Marketing-mix coherence: measuring the interactions that create or destroy value.
Evidence status
What was reproduced, and what it does not prove.
The CSV and Python verify the six illustrative interactions and the two channel–service conflicts totalling −€84,480. They prove neither a causal effect, nor a real customer value, nor commercial performance.
- Technical specification of the marketing-mix coherence graph, specification in French (opens in a new tab)
v1, 31 August 2026 · CC BY 4.0 · specification in French · Method document written by marketing-mix.net. The figures are illustrative: they are not market measurements.
Key distinctions
Three conditions before calculating.
Directed interaction
The product can support the price through perceived differentiation, while the price can change the customer mix and therefore the service needs. The two directions have neither the same mechanism nor the same evidence.
No compensation
A blocking interaction does not disappear because five others are positive. If the channel does not keep the promise or if the contribution is negative, overall narrative coherence does not justify the extension.
Common value
Each link is translated into compatible units: contribution, capacity, risk or customer value. Qualitative scores remain diagnostics and are not added to euros without an explicit model.
Method
Moving from a coherence score to a decision graph
- 01Define the nodes
List concrete decisions rather than categories — offer format, price corridor, sales channel, service level, media role and evidence; assign an owner and an actionable range to each node.
- 02Qualify the links
For each critical pair, write direction, mechanism, measure and threshold; class the link as synergy, dependency, substitution, constraint or conflict.
- 03Value the scenarios
Compute the own contribution of each decision, then add separately the interaction effects identified; test low, central and stress scenarios without counting the same sale twice.
- 04Set the gates
Turn the critical links into deployment conditions — availability, net margin, service compliance, message comprehension or causal evidence; revise as soon as a threshold is crossed.
The economic graph of interactions
Six links between offer, price, channel and communication are qualified by direction, mechanism, expected value, threshold and level of evidence.
Illustrative scenario: a premium promise loses €84k in the wrong channel
Illustrative scenario: a premium offer adds €140 of price and €45 of cost to serve. In direct, 1,800 customers are expected with 85% compliance. On the marketplace, 2,200 customers are expected but the commission is €62, service is compliant only 58% of the time and 30% of the sales would have happened in direct.
Unit contribution in direct linked to the premium: 140 − 45 = €95. Marketplace contribution before transfer: 140 − 45 − 62 = €33. Margin lost on the 660 sales transferred from direct: 660 × (95 − 33) = €40,920. Non-compliance reduces estimated repeat purchase by 12 points, that is 2,200 × 12% × €165 of future value = €43,560. Net effect of the channel-service conflict: −€84,480.
Marketplace volume does not offset the conflict between promise, service and channel. The coherent mix reserves the premium offer for direct as long as marketplace compliance stays below 80%, or creates a distinct service version.
Acceptance conditions
What must be true to act.
- 01
Decisions, not abstract categories, constitute the nodes.
- 02
Every critical interaction has a mechanism and a threshold.
- 03
A blocking conflict is not offset by a high average.
- 04
Own effects and interactions are valued separately.
Limits
What this analysis does not prove.
- Multiple interactions can be hard to identify separately.
- Future value and brand effects carry strong uncertainty.
- A graph that is too dense becomes unreadable; the decision links must be prioritised.
References
Works cited.
- Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1995), “Complementarities and Fit: Strategy, Structure, and Organizational Change”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 179–208.
- MacDuffie, J. P. (1995), “Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197–221.
- Borden, N. H. (1964), “The Concept of the Marketing Mix”, Journal of Advertising Research, 4(2), 2–7.