The internet brought disruptive change to the business landscape through the creation of a whole host of digital marketing tactics. But with these new tactical options has come the need for marketing managers to (1) prioritize what they wish to accomplish and (2) determine which digital marketing tactics to invest in. We consider these issues from the perspective of four business strategies: prospectors, analyzers, low-cost defenders, and differentiated defenders. In this article, we provide marketing managers with insights into how businesses pursuing various strategies approach these digital marketing issues, with the ultimate goal being to assist managers in the efficient and effective implementation of their firm's adopted strategy.

Many executives and scholars have argued that effective strategy implementation is at least as important as-if not more important than-developing a brilliant strategy. While there are several extant viewpoints regarding what is required for successful strategy implementation, perhaps the most influential perspective is that business success requires a fit between strategy and organizational architecture. Organizational architecture subsumes structural variables and capabilities. For the past 10 years, we have studied the performance implications of matching marketing's organizational architecture to four generic business strategies: Prospectors, Analyzers, Low-Cost Defenders, and Differentiated Defenders. Through six empirical studies we have identified best practice matches between these strategy types and: (1) marketing organization culture, (2) marketing strategy, (3) market strategy formation process, (4) market-focused strategic organizational behaviors, (5) marketing organization structure, and (6) marketing control systems. In this article, we bring together findings from each of these studies to provide a comprehensive overview of those marketing actions and policies that are associated with superior firm performance.

The topic of formulating and implementing competitive strategy is usually considered from the perspective of a large, well established, and often time multi-divisional corporation. Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage, however, is every bit or even more critical to the survival of smaller startup businesses. Although much research has been performed on how startup companies create value for their constituencies and on how they launch products, few attempts have been made to apply classical large-company strategy ideas to startups. In this paper we consider eleven distinct differences between how large, established firms and their smaller startup counterparts consider strategy initiatives with an eye to guiding entrepreneurs toward higher probabilities of success. The eleven differences are building on market strengths, size of market, relationship to resources, presence of constraints, visibility of and by competitors, investor expectations, share¬holder/investor risk tolerance, process, portfolio management, triage, and time horizon for results.

A study involving over 200 senior managers demonstrates that overall firm performance is strongly influenced by how well a firm's business strategy is matched to its organizational structure and the behavioral norms of its employees. Identifies a taxonomy comprised of four different combinations of structure/behavior types: Management Dominant, Customer-Centric Innovators, Customer-Centric Cost Controllers, and Middle Ground. These alternative structure/behavior types are then matched with specific business strategies (i.e., Prospectors, Analyzers, Low-Cost Defenders, Differentiated Defenders) to identify which combination(s) of structures and behaviors best serve to facilitate the process of implementing a specific strategy.

Many managers have adopted a balanced scorecard approach to measuring performance. But "balance" implies that all measures are equally important in all settings. The authors endorse the multimeasure approach, but challenge the idea that all measures are equally important regardless of the product-market strategy adopted. Results of a survey of more than 200 businesses support this position. The most successful performers emphasized the measures and perspectives (customer, internal business, innovation and growth, financial) most appropriate to their strategy type (prospector, analyzer, low-cost defender, differentiated defender).

Today's strange, new business world needs an augmented model of industry and market analysis that reflects recent developments in industry dynamics, such as globalization, entrepreneurship, technological advances, and the Internet. Here is such an updated model, built on and expanding the basic premises that underlie Michael Porter's Five Competitive Forces Model. Suggestions are offered for how managers can position their businesses for success in the current competitive environment. Competitive rivalry (the force with the greatest influence on ROI and risk) includes both substitute products and the threat of potential entrants, combined because they are so highly interrelated. The presence of durable barriers to imitation is the most powerful deterrent to destructive turbulence. Strategic positioning in competitive markets requires creating a market-focused organization, a new market space, and relationships with key customers and suppliers. Strategy must be conceived as a series of real options.

"Create shareholder value" has become management's mantra. Managers have developed an extensive set of tools for determining which parts of their businesses add to or subtract from shareholder value. Unfortunately, merely applying the tools of value-based analysis does not suffice to add shareholder value; these tools focus on financial management and what top managers do, whereas value creation results from actions by individuals and groups throughout the firm. A comprehensive value-based management (VBM) system must engage, motivate, and reward people throughout the organization who create shareholder value. The system offered here targets five stages of development: value-based analysis; management of commitment and stretch targets; VBM training and open-book management; employee empowerment and task-focused training; and sharing the value. The VBM system continues with dialogue among top managers about where stretch goals should be focused in the future and the involvement of all employees in determining the best means to achieve those goals. Equally important is an ongoing commitment to training in VBM and the tasks that derive from it. VBM cannot create a strategic vision for a company. But when it is focused on creating both economic value and enhanced customer value, and is an integral part of the culture, the firm maximizes its future prospects.