile (manufacturing and marketing) (two compa-
nies), and (3) consumer food products. Table 3 presents a
summary of the responses of the four senior marketing
managers to personal interview questions in the quali-
tative study. The four managers make marketing strat-
egy decisions for their companies. The managers, in the
average, have been with their companies for over seven
years and have been in the marketing manager positions
for over five years. All the managers interviewed are
males and hold university graduate degrees in market-
ing. They are all in the 30–45 years age bracket. The four
companies are domestically owned, and have affilia-
tions with multinational companies. The companies
manufacture and market products and services nation-
ally. The interviews were conducted by a trained gradu-
ate field research professional and lasted 90 minutes.
The managers were assured complete anonymity in the
study. Prior to the interviews, the managers were sent a
copy of the following structured interview questions:
1. Affordability: How do you ensure that your cus-
tomers are able and willing to pay for your pro-
ducts and services?
2. Accessibility: How do you ensure that your products
and services are readily available and easy to buy?
3. Acceptability: How do you ensure that your pro-
ducts and services meet and exceed your custo-
mers’ needs?
4. Awareness: How do you ensure that your customers
know about your products/services and brand?
The initial list of questions was examined by a sam-
ple of colleagues in the United States and two business
colleagues in Ghana and reduced to the final list based
on their comments and suggestions. All interviews
were recorded on a smartphone and were also recorded
246 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
in handwritten form. Excerpts from the managers’
responses are given below. The detailed discussion of
the questions is summarized in Table 3.
Affordability Marketing Mix Practices
Excerpt # 1
“Our products are differentiated for target customer
groups—from high-end to low-end of the market—
based on quality and price. Customers buy the type of
textiles that they can afford. Customers often save
money to buy the type of textile clothing they want.”
Manager, Company A, Textile Company
Excerpt # 2
“We offer different price levels, and customers buy
what they can afford. We give our customers bonuses
for recharging and subscribing to certain services.”
Manager, Company B, Wireless (Mobile) Company
Excerpt # 3
“We have products that suit different segments of the
society in terms of their purchasing power.
For instance, customers who cannot afford Brand A can
buy Brand B, and customers who cannot afford a large
package or container can buy a small sachet.
Strategically, we develop and package our products
such that everybody can afford one or the other.”
“Our products are offered to customers in different
packaging, tins, and sachets in various sizes with corre-
sponding prices.”
Manager, Company C, Consumer Foods Company
Excerpt # 4
“Customers buy the brand quality they can afford. Due
to the menace of low-price pirated product brands,
consumers have become price sensitive. We emphasize
the quality of our fabrics, which influences our custo-
mers’ willingness to pay for our products.”
Manager, Company D, Textile Company
Conclusion
All four excerpts reveal affordability as an important
element of marketing strategy of all the firms with an
emphasis on the economic dimension and little evi-
dence of the psychological dimension. However, the
consumer foods firm appears to use affordability more
pervasively as means of aggregating demand compared
to the other firms. We can conclude that affordability
marketing is of wide applicability under the EM condi-
tions in Ghana.
Accessibility Marketing Mix Practices
Excerpt # 5
“We sell our products through wholesalers, retailers,
and company shops. These distributors operate in
urban and rural areas of the country. In addition, our
truck salespeople move our textiles to district and
township local markets to sell.”
Manager, Company A, Textile Company
Excerpt # 6
“We sell through online recharge, street vending,
wholesale and retail shops, including supermarkets
and convenient stores. We provide tables and umbrel-
las to our salespeople so they can sell phone cards at
lorry parks, hospital grounds, and other public places.”
Marketing Manager, Company B, Wireless (Mobile)
Company
Excerpt # 7
“We employ over 200 direct salesmen who have been
equipped with vehicles and tricycles and are able to
visit every remote area, with each person visiting at
least 50 shops in a day.”
Marketing Manager, Company C, Consumer Foods
Company
Excerpt # 8
“We engage the services of third party logistics compa-
nies to transport fabrics from our factory to the regional
capitals where our district sales managers move the
textiles to our wholesalers, retailers, and other trade
partners in the districts. The wholesalers and retailers
are given trade supports and promotional items to push
the products to the market.”
Marketing, Manager Company D, Textile Company

Conclusion
All four excerpts reveal that the companies in Ghana
emphasize the convenience of physical accessibility but
rarely mention availability convenience. The consumer
food company appears to emphasize availability the
most (50 visits a day).
Acceptability Marketing Mix Practices
Excerpt # 9
“We solicit customers’ input in the design and manu-
facture of our textile products. We receive feedback
from customers about the performance of our products.
In Ghana, schools, churches, public and private orga-
nizations come to us with their designs, and we man-
ufacture customized textile materials for them.”
Marketing Manager, Company A, Textile Company
Excerpt # 10
“We conduct extensive research into the needs of our
customers to satisfy them. Through research, we seg-
ment our customers based on lifestyles and usage. So
we are able to design products and services that
match their different lifestyles and consumption
patterns.”
Marketing, Manager, Company B, Wireless (Mobile)
Company
Excerpt # 11
“When it comes to milk products, we try to meet all the
needs of the consumers in terms of creaminess and
taste. We meet all of these needs with different flavors
that we produce. We have products that meet the satis-
faction of nursing mothers because we make sure it
contains the major nutrients that the baby needs.”
Marketing Manager, Company C, Consumer Foods
Company
Excerpt # 12
“Our customer feedback and analyses enable us to
design and produce products to meet customers’
needs. We continually research consumer tastes and
preferences to help us produce textiles that are fashion-
able and appealing to consumers.”
Marketing Manager, Company D, Textile Company
Summer 2017 247
Awareness Marketing Practices
Conclusion
Looking at the summary in Table 3, all the firms use
conventional and improvised promotional strategies to
create awareness at the urban and village levels.
Collectively the findings suggest that EM firms use
all 4A activities to pursue multiple market segments
(such as the huge mass market and the small affluent
market segments).
We next explore the performance impact of each com-
ponent of the 4As in the cross-sectional analytical study.
Analysis of the Quantitative Data
Quantitative analysis of the survey data starts with an
examination of the level of use of each of the 4A mix
activities on a five-point Likert scale. Firms were classi-
fied as reporting “low use” of a marketing mix activity if
their mean rating for that activity was below the scale
mean rating of 2.5 out of 5.0. They were classified as
reporting “medium use” of a marketing mix activity if
their mean rating was between 2.5 and 3.5. Finally, firms
were classified as reporting “high use” if their mean
rating for a given marketing mix was higher than 3.5.
Next, a hierarchical regression was conducted to test
the study hypotheses. In the first set of regression ana-
lyses, the competitive environmental variables were
regressed against the Aggregate 4A marketing mix con-
struct means. The second analysis involved a repeat of the
first but with each of the 4A activities as the dependent
variables instead of the overall 4As. In the third analysis,
market share performance served as the dependent vari-
able, while the fourth analysis included all study variables
with interaction effects and market share as the depen-
dent variable. The analysis was repeated with financial
performance (ROI) as the dependent variable.
Results
How firms use the 4A Marketing Mix Activities
Table 5 shows that nearly two-thirds of the firms
reported medium-to-high use of the 4A marketing
mix (59.7% = 36.9% + 22.8%). The highest use fre-
quency is for Affordability marketing (65.6% = 36.3%
+ 29.3%) and Acceptability marketing (66.4 = 37.2% +
29.2%), followed by Awareness marketing (59.4% =
248 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Table 5
Frequency of Use of 4A Marketing Mix Activity Type (% of Firms)
Frequency of use All 4A Marketing Affordability Marketing
Low 40.3 37.2
Medium 36.9 36.3
High 22.8 29.3
100%. 100%
Minimum value 1 1
Maximum Value 5 5
Construct Mean 2.75
VIF 3.30
Note 1: Low = mean use frequency of 2.5 or less on a five-point scale. Medium = mean use frequency between 2.5 and 3.5 on a five-point scale.
High = mean use frequency greater than 3.5 on a five-point scale.
36.3% + 23.1%) and Accessibility marketing (50.5% =
38.1% + 12.4%). These results suggest that all 4A mar-
keting mix activities are highly applicable, but that
accessibility marketing is the least applicable of the
four elements.
Hypothesis Testing
To explain the variation in the applicability of the 4A
marketing mix, the study hypotheses are summarized
in Table 6. H1a posits a positive influence of the reg-
ulatory environment on all 4A activities. This hypoth-
esis is supported in the aggregate model, Column 2 (β =
.64, t = 3.50, p<.001). H1a is also supported for each of
the individual 4A mix activities. The strongest support
is for Affordability (β = .67, t = 3.60, p <.001), followed
by Accessibility (β = .60, t = 3.10, p<.001), Acceptability
(β = .59, t = 3.05, p <.001), and Awareness (β = .58, t =
3.05, p <.001).
H1b, which posits a positive influence of market
dynamism on all 4A marketing activities, is supported
for Accessibility marketing (β = .14, t= 1.98, p <.01 and
Acceptability marketing (β = .12, t = 1.98, p <.01).
However, H1c, which posits a positive influence of
technological change on all 4A marketing activities, is
not supported for any of the 4A marketing mix activ-
ities. These findings suggest that the high applicability
of the 4A marketing mix activities are in response to
the improving favorability of the regulatory environ-
ment and market dynamism.
H2a, which posits a positive impact of cost leader-
ship strategy on all 4A marketing mixes, is only mar-
ginally supported for Affordability marketing activities
Awareness
Accessibility Marketing Acceptability Marketing Marketing
49.6 33.7 40.7
38.1 37.2 36.3
12.4 29.2 23.1
100.0% 100% 100%
1 1
5 5
2.15 2.66 2.35
2.44 3.88 3.14
(β = .15, t = 1.96, p <.05). Similarly, H2b, which posits a
positive impact of differentiation strategy on
Acceptability marketing, is only marginally supported
(β = .18, t = 1.98, p <.05). These results suggest that the
influence of competitive strategies on the usefulness of
4A marketing practices pales in comparison to the con-
tribution of the emerging free market competitive
environment.
There was no significant influence of market type
(consumer vs. business-to-business) on any of the 4A
mix activities.
Mediation/Moderation Effect of 4A Marketing Mix
Practices
The regression results pertaining to the hypothesis that
the affordability and accessibility marketing mix are
necessary to attain a demand aggregation advantage
(Sheth 2011) or market share (H3) are summarized in
three stages. The first is for the competitive environ-
ment and market share performance (or market share
model 1). The second stage is for the mediation effects
of 4As (market share model 2). The third is for the
interaction effects (market share model 3).
In the results for the competitive environment (market
share model 1), the regulatory environment is signifi-
cantly and positively related to market share performance
(β = .40, t = 2.77, p <.01), as is technological change (β =
.37, t = 3.05, p <.001) and low-cost strategy (β = .14, t =
1.98, p <.05). However, when the aggregate 4A marketing
activities are introduced into the model (market share
model 2), the regulatory environment is no longer sig-
nificant (β = .20, t = 1.30, ns) while market dynamism
 Table 6
The Relationships Among the Competitive Environment, 4As Marketing Mix Activities and Firm Performance
DV= DV= DV= DV=
DV= DV= DV= DV= MKTSH MKTSH MKTSH FINPERF
DV=4As Aggregate Model) AFFORD ACCESS ACCEPT AWARE Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1
Antecedents β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value) β (t-value)

Environmental
Antecedents
REGENV 1 (R1) .64 (3.50)** .67 (3.60)** .60 (3.10)** .59 (3.05)** .58 (3.05)** .40 (2.77)** .20 (1.30) .20 (1.30) –.02 (–0.13)
BUSDYN (B) .12 (0.50) .01 (0.01) .14 (1.98)* .12 (1.98)* .04 (0.04) –.19 (–1.47) –.26 (–2.10)** –.26 (–2.10)** .03 (0.20)
TECHENV (T) .05 (0.05) –.02 (0.02) –.04 (–.0.04) –.10 (–0.04) –.12 (–1.80) .37 (3.05)* .29 (2.52)* .29 (2.52)* .04 (0.22)
CONSUM –.06 (0.01) –.06 (–0.05) –.02 (–0.01) –.02 (–0.02) –.07 (–0.07) –.06 (–0.01) –.04 (–0.05) –.04 (–0.05) .01 (0.07)
BUSINESS .01 (.01) .03 (.03) .04 (.04) .04 (.04) .03 (.03) .02 (.02) –.02 (.0.29) –.02 (.0.29) –.05(–0.52)
Strategic
Orientation
LOWCOST .02 (0.04) .15(2.10)* .01 (.03) .06 (0.08) .09 (0.05) .14 (1.98)* .15 (1.99)* .15 (1.99)* .11 (0.81)
DIFFEREN .13 (1.98)* .12 (1/20) .04 (0.20) .18* (2.20) .12 (1.78) .11 (1.70) .12 (1.70) .12 (1.70) .18 (2.10)*
4As (Aggregate) .24 (2.77)* .22 (2.15)* .23 (1.92)
MKTSH ————— .10(1.40)
Affordability .24 (2.77)* 26 (2.07)*
Accessibility .20 (2.10)* 21 (1.98)*
Acceptability .11 (0.95) .20 (1.98)*
Awareness .07 (0.18) .03 (0.26)
Interactions x R .
Affordability x R .74 (2.91)** .44 (2.24)*
Accessibility x R .15 (0.46) .15 (0.46)
Acceptability x R .39 (1.14) .16 (1.20)
Awareness x –.76 (–1.17) .44 (1.40)
Affordability x B .12 (0.16) .39 (1.14)
Accessibility x B –.05 (–0.07) –.76 (–1.17)
Acceptability x B .25 (0.46) .12 (0.16)
Awareness x B .22 (0.12) .15 (0.46).

Affordability x T .44 (–0.81) .25 (0.46)

Accessibility x T .13 (0.18) .22 (0.12)
Acceptability x T –.16 (–0.17) –.44 (–0.8 1)
Awareness x T .29 (0.43) .13 (0.89)
Model Summary .
F-Value 9.13** 25.23*** 22.20*** 23.5** 12.60** 10.50** 9.43** 7.14** 9.50**
Adj. R-Sq .42 .73 .65 .67 .48 .51 .62 .54 .58

*** p<.001, ** p <.01, * p<.01)

Note: interactions test were conducted for cost-strategy and differentiation strategy but these results were not significant.
Summer 2017 249
250 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
now becomes a significant predictor of market share per-
formance (β = –.26, t = –2.10, p <.05), as does technologi-
cal change (β = .29, t = 2.52, p <.01). These results indicate
a mediation effect of the aggregate 4A marketing mix
model on the relationships between the regulatory envir-
onment and market share performance. This mediation
effect of 4As increases the total explained variance from
.51 to 61.5 or by 11.5 percent. This finding suggests that a
favorable regulatory environment is a prerequisite to the
integration of the 4A marketing mix framework as an
applicable tool for the EM context.
The direct effects of the 4A marketing mix activities
are reported in the third market share model (columns
9, Table 6). Affordability marketing mix (H3a) is signif-
icantly related to market share (β = .24, t = 2.77, p <.01),
as is the Accessibility marketing mix (β = .20, t = 2.10, p
<.05) as redacted (H3b). The low-cost strategy is also
marginally related to market share (β = .15, t = 1.99, p
<.05).
The regression results for the interaction effects of
competitive environmental variables with each 4A
activity are summarized under Market Share Model 3
(the last column of Table 6). The results indicate that
the competitive environmental variables including
business dynamism (β = –.26, t = –2.10, p <.05) and
technological change (β = .29, t = 2.52, p <.01), low-cost
strategy (β = .15, t = 1.99, p <.05) and affordability
marketing (β = .24, t = 2.77, p <.01) are the major
drivers of market share performance.
H4 which posits a direct impact of market share/
demand aggregation advantage on financial perfor-
mance is not supported by virtue of the lack of signifi-
cant relationships in Table 6, Column 9 (β = .10, t =
1.40, ns). Moreover, only one interaction effect, afford-
ability and regulatory favorability (β = .74, t = 2.91,
p<.01), has a significant impact on market/share/
demand aggregation advantage (H5a). This finding
confirms the prior dominant effects of both the regula-
tory environment and affordability marketing on per-
formance, implying that the impact of affordability
marketing practices on market share performance
increases with the greater favorability of regulation in
the competitive environment. This hypothesis was not
supported for accessibility (H5b).
The corresponding regression results for financial
performance are summarized under the last column in
Table 6. As shown, there is no significant influence of
any of the competitive conditions on financial perfor-
mance. The differentiation strategy is, however,
significantly and positively associated with financial
performance (β = .18, t = 2.10, p <.05). With respect
to the impact of the aggregate 4A framework on finan-
cial performance, the relationship is close but not sig-
nificant (β = .23, t = 1.92), p <.ns). However, all
individual 4A marketing mix activities except
Awareness are significantly and positively related to
financial performance. The strongest influence is
Affordability (β = .26, t = 2.07, p <.01) followed by
Accessibility (β = .21, t = 1.98, p <.05), and
Acceptability (β = .21, t = 1.98, p <.05). Awareness
marketing is not significantly related to financial per-
formance (β = .03, t = 0.02). These findings suggest that
most 4A marketing mixes have a direct impact on
financial performance.
CONCLUSIONS
With the increasing importance of emerging market
economies as sources of market growth for firms, scho-
lars are increasingly touting the unique conditions in
these economies as providing opportunities for testing
and developing marketing theories and practices
(Burgess and Steenkamp 2006; Dodd; Kuada and
Buasti 2005; Shah 2012; Sheth 2011). The 4A market-
ing mix is one such focus of attention in the literature
(Anderson and Billou 2007; Kamande and Jarhult 2013;
Prahalad 2012; Sarkar and Pareek 2013). In this section
of the article, we discuss the contribution and implica-
tions of the study findings for marketing theory and
practice.
Contribution to Theory
Our first contribution pertains to the applicability of the
4A marketing mix constructs for measuring marketing
mix practices in emerging market conditions such as
Ghana. This finding documents that the constructs not
only exhibit acceptable measurement validity and relia-
bility but also that nearly 60 percent of the firms report
medium-to-high use of all 4A marketing mix activities.
This finding is consistent with the results of the qualita-
tive study of the four best practices in Ghana.
The second contribution pertains to the question of
how firms use each of the 4A marketing mix activities. In
this regard, we extend Sheth’s (2011) demand aggrega-
tion advantage proposition by documenting that
Affordability and Accessibility marketing activities lead
to market share (demand aggregation) performance. In

addition, the 4As can generate financial performance
directly independent of market share performance.
The third contribution is the relative influence of the
competitive environment and competitive strategy on
the extent of the use of 4A marketing activities. We
show that the emerging competitive environment has a
strong and positive impact on the use of all 4A marketing
activities, including Affordability and Accessibility. By
contrast, the cost leadership strategy has only a marginal
influence on Affordability marketing activities, while the
differentiation strategy also has only a marginal influence
on the Acceptability marketing mix activities. Hence, we
can conclude that the emerging free market environment
is the primary contributor to the usefulness of affordabil-
ity and accessibility marketing mix elements for achiev-
ing demand aggregation advantage (Sheth 2011).
However, we also found that market dynamism drives
the usefulness of acceptability marketing mix. This find-
ing implies that some firms pursue multiple market seg-
ments simultaneously by targeting both the huge mass
market as well as the upper-end markets. Our qualitative
study of the four Ghanaian firms confirm these findings.
For example, managers of the two textiles companies
consistently claimed that consumers save to buy what
they want (conspicuous consumption), so price may
not be a major constraint on affordability. Acceptability
is probably more important. Consequently, demand
aggregation is not the only marketing practice being
used. Market dynamism also encourages firms to empha-
size acceptability marketing mix activities.
The fourth contribution relates to how the nature of
the emerging free market environment influences the
potential relationship between the 4A activities and firm
performance. We show that while only Affordability
and Accessibility have significant positive influence on
market share performance, the influence of the former is
enhanced by the favorability of the regulatory environ-
ment. What is new about this finding is that not all 4A
marketing mix activities benefit from increased free mar-
ket environmental conditions. Only Affordability and
Accessibility increase market share.
With respect to the financial impact of the 4A activ-
ities, we show a direct impact of all the mix activities
on financial performance, except awareness marketing
mix. Contrary to Sheth’s (2011) assertion, there is no
link between financial performance and market share
(demand aggregation advantage). The lack of a relation-
ship between market share and financial performance
(as proposed by Sheth), may however be a limitation of
Summer 2017 251
the use of a one-year measure of financial performance.
Hence this proposition by Sheth remains inconclusive.
The findings that the competitive strategies only
marginally influence the use of 4A activities suggest
that the strategy-structure-performance framework
may not fully explain the role of competitive strategy
in an EM context. This limitation suggests that firms
are not yet ready to integrate marketing mix as part of
their long-term strategies.
Managerial Implications
Firms frequently adjust their marketing mix to respond to
changes in the marketing environment to better serve
their customers. In EMs, these decisions are compounded
by the competing influences of the emerging free market
environment versus the lingering state-controlled envir-
onment. At the same time, such marketing mix decisions
must address the need to aggregate fragmented demand.
The current study shows that in Ghana’s emerging mar-
ket context, the 4As can be used to implement marketing
strategy, with a focus on Affordability and Accessibility.
An emphasis on both marketing mix activities may lead
to market share growth. With market share growth, EM
firms can generate scale economies to further support
affordable and accessible products or service that all con-
sumers can afford (Sheth 2011), and ultimately achieve
superior financial performance. However, our study
failed to support a direct link between market share and
financial performance. While this may be a weakness of
using a one-year measure of financial performance, this
finding suggests managers should be cognizant of the
potential financial losses associated with aggressively
building market share. Thus investment priorities must
be pursued within the appropriate competitive environ-
ment, a critical requirement for achieving market share
but not financial performance. For financial perfor-
mance, an emphasis on the 4As is more than adequate.
Another managerial implication of the study per-
tains to firms that do not target the mass markets,
where demand aggregation is necessary. For these
firms it is still possible to achieve financial performance
directly by managing the level of Acceptability and
Accessibility marketing capabilities.
The third managerial implication relates to the useful-
ness of the marketing mix as a tool for integrating long-
term business strategies. Our study findings suggest that
most firms do not use the 4As to implement long-term
marketing strategies. Perhaps the free market
252 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
environment is not developed enough to warrant such
long-term decisions. Managers should therefore be careful
not to be too far ahead of the free market learning curve.
In particular, management must allocate resources
for developing marketing mix capabilities on the basis
of their impact on performance in order to achieve
optimal performance effectiveness. Thus, to adapt to
the nascent free-market environment, all 4A activities
are useful for implementing marketing strategies for
targeting multiple segments (both the huge mass mar-
ket and the high-end market segment). However, to
sustain and grow market share, managers must place
higher priorities in the allocation of resources for devel-
oping Affordability and Accessibility marketing capabil-
ities. To maximize financial performance, priority must
be placed on Acceptability in addition to Affordability
and Accessibility marketing capabilities.
Limitations and Future Research
Although our study demonstrates the applicability of
all 4A marketing mix activities, as always, these percep-
tual measures are likely to change over time and in
different EM contexts. Hence, these results may not
generalize to other EMs whose competitive environ-
ments are not similar to those in Ghana. Thus, a fruit-
ful future research would be a comparative study of the
use of 4As involving emerging markets with larger
affluent consumer segments than those in Ghana.
Such a study would provide additional insight into
the influence of Affordability relative to other 4A activ-
ities or even across different customer categories (con-
sumer vs. business-to-business).
Our study establishes the generic role of the 4As in a
cross-sectional design. A fruitful extension would be stu-
dies using ethnographic research design to examine how
firms adapt the 4As to different market segments in con-
trast to the 4Ps. While scholars have argued that the 4Ps
are less appropriate for the EM context of fragmented
heterogeneous demand, which warrants demand aggre-
gation, other scholars have suggested that firms use both
the 4As and the traditional 4Ps to generate greater value
for their customers (Sheth and Sisodia 2012).
REFERENCES
Acquaah, Moses, Mike C. Adjei, and Isaac F. Mensah-Bonsu
(2008), “Competitive Strategy, Environmental
Characteristics and Performance in African Emerging
Economies: Lessons From Firms in Ghana,” Journal of
African Business, 9 (1), 93–119.
Ahmad, M. K. Ala’Eddin, Abdullah Ali Al-Oarni, Omar Z.
Alsharqi, Dalia A. Qalai and Najla Kadi (2013), “The
Impact of Marketing Mix Strategy on Hospitals
Performance Measured by Patient Satisfaction: An
Empirical Investigation on Jeddah Private Sector
Hospital Senior Managers Perspective,” International
Journal of Marketing Studies, 5 (6), 210– 227.
Akaah, Ishmael P., Kofi Q. Dadzie, and Edward Riordan
(1988), ‟Applicability of Marketing Concepts and
Management Activities in the Third World,” Journal of
Business Research, 16 (2), 133–148.
Anderson, Jamie, and Niels Billou (2007), “Serving the
World’s Poor; Innovation at the Base of the Economic
Pyramid,” Journal of Business Strategy, 28 (2), 14–21.
Arnold, D. J., and J. A. Quelch (1998), “New strategies in
emerging markets,” Sloan Management Review, 40 (1), 7–
20.
Aulakh, Preet S., Masaaki Kotabe, and Hildy Teegen (2000),
“Export Strategies and Performance of Firms From
Emerging Economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and
Mexico,” Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 342–361.
Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Barrett, Hilton, Joseph L. Ballou and Art Weinstein (2000),
“Marketing Mix Factors as Moderators of the Corporate
Entrepreneurship—Business Performance Relationship—
Multistage, Multivariate Analysis,” Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 8 (2), 50–62.
Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch (1980),
Regression Diagnostics: New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Berg, Elliot. J. (1968), “Socialist Ideology and Marketing
Policy in Africa,” in R. Moyer and S.C. Hollander, eds.,
Markets and Marketing in Developing Economies, 24–47,
Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
Boateng, Sheena L. (2014), “Application of the 4Ps in
Emerging Markets,” Essays From My Ph.D., University of
Ghana Business School, Ghana, 1–15.
Bowman, Douglas and Hubert Gatignon (1996), “Order of
Entry as a Moderator of the Effect of the Marketing Mix
on Market Share,” Marketing Science, 15 (3), 222–242.
Brodie, Roderick. J., Heidi Winklhofer, Nicole E. Coviello, and
Wesley J. Johnston (2007), “Is e‐Marketing Coming of
Age? An Examination of the Penetration of e‐Marketing
and Firm Performance,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
21 (1), 2–21.
Burgess, S. M., and J. E. M. Steenkamp (2006), “Marketing
Renaissance: How Research in Emerging Markets
Advances Marketing Science and Practice,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, (4), 37–356.
Burns, Tom E., and G. M. Stalker (1961), The Management of
Innovation, London, UK: Tavistock.
Callahan, David (2008), “The 4Ps and 4As of Rural Marketing,”
http://managementstudies.blogspot.com/2008/12/4-ps-
and-4-as-of-rural-marketing,.Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Ugur
Yavas (1984), “Transfer of Management Knowhow to
Developing Countries: An Empirical Investigation,”
Journal of Business Research, 12 (1), 35–50.

Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. (1962), Strategy and Structure, New
York: Doubleday, Anchor Books.
Charttejee, Samprit and Bertram Price (1991), Regression
Analysis by Example, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Chaudhury, R. Bianka, Asif A. Syed, and Raj Agarwal (2015),
“Study on the Impact of Marketing Mix on Export
Performance—vis-à-vis the Leather Footwear Exporting
SMEs of India,”Global Journal of Enterprise Information
System,7 (3), 28– 37.
Chironga, M., A., Lund S. Leke, and A. van Wamelen (2011),
“Cracking the Next Growth Market: Africa,” Harvard
Business Review, 89 (5), 117–122.
Constantinides, E. (2006), “The Marketing Mix Revisited:
Towards the 21st Century Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing Management, 22 (3–4), 407–438.
Coviello, Nicole E., Roderick J. Brodie, Peter J., Danaher, and
Wesley J. Johnston (2002), “How Firms Relate to Their
Markets: An Empirical Examination of Contemporary
Marketing Practices,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 33–46.
Dadzie, Kofi Q., Evelyn M. Winston and Robert Hinson
(2015),”Competing With Marketing Channels and
Logistics in Africa’s Booming Markets: An Investigation
of Emerging Supply Chain Management Practices in
Ghana,” Journal of Marketing Channels, 22 (2), 137–152.
_____, Charlene A. Dadzie, Evelyn M. Winston, and Charles
Blankson (2013), “Inclusive Economic Development
Programs and Consumers’ Access to Credit in Emerging
Market Economies: The Public Policy Role of Marketing
in Rural Bank Programs in Ghana,” Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 59–69.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–52.
DeBerry-Spence, Benet, Sammy K. Bonsu, and Eric J. Arnould
(2012), “Market Development inthe African Context,”
in L. Penaloza, N. Toulose and L.M. Visconti. eds.,
Marketing Management: A Cultural Perspective, 93–109,
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Dodd, David G. (2015), “Why You Need the 4A’s and the 4P’s
for Effective Marketing,” https://www.linkedin.com/
pulse/why-you-need-4as-4ps-effective-marketing-g-
david -dodd.
Drucker, Peter F. (1958), “Marketing and Economic
Development,” Journal of Marketing (January), 252–259.
Eccles, R. G. (1991), “The Performance Measurement
Manifesto,” Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb. 131–137.
Fayaz (2012), “The 4As – Roadblock to the Rural Marketing
Strategy,” http://marketing bloggers.in/2012/07/30/the-
4as-roadblock-to-the-rural.
Feuling, B.A. (2010). “Developing China Sales and
Distribution Capabilities,” China BusinessReview, July 1,
http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/2010/07.
Galbraith, Jay R., and Robert K. Kazanjian (1986), Strategy
Implementation: Structure, Systems, and Process (2nd ed.),
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 187 pp.
Gronroos, C. (1994), “From Marketing Mix to Relationship
Marketing: Towards Parading Shift in Marketing,
Management Decisions,” 32 (2), 4–20.
Grzegorczyk, Wojciech (2013), “Marketing-Mix Strategies of
Banks in Poland,” Research Papers of Wroclaw
University of Economics, NR 316, 41–54.
Summer 2017 253
Hair, Joseph. F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Ralph E.
Anderson, and Robert L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate
Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hitt, M. A., R. D. Ireland, and R. E. Hoskisson (2011), Strategic
Management: Competitiveness & Globalization: Concepts
and Cases (10th ed.), Mason, OH: South-Western,
CengageLearning.
Hunt, Shelby (2010), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues
in the Philosophy of Marketing Science, Cincinnati: South-
Western Publishing.
Kamande, Sylvia, and William Jarhult (2013), “Reaching the
Mass Market of the Pyramid: Using the Five A’s
Concept,” Master Thesis; Linnaeus University of
Business and Economics.
Kim, Linsu, and Yooncheol Lim (1988), “Environment,
Generic Strategies, and Performance in a Rapidly
Developing Economy: A Taxonomic Approach,”
Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4), 802–827.
Kuada, John, and Seth N. Buatsi (2005), “Market Orientation
and Management Practices in Ghanaian Firms:
Revisiting the Jaworski and Kholi Framework,” Journal
of International Marketing, 13 (1), 58–88.
Leonidou, N. Constantinos, Katsikeas, S. Constantine, and
Morgan, A. Neil (2013), “‘Greening’ the Marketing Mix:
Do Firms Do It and Does It Pay Off?,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 151–170.
Miles, Raymond E., and Charles C. Snow (1978),
Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mintz, Ofer and Currim, S. Imran (2013), “What Drives
Managerial Use of Marketing and Financial Metrics and
Does Metric Use Affect Performance of Marketing-Mix
Activities?,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 17– 40.
Mutlu, C. C., W. Zhan, M. W. Peng, and Z. J. Lin (2015),
“Competing in (and out of) Transition Economies,”
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32 (3), 571–596.
Nadler, David A., Michael L. Tushman, and Mark B. Nadler
(1997), Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational
Architecture, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nezakati, Hossein, Abu, Mimi L. and Toh, Cowan (2011),
“Exploring Hierarchy Situation of 4A Marketing Mix on
Malaysia’s Fast Food Restaurants,” World Applied Sciences
Journal 15 (8), 1157–167.
Payaud, Marielle A. (2014), “Marketing Strategies at the
Bottom of the Pyramid: Examples From Nestle,
Danone, and Procter & Gamble,” Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 33 (2), 51– 63.
Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, NY: Free
Press.
_____ (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K. (2012), “Bottom of the Pyramid as a Source of
Breakthrough Innovations,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management: 29 (1), 6–12.
_____ (2002), “Strategies for the Bottom of the Economic
Pyramid: India as a Source of Innovation,” Society for
Organizational Learning and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 3 (4), REFLECTIONS.
254 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Pride, William M., and O. C. Ferrell (1985), Marketing: Basic
Concepts and Decisions (4th ed.), Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sarkar, Dev N., and Gagan Pareek (2013), “Rural Marketing in
Bhutan: An FMCG Perspective,” The IUP Journal of
Management Research, 12 (3), 7–28.
Shah, Ali M. (2012), “Business Strategies in the Emerging
Markets,” Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 13, 4–15.
Sheth, Jagdish N. (2011), “Impact of Emerging Markets on
Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and
Practices,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 166–182.
_____ and Rajendra Sisodia (2012), The 4As of Marketing:
Creating Value for Consumers, Company and Society, New
York, NY: Routledge.
Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver (1994), “Does
Competitive Environment Moderate the Market
Orientation-Performance Relationship?” Journal of
Marketing, 58 (1), 46–55.
_____ and Eric M. Olson (2000), “Strategy Type and
Performance: The Influence of Sales Force
Management,” Strategic Management Journal, 21 (8),
813–829.
Van Waterschoot, Walter, and Christophe van den Bulte
(1992), “The 4P Classification of the Marketing Mix
Revisited,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (4), 83–93.
Varadarajan, Rajan (2010), “Strategic Marketing and
Marketing Strategy: Domain, Definition,
Fundamental Issues and Foundational Premises,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38,
(2),119–140.
Vorhies, Douglas W., and Neil A. Morgan, (2003), “A
Configuration Theory Assessment of Marketing
Organization Fit With Business Strategy and Its
Relationship With Marketing Performance,” Journal of
Marketing, 67 (1), 100–115.
Walker, Orville C., Jr., and Robert W. Ruekert (1987),
“Marketing’s Role in the Implementationof Business
Strategies: A Critical Review and Conceptual
Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (3), 15–33.
White, J. Chris, P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Peter A. Dacin
(2003), “Market Situation Interpretation and Response:
The Role of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture,
and Information Use,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (3),
63–79.
World Bank (2014), Doing Business 2014: Going Beyond
Efficiency, Comparing Business Regulations for Domestic
Firms in 189 Countries (available at http://www.Doing
business.org/media/GIAWB/Doing Business/
Documents/Annual Report/English.
—–– (2015), http://data.worldbank.org/country/ghana.
 Summer 2017 255

APPENDIX

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Study Measures and Other Study Questions

Factor
Item Description Loadings t-value SE

The 4A Marketing Mix: Intensity of Use

Affordability: To increase affordability of our products, our company. . .
Frequently lowers prices to attract new customers. .82 25.50 .04
Tries to offer products in affordable packages and sizes. .84 27.87 .04
Uses all various methods to lower cost of products to customers. .81 3.53 .06
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .78). AVE= .55
Accessibility: To increase availability and accessibility of our products, our company. . .
Has been seeking to maintain high inventory levels to meet customer needs. .73 19.41 .03
Has been licensing our names to other companies in order to make products available and accessible in various .85 18.26 .04
regions.
Uses various methods to make our products accessible and available. .72 112.40 .04
Has been cooperating with other business partners that deal with complementary products to increase availability .74 13.50 .04
levels.
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .72. AVE = .54
Awareness: Our company seeks to generate awareness of our products and services by engaging in the
following activities. . .
Sales promotion efforts (e.g., free samples, sales contests, sweepstakes, and coupons). .73 17.60 .04
Dissemination of information about various brands to the public and customers. .83 19.20 .04
Develops sales promotion activities in various regions. .73 21.40 .04
Uses all other methods to increase awareness of our company products/services. .78 25.30 .05
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .79). AVE = .58
Acceptability: To increase acceptability of our products, our company. . .
Conducts extensive market research to update our product to meet customer needs. .71 12.30 .04
Tries to focus on products that meet the needs of our loyal customers. .72 12.50 .04
Uses similar products and packaging that meets customer preferences and expectations. .71 11.40 .04
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .79). AVE = .52
Business Dynamism
Customer preferences are continually evolving in our industry. .81 21.00 .03
Customer demand for our products varies continuously. .77 18.00 .04
Our major competitors are continually introducing new products into our markets. .78 18.00 .04
Our major competitors are continuously devising new selling strategies. .81 21.00 .03
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .81). AVE = .60
Technological Change
Technological change provides big opportunities in our industry. .72 10.06 .06
A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in our .78 17.60 .04
industry.
It is difficult to forecast where technology will be in the next 2–3 years. .82 21.00 .03
The technology in our industry is changing rapidly. .81 21.00 .03
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80). AVE =.52
Strategic Orientation
Differentiation
Competitive advantage through superior products/services. .73 15.05 .03
New product/service development. .72 14.69 .06
Building up a premium product/service brand image. .90 37.90 .02
Building corporate reputation. .85 27.43 .03

(Continued )
256 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

(Continued)
Factor
Item Description Loadings t-value SE

Integrating branding with the overall strategy. .79 20.30 .04

Obtaining high prices from the market.* .64 8.70 .03
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .77). AVE = .50
Cost Orientation
Pursuing operational efficiencies. .81 20.11 .04
Pursuing cost advantages in procurement. .82 20.47 .03
Pursuing economies of scale. .76 16.12 .04
Gaining market share through aggressive pricing. .87 30.64 .03
Advertising.* .56 5.20 .03
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .78). AVE = .59
Regulatory Environment: .84 24.0 .03
We make a sincere effort to adjust to customer complaints.
Generally, business self-regulation is effective in our market/industry. .84 24.0 .03
Marketing managers in this industry do not feel constrained by government regulators in formulating .79 18.9 .04
innovative marketing strategies.
In general, we rely far more on free market forces than government regulators in developing our marketing .77 17.0 .04
strategies.
Generally, government intervention has had no adverse impact on our pricing, distribution, and other .70 9.8 .06
competitive marketing activities.
It is not uncommon in our industry to evade government regulation.* .55 4.5 .02
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .76). AVE= .48
Financial Performance: Organizations’ actual use of the following measures of performance:
Sales growth. .78 18.0 .04
New customers gained. .75 17.0 .04
Market share. .87 26.6 .04
Customer retention. .84 21.4 .04
Profitability. .79 19.2 .03
Customer satisfaction. .82 22.3 .04
How organization performed relative to expectations for:
Attaining desired sales growth. .79 19.2 .03
Gaining new customers. .78 16.5 .03
Securing desired market share. .74 16.2 .04
Retaining current customers. .84 21.5 .04
Attaining desired profitability. .80 20.5 .04
Achieving customer satisfaction. .79 17.0 .03
(Cronbach’s Alpha= .84). AVE = .57.
Organization’s sales revenue last year _______? n/a n/a n/a
Organizations Return on Investment last year _______%. n/a n/a n/a
Notes: Model statistics: χ2179 = 344.91, p < .001; CFI = .92; NFI = .91; NNFI = .92; RMSEA = .049; AIC = 446; SBC = 642.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.