THE APPLICATION OF MARKETING STRATEGIES IN THE CONTAINER SEAPORT MARKET. Dr. Pardali Angeliki, Associate Professor, Kounoupas Evangelos, PhD Candidate Dept. of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, email:
[email protected],
[email protected] ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight of how marketing has evolved in the area of Port economics and management. Our interest is focused on Container terminals. The paper examines the traditional, contemporary and evolving characteristics of the container terminal market based on a critical review of bibliography and published research. We present the container port marketplace form a marketing perspective and distinguish three different levels of marketing strategy application in the port market, namely the Governance Level, the Port Authority Level and the Port Terminal Operator (PTO) Level. We present the differences in strategy and implementation of port marketing within these levels, thus providing a basis to understand how these notions develop in each stage and the need for their integration in a holistic marketing approach. Keywords: Container Terminal, Port Product, Port Competition, Port, Marketing Levels 1. Introduction Over the last 40 years, much has been discussed, published and debated over the scientific field of marketing signalling the development of a more customer orientated culture, for both academics and business practitioners. Market and not industry became the centre of attention, since customers “are not bound by the typical single-industry definition of competition” [1]. According to Levitt [2] marketing “is the whole business seen from the point of view of the final result, that is, from the customer's point of view
… concern and responsibility for marketing must therefore permeate all areas of the enterprise”. However, considering the volume of literature in consumer, service and industrial marketing, little has been written for the case of Marketing in the Seaport sector. Early approaches, such as the ISL (1991) [3] and UNCTAD [4] publications have been limited in their perspective, however recent developments in the container seaport market is reinforcing the interest in the field. The Port Product encompasses tangible and intangible activities therefore any attempts to explore port marketing need to also consider the principles of service marketing. However, service and product marketing are not adequate to describe Seaport/container terminal operations. Ports exist because raw materials and goods need to be transported and in fact the port product and services are used as interim stages within a supply chain that delivers what is actually wanted by the end consumer. Hence, the Port Market is an industrial market and differences cover aspects of oligopoly situations, limited number of buyers, technical complexity, realistic and orthological buying behaviour [5]. Although defining the conceptual context is necessary, it is not adequate when studying Port Marketing. The Container Terminal Market is characterised by fierce competition and constant changes in the shape and power of its customers. Moreover, market key players such as Port Terminal Operators (PTOs), Port Authorities and Governing organisations have different roles and interests. By analysing the factors that constitute the container terminal market and exploring related literature we as highlight the necessity of marketing strategy formulation in separate levels. 2. Traditional Characteristics of the Container Market and the Early approaches to Port Marketing. Traditional Characteristics of the Container Market Traditionally, emphasis in port economics had been placed in developing the water-side and yard side operations. Shipping lines, global or local as well as shippers [6] [7], were defined as the main customers, the role of local hinterland was highly appreciated and port competition was mainly examined at an inter-port level. Yard side interest was placed in the centre of attention following the trend for continuously arising ship size, with demand imposing costly investments in infrastructure [8]. Regional monopolistic power developed by main ports left little space for competitive policies to arise, since fragmented markets and state protectionism controlled the market. Port performance was mainly measured based on efficiency-related measures and techniques [9]. In the post-war years, port management and consequent academic research was devoted to efficiency gains in ports operation and the shift from public towards private ownership and operations of port facilities. Up to the early 90’s the pursued economies of scale from shipping companies was confronted by extremely costly infrastructure investments and the development of dedicated terminals. The hub and spoke system enhanced the trend towards increasing container ship size, while alliances between major shipping
lines [10] resulted in the strengthening of their bargaining power, thus creating a buyer’s market [11]. Academic thinking at that time stresses that this would eventually limit the choices of global transport operators to only two or three European ports of call [12] with some ports might be “already fighting a lost battle” [13]. The Early approaches to Port Marketing. At the same time we can trace the early approaches on Port Marketing. Marti [6], UNCTAD publications [4] present some basic marketing guidelines mainly to cover operational aspects of port marketing, emphasising on promotion, statistical data gathering, competitive benchmarking, awareness building, enquiry servicing etc. Although pioneering, these considerations of port marketing adopt a rather limited and simplistic perspective on port marketing. In the early 90s the ISL publication on port marketing [3] cites a set of articles and proposes the first attempt to a holistic conceptual framework for port marketing, emphasising market orientation [14] [5], the complexity of port environment [15] the limitations of pricing strategies as the basic competitive policy [7], market segmentation and niche marketing [16] and the organisation of a Port Marketing Department [17]. It has to be noted though, that despite being the first truly marketing orientated publication on port management, most approaches were based on consumer marketing principles and today no longer provide a comprehensive basis for understanding contemporary port management. 3. Contemporary characteristics of the container terminal market and the evolution of port marketing principles. Contemporary characteristics of the container terminal market: Globalised economy, liberalization of international and local trade, the rise of containerisation, technological evolution in ship construction, terminal equipment and information systems, the worldwide trend for horizontal and vertical integration, the establishment of independent global logistic service providers have changed the scenery in port operations [17] [18][19][20]. Already in 1993, Heaver [21], comments that terminals and not ports are now the focus of competitive strategies. Ports are regarded as “pawns in a global game of commerce” [22]. The success or failure of port operations is now dependent or even determined not only by ports own core competences and performance but by a complex set of external factors [19][23]. The deployment of mega containerships and the further raise of transhipment increase the pressure of keeping the pace for satellite or feeder ports [24] [25], which due to their limited infrastructure facilities can become bottlenecks to the transport chain [26]. Emphasis is shifted from container terminal efficiency, productivity and associated costs to total customer cost [22], derived utility [11] and time efficiency [27][28]. In summary, major changes to modern port market environment refer to:
- Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Shipping and Terminal Operations: Vertical and horizontal integration of shipping lines (according to ESPO factual report in 2006, top 20 carriers carrying 80% of world total full TEUs in 2006, with top five companies responsible for the 45% [29]) is followed by a respective trend in the stevedoring industry with the emergence of global PTOs. Indeed in 2003, 37,5% of global container throughput was handled through the top-five global PTOs (HPH, PSA, APM Terminals, P&O Ports, Eurogate - Pardali 2007, p. 450). In Northern Europe, top five operators control over 95% of the multi user terminal capacity [24]. - The changing nature of the Port product: Port Authorities, Port management teams and researchers are struggling to define the new core business of the port [22]. Pardali and Stathopoulou (2005) argue that since a port is the link between sea and land transportation and the terminal is the fundamental production unit, port product refers to the cargo handling within the port area, being the sum of the existing terminal outputs and it is measured in cargo amount in tones or TEUs in a given time period. Of course this product is offered to the port customer assorted with a set of complementary products which can be orientated towards the water front (mooring, anchorage, piloting etc.) and/or to the land side (trail or road connections to hinterland, storage or consolidation facilities, etc.). The port product is finally enriched by a set of what is defined as the Seaport Cluster Product(s), which may include free trade zones, bunkering or ship repairing services up to financing and distribution services [19][20]. - The changing nature of Port Competition: The traditional paradigm of port competition focuses on competition between ports that have common geographical characteristics, or cover similar direct and regional hinterlands [30]. Intensified competition goes further from the traditional model of ports with similar or identical hinterlands, since policy regulations and recommendations are now encouraging intra port competition [19][31]. Moreover, it is now widely accepted that competition expands not just between independent ports/terminals, but between supply chains or logistical networks [19][20][22][32][33][34][36][37][38]. Despite competing against companies in the same industry (Shipping lines versus Shipping lines, and PTOs versus other PTOs) market players from different industries now compete against each other. Pardali (2005, pp.457-460) frames 3 dimensions of port competition within the competing supply chains: inter-port competition at the port operator level, intra-port competition at the port operator level, transhipment centres competition and inter-port competition at the Port Authority level. In a different conceptual approach, Fremont and Parola (2007) realise that gradually competing forces will have to shift from being opponents to becoming global partners [24], thus engaging in co-opetition [34]. - The changing role of port Authorities: Many authors [32][39][40] recognise that due to privatisation and commercialisation trends Port Authorities gradually lose the extent
of previous control over the production of the port product and need to adopt new roles. Lamonarca & Papa (2005) note that “Port authorities are becoming the hub of a composite set of interactions … the coordination task appears even more relevant and port authorities have the institutional function to regulate all facilities and activities which take place within the port”[41]. In this sense, Port Authorities need to become regulating bodies, responsible for the overall coordination of the port and port cluster product, controlling environmental and safety issues and the overall port marketing. As a governing institution, a Port Authority should focus on improving and monitoring the port and port cluster competitiveness aiming at effective positioning of the port within the global logistics chains [20]. - The changing form of the Port Customer: Having assumed that port competition develops on the level of global logistic chains, it is profound that the port customer profile and expectations are constantly evolving. Port clientele is broadened to include importers and exporters of goods, transport operators [42] which will select the ports that provide superior access to markets in a faster and more cost-effective way [43] [44]. This highlights the fact that ports entail a mixture of industry and service which serves specific production processes, the latter being defined [35] as highly sophisticated logistics activities. From this perspective, customers are now seeking to minimise the total logistic cost of transport within the frame of door-to-door philosophy, something that increases the pressure on port operations [45] [45]. Robinson (2002) argues that ports are now elements in value-driven chain systems. Shippers would now choose the port (and its related services) that offer acceptable value “on a sustainable basis in an end-to-end logistics pathway”. Shipping lines, Shipping agents, Stevedoring Companies/Port Operators, Hinterland Transport modes, Cargo Owners, 4th Party Logistics Providers (4Pls), Regulating Authorities, companies of the Seaport cluster, competing and cooperating port networks become the new players in the container market. The evolution of Port Marketing principles: The shift in the focus of attention is apparent in the way Port marketing conceptualisation evolved in the academic thinking. We can further distinguish the contemporary references to port marketing in three categories: - Port Marketing as a response to competing logistics chains: The “Serie Research Memoranda” (2001) treats Seaports as the main challenger of traditional logistics service providers and argue that Port Marketers should be targeting good transhipment services, comprehensive information management and seek backing up from deep-sea carriers in order to confront land-side rivals [47]. Lu (2002) proposes market segmentation based on shippers’ service requirements, defining port clientele to fall in three categories (consolidation services, cargo related and support services oriented
firms) [48]. The concept of competitive benchmarking [8] against leading ports, directed on the endogenous (traditional and logistics) port services, is also suggested in order to identify the fields where a specific port has “greater room to modify and improve”. Clients are now defined as Shipping companies and Import-export companies. - Port Marketing as a source of Value Creation: On this stage, marketing approaches move away from the simplistic introduction of consumer/product marketing principles and examine the port environment and competition from the perspective of Value Creation for the port user and competing logistics chains. References in essential marketing principles, especially in connection with changes in the competitive port environment are mentioned in the works of Zeien (1998) regarding marketing niche strategies [49], Baird’s (2000) reference to trade facilitation [50], Paixao & Marlow (2003) on lean and agile port organisation [33], Chlomoudis et al [35] on port reorganisation, in De Langen (2003) who considers marketing as a major “collective action regime” of the seaport cluster [51]. Although descriptive in essence, Pando et al (2005) study the reasons behind the need for port marketing with their findings associating the existence and coverage of port marketing strategies to national economic factors, port governance and ownership models, hinterland size, port size and function and internal resource allocation to marketing activities [52]. Elements of marketing principles, although not explicitly stated as such are apparent to the works of Winkelmans , Notteboom and Robinson[11][32][45][46][59]. - Recent Developments on Strategic and Operational Port marketing: It has not been until recently that mainly Cahoon [38][53][54] produced a series of papers focusing on strategic aspects of marketing management applied in the seaport context. Cahoon and Hecker (2007) suggest the use of services marketing strategies to assist in overcoming competitive pressures in the port market was proposed. Cahoon also highlights the importance of effective communications within the complex port environment [53]. These authors analyse product, logistical and pricing strategies, suggest market segmentation and coordinated market research as bases for effective port marketing strategy, together with Customer Relations Management, communications and employee involvement strategies. Earlier, Cahoon had distinguished four main elements in port marketing, namely promotion, community liaison, trade and business development and Customer Relations management [53]. Cahoon stresses the significance of customer retention further to customer creation and propose Customer Relations techniques as a major strategic tool. 5. A new conceptual approach to Strategic Port Marketing The previous analysis has postulated the complex and continuously evolving nature of the container port market. The market is enlarging in volume and monetary value [26],
traditional location-based advantages are less sustainable and the distinct roles of the market players in the past are becoming more obscure. Hyper-competition over price and infrastructure [38], competing logistics chains and the importance of value adding services demand a more thorough examination of the market, based not just on the port producer capabilities but rather on the port user requirements. In such an environment, a first and perhaps justifiable conclusion is that the container terminal market is totally customer-dominated and the burden of providing the port product is almost unbearable by most PTOs and perhaps triggers a trend towards oligopolistic competition. However, our proposition is that a marketing-focused perspective allows reconsidering the situation. A starting point is that not all customers are the same and that even if the outcome of their buying behaviour is similar, the reasons behind it may appear different. Parola & Musso (2007) offer an intriguing example by observing that although the ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven and Hamburg are geographically related and service the same hinterland, they have developed different market positions, with Hamburg focusing on Asian trade and Bremen on transatlantic cargo flows [24]. Viewing this example from a total logistic pathway perspective, it means that these ports despite being in the same industry, they are actually not in the same market, since different trade services imply different ship sizes, number of calls, different customer characteristics (corporate sizes, capabilities, targets, culture, structure, etc). The fact that top-5 sea carriers concentrate 45% of movement allows for a 55% market share spread globally to other companies with different strategies, different goals and policies. Seaports are indeed limited in responding to competitors since they are unable to relocate, as Cahoon and Hecker (2007) support. Nevertheless, from a logistics chain perspective, if a shipping line or multimodal transport operator decides to switch between two ports, this will demand the reallocation of the complete logistical chain, which will bear costs, time constraints, and overall inflexibility. Therefore, it is at least intriguing to inspect whether a port can actually use strategies to attract and retain the desirable kind of customers and operate in a relational rather than transactional – orientated behaviour [55]. The Strategic positioning concept, as postulated by Elson (2003), implies that a company can actually chose the specific market it wants to be in, in line with its corporate capabilities and goals, the trends in competition and sociopolitical environment [56]. Ports might have become a weak link, but “port management continues to play a role of some significance” [10]. In other words the situation we presented provides a solid basis for attempting to implement marketing principles to port management. Even though recent thinking on port marketing provide an useful insights on the issues that port marketing should examine, they do not clarify who will actually perform market planning and execute marketing strategies. In line with this comment is the question raised by the World Bank, on whether a port will continue to have a marketing
and planning function after privatization, or this will be left to the individual service providers. As discussed, the container port market consists of customers with different characteristics, various closely related key players and port production takes place in distinct but interrelated stages (terminal product, complementary products and Seaport Cluster products). Our proposition is that since the container port community consists of players with different characteristics and production takes place in different levels, port marketing strategies should also evolve in three distinct but integrated levels. 5.1. Port marketing at the Port terminal Operator level: Having defined the terminal as the main producer of the port product, it is obvious that this is the first stage of marketing implementation. A port terminal operator (PTO) may be an independent or a venture of stevedores, a subsidiary of sea-carrier; it can belong to the port authority or be part of a 4PL company. Depending of its position in the value chain, its strategy and goals, the PTO will implement the suitable marketing strategy. At this level, marketing research demands a thorough understanding of the exact characteristics of existing and prospect customers for the specific terminal. For sea carriers these can include ship sizes, number of calls, routing and itinerary, previous stops, type of containers transported, proportion of transhipment versus local cargo, participation in global alliances etc. Basic financial figures, elements of corporate structure and culture can be also kept to assist in deeper understanding of customer expectations and predict future investment demands. This will allow better adjustments and can lead to better service quality and responsiveness. Looking at existing and prospect customer characteristics, a PTO might find it useful to proceed in horizontal integrating strategies, acquiring stakes in other terminals or vertical expansion in rail companies or warehousing facilities. Examining local (interport or intra-port) or distant competitors can create a mental map of customer needs coverage and identify possible growth opportunities or discourage investments where customers are already adequately served. Strategic positioning in this level means to select the basis on which the terminal will built a sustainable competitive advantage by trying to attract and retain the type of customers it can most profitably serve. As Ellson (2002) remarks, “strategic positioning chooses the exact value basis on which the firm will compete” [56]. This strategic choice “must reflect a firm’s ability to deliver the expectations associated from that particular positioning [57]. In other words the PTO has to decide, in line with its company mission and vision, if it will be oriented on quay side operations (pure stevedoring), on logistics and warehousing facilities or provide other port cluster services, thus constructing a terminal product portfolio. Although theoretically anything that can be offered to a market to satisfy a want is a product [58], it is important to define which elements of the product add more value to customers [2].
Robinson (2002) states that port authorities need to “segment their customers in terms of a value proposition… and capture value for themselves and for the chain they are embedded in so doing” [11]. Using benefit segmentation techniques is a way of mapping customer value paths. These options are not limited or mutually excluded. They assist in creating a terminal product mix that can be now targeted to the specific characteristics of the selected port customers in a more efficient and cost-effective way. Customer Segmentation can also identify cost-sensitive customers or customers that are more prominent in paying for value-added services, hence leading to competitive Pricing Strategies [20][38] Customer relation programs (loyalty schemes, involvement in port development planning) are necessary to retain targeted customers, and enhance relationships. Elements of the right communication strategies towards present and potential customers are necessary to build port terminal awareness, corporate image and contribution. The Internal marketing concept aims at bounding all employees towards customer satisfaction through internal communication, training and promotion programs, by recognizing that employees are the people actually delivering the valued service to the customer and play a key role in information exchange between customers and management. Marketing control follows to measure the success of marketing plans, ensure that ineffective marketing plans are reconsidered and produce reports for the overall evaluation of the terminal marketing strategy. It is the duty of the PTO Marketing Department to coordinate the previously mentioned activities and in line with top management set the strategic course of the organization. 5.2. Port marketing at the Port Authority level: As we mentioned earlier, the role of Port Authorities s changing from producing the port product towards becoming a regulating body, responsible for the investment on infrastructure the overall port function, security, environmental policy and land use. Most publications [3][4][23][59][60] associate marketing to the role of a (public) port authority. In (UNCTAD/SDTE/TIB/1) it is argued that “the Port Authority should not substitute itself for the direct customer-oriented marketing of the private operators; rather, it should jointly with them promote and market projects abroad”[4]. Under a landlord operating model, a Port Authority can set the long term marketing focus of a port, by allocating space for developing logistics/warehousing/consolidation and other value adding facilities, and combined transport infrastructure. A port Authority, having the overall picture of the port can exercise its own marketing strategy starting by attaining these operators whose characteristics can fit the wider port authority strategy. Further to that, in the case intra-port competition with multiple PTOs operating within a port authority framework, we assume that each PTO will pursue its own competitive strategy. The role of the Port Authority then becomes crucial in tuning port producers marketing strategies to a total offer, and promote this Port Product Portfolio to existing and prospect users. Liaising and promotional strategies with local community are
essential. A port authority can assist in information gathering and dissemination to PTOs regarding market trends, which can be locally, nationally or regionally specific. Then, they can join resources and capabilities for a more effective marketing management (UNCTAD/SDD/PORT/4). As an institutional body, a port authority can represent port operators together with other companies of the seaport cluster, thus promoting the notion of “one stop shop”. With positioning strategies in this level aiming at differentiating the total port cluster product from other competing ports/port clusters, marketing communications target external stakeholders such as local community and national or multinational regulating bodies. Marketing at port authority level must also target governmental or regional agencies aiming to promote port operations impact and secure ports’ interests within the national (or regional) port policy. In a world of fierce competition and constantly evolving globalization, ports in the world are increasingly faced with common issues and concerns, with a need to solve those them in an international framework. Port Authorities can represent port cluster issues and engage in active collaboration with the international agencies (IAPH, IMO, ESPO etc). This means that the stakeholder definition is much broader from a port authority marketing than from a PTO marketing perspective. 5.3. Port marketing at the National – Regional level: Seldom do Ports operate completely independently. In most countries, there is a national or regional seaport policy, which may appear independent or as part of a transportation sector policy (p.ex. the E.U. Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure, 1997). In other words, national or international regulating bodies or agencies actually engage and proceed with the design and long term planning of port policy. Governments or intergovernmental organisations regulate the financing or set the goals of investments in seaports. The need for a market orientated strategy at this level is apparent as decisions have long term implications and can set the course of long-term port planning. The decision of the British Government to proceed in massive privatisation of British ports was an ineffective positioning strategy for fund raising, based on considering ports merely as assets. The recent MoU signed by the Greek and the Korean government for a new transhipment port development in Crete (southern Greece) is a market networking strategy. To proceed with such investments, legislators and policy makers need extensive market information. In this advanced level, the same principles apply, this time however, customers and suppliers are not just companies but sectors of economic activity and decisions are based on national rather than corporate capabilities and competitive positions. For example, the construction or financing of a new container port/terminal must take into consideration issues of location, hinterland connections, space availability within the national or regional context. Competitors need to be defined in a broader context. Decisions still need to be orientated towards value creation and customer needs and expected benefits of but at this time stakeholders are national/regional economic sectors and not private companies.
The following figure summarises our analysis. Figure 1. The three levels of Port Marketing Level
Player
Competition
Company
Port Terminal Operator
Inter-port Intra-port
Cluster
Port Authority
Inter-port
Regional Network
Government International Organisations
Inter-port Inter-regional
Product One Product Portfolio of Products of the Seaport Cluster Portfolio of Products from the Region - Port Network
Marketing Aim Improving the strategic position of the Container terminal Improving the strategic position of the Seaport Cluster Improving the position of the Region - Port Sector
Conclusion The above analysis has distinguished a set of marketing strategies; depending on the level of strategic marketing formulation, a terminal operator, port authority and governmental/regional agents need to decide on the competitive position it will pursue, build and sustain. There is no uniform marketing strategy to cover all ports and terminals. The complexity of the port market environment in matters of key players, customer and product definition needs to be thoroughly assessed. The plethora of literature on available marketing strategies allows for a selection of a variety of competitive positions and strategies at each level of port marketing. It is then the duty of port marketing management to develop the right marketing plan, elevate the sense of market orientation throughout its organization to achieve long lasting competitive advantage. Following the frame we have postulated, future research can examine the exact elements of marketing strategy in each stage, adjusted to the specific characteristics of each level. Furthermore, national and regional policy makers need to adopt a market orientated culture that will incorporate, coordinate and further enhance the marketing strategies of the port authority and terminal operator level, bearing always in mind the offering of superior utility to the whole transportation system.
Note: Mr Evangelos Kounoupas is a Scholar of “Propondis Foundation”.
REFERENCES [1] HEISSER, R.S., McQUITTY, S., STRATEMEYER, A.W., (2005), “Broadening the competitive environment: The Customer perspective”, Academy of Marketing Management Science Review, Vol. 2005, No. 12, [2] LEVITT, T., The Marketing Imagination, The Free Press, New York, 1983 [3] STUTCHEY, R.W., Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991 [4] UNCTAD publications: TD/B/C.4/AC.7/14, UNCTAD/SHIP/494(11), UNCTAD/SHIP/494/ (13), UNCTAD/SHIP/464/ (32) [5] REEDER R.R., BRIERTY E.G., REEDER B.H, Industrial Marketing: Analysis, Planning and Control. , Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1987 [6] MARTI, B.E. (1986), “Marketing Strategies: a Container Foreland Study of the Port of Miami”, Geoforum, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 375-382 [7] MESTER, B., “Marketing from the port’s point of view”, in Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991 [8] CUADRADO, M., FRASQUET, M., CERVERA, A. (2004), “Benchmarking the port services: a customer orientated proposal”, Benchmarking, Vol. 11, No. 13 [9] DONG-WOOK,S, PANAYIDES, P., “Global supply chain and port/terminal: Integration and competitiveness”, Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Logistics, Shipping and Port Management, Taiwan, 29-30 March 2007 [10] MEERSMAN, H., MOGLIA, F. AND VAN DE VOORDE, E., “Mergers and Alliances in Liner Shipping: What do European port authorities have top fear?”, International Association of Maritime Economists, Proceedings of the IAME 1999 Halifax Conference. [11] ROBINSON, R., (2002) “Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 241-255 [12] ADCOCK, G., (1995), “Shipping lines see future; it’s cloudy to others”, Worldwide Shipping, November 1995, p.39 [13] BAIRD, A.J., “Container Vessels in the New Millennium: Implications for Seaports”, International Association of Maritime Economists, Proceedings of the IAME 1999 Halifax Conference. [14] STUTCHEY ROLF W., “Port Competition and Marketing”, in Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991 [15] SCHULTEN, U. “Marketing from the Customer’s point of view”, in Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991 [16] MUHLER, G. “Niche Marketing”, in Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991 [17] STUTCHEY ROLF W., “Port Marketing Organisation”, in Port Management Textbook, Volume 3, Bremen, Institute of Shipping and Logistics, 1991
[18] MIDORO, R., MUSSO, E., PAROLA, F., (2005), “Maritime liner shipping and the stevedoring industry: market structure and competition strategies”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 82, pp. 89-106 [19] PARDALI, A.; STATHOPOULOU. C, (2005), “Port Competition: The case of the Greek Port Industry” IAME Annual Conference, Cyprus 2005. [20] PARDALI, A.; Port Economics and Policy, Stamoulis, Athens, 2007 [21] HEAVER, T.D., “Shipping and the Market for Port Services”, in: Blauwens, G., De Brabander, G., Van de Voorde, E. (Eds.), De dynamiek van een haven, uitg. Pelckmans: Kapellen, 1993 [22] WINKELMANS, W. “Port Competitiveness and Port Competition. Two of a kind?” Proceedings of the 23rd IAPH World Ports Conference, May 2003, Durban [23] CULLINANE, K, KHANNA, M. AND SONG, D.W., “How Big is Beautiful: Economies of scale and the optimal size of containership”, Liner Shipping: What’s Next? , International Association of Maritime Economists, Proceedings of the IAME 1999 Halifax Conference [24] PAROLA, F., MUSSO, E., (2007), “Market structures and competitive strategies: the carrier–stevedore arm-wrestling in northern European ports”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 259-278. [25] HOFFMAN, J., Concentration in Liner Shipping: Its Causes and Impacts for Ports and Shipping Services in Developing Regions, ECLAC, LG/G.207, August 1998 [26] DEUTSCHE BANK RESEARCH, “Container Shipping: Overcapacity inevitable despite increasing demand”, April 25, 2006, at: http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000198081.pdf
[27] MAGALA, M., (2007), “Targeting market opportunity for port growth: a CARTbased decision support system”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 131-150. [28] HENESEY, L., WERNSTEDT, F.; DAVIDSSON, P., “A market based approach to container port terminal management” pp. in proc. ECAI-02 Workshop on Agent Technologies in Logistics, Lyon (France), 2002. [29] E SPO ANNUAL REPORT 2006-2007 - ITMMA REPORT, cited at: http://www.espo.be/EU_Ports_$26$_Facts/ESPO-ITMMA_Market_Report.aspx, access: 20/08/2007
[30] VERHOEFF, J.M., (1981), “Seaport Competition: Some fundamental and political aspects”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 49-60 [31] PALLIS, A., DE LANGEN, P.W., (2006) “Analysis of the benefits of intra-port competition”, International Journal of Transport Economics, Vol.33, No.1, pp.69-86 [32] NOTTEBOOM, T., WINKELMANS, W., (2001), Structural change in logistics: how will port face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 71–89. [33] PAIXAO, C., MARLOW, P.B., (2003), “Fourth generations ports – a question of agility?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.33, No.4, pp. 355-376
[34] SONG, D.W. (2003), Port co-opetition in concept and practice, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 29 - 44 [35] CHLOMOUDIS C.I., KARALIS V.A., PALLIS A.A., (2003), “Port Reorganisation and the Worlds of Production Theory”. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol.3, No.1, 77-94. [36] BICHOU, K. / GRAY, R. (2005), “A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports”, Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, No. 1, p.75-92 [37] CHLOMOUDIS C.I., PALLIS A.A., (1999), “The need for a New Philosophy of Port Management and Organisation: Effective Responses to Contemporary Challenges”, European Research Studies, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 91-103. [38] CAHOON, S., HECKER, R. (2005) “Seaports in the New Economy: Using Services Marketing Strategies to Increase Cargo Throughput in a Hypercompetitive Environment”, Proceedings of the IAME Conference, Cyprus 2005 [39] HEAVER, T.; MEERSMAN, H.; MOGLIA, F.; VAN DE VOORDE, E. (2000), “Do mergers and alliances influence European shipping and port competition?”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 363-373 [40] EVERETT, S, (2003) “Corporatization: a legislative framework for port inefficiencies”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 211-219 [41] LAMONARCA, M., PAPA, P., (2005), “Port Governance: new Challenges for Port Authorities”, Proceedings of the IAME Conference, Cyprus 2005 [42] MARTIN, J. AND THOMAS, B. J. (2001), “The container port community”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.8, No. 3, pp. 279–292. [43] GOSS, R.O. (1990), “Economic policies and Seaports – Strategies for Port Authorities”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.17, No.4, pp. 273-287 [44] SUYCKENS, F., (1985), “Administration and management of the port of Anwerp”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol.12, No.3, pp. 181-194 [45] NOTTEBOOM, T., (2002), “Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 257-269 [46] NOTTEBOOM, T., WINKELMANS, W., “Stakeholders relations management in ports: dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment”, Proceedings of the IAME Annual Conference Panama City, 2002, [47] WIEGMANS, B.W., NIJKAMP, P.M RIETVELD, P. “Container Terminal in Europe: Their position in Marketing Channel Flows”, Serie Research Memoranda, Research Memorandum 2001-5, February 2001 [48] LU, C.S. (2003), “Market segment evaluation and international distribution centers”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 49-60 [49] ZEIEN, J.J., “Facing the Liner Shipping Revolution: Strategies for North American ports”, IAME Proceedings of the IAME 1999 Halifax Conference
[50] BAIRD, J.B. (2003), “Planning cityport container terminals: challenges and trends”, available at: http://www.stsg.org/papers/containerterminals.pdf, accessed: 10/08/2007 [51] DE LANGEN, P.W., (2002), “Clustering and performance: the case of maritime clustering in the Netherlands”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 209–221. [52] PANDO, J.; ARAUJO, A.; JAVIER MAQUEDA, F., (2005), Marketing management at the world's major ports, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 32, No 2, pp. 67-87 [53] CAHOON, S. (2007), “Marketing Communication Strategies for Seaports: a matter of survival and growth”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 151– 168. [54] CAHOON, S. (2004) Seaport Marketing: A Census of Australian Seaports, unpublished PhD thesis, Tasmania, Australia: University of Tasmania. [55] LINDGREEN, A., WYNSTRA, F. (2005), “Value in business markets: What do we know? Where are we going?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 34, No 7, pp 732-748. [56] ELLSON, T., (2002): “Positioning and culture as a determinant of strategy”, Unpublished PhD, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School. [57] KALAFATIS, S.P., TSOGAS, M.H., BLANKSON, C. (2000), “Positioning strategies in business markets”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.416-437. [58] KOTLER, P., “Marketing management”, Millennium Edition, Prentice Hall International (UK), London, 2000 [59] NOTTEBOOM, T. E.; RODRIGUE, J. P., (2005), “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313. [60] BAIRD, A.J. (2002), The Economics of Container Transshipment in Northern Europe, International Journal of Maritime Economics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 249-280
