“Marketing has been around for a long time – at least since Satan waged a promotional selling campaign to persuade Eve to eat the apple in the Garden of Eden. Hence, marketing is as old as original sin itself-indeed, a little bit older.” (Elegy on the Death of Marketing; M. Holbrook, J. Hulbert)

It evolved from being an attraction to Eve up to what we know now of Marketing. Marketing, before this blog is perceived as how Philip Kotler defined it: “Marketing is a social and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating, offering and exchanging products of value with others”. However, as the course end and I’m about to graduate, my eyes opened with the wider perspective of what “Marketing” really is. It evolved from just a process/ function to a bridge that builds the gap between the product and the market (defined as the consumers). “In a social economy, where the maker of economic goods does not use them and the provider of economic services does not benefit from them, there is a real separation between producers and consumers.”(McInnes) Although McInnes termed it as between the “producer and the consumer”, I would term it as between the “products and the market” since it is the product that is important for a market to be served. There is an imaginary space between the product and the market which has to be filled to be able to satisfy both parties. And that is how marketing works; the only difference would be on how the gap will be filled by various marketers. This gap works for everyone else in the world, be it from whatever country, there is this gap. This blog will look into different perspectives of the implications of these “gaps” in different markets i.e., different countries; ways on how to revive if the gap has already been filled and there is no need for marketing anymore; and how marketing will evolve as the market never stops to evolve.

Countries vary from language, culture, clothing, beliefs, traditions, policies, laws, etc. These variations create a gap between the product and the market. If a marketer would want to dominate a market, there are so many factors to be considered. Suplico, et al. on her International Marketing book made marketing internationally as easy as no one would imagine. On the part where there should be a decision whether to go into export or not: “Do you think that you are a very creative person, and you have a product in mind that the foreign market will buy?” In my blog “Trade relations to income and poverty”, it was mentioned there that “Trade has an effect on income and poverty, it can either increase or decrease income of a certain nation, and increase or decrease the rate of poverty in a country.” Same as income and poverty of a nation has something to do with trade. If a country is economically incapable of doing business with other countries, no matter how “creative” you are in creating a product; it will not be accepted by the “market” that you thought is a “market”. “…you need to decide on the mode of entry to adopt.” (International Marketing; Suplico, et al.) After being creative enough, Suplico et.al., stated that the next thing to do is to decide on the mode of entry. The next question should have been “Is the global market ready and capable to be a part of my value chain?” In addition to this, Suplico et al., once again said that “going to export is pretty much the same as other career and business pursuits” Global marketing is really not as easy as what Suplico et al., is trying to illustrate. From my blog “More than marketing is needed towards global competitiveness” I mentioned that “Suplico et al., focused on the marketing abilities of a marketer to create a centre of attention which for them is the vital factor for global competitiveness. However, this point of view is rejected by the global competitiveness report for 2009 – 2010. According to this report, there are twelve pillars that would contribute to the competitiveness of an organization in a global market.” How I wish, Greece can say that line that Suplico et al., said. If that is how easy it is, then Greece could have not been under a serious debt. Based on the case of Greece, the reason why everyone is concerned about it is because of global marketing. If Greece is unable to pay its debts, then it would lead to a decline in economy which means that there will be a one less country to be a potential market to developing countries. Greece ranked 71 in the 2009-2010 World Competitiveness Report, and Philippines ranked 87. Which is I don’t know how could global marketing be viewed as easy as 1,2,3, when Greece, 16 places higher than the Philippines is under a big debt right now. Building the gaps should also not be in a point of view of what product should be offered, instead what the product could offer. A product is not as what is known that is tangible, at this point in time of the market, products are services. I bought a PSP not because it is a PSP, but because I can use it in playing games and in studying with pdf files. Now, what is being bought? Although the tangible was bought clearly, it is the intangible that is bought in reality. The tangible just serves as the aid of the closing gaps between the product and market.

The markets is evolving very fast, from agricultural revolution, to industrial revolution, and now the information revolution; or as related to the gaps, from no gaps were existing, to having gaps between products and markets, and now nearly back to no gaps at all. Will marketing still be needed? From industrial revolution, where mass customization is on the top of the triangle, now on the information revolution, the paradigm shifted and the marketing is seen as almost not needed. “As better mechanisms for product recommendations appear, we may see brand advertising drift towards obsoletion, as products will be judged and recommended based on their actual value and cost”. This is what happened in Toyota. Toyota is not a marketing company; it is mainly a manufacturing company. Toyota never needed the help of marketing because “the market sensitivity of engineers in Toyota is very high which is why there’s a little marketing effort needed” (L. San Juan, 2010) Toyota is manufacturing products which can be sold to the market no matter what. On this situation, the gap is being closed by the product itself and there is no need for marketing to fill in this gap anymore, because the gap does not exist. On this point, can it be concluded that marketing died in Toyota? Being the # 1 Automaker in the world; and Toyota is not even a marketing company, some would easily say that marketing died on this age of Toyota. And yes, it may have died on this point in time of Toyota not until the downfall of Toyota cars when it had Toyota recalls recently. IF marketing really died in Toyota, there is a need for marketing to be revived. Gaps are now again available and ready to be filled in by marketing. What happened with Toyota is that there are complains about the quality of the cars. “Many Americans firms tend to fall somewhere in between the European and Japanese situations. Their awareness of international competition has risen dramatically in recent years, and efforts at creating global strategies are more widespread. The American challenge is to catch the Japanese in a variety of technologies…” (Porter) American firms may be overpowered by Japan’s abilities in technological advancements. Although this issue may have been an attack to the world’s #1 Automaker, still let’s look on the point of view on how to revive marketing in Toyota. “In today’s economy the consumer, the man or woman who buys the product, is at the absolute dead center of the business universe. Companies revolve around the customer, not the other way around.” (R. Keith) As what was also mentioned on my blog about fighting marketing myopia, “Vargo and Lusch believed that a service-centered model of exchange should be used wherein there is Operand resources (resources on which an operation or act is performed) and Operant resources (resources that produce effects). According to Vargo and Lusch, organizations should focus on the resources that produce effects to them i.e., the customers and the service being delivered to them through the use of goods. Both perspectives focus on the customers and the value it can give to the customers. Customer-value is the most important factor to be considered in managing an organization to continuously survive in the market.” Customers are still what anyone would have to consider first – their capability to purchase and their willingness to purchase. Once a huge number of consumers were disappointed with the value they received from a product, they can be transformed from promoters to the annoyed consumers. This is where relational benefits are needed. Customers should be able to receive value more than what they expect. However, because of differences with each consumer, some value expected by a consumer may not be expected by other consumers. And this is where mass customization is needed.

As the market evolves, marketing also evolves too fast. The marketing revolution of Robert Keith showed four eras of marketing revolution – production oriented, sales oriented, marketing oriented, and marketing control. How do we make marketing sustainable when the market is fast moving towards information revolution? The answer would be differentiation. “There is no such thing as a commodity. All goods and services are differentiable…”

Marketing is in fact dying in some firms where there is so much victory that marketing is not needed anymore. However, let’s face the fact that marketing still will revive naturally. Firms should be able to know and learn how marketing evolves and how critical it is in any market, be it local or a global market. It evolved from just a process/ function to a bridge that builds the gap between the product and the market. This is marketing; this is how it should be viewed. As I leave the walls of San Beda, at least I was able to grasp a deeper perspective of Marketing and not just the stereotypical point of view of what marketing is.

Customers have their own checklist (though not in hard copy, maybe tattooed on their minds) of what they wanted to receive from a service provider. These values are what the service provider would normally offer or the nature of their service. However, there is what we call an “incremental value” wherein an organization can offer more than what they usually offer to a customer or more than what the customers would expect to receive from the service provider. With this incremental value, relationship between the organization and the customers can be strengthened. Not only relationship will be strengthened but it will also “lead to increased revenues for the firm” (Reichheld; Schlesinger; Heskett)

From the study made on the article by Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner, four categories of benefits were named – Social, Psychological, Economic, and Customization benefits. And from these benefits identified, the level of importance of each was also classified. According to the study “For firms with which consumers have a strong relationship, confidence benefits are both the most important and the most often received. Following confidence benefits, social and special treatment benefits are rated as the next most important and next most received benefits, respectively.” From this, we can say that customers do value a firm whenever they have the confidence that this service provider will not fail their expectations instead give more than what they expected; or whenever they have built a trust on the organization.

Organizations should be able to instil in a customer that there is a need for them to continue their relationship with the organization. Not just a “want” but a “need”. For instance, a customer may not want to go to other dentists because there is a felt need of the current dentist who knows the development of the check-ups from beginning to the end.

Relational benefit does not happen in a split second. To be able to gain the trust, confidence, and “want” of a customer, organizations should be able to know what the customers really value. By this, it is not only the customers, who get freebies, reduce time, reduce choices, have a feeling of confidence, gets special treatment, and feel less hassle, but also the organization will have a benefit, in which the highest benefit they would get would be to increase and sustain their revenue. And of course, it will “delight” their customers.

Education, health care, and infrastructure are the main challenges that India is trying to overcome at present. To be able to target the global market, India should be able to “sustain advances” and focus on the factors that are becoming a hindrance on their growth. On a different perspective, these factors can be viewed as not the main factor that makes it difficult for India to sustain its growth. The system’s implementation may have caused the problems to arise. For instance, in education, it is not education per se, but the quality of education they can provide. “…more than half of the schoolteachers haven’t completed secondary school” from this statement, we can say that the people behind the education system are also a contributor to the difficulties faced in India.

GDP growth changes in India (9.4%) and other growth on the economy of India implies a corresponding growth to its middle class. An increase on the middle class would imply a small step on “climbing the economic ladder” for India. The changes that India has been doing on education, health care, and infrastructure has a contribution on the improvement on the position of India when it comes to competitiveness. Their spending patterns will change and will show the priorities of families in India. “…private health care is a high priority for many Indian families when their income grows.”

India may have been growing continuously; however, it is still in stage 1 of competitiveness which is factor-driven. As for India’s position on the 12 pillars on competitiveness, India must first develop expertise on improving its education system, health care, and infrastructure, to be able to take a big step towards competitiveness.

India is a close country with the Philippines; however, based on the World Competitiveness Report, India’s ranking is far way better than the Philippines’ ranking given that India’s population is very high that leads to an increase in poverty. There must be something in India that Filipinos can’t see and can’t apply. The challenge for Indians is to strengthen and sustain the growth they have been pushing thru, and the challenge for Filipinos is to at least see why India being a factor-driven country, is 40 places better than the Philippines.

“Competitiveness, as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country” that is if there is a higher level of income for its citizens. Competitiveness serves as the key to success of any organization. Being in a global market, competitiveness is much more essential since there is a much wider pool full of competitors. The problem is how to gain competitiveness in a global market. An organization should be able to narrow down the factors in competitiveness and determine the top most vital factors.

According to Suplico, et al., to be able to enter into the global market, advertising is important and attracting the potential consumers through marketing. Suplico et al., focused on the marketing abilities of a marketer to create a centre of attention which for them is the vital factor for global competitiveness. However, this point of view is rejected by the global competitiveness report for 2009 – 2010. According to this report, there are twelve pillars that would contribute to the competitiveness of an organization in a global market. The twelve pillars are composed of the following:
1. Institutions
2. Infrastructure
3. Macroeconomic stability
4. Health and primary education
5. Higher education and training
6. Goods market efficiency
7. Labor market efficiency
8. Financial market sophistication
9. Technological readiness
10. Market size
11. Business sophistication
12. Innovation
These pillars are interdependent to each other since a pillar is not possible if others are not satisfied.

Based on the pillars, the factors can be narrowed down to three factors: economy, productivity and quality. Economic stability of a country is needed for a marketer to enter the global market. This may include the education, infrastructure, institutions, etc., of the pillars. The ability of the economy to keep up with the market is needed since a country that is not economically stable, even with the best marketing strategy, will not allow foreign market to enter their market. Productivity and quality come with economic stability. A country that is economically stable can be able to produce more efficiently and yield a higher quality of products.

To sum it up, global competitiveness is not a simple work that can be accomplished in a blink of an eye. It entails more than marketing. It entails a wider view of the global market and global environment. No matter how good a marketing strategy is if the global market’s economy would not allow an organization to enter in it, then, everything will fall to nowhere.

Marketing myopia is a term used in marketing wherein organizations define their industry based on what they produce. With this, Theodore Levitt emphasizes on his article about being customer-oriented organization. Jacques Barzun mentioned “what is lacking is the will of the companies to survive and to satisfy the public and inventiveness and skill”. Most organization’s decline is a result of this marketing myopia. For instance, a railroad company defined itself as in a railroad industry instead of being in the transportation industry; a movie maker defines itself as in the movie-industry instead of being in the entertainment industry. Being customer-oriented is defining what the customer wants and needs and not what the product can offer. Vargo and Lusch’s point of view jives with what Theodore Levitt believes although they used another term for it. Vargo and Lusch believed that a service-centered model of exchange should be used wherein there is Operand resources (resources on which an operation or act is performed) and Operant resources (resources that produce effects). According to Vargo and Lusch, organizations should focus on the resources that produce effects to them i.e., the customers and the service being delivered to them through the use of goods. Both perspectives focus on the customers and the value it can give to the customers. Customer-value is the most important factor to be considered in managing an organization to continuously survive in the market.

There is only a minor thing that point of views differs. Theodore Levitt believed that the decline of the organization is always because of the “top” i.e., the management. However, Vargo and Lusch believed that being a service-centered organization; customers are part of the resources of the organization (operant resources) which contributes on whatever the effects of it in the organization.

The three articles all are focused on the CUSTOMERS. Be it a service-oriented model or a customer-oriented organization, still, they are all pointing out to one thing – Customers. The first article showed how synergy is applied in marketing, synergy between goods and services wherein both support each other in the proper delivery of value to the customers. The two articles added value to the concern of the first article. Synergy is a key component to the delivery of value to its customers.

If synergy is the keyword for the first blog, this blog shows a more specific synergy that is, synergy for customers. Synergizing goods and services is all for the benefit of customers. The new dominant logic is the belief of fighting marketing myopia in marketing. Product-oriented should be eliminated and being a customer-oriented should be placed to keep the organization in survival. Not just a simple survival, but an exemplary survival in the market. It is the customers that identify the value given to them, which is why organizations should be able to be perceived as a “customer-satisfying” organization.

Generally speaking, convergence is dependent on the income level or a country. A country that belongs in a third world income generating country would not be expected to grow faster since drastic changes are impossible to be attained at a short period of time. However, with the use of trade between different countries, it evolved from official exchange rate to purchasing power parities (PPPs), this helped in the trading since there exchanges will be based on the capability of a country to exchange within a certain price for a good or service. Trade liberalizations also came into this setting wherein there an experiment showed that “major trade partners tend to exhibit income convergence more often than not.” From this data, most of the major source countries became the major trade partners of other source countries.

Trade incomes are converged upward again depending on the country, if it is a poor country or a rich country. There are factors needed to be considered in looking if there is a change in the economic growth, for instance, war. Some countries would experience a slowdown in the economic growth and some experience an increase in their trade level. A country may experience a slowdown growth after experiencing a war, wherein destruction were created, but may also be experiencing an upward growth as the time pass and economy catches up with the changes of the time. Trade barriers also are a factor on the convergence or divergence of income in a country. As trade barriers are removed, increases in trading system will more likely be realizable than before.

Poverty is a problem in each country; however, some countries may do activities that would lessen the poverty rate. And this is where trade enters. To be able to remove, even at a slow moving rate, poverty economic growth is very substantial. Trade is an underlying factor that has to be considered in terms of economic growth. Income comes in a poor family when there is an increase in something what the household sells and a decrease in something what the household buys. It therefore increases the purchasing power and the disposable income, if there is any, of a poor family. However, even though there are trade reforms, the way of living of poor families should also be looked into. A specific example is that if a poor family is composed of unskilled workers, and the trade reforms need semi-skilled workers, an increase would not be realized because of the lack of skills of a poor family. The requirements were not met by the family which may contribute to an even worse scenario in the economy.

Trade indeed has an effect on each factors stated, the income and poverty. The only problem is how will trade be used as a tool to increasing economy as well as to reduce poverty rate? Some would generally say that trade is already the answer, but NO. It is not the only answer; it is just a tool that has to be used in correct manner to be able to achieve its full capacity.

Service as commonly known by many is just residual definition from what a good is. Service is usually defined as the act or performance of something for the benefit of another party. Rathmell (1966) stated that service is “everything else” that does not define a good. Lovelock (1991) also defined service as “a process or performance rather than a thing”. However, these statements are still very vague of what a service really is. Service is not just about the process or the act of performance for another party but it is more to that. “Service is the application of specialized competences”. Some things were done by another party because they have the capability to do so that the other party can’t accomplish. For example, a spa is done by people who know how to offer a spa to those who are not capable of doing a personal spa at home. This is what “specialized competences” are. Goods now come in the way when it is being used as an aid to the service delivery. Goods should also be regarded as a service-based product. For instance, a washing machine was purchased by an individual, yes it is a tangible product, however if we look at it deeply, what does it really offer? It offers SERVICE. Because it was purchased, the person who purchases it would experience a “specialized competence” of an appliance that would lessen the individual’s work.

There are four distinguishing characteristics of a service from goods which were portrayed as negative characteristics. Generally, these characteristics were stated as the disadvantage of a service from a good when in fact, it is not. First is intangibility. Traditionally, people would regard intangibility as the ability of a service to be only remembered in mind by the customer. Intangibility should be viewed as an advantage for it creates value. According to Gummerson (1995) “Customers do not but goods or services, they buy offerings which render services which create value”. It is not the physical attribute or what the advertisement would say about the service, it is about the value the customer will receive when they purchase a product. Does this value give a long-term benefit? Therefore, intangibility should be used in creating an “intangible image” that will be very beneficial to an organization. Second is the Heterogeneity. It is the “relative ability to standardize the output of services in comparison to goods”. Goods are easy to standardize because of its tangible factors, but services are viewed as difficult to standardize. The key to the standardization of a service would depend on the customer’s perspective. It is up to the customers if they are willing to give something in exchange of a service quality which is the standard for a certain organization. It would also include the customization of the service quality wherein some would be applicable to a certain incident while some are not. Third is Inseparability. It is defined in a statement by Lovelock (1991) that “people as part of the product” wherein “service is “produced” separate from the consumer”. However, goods are just an aid to the accomplishment of a service delivery. It still depends on the consumer if they are willing to interact with the goods to be able to experience the service offering. As argued in the article, service should be viewed as something that is a “lived-through event”. Lastly, is the perishability. This is commonly known as the ability of service to be unpreserved because of its intangibility unlike goods. It is still about consumer value, how does it give value to the consumers? The issue would be inventoriability, goods can be inventoried while service can also be inventoried but it is used as it is produced. It is just like a just in time principle for inventories. These characteristics should not be viewed as a negative impact or a disadvantage instead it is an advantage to a service industry.

This service literature came up because of the limitations of the goods-based manufacturing model. Goods and service, indeed, have a relationship that is mutually beneficial to one another. In terms of standardization, it is always up to the customer’s willingness to give something in exchange for a standardized practice to be offered to them. It is where price comes in the scene, when is a customer willing to accept trade-offs in terms of price and standard which will lead to customer satisfaction and productivity. These views on service marketing would be an aid to a better perspective of what marketing really is, of what the industry should be viewed to be able to go with the flow of the market and at the same time change the flow of the market to be able to get much intense service-oriented concepts.

As human change and knowledge increase, goods are now becoming not just a good, but an aid to the performance of a service delivery. Goods and services both offer in different perspectives but support each other in the market. The tangibility and intangibility is no longer an issue instead an advantage to both kind of products. Goods can be classified as a service-oriented product for what is important is what it offers and not just what it is.

Generally, operations management may be mistaken as production or manufacturing, engineering, or operations research. However, operations management is far way more different than these. Operations management may be viewed as just like “operational effectiveness” of Porter which is insufficient for a business to keep running. But because of the fast changing world, operation management is now viewed as more than just being efficient but adding value to the supply chain.

What is operations management? “Operations Management refers to the planning, control, execution, and improvement of the processes that transforms into the products and services that the firm provides to its internal and external customers.” Simply stated, operations management is the heart of the business. It is responsible for all the areas of an organization from the management (i.e., planning) to the distribution to the customers. This may seem easy but learning what operations management really is, from a simple “apple” it will become a “fruit shake”.

Just like the human heart, operations management is very complicated and delicate. It has different perspectives that have to be taken care of. First is the Functional perspective of operations management. According to Porter, there are two classifications of a firm’s efforts, the primary activities (which includes Inbound logistics, operations activities, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, service activities) which add direct value for the customers and support activities (procurement, technology, human resource, firm infrastructure) which provide infrastructure for accomplishing the primary activities. This is actually the value chain of Porter. As we can see, not all primary activities can be applicable to all kinds of businesses, it may vary if it is a service business or not, etc. There are a lot of activities which should be taken care by an operations manager. Just imagine a single heart that beats for the whole body. A malfunction may lead to death. These activities that are in the business should be coordinated clearly to each activities to avoid overlapping of functions and clashing of different functions leading to the misleading of the goal. Second is the process part of operations management. “Some processes may be wholly contained within the OM function and can be functionally managed, whereas others span multiple functions and require functional coordination.” In an organization there are different processes needed to be acted by the people to achieve the goal of the organization. A single process does not only contain a single “subprocess”. It may contain different subs which each require supervision.

Still, the main goal is competitive advantage. Operations management must be properly led by the managers who are excited to be with the changes that are happening in the market. Managers should be adventurous enough to adapt on what the market wants.

Operations Management for me is the heart of the business, it will keep on pumping to achieve the goal which is to gain competitive advantage which will eventually increase shareholders’ value.

To be able to gain competitive advantage, an organization should identify correctly what resource generates the highest profit to the company (resource-based strategy). However, this resource should not be just a resource but must be a unique resource which will be differentiated from the competitors to avoid having the same strategy because of same resource-mix. Identifying and working on the resources are still insufficient; these resources should be sustained for a period of time. And in line with sustaining these resources is sustaining the pillars of sustaining the resources which is the people of the organization.

Now, let me include on the correlation the main reason why a company would want to gain competitive advantage.

TO INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE

Why is increasing shareholder value really important in a business? Or why is value important?

(From “Why value value”, Thomas Copeland) Value is the performance metric that uses the best – and most complete – information. Value allows for more transparent and accurate tradeoffs, since any stakeholder claim can be valued.

Increasing shareholder value would need good strategy and proper financial management wherein proper cash flows are associated.

“Growth is the most important issue faced by all management teams. The key to unlocking hidden source of growth and profits is not to abandon the core business but to focus on it with renewed vigor and a new level of creativity.”

Porter and CCA are clearly seen on this statement. To identify the source of growth is important and it is done by being creative, innovative or just by simple being unique.  To increase shareholder value is to establish sustainable growth by the organization. And a sustainable growth is focusing on the “core business” which includes all the aspects of the business from the products to its capabilities, customers, channels, and geographies. (Profit from Core, p.1)

Now, how is increasing shareholder value related to the three ideas of Porter, Manning, and CCA? Simply stated, the three would all pertain to the same goal – attain competitive advantage. And attaining competitive advantage is already a step towards increasing shareholder value. That’s strategy.

CCA’s point on strategy does not only revolve around being unique or different. For the proponents of CCA, to have a competitive advantage over other players in the industry is to know “resource-based” view of strategy. An organization has different resources wherein these resources each have participation on the generation of profit. Resources can be tradeable or non-tradeable. This is also like tangible and intangible assets. Tradeable resources are those that can be sold. On the other hand, non-tradeable are those which are in the company because of the hard work of the people in the company – reputation. Having a competitive edge does not only mean having a unique products or services. Having a competitive edge over other players in the industry is to know which of the organization’s resources generates the highest profit for the organization and sustaining this source for a period of time. However, identifying the “best” resources is not as easy as it may seem. It entails a lot of understanding on the firm’s internal capabilities. “Failure to correctly identify the real source of a firm’s returns may lead to inadequate protection of scarce resources.” (CCA, p.2) Correctly identifying the sources will help the organization in knowing which of the resources they should focus on to attain superior earning. They may opt to use a resource as it is or they can sell it if it would give them a higher value. CCA also points that competitive advantage does not only result from having a unique product or service but having a “privilege market position” wherein one has competitive advantage because of what the market is offering to the organization. This is also where non-imitability comes. Being an established organization means the organization already does not have the disadvantage of becoming a new entrant in the market (i.e. having barriers to entry).

After knowing which resource gives the best output, still, strategic resources go hand in hand with competitive advantage. “For resources to yield a competitive advantage, they have to be unique.” Yes, an organization needs to be unique – have unique resources. Having the same resources as what competitors have would mean that the strategy you can do is also available to others which is why a company should be able to sustain this uniqueness by making the resources difficult to be copied or costly to be copied.
It may seem as if the proponents of CCA are opposing what Porter and Manning said. Actually, they are not.

It would all sum up to a deeper strategic sense. For a company to gain competitive advantage, the company should establish uniqueness that can be sustained (Porter); the people who works for the company should be taken care (Manning); the uniqueness to be established and sustained should be properly identified (it can be tradeable or non-tradeable resources). For a Tradeable resource to be sustained, the company should have imperfectly mobile resources. And for a non-tradeable resource to be sustained, “a firm must engage in a consistent pattern of activities” (CCA) which also involves establishing value to its people. Porter, Manning, and CCA all builds a clearer idea on what strategy really is.

They do not destruct each other’s view instead creates a support on each other’s idea.