European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.
414–422, 2002
Pergamon
PII: S0263-2373(02)00064-6
Measures of Marketing
Success:
A Comparison Between
Spain and the UK
JOAN LLONCH, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona
ROSSANO EUSEBIO, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona
TIM AMBLER, London Business School
Despite the importance of assessing business per-
formance, there is little research on the measures
used to evaluate marketing effectiveness. This
paper replicates in Spain some UK research into the
relative importance of categories of marketing met-
rics, e.g. financial and non-financial, customer and
competitive. The Spanish results are compared with
those from the UK. In Spain, respondents saw fin-
ancial metrics as less important than their UK
counterparts and they appeared to be more market-
ing oriented. In both countries the importance
given to metrics categories were consistent with
orientation. Marketing assets appear to be more
regularly tracked in Spain than in the UK. In Spain
performance metrics are mostly compared with the
previous year whereas in the UK the marketing
plan is the principal benchmark. Spanish managers
are more satisfied with the metrics they use to
assess marketing performance although both see
considerable room for improvement.  2002
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Performance, Marketing, Measurement,
Metrics, Customers, Competitors, Financial, Spain,
UK
Introduction
Despite the importance of assessing business per-
formance,1 there is little research on the measures
used to evaluate marketing effectiveness.2 The Mar-
keting Science Institute accordingly made this subject
one of its research priorities for 2000–2002. Reasons
414
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0263-2373/02 $22.00 + 0.00
for the reluctance to research marketing metrics
include the complexity of unravelling short- from
long-term effects (Dekimpe and Hanseens, 1995), the
difficulties of measuring brand equity (Marketing
Leadership Council, 2001) and the perhaps excessive
importance business management ascribes to finan-
cial measures (Eccles, 1991; Kokkinaki and Ambler,
1999).
Given that a firm’s survival depends on its capacity
to create value, and value is defined by customers
(Day, 1990; Porter, 1998), marketing makes a funda-
mental contribution to long-term business success.
Therefore evaluating marketing performance is a key
task for management. However, businesses that con-
cern themselves with rigorous evaluation of market-
ing results are in the minority (Ambler, 2000).
An exploratory investigation by Ambler and Riley
(2000) found differences in the measurement of mar-
keting performance between the UK and Spain. In
light of all the above, the present research examines
further the differences in marketing metrics between
the UK and Spanish. Secondly, we identify ante-
cedents and associations in marketing performance
measurement. The research closely replicates Kokki-
naki and Ambler (1999).
The paper is structured in four sections. The first lays
out the theoretical framework and formulates
hypotheses. The following section sets out the meth-
odology then the principal results are described. The
last section draws together conclusions, the limi-
tations of the present research, and proposals for
future research.
European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002

Theoretical Framework
Measurement of Marketing Effectiveness
Research points to a variety of marketing metrics.
Clark (1999a) identifies about 20 measures, Ambler
and Riley (2000) tested a total of 38 measures, David-
son (1999) considers 10 important measures of mar-
keting effectiveness and Meyer (1998) notes hun-
dreds. The variety is such that managers have
difficulty in defining the ideal set. Clark (1999a) sug-
gests we should make better use of existing measures
rather than formulate new ones.
Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999) deduced that market-
ing activity measures can be summarised in six categ-
ories: financial measures (such as turnover, contri-
bution margin, and profits), measures of competitive
market (such as market share, advertising share, and
promotional share), measures of consumer behaviour
(such as customer penetration, customer loyalty, and
new customers gained), measures of consumer inter-
mediate (such as brand recognition, satisfaction, and
purchase intention), measures of direct customer
(such as distribution level, the profitability of inter-
mediaries, and quality of service) and measures of
innovativeness (such as new products launched and
revenue from these products as a percentage of total
turnover). The financial metrics can alternatively be
seen as accounting metrics but they are mostly
expressed in monetary terms whereas the other met-
rics are not.
Financial metrics are usually the first type to be
employed to evaluate marketing performance
(Ambler, 2000; Clark, 1999a, 1999b; Eccles, 1991; Day
and Fahey, 1988; Feder, 1965; Sevin, 1965).
Among measures of comparison with the compe-
tition, market share is especially prominent owing to
the belief that it predicted cash flow and profitability
(Buzzell and Gale, 1987). That has since been revised
to a belief that perceived quality is the antecedent of
both share and profitability (Gale, 1994). Market
share is one of the most used measures, in the aca-
demic field as well as in UK business practice
(Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999).
Among measures relating to customers, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty have gained atten-
tion (Ambler and Riley, 2000; Clark, 1999a).
An alternative model to the six above-mentioned cat-
egories of measures for evaluating marketing activi-
ties is analysis of the effects of these activities on
brand equity.3 Brand equity is the most used term for
marketing assets (Aaker, 1996). Brand equity is also
the most prized asset for many companies, and is the
principal marketing asset (Ambler and Riley, 2000;
Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999).
European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS
Antecedents and Consequences of Measurement
of Marketing Success
Of the antecedents that may influence the way of
measuring marketing effectiveness, we focus on a
key aspect of organisational culture: business orien-
tation. We will consider two types: customer orien-
tation and competitor orientation. Both are compo-
nents of what has come to be called ‘market
orientation’. Market orientation has been defined as
that special trait of organisational culture born from
the company adoption of the marketing concept
(Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), which causes it to be
attentive to customers and competition and to put
into practice a coordination of functions with the
object of continuously satisfying customers’ needs
(Narver and Slater, 1990). A business’ orientation
affects both its behaviour and how it evaluates suc-
cess in management (Slater and Narver, 1994). Thus,
for example, if the business is customer-oriented the
measures of its success would be expected to be cus-
tomer-based (Kokkinaki and Ambler, 1999). From
this we deduce the first hypothesis:
H1: The greater the customer orientation, the greater the
importance attached to customer-based measures of mar-
keting effectiveness.
We will also analyse the effect of competitor orien-
tation.4 Competitor orientation implies that a busi-
ness understands its main current and potential com-
petitors’ strong and weak points in the short term
and their potential and possible strategies in the long
term (Narver and Slater, 1990). In other words, the
primary attention is given to performing better than
competitors. In this case our hypothesis is as follows:
H2: The greater the competitor orientation, the greater the
importance attached to competition-based measures of
marketing effectiveness.
One potential consequence of measurement is its
effect on business performance (Ambler and Kokki-
naki, 1997). Ambler (2000) concludes that those busi-
nesses that take the trouble to analyse the origins of
their cash flow, i.e., those that reflect on their market,
are likely to be more profitable than others. More-
over, empirical evidence has been obtained that the
degree of formalisation in the strategic marketing
planning process influences the attainment of better
results (Lysonski and Pecotich, 1992). From this we
deduce the following hypothesis:
H3: The importance accorded to measuring marketing
effectiveness activity conditions the attainment of better
business performance.
Design of the Empirical Investigation
For this research we conducted a postal survey which
was as similar as possible to that in the UK, but trans-
415
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS

Table 1 Methodology in Spain

Universe Industries in the telecommunications, informatics, textile and clothing, hotels and
tourism, and electrical material sectors

Scope National
Information collection method Postal survey
Sample unit Highest executive
Survey recipients 570 companies
Sample size 166 companies
Sampling error 6.54
Confidence level 95% Z = 1.96 p = q = 0.50
Sample procedure Convenience sample
Fieldwork Pre-test (January 2001); first mailing (February 2001); second mailing (April
2001); third mailing (May 2001).

lated, of course, into Spanish. The translation was
independently verified. The survey was sent to 570
businesses, representing very diverse sectors, of
which 166 returned it, a response rate of 29.1 per cent
(UK 23.14 per cent), Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999).
Table 1 presents the methodology and Table 2 the
characteristics of the businesses in the sample.
Variables Studied and their Measurement Scales
The study of marketing success measures was based
on the above-mentioned classification into six categ-
ories established by Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999).
The importance accorded by businesses to measuring
marketing effectiveness was measured on a Likert
scale from 1 to 7 (anchored by not at all and very
important).
We also studied the types of benchmarks used for
performance evaluation, i.e., comparisons with the
previous year, with the marketing plan, with the
competition and with other divisions of the business.
We were interested as well in knowing how many
businesses measured their marketing assets and how
often they did so, as well as whether through finan-
cial or other evaluations.
We also investigated the businesses’ degree of satis-
faction with the measures available to them of mar-
keting success. This was measured on a 7-position
Likert scale (anchored again by not at all and very
satisfied).
Customer orientation, CUSTOR, and competitor
orientation, COMPOR, in both Spain and the UK,
were evaluated on Narver and Slater’s scales (1990).
Table 3 offers the reliability analysis of these scales
in Spain.
Business performance, in both Spain and the UK,
were measured with a 5-position Likert scale on
which respondents evaluated their companies’ per-
formance in comparison with the competition.
Results
Descriptive Results Obtained in Spain and
Comparison with those Obtained in the UK
First we give the results for respondents’ degree of
satisfaction with their measures of marketing success.
As Table 4 shows, the average satisfaction is 4.44 for
Spanish businesses (UK 4.07), out of a maximum of
7. It is observed that these differences are very sig-
nificant, so that we can state that Spanish managers
are more satisfied their metrics than the British. Table
4 also breaks down the average satisfaction values
by type of business. Again Spanish businesses score
Table 3 Reliability Analysis of Customer and
Competitor Orientation Scales
Likert scales from 1 to 7 No. of Cronbach’s Cronbach’s
items alpha alpha (UK)
(Spain)
Customer orientation 6 0.78 0.81
Competitor orientation 5 0.68 0.69

Table 2 Characteristics of the Businesses in the Spanish Sample (% of Total)

Turnover (Euro) Consumer Consumer B2B goods B2B services Total

goods services

⬍ 30,000,000 23.1 25.6 38.5 12.8 24.4

30–60,000,000 23.5 30.0 37.5 9.0 24.4
⬎ 60,000,000 15.4 28.6 25.0 31.0 51.2
Total (n = 166 businesses) 19.2 28.6 31.1 21.1 100

416 European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002
 MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS

Table 4 Degree of Satisfaction with Measures for Marketing Effectiveness

Type Mean Standard deviation t-Test

Goods Spain 4.33 1.30 1.930∗

UK 3.98 1.36
Services Spain 4.53 1.40 2.738∗∗
UK 4.01 1.48
Consumer Spain 4.36 1.28 2.245∗
UK 4.07 1.41
B2B Spain 4.32 1.32 2.657∗∗
UK 3.87 1.45
SMEs Spain 4.22 1.36 ⫺0.807
UK 4.44 1.51
Large Spain 4.66 1.36 3.846∗∗
UK 3.96 1.41
Total Spain 4.44 1.35 2.902∗∗
UK 4.07 1.44

∗
P⬍0.05
∗∗
P⬍0.01

higher on satisfaction than British ones, in all types sumer intermediate categories are seen as more
except SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises). important than financial metrics (Table 7).

Table 5 shows that type of business introduces little
difference between Spanish and British respondents’
satisfaction with metrics. Only size, in Spain, seems
weakly to affect the degree of satisfaction.
Table 6 shows the mean values of the importance
accorded by Spanish and British respondents to the
various measures of marketing success. In the UK the
most important criteria are financial measures, with
an average of 6.51 out of 7, while in Spain the most
important criteria are measures of consumer behav-
iour (5.68). Table 6 also shows that there are signifi-
cant differences between Spain and the UK in four
of the six category measures considered.
In the UK, financial measures were significantly more
important than any other category (Kokkinaki and
Ambler, 1999).
In Spain, however, the consumer behaviour and con-
When we analysed metric category by whether the
business furnishes goods or services (SECTOR),
whether it sells consumer or industrial products
(PRODUCT), and its size (small – medium or large)
(SIZE), we found size to be the most significant fac-
tor. Financial metrics (P⬍0.01), competitive (P⬍0.05)
and consumer intermediate (P⬍0.1), were significant
differences. The only significant difference for the
other factors was the sector that was distinguished
by direct customer metrics (P⬍0.1). As one might
expect, this is explained by the intermediate
(channel) customer not existing for retail business.
This is unlike the UK where significant differences
were found for customer and competitive categories
across sector, product and size.
Table 8 for Spanish businesses the previous year is
the principal benchmark. This holds true for financial
measures (77.1 per cent of businesses), measures of

Table 5 Degree of Satisfaction with Measures Available

Spain UK

Type Mean Standard t-Test Mean Standard t-Test

deviation deviation

Sector Goods 4.33 1.30 ⫺0.908 3.98 1.36 ⫺0.219

Services 4.53 1.40 4.01 1.48
Product Consumer 4.36 1.28 0.122 4.07 1.41 1.335
B2B 4.32 1.32 3.87 1.45
Size SME 4.22 1.36 ⫺1.653∗ 4.44 1.51 1.821∗∗
Large 4.66 1.36 3.96 1.41
Total 4.44 1.35 4.07 1.44
∗
P⬍0.10
∗∗
P⬍0.05

European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002 417
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS

Table 6 Importance of Metric Categories for Assessing Performance

Mean Standard deviation t-Test

Financial measures Spain 5.15 1.64 ⫺12.746∗∗

UK 6.51 1.00
Competitive market Spain 5.01 1.42 ⫺3.375∗∗
UK 5.42 1.34
Consumer behaviour Spain 5.68 1.29 2.357∗
UK 5.38 1.40
Consumer intermediate Spain 5.51 1.40 0.630
UK 5.42 1.32
Direct customer Spain 4.19 1.62 ⫺10.143∗∗
UK 5.53 1.38
Innovativeness Spain 4.94 1.58 ⫺0.777
UK 5.04 1.45
∗
P⬍0.05
∗∗
P⬍0.01

Table 7 Importance of Measure Categories for For British businesses, however, marketing plans are
Assessing Performance (Spain) more important. Comparing the percentage of use of
each of these benchmarks we see that the principal
Mean Standard t-Test differences appear in the use of the marketing plan to
deviation
assess financial performance (85.1 per cent of British
Financial measures 5.15 1.64 respondents against 57.8 per cent in Spanish). The
Competitive market 5.01 1.42 0.998 marketing plan is also much more used by British
Consumer behaviour 5.68 1.29 ⫺3.830∗∗ businesses (51 per cent) than by Spanish ones (29.5
Consumer 5.51 1.40 ⫺2.206∗ per cent) when applying measures of competitive
intermediate market, while more Spanish businesses (52.4 per
Direct customer 4.19 1.62 5.598∗∗ cent) than British ones (36.7 per cent) use the pre-
Innovativeness 4.94 1.58 1.332 vious year as a benchmark with measures relating to
consumer intermediate.
∗
P⬍0.05
∗∗
P⬍0.01
Table 9 shows that Spanish firms more routinely
evaluate their marketing assets in financial terms and
consumer behaviour (53.6 per cent), measures of con- also on a yearly or quarterly basis using non-finan-
sumer intermediate (52.4 per cent), and measures of cial metrics.
direct customer (42.8 per cent). For competitive mar-
ket measures, competitors are the main benchmark, The mean frequency of tracking of marketing assets
for 50 per cent of businesses, while for measures of is greater for businesses in Spain (2.38) than in the
innovativeness the basic benchmark is the marketing UK (1.82), and that these differences are very signifi-
plan, with 38.8 per cent of businesses. cant (P⬍0.01).

Table 8 Frequency of Benchmarks Used (Valid Percent, When Measure Category Used). Spain – UK
Comparison with the Chi-square Testab

Previous year Marketing plan Specific competitor Other units in the

group

Spain UK Spain UK Spain UK Spain UK

Financial 77.1 80.4 57.8 85.1∗∗∗ 15.7 23.0∗∗ 12.0 22.0∗∗∗

Competitive market 36.7 51.4∗∗∗ 29.5 51.0∗∗∗ 50.0 55.7 3.0∗∗ 6.6
Consumer behaviour 53.6 47.1 39.8 42.0 21.1 31.6∗∗∗ 15.1∗∗∗ 6.4
Consumer intermediate 52.4∗∗∗ 36.7 36.7 30.3 19.9 27.7∗∗ 15.1∗∗∗ 5.1
Direct customer 42.8 40.3 29.8 37.7∗∗ 14.5 22.8∗∗ 9.0 7.3
Innovativeness 34.3∗∗∗ 21.3 38.8 33.7 30.7∗∗∗ 20.7 7.2 6.6
a
The chi-square has been calculated for each measure and type of comparison. The table shows the significance of the difference
between the percentage of businesses in each country that have compared each measure of evaluation of marketing results with
the four options proposed (previous year, marketing plan, etc.)
b∗∗
⬍0.05; ∗∗∗ ⬍0.01

418 European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002
 MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS

Table 9 Regularity of Tracking the Marketing Asset (Valid Per Cent of Samples from Spain and UK)

Never Rarely/ad hoc Yearly/quarterly Monthly/or more

Spain UK Spain UK Spain UK Spain UK

Financial valuation 29.2 51.4 26.4 23.6 22.9 16.9 21.5 8.0
Other measures 31.7 36.8 19.8 22.2 40.6 28.7 7.9 12.3

We were also interested to know whether businesses
had a specific term to designate marketing assets. In
Spain, 33.1 per cent of businesses said they did.
Among these the term most mentioned was imagen
de marca (literally ‘brand image’), in a total of 26 busi-
nesses, i.e. 47.3 per cent. In the UK 62.2 per cent of
businesses said they had a specific term. In this case
the term most used was ‘brand equity’ with 32.5 per
cent, followed by ‘reputation’ with 19.6 per cent,
‘brand strength’ with 8.8 per cent, and ‘brand value’
with 8.2 per cent.
Testing the Hypotheses
The first hypothesis was that the greater the customer
orientation, the greater the importance of customer-
based measures.
competitor orientation, the greater the importance of
competition-based measures, we found a positive
and very significant relationship of 0.43 (UK 0.26)
between competitor orientation and the importance
accorded to measures of competitive market.
Hypothesis 2 is therefore verified for Spanish busi-
nesses.
The last hypothesis considered the relationship
between the importance accorded by a business to
measures of marketing success and business per-
formance, and postulated that importance influenced
performance. To test this hypothesis we regressed the
importance of the various metrics categories on busi-
ness performance. Although this proved significant
in the UK, it did not do so in Spain and the hypoth-
esis is therefore not supported here.

Table 10 shows the results of estimating models of

regression between a business’ orientation and the
importance it places on different category measures.
As can be observed, there is a positive and very sig-
nificant relationship between customer orientation
and the importance accorded to measures on con-
sumer behaviour (coefficient=0.45), and between cus-
tomer orientation and the importance of measures on
consumer intermediate (0.42). However, we did not
obtain a relationship between customer orientation
and the importance of measures on direct customer.
The first hypothesis is therefore only partially veri-
fied.
In the UK, Kokkinaki and Ambler (1999) found posi-
tive and significant coefficients of regression between
customer orientation and the importance of measures
relating to consumer behaviour (0.25), measures of
consumer intermediate (0.30), and measures relating
to direct customer (0.22).
To address hypothesis 2, namely that the greater the
Conclusions, Limitations and Future
Research
We found notable differences between Spanish and
British managers in the way their firms assess mar-
keting effectiveness. In particular, the results indi-
cate:
1. Disparity in the importance given to metric categ-
ories in evaluating marketing performance. While
in the UK financial measures are considered the
most important, Spanish managers ascribe most
importance to consumer behaviour and intermedi-
ate metrics, i.e. what consumers have in their
heads about brands. Spanish managers appear to
have internalised the marketing concept more
coherently than their British counterparts. As Lev-
itt (1983) indicates, profits are not the main goal of
marketing, the main goal of marketing is to satisfy
customers. Hence to measure marketing success

Table 10 Regression of Measure Category Importance on Customer and Competitor Orientation (Spain)

CUSTOR COMPOR

Variable If R2 β β

Competition measures 24.907∗ 0.244 0 .10 0.43∗

Consumer behaviour 24.422∗ 0.238 0.45∗ 0.07
Consumer intermediate 24.879∗ 0.243 0.42∗ 0.11
Direct customer 11.678∗ 0.136 0.13 0.28∗
∗
PⰆ0.01

European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002 419
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS
businesses should base themselves above all on
criteria relating to customers (Bhargava et al., 1994;
Chakravarthy, 1986).
2. We also see important differences between Spain
and the UK in the magnitude of the effect that cer-
tain variables such as business size, sector, and
product type exercise on different category meas-
ures. This would support the theory that no single
measurement model can be generalised to all
types of businesses (Ambler and Puntoni, 2001).
3. There are differences in the types of benchmark
used for comparison of marketing performance.
Among Spanish businesses, the principal bench-
mark is the previous year, while in the UK, the
marketing plan is more often used. Both countries
place less emphasis on comparison of results with
the competition than, e.g. Eccles (1991) propounds.
4. There are significant differences in the frequency
of financial measurement of marketing assets.
Spanish businesses financially evaluate these
intangibles more often, but both Spanish and Bri-
tish businesses seem to measure marketing intan-
gibles too seldom.5 As Barreda (1999) indicates,
quantifying increases and decreases in these assets
is an essential part of measuring marketing effec-
tiveness.
5. Spanish managers are more satisfied than the Bri-
tish with the metrics they use to assess marketing
performance although both see considerable room
for improvement.6
6. Differences also exist in the associations between
business orientation and the measurement of mar-
keting effectiveness. While in Spain there is a close
relationship between customer orientation and
measurement of consumer behaviour and con-
sumer intermediate, there is no relationship
between this orientation and the importance of
measures based on direct customers (such as dis-
tribution level, the profitability of intermediaries,
quality of service, satisfaction, etc.), as there is
with British businesses. It therefore seems as if
intermediaries in Spain were a type of customer
different from end consumers. Curiously, competi-
tor orientation does influence the adoption of mea-
sures based on direct customers. As was foresee-
able, we have also confirmed the positive
relationship between competitor orientation and
evaluation of marketing success from measures
based on competitors. In general we found a close
association between business orientation and the
way it assesses its marketing performance.
7. Finally, the UK relationship between measure-
ment, i.e. the use of metrics, and business perform-
ance was not replicated in Spain.
This work has various limitations. The first is that
the research remains exploratory, which restricts the
possibilities for generalisation. Another is that the
sample comprises businesses only in certain sectors
of activity. It was not possible exactly to match the
two management samples which may explain some
of the differences. For example, if the Spanish respon-
420
dents were better trained and experienced in market-
ing than their British counterparts then that, rather
than national characteristics may account for some
of the differences. Since the sampling methods were
similar, one could also argue that the managerial dif-
ferences are also national differences. Finally, the use
of subjective rather than objective measurement of
business performance may be considered a limi-
tation, although this is not uncommon in the litera-
ture and is justified by reference to, e.g. Dess and
Robinson (1984).
For future research we suggest refining categories to
individual metrics and considering elements of the
marketing mix (advertising, sales promotions, new
products, etc.) as well as marketing as a whole.
Finally, we believe it would be very useful to investi-
gate measures of marketing effectiveness in the con-
text of new technologies, such as Internet advertising
or electronic commerce.
Notes
1. See for example Bonoma and Clark (1988) or Meyer (1998).
2. Ambler and Kokkinaki (1997), examined 1316 issues of
seven marketing magazines and found that only 11.5 per
cent of the articles analysed dealt with the evaluation of
marketing results.
3. Srivastava and Shocker (1991) define brand equity as a ‘set
of associations and behaviours on the part of the brand’s
customers, channel members, and parent corporations that
permit the brand to earn greater volume or greater margins
than it could without the brand name …’
4. In reality, customer and competitor orientation are not
incompatible but complementary in the framework of mar-
ket orientation (Balakrishnan, 1996; Day and Wensley,
1988; Slater and Narver, 1994).
5. It seems this phenomenon is not exclusive to Spanish or
British businesses, since similar conclusions have been
reached for North American ones. (Winer, 2000).
6. The study by the Marketing Leadership Council (2001)
offers information on this question in the USA.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Construir Marcas Poderosas. Ediciones Ges-
tión, Barcelona.
Ambler, T. (2000) Marketing and the Bottom Line. The New Met-
rics of Corporate Wealth. Financial Times. Prentice Hall,
London.
Ambler, T. and Kokkinaki, F. (1997) Measures of marketing
success. Journal of Marketing Management 13, 665–678.
Ambler, T. and Riley, D. (2000) Marketing Metrics: A Review of
Performance Measures in Use in the U.K. and Spain. Draft
paper, London Business School, pp. 1-30.
Ambler, T. and Puntoni, S. (2001) Measuring Marketing Per-
formance. Working paper, London Business School, pp.
1-39.
Bhargava, M., Dubelaar, C. and Ramaswami, S. (1994) Recon-
ciling diverse measures of performance: a conceptual
framework and test of a methodology. Journal of Business
Research 31, 235–246.
Balakrishnan, S. (1996) Benefits of customer and competitor
orientations in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing
Management 25, 257–269.
Barreda, E. (1999) Marketing Metrics and Innovation: Research on
European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002

Current Practice in the United Kingdom and Spain. London
Business School, June.
Bonoma, T.V. and Clark, B.H. (1988) Marketing Performance
Assessment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987) The SMBS principles: linking
strategy to performance. The Free Press, New York.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986) Measuring strategic performance.
Strategic Management Journal 7(5), 437–459.
Clark, B.H. (1999a) Marketing performance measures: history
and interrelationships. Journal of Marketing Management
15, 711–732.
Clark, B.H. (1999b) Managerial Perceptions of Marketing Per-
formance: Efficiency, Adaptability, Effectiveness and Sat-
isfaction. Working paper, College of Business Adminis-
tration, Northeastern University.
Davidson, J.H. (1999) Transforming the value of company
reports through marketing measurement. Journal of Mar-
keting Management 15, 757–777.
Day, G.S. (1990) Market-driven Strategy. Processes for Creating
Value. The Free Press, New York.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988) Assesing advantage: a
framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Jour-
nal of Marketing 52(2), 1–20.
Day, G.S. and Fahey, L. (1988) Valuing marketing strategies.
Journal of Marketing 52(3), 45–57.
Dekimpe, M.G. and Hanseens, D.M. (1995) The persistence of
marketing effects on sales. Marketing Science 14(1), 1–21.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. Jr (1984) Measuring organiza-
tional performance in the absence of objective measures:
the case of privately-held firm and conglomerate busi-
ness unit. Strategic Management Journal 5, 265–273.
Eccles, R.G. (1991) The performance measurement manifesto.
Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb, 131–137.
Feder, R.A. (1965) How to measure marketing performance.
Harvard Business Review 43, 132–142.
Gale, B.T. (1994) Managing Customer Value. Free Press, New
York.
European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B. (1990) Market orientation: the
construct, research propositions and managerial impli-
cations. Journal of Marketing 54, 1–18.
Kokkinaki, F. and Ambler, T. (1999) Marketing Performance
Assessment: An Exploratory Investigation into Current Prac-
tice and the Role of Firm Orientation. Working paper no.
99-114, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Levitt, T. (1983) After the sale is over. Harvard Business Review
61, 87–93.
Lysonski, S. and Pecotich, A. (1992) Strategic marketing plan-
ning, environmental uncertainty and performance. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing 9, 247–255.
Marketing Leadership Council (2001) Measuring Marketing
Performance: Results of Council Survey, August, Wash-
ington, DC.
Meyer, M.W. (1998) Finding performance: the new discipline
in management. In Performance Measurement — Theory
and Practice 1, pp. xiv–xxi. Centre for Business Perform-
ance, Cambridge (UK).
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990) The effect of a market orien-
tation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing 54,
20–35.
Porter, M.E. (1998) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analys-
ing Industries and Competitors (revised ed). Free Press,
New York.
Sevin, C.H.H. (1965) Marketing Productivity Analysis. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994) Does competitive environ-
ment moderate the market orientation-performance
relationship? Journal of Marketing 58, 46–55.
Srivastava, R.K. and Shocker, A.D. (1991) Brand Equity: A Per-
spective on its Meaning and Measurement. Working paper
no. 91-124, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Winer, R. S. (2000) What Marketing Metrics are used by MSI
Members? Working paper no. 00-119, Marketing Science
Institute, pp. 3-6.
421
MEASURES OF MARKETING SUCCESS

JOAN LLONCH, Univer- ROSSANO EUSEBIO,

sidad Autónoma de Barce- Universidad Autónoma de
lona, Facultad de Ciencias Barcelona, Facultad de Cien-
Económicas y Empresar- cias Económicas y Empre-
iales, Departamento de sariales, Departamento de
Economı́a de la Empresa, Economı́a de la Empresa,
Edificio B, 08193 Bellaterra, Edificio B, 08193 Bellaterra,
Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: Barcelona, Spain. E-mail:
joan.llonch@uab.es. rossano.eusebio@uab.es.

Dr Joan Llonch is Associate Dr Rossano Eusebio is

Professor of Marketing at
the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Recent
research includes market orientation, marketing organ-
isation, international marketing and measurement of
marketing performance. Among several books published
is a marketing textbook, Dirección Comercial.
Assistant Professor of Mar-
keting and Advertising at the Universidad Autónoma
de Barcelona. Recent research includes the inter-
nationalisation process of the Spanish and Italian
manufacturing sector and marketing decisions in an
international context.

TIM AMBLER, London

Business School, Sussex
Place, Regent’s Park, Lon-
don NW1 4SA, UK. E-
mail: tambler@london.edu

Tim Ambler is Senior Fellow

at London Business School,
leading the PAN’AGRA
programme of research pro-
jects which include the
measurement of marketing
performance and brand equity, advertising and pro-
motions effectiveness, marketing in China, and overseas
market entry. A recent book is Marketing and the Bot-
tom Line.

422 European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 414–422, August 2002