1993British Journal of ManagementRequires access

A Two‐Decade Test of Product Life Cycle Theory

David Mercer

Open publisher page 32 citations

Abstract

SUMMARY The product life cycle (PLC) has represented a central element of marketing theory for four decades. Following its development in the 1950s, and its subsequent popularization in the 1960s, it has remained a stable feature of marketing teaching; despite evidence of its limited applicability and the growing awareness, amongst leading academics at least, of its flawed nature. This paper critically re‐examines its practical value in the light of the 20‐year history of 929 brands spread across 150 fast‐moving consumer goods (FMCG) markets in the UK. The main conclusion is that the ‘life cycle’ of the brand leaders is indeed more stable, and much longer, than some of the previous work might have suggested; and that the PLC would have predicted. As a credible aid to marketing decisions the brand life cycle is, therefore, of little value in the majority of FMCG markets ‐ and cannot justify its long‐held position as a theory that has general practical applicability across the whole field of marketing.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

SUMMARY The product life cycle (PLC) has represented a central element of marketing theory for four decades. Following its development in the 1950s, and its subsequent popularization in the 1960s, it has remained a stable feature of marketing teaching; despite evidence of its limited applicability and the growing awareness, amongst leading academics at least, of its flawed nature. This paper critically re‐examines its practical value in the light of the 20‐year history of 929 brands spread across 150 fast‐moving consumer goods (FMCG) markets in the UK. The main conclusion is that the ‘life cycle’ of the brand leaders is indeed more stable, and much longer, than some of the previous work might have suggested; and that the PLC would have predicted. As a credible aid to marketing decisions the brand life cycle is, therefore, of little value in the majority of FMCG markets ‐ and cannot justify its long‐held position as a theory that has general practical applicability across the whole field of marketing.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 32 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

SUMMARY The product life cycle (PLC) has represented a central element of marketing theory for four decades. Following its development in the 1950s, and its subsequent popularization in the 1960s, it has remained a stable feature of marketing teaching; despite evidence of its limited applicability and the growing awareness, amongst leading academics at least, of its flawed nature. This paper critically re‐examines its practical value in the light of the 20‐year history of 929 brands spread across 150 fast‐moving consumer goods (FMCG) markets in the UK. The main conclusion is that the ‘life cycle’ of the brand leaders is indeed more stable, and much longer, than some of the previous work might have suggested; and that the PLC would have predicted. As a credible aid to marketing decisions the brand life cycle is, therefore, of little value in the majority of FMCG markets ‐ and cannot justify its long‐held position as a theory that has general practical applicability across the whole field of marketing.

Key concepts: Marketing, Product (mathematics), Product lifecycle, Value (mathematics), Position (finance), Test (biology), Life-cycle hypothesis, Economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Two‐Decade Test of Product Life Cycle Theory — Research Paper | ScholarLens