) . 6, N,i. 2.

145 13

The End of the Product Life Cycle?

Education Says Goodbye to an Old Friend
Laurie Wood
University oJ Satjord

This paper re-evaluates the 'old favourite^ of marketing education, the Product Life
Cycle concept. A number of problems are identified including the contrast of the theory
With empirical research and wide range of PLC (Product Life Cycle) patterns which
have been identified by researchers. 7 his paper concludes that the PLC concept has,
perhaps, outlived its own life cycle having, in its day, provided a meful service
particularly to marketing educators.

INTRODUCTION
No marketing professional should be unfamiiiar with the Product Lile Cycle
(PLC). Its logical sequence and biological analogy have gained an enduring
appeal amongst marketing academics and managers over the years, until it
has now become accepted as a "core" concept of marketing management
theory.
Despite increasing criticism, the key concept remains.
In a review of the relevant literature, this paper .seeks to provide a critical
appraisal of PLC theory, and to examine the value of this pervasive concept
in educating our future marketing managers into the next century.
It argue.s that, since marketing itself is an adaptive concept, in attempting
to adapt PLC theory to its broadening base we have been guilty of
"product" orientation {PLC myopia).
This paper concludes that the PLC concept has outlived its own life
cycle, and .should therefore be managed according to its own dogma.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR THE UNINITIATED
The PLC is modelled on the fixed cycle of birth-growth-maturity-death,
through which higher living organisms pass (Tellis 1981). Smallwood (1973)
considered the PLC concept to be tbe marketing equivalent of the periodic
table of elements concepts in the physical sciences, although it is more likely
145

146

LAURIE WOOD

Iniroduel ion

Growth

Malufity
Time

FKiURE I

The vertical scale is ihc sales value, while the horizontal sralr is calibrated to
represent the passage of time.

that its origins are rooted in economic theory, documented as early as 1934
by Schumpeter.
This combination of scientific rationalederived from biology, chemistry
and economicsserved to enhance the legitimacy of marketing as a
profession (Levitt 1965), and has endowed the concept with an enduring
appeal.
The Classical Model is an S-shaped curve typified by four/five stages of
product introduction-growth-maturity/.saturation-dcciine, as illustrated
below:
Marketing teaching would historically link the PLC to the Everett
Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations model (Rogers 1962), and/or take the
Levitt approach (Levitt 1965), in describing tbe life cycles of most succe.s.sful
products in terms of their sequential passage through four/five stages. Early
explanations of the product life cycle concept (Kotler 1967) presented tbe
theory in fairly simple terms, as a marketing management tool for consumer
branded products, viz;
Stage 1: Introduction
The product is put on tbe market; awareness and acceptance are minimal.
Stage 2: Growth
Tbe product begins to make rapid sales gains because of the cumulative
effects of introductory promotion, distribution, and word-of-moutb
influence.

THE END OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

147

Stage 3: Maturity/Saturation
Sales growtb continues but at a declining rate because of the diminishing
number of potential customers who remain unaware of the product or who
bave taken no action. Sales reacb and remain on a plateau marked by tbe
level of replacement demand.
Stage 4: Decline
Sales begin to diminish absolutely as the product is gradually edged out by
better products or substitutes.
According to the classical theory, profits peak in the growth stage, level
off, and then begin declining during the maturity stage.
From this theory, we learn that;
Products have a limited life.
Transition from one stage to another is usually sequential.
Each stage represents different profit levels, different opportunities and
threats, and different strategies for a company.
Tbis is an important concept in marketing, providing insigbts into a
product's competitive dynamics (Kotler 1967}.
Despite accepted limitations of tbe concept, even at this periodtbat tbe
lengtb of the product life cycle and its stages were by no means fixed, and
that the shape of tbe eurve may depart from tbe S-.shaped curve^it was
slill presented as a useful idealization of all product life histories (Patten
1959).
Widely accepted in marketing circles, but, paradoxically, little used as a
marketing tool, it was Levitt, in 1965, wbo attempted to breatbe some life
into the concept which be described as, "a seemingly unemployable piece of
professional baggage" by outlining strategies for controlling or managing
tbe life cycle at eacb stage (Levitt 1965). The key use of tbe PLC was
presented as a predictive tool to forecast marketing requirements and to
assist in the planning of long term product strategies before the inevitable
stage of the product life arrived.
I

PLC EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Over the years, research attempts to validate or refute tbe life cycle eoneept
on an empirical basis bave been constrained by two factors:
(a) tbe lack of definition as to wbich "life" we are actually investigating
and,
(b) tbe complications of empirical researcbin tbat by tracking sales
trends over time, we inevitably observe the effects of management
strategies on tbe life cycle itself.
Witb regard to the first problem, it is evident from the literature tbat
dilTerent authors bave different perceptions of the concept. To take just a

148

LAURIE WOOD

few examples, the original economic theory related to i n d u s t r y level cycles.

Levitt (1965) writes of m a r k e t life cycles, then proceeds to discuss b r a n d
life cycles in an article concerning tbe p r o d u c t life cycle. Cox (1967)
investigated the b r a n d , whereas Polh and Cook (1969) focussed their

researcb on the product class, and the product form. More recently,
Kotler (1988) bas discussed the PLC within the context of tbe Demand
Life Cycle, the Demand-Technology Life Cycle and the Product
Category Life Cycle. It is hardly surprising with tbis disagreement,
diversity of definition and confusion of terminology amongst academies tbat
no comparable and satisfactory empirical validation of the "classic" product
life cycle concept exists.
Polli and Cook (1969) found that the concept provided a better
explanation of sales bebaviour of product forms tban product classes. Dballa
and Yuspeb (1976), by way of contrast, suggested that tbe concept was of
little use in explaining the behaviour of product classes, even less in the case
of product forms and bas little or no relevance in tbe case of brands. At the
same time, Eni.s, La Garee and Preli (1977) discussed tbe concept at brand
level, believing the direction of product forms and product classes to be
beyond management control. By contrast, Tellis and Crawford (1981) felt
that, "product forms bear tbe closest approximation to the PLC, individual
brands are difTicult to model, and patterns at the level of product class are
less apparent becau.se of longer sales trends involved". Such is tbe level of
confusion.
With regard to the second problem, Cox (1967) in a study of 258 ethical
drug brands identified six patterns of life-cycle curves, and found tbat for
over 50"o of these, a fourth degree polynomial best fit tbe bistorical data.
1 bis suggested a cycle-recycle pattern for tbe PLC in wbicb sales did not
decline after tbe maturity stage, but followed tbe old cycle once again. The
principal reason for tbe predominance of this pattern however was tbe use
of a promotional "tbrust'", which the study revealed was common practice
in tbe industry wben products reacbed tbe maturity stage of tbe PLC.
Similarly, Polli and Cook's findings (1969) from tbe examination of over
100 consumer product categories in tbe food, health and personal care fields
indicated that only 17".(, product classes and 20",, product forms exhibited a
sales behaviour essentially consistent with the product life cycle. (By simple
arithmetical deduction, 83",, product classes and 80*^',, product forms did not
fit tbe classical PLC shape). Further research by Wasson (1971) identifies
nine variants to tbe PLC resulting from various special conditions as
indicated, and many otber additional shapes bave since been "di.scovercd".
Tellis and Crawford's (1981) review of twelve published PLC researches
found no less tban fifteen variations on curve shape (Figure 2). The
difHculty lies in isolating tbe "natural" life cycle curve from the marketing
efTeets on sales, whatever the level of aggregation.
Variations in the PLC are inevitable if we accept Levitt's original premise
that tbe main utility of the concept lies in the fact that the Hfe-cycle can be
managed. The life-cycle itself must be a dependent variable, if it can be

THE END OF THE PRODUCl' LIFE CYCLE

(classical
curve)

149

Brockhoff (1967)'
Kovac and Dague (1972)*
Polli and Cook (1969)*

Cox (1957)

Buzzetl (1966)*'

Kluyver (1977)

Cunningham (1979)'
Hinckle (1966)"

'Adapted
''Maturity stage only

FIGURE 2 Dificrcni PLC pattern identified.

.Source: Tcllis and Crawford (1981), "An Evoluiionary Approaih lo Product Growih Theory", Journal of
Marketing, Fall. pp. 125-132.

150

LAURIE WOOD
Sates

logistic

exporieniJal

4th degree
polynomial

FIGURE 3 Four alternative shapes of PLC.

Source: Mrenaghan and O'Sullivan (1986), "The Shape and Lcngih of the Produci Life Cycle", /risk
Marketing Reuiew, Vol. 1, Spring, pp. 83-102.

shaped by marketing action. Enis (1977) concluded that the PLC is the
result, rather than the cause, of marketing strategy decisions. It is not a
simple deterministic model. More recently Meenaghan and O'Sullivan
(1986) have attempted to consolidate the situation, in their discussion of
shape and length of PLC, by presenting the diversity of curve shape in
terms of four alternative pattents. (Figure 3).

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE PLC

The object of the exercise appears to be to identify one's position on the
PLC, and then select an appropriate strategy. For this purpose we are
presented with a range of alternative mix strategies (Kotter 1988, Ennis
1977). In 1976 Dhalla and Yuspeth recognized the danger of this "curvefitting" approach as a "sterile exercise in taxonomy", yet the approach
continues to be adopted.
The major problem is that in order for the model to have any practical
use, the marketing manager needs to know the answers to three key
questions (Levitt 1965);
1. Given a proposed new product or service, how and to what extent can
the shape and duration of each stage be predicted?
2. Given an existing product, how can one determine what stage it is in?
3. Given all this knowledge, how can it be effectively used?

THE END OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

151

The overriding difficulty in answering any of these questions lies in the

lack of available information. Kotler's own study (1988) of 75 companies of
varying sizes in different industries illustrates the problem in the following
pertinent findings:
Fewer than half the companies know the profitability of their
individual products. About one-third of the companies have no regular
review procedure for spotting and deleting weak products.
Almost half of the companies fail to compare their prices with
competition, to analyze their warehousing and distribution costs, to
analyze the causes of returned merchandise, to conduct formal
evaluations of advertising effectiveness, and to review their sales-force
call reports.
Also, companies often fail to monitor the timing of introductions of
competitor products.
If this basic information is not recorded for tbe marketing function, then
the shape of the curve is irrelevant. Positioning the product on any PLC
curve becomes reduced largely to a matter of guesswork, rather tban
something nearing scientific exactitude.
Day (1981) highlights a further complication. He points out that the
identification of boundaries between stages will be affected by the variety of
life cycle patterns. Thus, the more variations of PLC we identify, the more
difficult the positioning process becomes. Also the term "Life Cycle" itself
implies a certain inevitability and irreversibility, which is contrary to the
empirical evidence. This shows that products may move in different
sequence and in different timescales through their existence.
The transition from one stage to another is therefore far from clear cut,
and the transition from birth to growth, maturity and death is far from
inevitable. Furthermore, by implanting an expectation of decline in the
minds of managers, the PLC itself may become a self-fulfilling prophecy
with intrinsically valuable brands prematurely axed from the portfolio.

IF NOT PRODUCT LIFE CYCLETHEN WHAT?

Day (1981), in a special section of the Journal of Marketing devoted to
discussing the PLC concept, refers to;
" . . . t h e emerging concensus that PLC represents the outcome or
summary of numerous forces for change present in the relevant
product-market, each force acting in concert with others to facilitate or
inhibit the rate of product sales growth or decline."
In 1977, Enis had concluded that, as the result of marketing strategy
decisions, the PLC was indirectly determined by a combination of internal

152

LAURIE WOOD

(production, finance, personnel) considerations, c o m b i n e d with external

micro a n d m a c r o environmental factors.
In the more recent study by M e e n a g b a n a n d O ' S u l l i v a n (1986), they too,
accepted that influencing variables exist. T h e s e were classified u n d e r four
basic headings;
1. P r o d u c t characteristics.
2. T h e m a r k e t i n g strategies employed.
3. The external environmental factors.
4. Market related factors.
The key to understanding the shape and length of the PLC is to be found
not merely in analyzing the sets of factors listed above, but perhaps more
importantly in tbe current and anticipated interactions and relationships
occurring between the various factors.
This, in effect, takes us back to basic marketing principlesunderstand
the customer, understand the buying process and understand the market.
Only if we move our students away from the dangerous "short-circuitry" of
the PLC and "formula" marketing, can we hope to engender a practical
understanding of the underlying factors which shape the sales patterns of
products over time. The danger is, that the continued teaching of the PLC
"concept" actually serves to constrain marketing management thinking.

THE PROBLEM OF TIMING

It would appear that over the years, the PLC concept has evolved a life of
its own. From its early beginnings in the sciences and its adoption by
marketing, it gained gradual widespread acceptance because of its intrinsic
appeal, and its fairly wide application.
The market situation in the late I950's and early 196O's was
characterized by
a focus on consumer goods and
marketing education;

brand/product

management

in

unsophisticated segmentation (largely geographic and demographic);

relatively stable technology;
relatively uasophisticated communications;
manufacture power in retail distribution.
Such was the relative stability of the environment, that the PLC model
was an acceptable aggregate of market dynamics, and was incorporated into
marketing texts of tbe time as one of the fundamental principles of
marketing.
Academic writing largely supported the PLC concept (Patton 1959,
Levitt 1965, Kotler 1967 and 1988, and Cox 1967), despite some

THE END OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

153

reservations. It was presented in qualitative terms, with support either from

examples drawn from subjective experience easily related to at the time
(buggy whips, nylon, Scotch tape, Jell-O), or from empirical research in the
fm.c.g. (fast moving consumer goods) sector.
With the broadening of the marketing concept over time, however,
weaknesses have become increasingly evident in attempting to universally fit
the application of PLC theory to the specific areas of high-tech products
(Tigert and Farivar 1981) and consumer durables (Harrell and Taylor
1981) and the additional areas of industrial products (Thorelli and Burnett
1981, Rink and Fox 1984 and Buskirk 1986), services and Not For Profits
(Wilson 1988).
In addition, over time, the theory has become complicated in the
justification of the many criticims levelled against it. For example, Kotler
(1967), in his first edition, presented the theory in no more than four brief
pages. Now, in edition six, a full chapter of thirty pages needs to be devoted
to the explanation and qualification of the concept, and its related
strategies.
Initially, they key utility of the PLC presented by Levitt (1965) was its
application in forecasting and pre-planning. Now Kotler (1988) accepts that
the value of the PLC for forecasting is limited, being more applicable to
historical sales patterns and performance, for planning and control.
The controversy continues.
More and more, the PLC concept is failing to perform effectively. The
various levels of life-cycle have been identified as:
Demand Life Cycles
Demand Technology Life Cycles
Industry Life Cycles
Product Category Life Cycles
Product Class Life Cycles
Product Form Life Cycles
Brand Life Cycles
By referring to the management and control aspects of PLC theory, then
the concept is being related to the brand/product at the lowest level in this
hierarchy. In presenting the theory thus, the use of the PLC as a marketing
tool inevitably encourages an unhealthy myopia and brand/product focus.
" T h e rate of change in the modern world is now much greater
even a few decades ago. New technologies appear, and old
disappear more quickly, new social patterns form and reform,
roads and bridges appear and old ones disappear faster than
before." (Argenti 1974).

than
ones
new
ever

Argenti's observation, written over a decade ago, is even more pertinent

today. T h e complex and dynamic markets of the eighties, bore little
resemblance to the relatively simply defined and stable markets of the early

154

LAURIE WOOD

sixties. I would contend that as the next century approaches, the PLC will
bave Uttle, if anything, to offer in marketing education.

CONCLUSION

Marketing is an adaptive concept, yet it would appear that in attempting to

adapt PLC theory universally to its broadening base, we, as marketeers,
may have been guilty of PLC myopia. The PLC is a stochastic, rather than
a deterministic model. The overriding limitations are not intrinsically with
the product life cycle itself, but with the dangers of engendering a myopic
focus of the curve of sales over time (which is itself the aggregated result of
many diverse effects) at the risk of ignoring evolutionary market trends.
Furthermore, in applying pre-ordained "formulas" to marketing situations,
we become predictable and out-manouevreable in our markets. Original
strategies, tailored to each individual situation, should theoretically be more
effective. Yet we continue to incorporate Product Life Cycle concepts into
our teaching and texts.
Marketing and management techniques are developing increasingly
around environment analysis under its many guises {environmental
scanning, issue analysis, issue management, structural analysis etc.)
Although aimed primarily at corporate level decision-making, the same
principles of understanding apply at brand/product level. Computer-based
market modelling techniques are now available to provide a more fiexible
and scientific approach to situation analysis problems.
It would appear that we in marketing education may in fact be guilty of
the weakness of sentimentality in continuing to support our own "sick
product";
"Putting products to deathor letting them diesis a drab business,
and often engenders much of the sadness of a final parting with old
and tried friends. The portable six-sided pretzel polisher was the first
product the company ever made. Our hne will no longer be our line
without it." (Alexander 1964)
The Product Life Cycle has fulfilled its purpose. Is it not now time to
divest our "portable six-sided pretzel polisher" and more on to more
meaningful techniques?
References
Alexander, R. S. (1964), "The death and burial of sick products", Jaumat of Marketing, 28,
April, p. 1.
Argenti, J. (1974), Systematic Corporate Planning, Walton on Thames, Nelson, p. 21.
Buskirk, B. (1986), "Industrial market behaviour and the technological life cycle", Industriat
Management and Data System, November/December, pp. 8-12.
Cox, W. E. (1967), "Produrt life cycles as marketing models". Journal of Business, 40(4),
October.

THE END OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

155

Day, G. 11981), "The product life cycle: Analysis and applications issues", Journat of
Marketing, 45, Fall, pp. 60-67.
Dhalla, N. K. and Yuspeh, S. (1976), "Forget the product life cycle concept", Harvard
Business Review, 54, January/February, pp. 102-110.
Enis, B. et al. (1977), "Extending the product life cycle concept". Business Horizons, June, pp.
46-56.
Harrcli, S. G. and Taylor, E. D. (1981), "Modelling the product life cycle for consumer
durables", Journal of Marketing, 45, Fall.
Ketler, P. (1967), Marketing Management: Anatysis, Ptanning and Control, First Ed.,
Prentice-Hall.
Ketler, P. (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Sixth
Ed., Prentice-Hall.
Levitt, T. (1965), "Exploit the product life cycle", Harvard Business Review, November/
December, pp. 81-84.
Meenaghan, J. and O'Sullivan (1986), "The shape and length of the product life cycle",
Irish Marketing Review, I, Spring, pp. 83-102.
Patten, A. (1959), "Top management's stake in a product's life cycle". In: The Management
Review, New York, McKinsey and Co., June.
Folli, R. and Cook, V. (1969), "Validity of the product life cycle". Journal of Business, 42(4),
October, pp. 385-400.
Rogers, E. M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, Free Press.
Rink, D. R. and Fox, H. W. (1984), "The role of product life cycle theory in formulating
mdustrial procurement strategy", AMA Educators Proceedings, pp. 162-166.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), Theory of economic development. Harvard Economic Studies Series.
Smallwood, J. E. (1973), "The product life cycle: A key to strategic marketing planning",
MSU Business Topics, Winter, p. 35.
Tcllis, G. and Crawford (1981), "An evolutionary approach to growth theory". Journal of
Marketing, Fall, pp. 125-132.
(horelli, H. B. and Burnett, S. C. (1981), "'I'he nature of product life cycles for industrial
good businesses". Journal of Marketing, 45, Fall.
Tigert, D. and Fariwar, B. (1981), "The bass new product growth model: A sensitivity
analysis for a high technology product". Journal of Marketing, 45, Fall.
Wasson, C. R. (1971), Product Management, St Charlcshill Challenge Books.
Wilson, D. C. (1988), Strategic Decision-making in British Voluntary Organisations: Issues and
Concepts, University of Warwick, School of Industrial and Business Studies.