Failures of Transactional Marketing: An Analysis

Failures of Transactional trade An AnalysisA. R. Lacey (1996), in Dictionary of Philosophy explains epitome as a sh ard assumption or an accepted conjecture which governs the outlook of an epoch and its begin to scientific problems braggart(a) standard forms of solutions to problems. at bottom the physical and centrey sciences, it is common for champion paradigm, a dominant paradigm to be prevalent. Currently, the dominant market paradigm, the accepted mock up of how merchandising works and should be integrated with the rest of the world, is what has come to be called Transactional selling (TM) (Gronroos, 1996 Aijo, 1996 Gummesson, 1987 Berry, 1983 Jackson, 1985 Payne, 1995).This research is in the outgrowth head concerned with what has been called blood market (RM), a term alluded to by Thomas (1976), but first explicitly used by Berry (1983 see Kotler, 1992 Gronroos, 1990, 1991 Hunt and Morgan, 1994 Berry, 1995 Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995 Turnbull and Wilson, 1989). The foundations of Relationship market argon inextricably abstruse with the organic evolution and example of Transactional merchandising. The underpinning theories and conceptualisations of RM often only exist in relation, or opposition to the theory and blueprint of Transactional Marketing. It is therefore necessary to understand Transactional Marketing before RM can be fully comprehended.The American Marketing Association has defined (transactional) merchandising as the help of conceptionning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and consumption to create exchanges that satisfy individual and judicatureal objectives. (AMA Board, 1985). The selling concept is a very simple but flop idea. The scoop way for a company to meet its objectives, profit do or many otherwise, is by conform to guests-the achievement of corporate goals through meeting and exceeding node needs better than the contender (Jobber, 2001). This is best d one by all members of the fast(a) seeking to serve the needs of the node, even at the outlay of producer inconvenience. If this concept is adopted by the organisation, it leads to what is called a market orientation. The analysis and subsequent review of transactional market will be in cardinal parts, an appraisal of its theoretic origins, festering and weaknesses and an examination of the standard ways in which firms implement it. The next section will critique the Transactional Marketing Paradigm on two main fronts. These being firstly, criticisms based on theoretical weaknesses or omissions, and secondly, criticisms rough the way in which theory and role models encounter been misunderstood or ignored by firms. Both of these categories however, emerge out of the unique frugal and social environment indoors which the transactional merchandising paradigm weakened (Webster, 1992 Aijo, 1996).1.1. THE BIRTH OF MARKETING THEORYThe origins of Transactional Marketing ato mic number 18 in microeconomics, compass north America and the 1950s. Prior to WWII, economists actual price theory to embrace what they called oligopolistic competition (Chamberlain, 1933 Sheth, Gardner and Garrett, 1988 Waterschoot and van Den Bulte, 1992). This theoretical development led early merchandise theoreticians (McGarry, 1950 McKitterick, 1957 Alderson, 1957 see Gronroos, 1994, 1996) to create lists of selling variables deduced from econometric, profit optimising equations- the so called extendalist school of trade (McGarry, 1950). In turn, this inspired Borden (1954) to introduce the concept of the market mix, a list of 12 variables (product, price, branding, distribution, personal selling, advertising, promotions, packaging, display, servicing, physical handling, fact finding and analysis which the marketer would have to see in any given billet. And would blend the various ingredients or variables of the mix into an integrated merchandising program. (Gronro os, 1994b350).In a seminal work, McCarthy (1960) presented the trade mix circumspection approach, re remodeling Bordens passe-partout 12 variables into the now familiar 4P model (Price, Product, Promotion and Placement). The theoretical foundations of this model have been severely questioned (Waterschoot and Van Den Bulte, 1992 Gummesson, 1987 Sheth et al, 1988 Webster, 1992 Duncan and Moriarty, 1998). Principally, these questions stem from the fact that the original microeconomic variables, derived through empirical induction had solid theoretical foundations, whilst Bordens list had only second-order links to these foundations and, crucially, was non intended as an exhaustive exposition or method of implementation but merely as a set of guidelines inwardly a fully integrated market program. Real world developments and its intact simplicity ensured the rise and rise of the 4P model and its attendant Marketing Mix Management theory. 1950s North America -a huge domestic mark et of app arntly homogenous and insatiable customers -led to rapid increases in the collect for standardise consumer goods and the crowning of the United States as the dominant marketing culture. In time it became the basis of modem transactional marketing (Takala and Uusitalo, 1996 Kotler, 1992 Aijo, 1996).The simplicity and communic big patronage organizationman of the marketing mix paradigm, in combination with its app bent success, combined to turn marketing into a highly effective impact machine (Gr6nroos, 1996c 16). Transactional Marketing rapidly became the overwhelmingly dominant marketing paradigm (Dixon and Blois, 1983, Kent, 1986).1.2. MARKETING IN CONTEMPORARY ORGANISATIONSGiven the great number of organisations which pay at least lip- proceeds to the richness of marketing, a diversity of methods of implementing transactional marketing is inevitable (Brodie et al, 1997). The nearly typical structure, and one commonly found deep down the context of end-user orient ated firms (Christy et al, 1996) is to have in spite of appearance the organisation a sub-unit, separate from the rest of the firm, with responsibility for marketing market analysis, advertising, sales promotion, pricing and distribution (Buttle, 1996 Deshpande and Webster,1989 Gurnmesson, 1994). The principal focus of this research is on the family among such firms, and their customers.In everyday marketing vocabulary.marketing segment, an organisational unit, is used as a synonym for marketing function (Gronroos, 1994). The tax write-off is clear, Transactional Marketing theory suggests that marketing can be treated as a separate, discrete function, kinda than as an integrated one (Berry and Parasuraman,1995 Waterschoot and Van Den Bulte, 1992 Palmer, 1994 Payne, 1995 Thomas, 1996). The existence of these marketing subdivisions echoes much about the functionalist, scientific econometric origins of transactional marketing. The philosophy of implementation prevalent within western business is that specialists should themselves take care of a task for specialists (Gronroos, 1996). In many businesses, the marketing department is seen as having total responsibility for various marketing tasks, such as market analysis, market planning, advertising, sales promotion, pricing, distribution and product packaging (Gronroos, 1994). This begs the question that if the marketing department takes care of these entire fundamental issues, what exactly is the rest of the business for?One of the primary and most traditional Justifications of adopting a marketing orientation or else than a sales or production orientation is that marketing integrates the other functions of the business (Bennett, 1996 Jackson, 1985) into a to a greater extent than coherent whole, built around the needs and wants of the customer. The conclusion of creating a marketing department is to bring about a situation where, within an organisation, marketing department is used as a synonym for ma rketing function, which is the process of taking care of the fulfilment of customer needs and desires. As a consequence, the rest of the organisation is alienated from marketing, and the marketers are isolated from design, production, deliveries, technical portion, complaints handling, and other activities of the firm (Gronroos, 1994). Marketing is being treated as a specialist steering function, or else than a general management issue (Gronroos, 1996).Within such organisations, there is a clear-cut distinction inferred from marketing mix management theory amid those who are involved with marketing, and those who arent. This process has been called the Ghettoisation of marketing (Gummesson, 1987).It has been strongly argued (Gummesson, 1987,1990,1994 Duncan and Moriarty, 1998 Aijo, 1996 Christy et al, 1996 Heide and John, 1995) that the distinction amongst the marketer and non-marketer is an artificial one. Opportunities for marketing activity are non restrain to those insi de the marketing department. What do the following people have in common a telephone operator connecting a customer with a salesperson an installation team from the supplier spending two weeks on the buyers premises put and testing newfound equipment a management consultant presenting a progress report in an engagement? (Gummesson, 1991). The answer is of course, that these are all people outside the marketing department, therefore by definition not trusty for marketing where, nevertheless, their military postures and way of doing their job have an impact on the customers perception of the firm (Gronroos, 1996).These non-marketers, with their influence on the firms ability to market itself efficiently and effectively have been called part-time marketers (Gummesson, 1987).1.3. SUMMATION OF THE PROBLEMS INHERENT TO THE MARKETING MIXThe origins of marketing mix management theory, and the transactional marketing paradigm it gave rise to be in the USA, the nineteen-fifties and micro economics. The theoretical foundations of this paradigm are questionable in terms of its translation from econometric modelling and its pedagogical simplification. At best, the 4P model was fitted for the unique marketing environment created by the post WWH American autarchy. The theoretical weaknesses of the transactional marketing paradigm have been highlighted by radical changes in the business environment, such as the globalisation of competition and the increasing mundaneness of consumers and products. These weaknesses are especially apparent in contexts that are significantly different from that of its origins -most noticeably services marketing and European markets. The academic response has been to avoid the problem by papering over the theoretical cracks. Within firms, the creation and stagnation of marketing departments has ghettoised, neutered and isolated marketing from the consumer and even the rest of the firm. As a result of this, transactional marketing treats the consumer as passive and fails to fully recognise the marketing importance of interaction between front-line staff and customers.Transactional Marketing fails its own definition. It is a production orientated definition of marketing, not a customer orientated one.THE ORIGINS OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETINGTHE OTHER MARKETING THEORIESThe origins of Relationship Marketing are in Europe, the nineteen-eighties, and dissatisfaction with the Transactional Marketing paradigm. It was mention earlier that transactional marketing theory was principally developed from its origins in end-user, consumer markets. Relationship Marketing draws on a broader theoretical base (within a marketing context), with concomitant development within the services and business to business (B2B) marketing literatures. The term Relationship Marketing, alluded to by Thomas (1976) was first explicitly used by Berry (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991 Berry, 1995 Gummesson, 1987 Gronroos, 1996 Payne and Richard, 1993 Robicheaux and Coleman, 1994 Payne and Frow, 1997). It has also been called customer-focused management (Gummesson, 1994), or relationship management (Payne, 1996). Berry (1983) used the term within the context of criticising services marketing literature, arguing that researchers and businessmen have concentrated far more on how to attract consumers to products and services than on how to retain those customers. He advocated a switch from a transactionary approach, where marketing political campaign was focussed on customer attraction, to a relational approach, where the attraction of new customers should be viewed only as an intermediate step in the marketing process (Berry, 1995), and the primary objective was retaining customers.Berry (1983) defined Relationship Marketing as attracting, hold opening and -in multi-service organisations -enhancing customer relationships. Simultaneously, Hammarkvist, Hakansson and Mattson (1982), working within the arena of business-to-business marketing (G ronroos, 1996), advanced similar definition (Andersson and Soderland, 1988 Anderson, Hakansson and Johanson, 1994) all activities by the firm to build, maintain and develop customer relations. (Hammarkvist et al, 1982 cited Gurnmesson,1987). That relationships should be managed and built has become a cornerstone of twain the Nordic and the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) School of marketing (Mattsson, 1997 Gronroos, 1996c). This parallel development within separate areas of research is far from coincidental (Takala and Uusitalo, 1996). As with the Transactional Marketing literature, each of these streams of research emanates from within a specific business environment (Aijo, 1996).SERVICES MARKETINGIt was argued earlier that the Transactional Marketing Paradigm habits origins within a unique and highly specific business environment, that of the North American consumer goods markets of the 1950s. It was come on suggested that these origins limited the care for of TM as a universal theory of marketing, and that primarily within the context of end-user orientated literature, development consisted of re-jigging a redundant theoretical format.The deviation from this specific business environment was greatest within the domains of service marketing and business to business marketing (Mattsson, 1997), albeit in very different ways. The theory and practice of transactional marketing assumes that consumers are available in great numbers and behave passively. Within industrial and service markets, the synergetic Participation of the customer is required to successfully complete the exchange (Gummesson, 1987), within business, customer-firms are often limited in numbers. An ancillary implication of treating the customer as passive, more or lessone to whom things are done (Dixon and Blois, 1983) is to instil within the business the philosophy of competing with customers, rather than interactive co-operation.Transactional Marketing Theory maintains the assu mption of its microeconomic origins in that the marketing mix is a tool used to help a company optimise maximise its profit function (Waterschoot and Van den Bulte, 1992 Gronroos, 1991). It is because of this that firms consider marketing objectives met at the point of customer attraction -i.e. moment of exchange. When marketing a service, it is argued that the objectives should not only be to only to attract, but to then keep and maintain the customer-to develop a long-term relationship with them (Bitner et al, 1994 Cravens and Piercy, 1994 Gronroos, 1991 Gummesson, 1987b). When selling a physical product, the costs of production are bring out by the revenue of the purchase. With a service, the volume of costs are often incurred whilst setting-up the service (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991 Booms and Bitner, 1981), for example account statement and banking. The implication of this is that longer-term strategy, in conjunction with placing significant emphasis on customer retention wi ll pay dividends (Berry, 1995 Payne and Richard, 1993 Parasuraman et al, 1991 Gronroos, 1990), and indeed, empirical evidence to run on this has been found. Reichheld and Sasser (1990) have demonstrated across a variety of service industries that gain climb steeply when a company successfully lowers its customer defection ratethe researchers found that the firms could improve win from 25 percent to 85 percent by reducing customer defections by just 5 percent. Not only do loyal customers generate more revenue for more years, the costs to maintain existing customers frequently are lower than the costs to acquire new customers (Berry, 1995). Other studies have leaved further evidence of the benefits of a long-term, customer retention strategy within competitive consumer-service markets, Storbacka (1997), Gwin (1988) and Perrienet al (1993) in banking, Crosby and Stephens (1987) in insurance. Moments of Truth and the Crucial Role of the Part-Time Marketer. Firms producing end-user products often sell through an intermediate, retailing company. As such, opportunities for marketing are in show via mass-media and market research (Henry, 1994). The interaction required within service and business-to-business marketing enforces a more direct approach (Gronroos, 1994). The image and reputation of the firm cannot solely be constructed through promotion. interaction between a consumer and the firms part-time marketers (Gummesson, 1987) will result in that consumer have a positive or negative perception of the company (Price et al, 1995 Cravens and Piercy, 1994) a process that Gronroos (1982) calls perceived service quality.Given the intangibility of service products, this perceived service quality is of the utmost importance, the consumer has little else by which to judge the firm outside of his direct interaction with it (Ferguson,1996 Bitner et al, 1994). The marketing effort of the part-time marketers therefore forms the bulk of the firms marketing impact (Gronro os, 1996), often they are the only marketers around (Normann, 1983). Research shows that the customer will judge the quality of the service and form an attitude to the provider both from the experience of the production1delivery process and of the future benefits of the service (Lehtinen, 1985).In a situation where the majority of marketing activity does not come from the full-time marketers within the marketing department, it makes little sense to plan the activities of this department separately. It was argued earlier that if such a department is considered by the rest of the firm to be taking care of the marketing function, it will become increasingly difficult to create an interest in marketing amongst unwitting part-time marketers (Gronroos, 1982 Christy et al, 1996). A marketing orientation is only achieved when all members of an organisation has asked them how do I contribute to excellence in customer relations and to revenue (Gummesson,1991 60).An auxiliary concept to that o f the part-time marketer is that of points-if-marketing (Normann, 1983), more poetically called moments of truth. These are natural opportunities emerging in the production and delivery process for example, the interaction between a doctor and a patient (Gummesson, 1991). For these occasions to be positively resolved, marketing moldiness be designed-into the process, rather than tacked-on.RELATIONSHIP MARKETING DEFINITIONS FROM SERVICE LITERATURESince Berry (1983), other authors have presented selection definitions of Relationship Marketing within the services marketing literature. RM concerns attracting, developing, and retaining customer relations (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991). establishing a relationship involves giving promises, maintaining a relationship is based on fulfilment of promises and, finally, enhancing a relationship means that a new set of promises is given with the fulfilment of earlier promises as a prerequisite. (Gummesson, 1991). The core of these ideas from services marketing is the interpersonal interaction between buyer and seller interaction. The organisation should be structured and managed so that promises worth making can be kept. Clearly, a relationship between two parties is something that grows in strength through tell exchanges over a period of time, it is not instantaneously generated.BUSINESS TO BUSINESS AND NETWORK MARKETING much(prenominal) moments of truth also exist within a business-to-business context. If the interaction between producer and consumer is crucial in services marketing it is doubly so within B2B marketing -principally because of the relatively low number of customers/suppliers (Andersson et al, 1994 Blois, 1997 Dabholkar et al, 1994). These dyads do not exist in isolation. Within the business marketing literature it has become clear that the theoretical foundations of contemporary work are not shared with the Kotlerian (Andersson and Soderland, 1988) marketing mix theory, which has microeconomic ancest ry. Instead, network-theory, which attempts to model the process of resource exchange in markets where both buyer and seller are firms or other organisations has its origins in empirical work conducted over the last 20 years, principally in Northern Europe (Mattsson, 1997). The results of these studies, when assessed as a body of work, highlight several commonalities in the exchange behaviour between firms that contradict business philosophy derived from the transactional marketing paradigm (Elg and Johansson, 1996). B2B partners are characterised as active and mutually dependent, with the buyer and seller both able to initiate an exchange. Interaction between the organisations was not the sole purview of a marketing department but instead between the equivalent departments in each firm -inter functionally.In practice, it was recognised that the marketing emphasis had switched from optimising the marketing mix to the management of the firms relationships (Andersson and Soderland, 19 88). Network theory suggests that markets are heterogeneous, rather than homogenous (Matthyssens and Van Den Bulte, 1994). The marketing objectives of the firm became to establish, develop and decide when to terminate its relationships with the customers and suppliers in its network (Hammarkvist et al, 1982).This divergence from the transactional marketing paradigm was driven by factors in the business environment (Blois, 1997 Andersson and Soderland, 1988). Many of the economic and social characteristics of Norse countries where much of the empirical work was conducted helped to highlight the differences between consumer markets and business to business markets (Andersson and Soderland, 1988). These economies have been traditionally noted for high aims of concentration in industry, a considerable amount of interaction between firms, the state and grok unions, and the national dependence on the export of highly confused products (Porter, 1985). In general terms, business-to-busi ness markets are characterised by a limited number of potential customer-firms, encouraging businesses to maintain relations with their partners over-time (Anderson and Narks, 1984, 1990), rather than the start-stop philosophy of transactional marketing. The change magnitude level of interaction between the partners and the individualistic requirements of each customer obviate the need for a standardised marketing program (Dabholkar et al, 1994). Relationships must be tailored, not off the peg (Harland, 1996).The management of relationships is a complex issue, Hakansson and Johanson (1992) acetones relationship management problems as either limitation or handling problems. Limitation problems concern the firms management of its portfolio of relationships -its collection of dyadic interactions. These problems concuern which, if any, of the firms relationships should be emphasised (Andersson and Soderlund, 1988). To misquote Clausewitz, he who emphasises everything, emphasises nothi ng. Handling problems concern the manner in which relationships are established, and once established, how they are maintained, developed and judged appropriate for termination.Within a network, what are the relational objectives of an organisation? Transactional Marketing advocates a competitive stance, the results of any interaction between a buyer and seller must result in one winning -and one losing (Doyle and Engermann, 1992 Donaldson, 1996). Network theory espouses co-operation to produce a win-win situation (Deshpande and Webster, 1989). Despite this, network theorists consider that firms must work to deepen chosen relationships, to achieve some level of power -also called bonds over their partners whilst striving to remain free of such bonds themselves (Andersson and Soderlund, 1988). Relationships can create bonds of several types, planning, knowledge, heavy and social (Berry, 1985).The end of the relationship will incur switching costs, not necessarily purely financial. T he original quote being He whose fends everything, defends nothingBUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP MARKETING DEFINITIONSSince Hammarkvist et al (1982) defined relationship marketing within the context of business network marketing, others have proposed alternatives. RM is an emergent disciplinary framework for creating, developing and sustaining exchanges of range between the parties involved, whereby exchange relationships evolve to provide continuous and stable links in the supply arrange (Ballantyne, 1994) .. Is not directly aimed at immediate transactions but is based on building, supporting and extending customer relationships (Matthyssens and Van denBulte, 1994). RM is the process of co-operating with customers to improve marketing productivity through efficiency and effectiveness (Parvatlyar, 1996). At the heart of these ideas is the concept of a partnership where both parties require co-operative behaviour from the other in order for the relationship to be mutually benef icial -neither has many other alternatives, to buy from or supply to. The focus is not at the level of one-on-one interaction of services marketing, but is instead much wider -it is necessary for cock-a-hoop groups on both sides to contribute.THE RELATIONAL CONSTRUCTS OF COMMITMENT AND TRUSTUntil quite recently, little attempt had been made to provide network theory with the conceptualisations necessary to understand the processes of relationship maintenance and development. Whilst an initial model was presented by Dwyer, Schurr and Oh (1987), the first serious attempt test a model in a structured manner was in a seminal paper by Morgan and Hunt (1994), (see Kalatatis and Miller, 1996 Hunt, 1997 Gronroos, 1996a Gummesson, 1997).Relationship Marketing refers to all marketing activities enjoin towards establishing, developing and maintaining successful relational exchanges. Morgan and Hunt (1994)They further argue that Relationship Marketing requires the successful management of rel ationships with the firms partners. Such management requires the establishment, maintenance and development of relationships, in which understanding of concepts like commitment and trust are keys. Morgan and Hunt have suggested that commitment and trust are amongst the key mediating variables that distinguish productive, effective relational exchanges from those that are inefficient and ineffective (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Furthermore, commitment and trust between partners in a network leads directly to co-operative behaviours in three ways. Firstly, they predispose the partners towards actively preserving relational investments. Secondly they help to prevent partners from adopting short-term, opportunistic behaviours. Thirdly, they help to support the view of high-risk actions as being prudent in the longer term (Hunt, 1997). Morgan and Hunt construct what they call a KMV (Key Mediating Variable) model to show the central importance of commitment and trust in marketing relationship s.THE BEGINNINGS OF A RELATIONAL PARADIGM?The increasing awareness of the limitations of the Transactional Marketing Paradigm, in conjunction with the development of run marketing and Network marketing has led to calls for a substantial change in the marketing philosophy, practice and ethos (Daskou, 1997 Clarkson et al, 1997 Palmer, 1994). in the authors view, the present marketing concept, as it appears in research, textbooks and seminars is unrealistic and needs to be replaced (Gummesson, 199 1). The need for a paradigm shift in Marketing, based on a Relationship Theory is being advocated more and more strongly ( Gronroos, 1990).This change is not skin-deep, it will not be quick, and it will not be painless. RM suggests different focus and different underpinning values for marketing that, in my view justify calling RM a new paradigm and the beginning of a new marketing theory. (Gummesson, 1994). It requires a totally new approach to some of the fundamental thoughts in marketing the transition from a transaction-orientated marketing mix-based practice of marketing to a relationship-oriented one is not an uncomplicated process. The old paradigm has deep roots in the minds of marketers as well as non-marketers in a company. (Gronroos, 1996).What then, is the association between Transactional and Relational marketing? Any meaningful answer to this decisive question requires a definition of Relationship marketing. The first definition of RM offered as a general rather than a business/services/consumer marketing specific definition is to be found in Gronroos (1991). Marketing is to establish, maintain and enhance, and where necessary end relationships with customers and other parties at a profit so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is done by a mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises. As Aijo (1996) notes from the work of Sheth et al (1988), passim its historymarketing has been generally dominated at any one time by one prevailing per spective. The implication of this is firstly, that the transactional paradigm will be completely replaced by the relational paradigm, and that secondly, the association between the alternative paradigms is competitive, rather than complementary. For some brief time, this view received wide support, no doubt influenced by the weaknesses of the transactional paradigm and incredulous growth of relational literature (Berry, 1990 Gronroos, 1989 Dixon and Blois, 1989 Gurnmesson, 1991). Quickly, this simplistic view of the (non) association between transactional and relational was superseded by more sophisticated thoughts (Brodie et al, 1997Aijo, 1996). Gronroos (1991) considered that the true decision facing firings was not Transactional Marketing or Relationship Marketing, but rather where on a marketing strategy continuum the company should place itself In some cases, a firm could be justified in maintaining a purely transactional approach. For some types of products and in some situa tions or for some types of customers a one-deal-at-a-time approach may be good strategy (Gronroos, 1991). This idea has great appeal, especially when it is considered that some sections of the wider marketing literature have discussed for years the interaction between the customer and aspects (we might say avatars) of the concept/relationship the firm has made in the mind of the customer-obvious examples of this would be store location strategies and especially branding. Indeed, the sway could be made that if the objective of the research project is to examine customer perspectives on their relationships with firms, an assessment of branding would be a key part of the literature review and would feed into the design of the research questions and fieldwork. A subtle but important distinction needs to be made between the relationship a customer has with a firm and the perspectives that customer has on relationship marketing as applied to them by the company. This research project is centred on the latter, not the former.This Transactional Marketing-Relationship Marketing continuum forms the basis of a simple model that developed by Gronroos. In this model he attempts to place various categories of goods/services at the appropriate place