The Myopia of New Marketing Penceas - Against

Cases in marketing
Submitted to: Mr.Kashir Asghar Submitted by: Mariam Munir Maryam Badar Areej Fatima Atisam Raja MBA 4 (y
Date: 7th November 20 !

THE MYOPIA OF NEW MARKETING PANACEAS

The article demands the marketers to put their heads together and figure out the best ways of application of marketing concepts. The article asserts that the proliferation of marketing concepts has turned customers cynical of the marketing practices. This paper supports the aforementioned school of thought. The present essay aims to join the conversation on new marketing 1. Recap the new marketing approaches on offer 2. Identify their limitations 3. ssess the current state of consumers! resistance to marketing and to the new marketing panaceas

". Identify a theoretical framework that is favorable to the joint development of marketing and consumer. #. Relin$uishing the idea of control which is at the heart of 2 major factors leading to marketing myopia% e.g. fundamentalism and colonialism &arketing myopia was first identified and highlighted by Theodore 'evitt an economist and editor of (oward business review in 1)*+. Marketing Myopia is the quintessential big hit HBR piece. In it, Theodore Le itt, !ho !as then a lecturer in business ad"inistration at the Har ard Business #chool, introduced the $a"ous question, %hat business are you really in& and !ith it the clai" that, had railroad e'ecuti es seen the"sel es as being in the transportation business rather than the railroad business, they !ould ha e continued to gro!. The article is as "uch about strategy as it is about "arketing, but it also introduced the "ost in$luential "arketing idea o$ the past hal$(century) those businesses !ill do better in the end i$ they concentrate on "eeting custo"ers* needs rather than on selling products. Marketing Myopia !on the Mc+insey ,!ard in -./0. (e further established that e ery "a1or industry !as once a gro!th industry. But so"e that are no! riding a !a e o$ gro!th enthusias" are ery "uch in the shado! o$ decline. 2thers !hich are thought o$ as seasoned gro!th industries ha e actually stopped gro!ing. In e ery case the reason gro!th is threatened, slo!ed, or stopped is not because the "arket is saturated. It is because there has been a $ailure o$ "anage"ent ,levitt% 1)*+-. the author has thrown light upon the factors leading to marketing myopia. It might threaten the very e.istence of a firm. Times of India ,mag- has defined myopia in its own way Manage"ent gurus de$ine "arketing "yopia as a co"pany3s short(sighted, te"porary or narro!("inded approach !hile "arketing their product. 4o"panies need to adapt the"sel es to the changing "arket. %hen a $ir" changes its "arketing $ocus $ro" custo"er to its product or the co"pany itsel$, it is also called "yopia ,lohani% 2+1+-. The current era is more like an arena where the war of wits is going on between

the brands. &r. david aaker % one of the marketing gurus has shown his concern for the issue like myopia due to the saturation of marketing panaceas% making the companies to e.ercise same kind of strategies. He is o$ the ie! that "arketing needs to be ele ate its ga"e tactically. %ith the $rag"entation o$ the "edia options, the dyna"ics o$ social "edia, and the proli$eration o$ brands and o$$erings, there is so "uch clutter and co"ple'ity that nothing less than great "arketing and e'ceptional o$$erings !ill break out. This "eans ha ing access to creati e tools, people !illing to inno ate, and a broad array o$ "arketing "odalities ,aaker% 2+11- the author has enlightened the companies about the challenges accompanying panaceas/bring something uni$ue in terms of marketing offerings% rationales% strategies% innovations etc . Le itt intended Marketing Myopia to be a challenge to businesses as a !hole, not 1ust to their "arketing depart"ents. T!enty(three years later, his article The 5lobali6ation o$ Markets told a si"ilar story on a grander scale. To take ad antage o$ globali6ation, he !rote, co"panies should standardi6e as "uch as possible, because !hat people "ost desire are the lo! prices and quality "ade possible by standardi6ation ,'evitt% 2++*-. 'evitt is of the view that the companies instead of focusing on the marketing promotional methods should focus on the need of their customers. The author has presented the idea that marketing is fairly less developed field as compared to other disciplines an often borrows terms from sociology and medicine generating odd ideas such as tribal marketing and marketing transgenic. The sticking fact is that many protagonists of new marketing are trying to look beyond the 0market! into e.ternal territories for ideas to support post modern marketing. 1ornelissen suggest that marketing is being married to terms in form of panaceas that are not relevant to concept of value. Robert 2. &organ gives reason for seeking refuge in post modern marketing as 3poor i"ple"entation indicating a di orce bet!een the rhetoric o$ the "arketing concept and the reality o$ "arketing practice 7Morgan .R8. 'ater in the article the authors states that the proliferation of new marketing panaceas and there combination with ideas beyond marketing casts doubts in the consumers mind. n e.ample is of relationship marketing is argued by drian 4. 5almer as a short term approach in response to competition. There "ay be a great te"ptation $or "anagers to adopt relationship "arketing as the latest holy grail o$ "anage"ent 79al"er. ,8. &oreover he argues that 3relational e'change "ay be seen by one or both parties as a short(ter" "eans to!ards acquiring co"petences !hich !ill allo! the" to bargain $uture transactions $ro" a position o$ strength. 5hilip 6otler himself proposed the idea in one of his landmark articles 3 generic concept of

marketing7 7+otler. 9, -.:;8. The 6otlerian perspective is reviewed by 8tephen 9rown as another doctorial concept of marketing yet taken in an erroneous sense by many sceptics of the

idea ,9rown. 8-. :urthermore he argues that 3 ,ll that neo("arketing really needs is <big ideas* though as big ideas go, big ideas is not e'actly the <biggest idea* on the scholarly stu"p 7 ,9rown. 8-. (e also suggests that marketing is a 3 Belie$ #yste" and neo/marketers need something to believe in. 'ater in the article the author has identified five distinct groups of new panaceas namely ;iche &arketing% 1lient relationship% &arket 2nvironment% 1ustomer 2.perience and 1o/creation. These groups have been heavily critici<ed by supporters of 6otlerian perspective. &ichael 2. Raynor argues that marketers focus on competition and the ;iche is often a means to stay competitive. (e suggests that 3The niche has to be real, and the product has to satis$y 7Raynor. M8. (owever competition and short term focus results in me too products. &oreover he presents some causes of failure 3co""on $ault o$ $ailed niche strategies) the belie$ that so"eho! all that is required to succeed, to car e out a niche in the "arket, is a di$$erently $ocused "essage=either through branding, ad ertising, or packaging ,Raynor. &-. Regarding other groups% drian 5almer suggests that 3Relationship "arketing strategies "ay $ail !here buyers* perception is o$ reduced choice and $reedo" to act opportunistically rather than added alue !hich co"es $ro" a relationship 79al"er. ,8. 8tephen 9rown says about new panaceas that In enti e though these alternati es are, it is i"portant to stress that they are not so "uch replace"ents as "odi$ications7Bro!n. #8. GROWING CONSUMER ANTIPATHY ccording to 9adot and 1ova ,2++=- the marketing/refle. is an ability of consumer to 3second/ guess any new marketing intent7 i/e postmodern consumers possess advance skills in recogni<ing it and ignore marketing effort consciously and subconsciously. (ence% marketing refle. referred as a warning system% detecting incoming commercial messages that neutrali<e them ,9rown 2++3-. &oreover% e.plained by Rou. ,2++>-% marketers continuously strive to find the marketing panacea to affect consumer persuasion but the harder marketers try% the more consumer resist. ?hen a consumer is e.posed to T@ commercials% consumer holds negative attitude toward commercial communication that creates psychological discomfort in the consumer. s e.plained by 4ohansson ,2++"- that anti marketers are not against shopping but they argue that system has gone too far and consumer world is turned into commercialiasm% consumption and materialism. 1ulprit is ;ew marketing. In the research of Aankelovich consumer holds

negative opinion about new marketing and advertising than before which got out of control. (ence people are becoming marketing resistance. Aankelovich e.plained that marketing resistance is not shopping altogether. 1onsumers are pushing themselves back and resist what marketers try to advertise to them. 9ecause they want &arketers to use a tool which is smarter% time efficient% interaction foster% to overcome the marketing refle. of consumers. :or anti/marketers% groups such as dbusters and no/logo% these are essential beliefs that border intolerance. Thus% they represent anti/marketing attitude of common consumer and described as 3Bplay$ul consu"ers that disobey but do not rebel in a bid to re(appropriate their daily e'istence ,9adot and 1ova 2++=-. 1onsumer resistance and marketing refle. is a state of marketing communication which arises from consumer 3bad taste7. nd it is this bad taste that creates need for disobey. ?hat makes up 9 C T 8T2D In theory of marketplace metacognition% this perception arise from past accumulated e.periences and encounters with marketing communication. :or this purpose% marketers have invented more than 1++ marketing panaceas to overcome consumer resistance and marketing refle.. 8o Irrelevant &arketing is 3bad Taste7. Rou. ,2++>e.plained that communication is not simply a means of relying messages to others but a process of constructing and recogni<ing the self. consumer will be more prone to accept marketing communications in which they can recogni<e themselves 9ased on internet% consumer develop different kind of relationship with industries the one based on 2$uality% in which new consumer can e.change the views with others to develop knowledge from each other rather from company. They either share or contradict information from company. This is an act that gives consumer greater control over their consumption and lives. ccording to marketers% 3consumer empowerment7 considered as a stake in the heart of marketing. 1onsumer blogs% forum and review sites give consumer a global voice that determines fate of a brand. The greater products and services choices available that empower consumers to switch products as fads. En demand media empowers people to avoid advertising and make a mockery of advertising scheduling. ,5aul &arsden% &artin Eetting 2++#8am Rolley e.plains ,2+13- 2mpowered consumers resist social influence by either discounting the opinions of others or deliberately e.pressing opinions that diverge the opinions of others. 1ompanies should consider that to integrate social influence which they say as marketing pancea 3word of mouth marketing% social network marketing or bu<< marketing7% that might backfire with empowered consumers to some e.tend.

BREAKING FREE FROM MARKETING FUNDAMENTALISM AND MARKETING COLONIALISM:

1onsumers empowered resistance forces marketing to move from type 1 to type 2 changes in which they have to move from a more simplistic approach to a more of being an actor and producer as a consumer. This thought is connected to two major sources of marketing myopiaF the marketing fundamentalism and the marketing colonialism. The goods dominant logic is more of an outdated content and marketers are now moving towards a service dominant logic where services are considered as an important and special of product as a whole. The fundamental view had the basis of an economical intent in which the goods were e.changed as a manufactured output on the attached value and through a transaction. In the service dominant logic the consumer co/constructs this value for himGherself 3the consumer is always a co/creator of the value7 ,'usch and @argo 2++*b-. Cue to this the shift from a 3market to7 philosophy has shifted to 3market with7 philosophy% the 3market with7 philosophy was considered to be of a significant importance for the future for adding value in the co/creation process ,'usch and @argo 2++*b-% deliberately assigned by the marketing panaceas. 7-8 a syste" o$ sy"bols !hich acts to 7;8 establish po!er$ul, per asi e, and long(lasting "oods and "oti ations in "en by 7>8 $or"ulating conceptions o$ a general order o$ e'istence and 7?8 clothing these conceptions !ith such an aura o$ $actuality that 7@8 the "oods and "oti ations see" uniquely realistic. 7Bo!ie ;08. The co/ creation construct could serve as a catalyst for companies to abandon the fundamentalist approach which was being used so far by the managers% it is when a behavior is considered the right solution and not viewed as a problem where as 3marketing with7 is an anti/fundamentalist approach that tolerates the differences and also engage learning from others. Though "ainstrea" econo"ics began by assu"ing that this hedonistic, indi idualistic approach to analy6ing consu"er de"and !as intellectually sound, it ended up pro ing that it !as not. 7+een ;>8 En the other hand the term 08ocieting! in which 3the company is not a simple economic actor who adapts to the market but a social actor embedded in the societal conte.t7 ,9adot and al. 1))3% p. #1-. 1ombining the societal conte.t with that of a market% this is the most reasonable way of escaping the conse$uences of over/marketing ,4ohansson 2++"-. 9ut if not understood properly it could lead to a post colonial fashion of taking into account all the actions taken by the societal agents. %e are being s!ept up into a po!er$ul ne! technology re olution that o$$ers the pro"ise o$ a great social trans$or"ation, unlike any in history. 7Ri$kin ->8. 8o until now% the marketing has been a polite way for the companies to say 3controlling the market7% but to break free from the marketing fundamentalism and marketing colonialism the discipline has to banish the idea of control% as neither the companies nor the stakeholders can control each other fully and would just have an interaction of joint marketing. This is almost lessening the pressure of e.erting the power on consumers and leaving some space for them to develop a relationship with the company in a 3hand/holding7 approach. 9ut this is contrary to what is being taught to business students as managers and is more of a comple. understanding of the company% company!s fi. within the society and also its interrelations with all of its business and non business actors.

REFERENCES: Adrian J. Pal !r" Relationship "arketing) a uni ersal paradig" or "anage"ent $ad& The 'earning Ergani<ation% @olume 3 H ;umber 3 H 1))* H pp. 1=I2#% J &19 Kniversity 5ress Bad#$ % C#&a ,2++=-% The myopia of new marketing panceasD the case for rebuilding our discipline. Aournal o$ "arketing "anage"ent% 5 2+#/21). Br#'n. S" Bote, Bote, Bote $or 9hilip +otler, 2uropean journal of &arketing% @ol 3*% no 3% 2++2% pg 313/32" Da&id Mi!la() ,2+13- 3potential social media disaster7 9usiness news daily% atD httpDGGwww.businessnewsdaily.comG3)#>/$uick/response/companies.html Mi()a!l E. Ra*n#r" The 9it$alls o$ Ciche Marketing, The 4ournal of 9usiness 8trategy% &archG pril 1))2. M#r+an. R" 4onceptual $oundations o$ "arketing and "arketing theory, Manage"ent Decision, >?E-0 F-../G -.H;/, I M4B Jni ersity 9ress Pa,l Mar-d!n" Mar$in O!$$in+ 2++# consu"er po!er reloaded) !hy your consu"er should dri e your "arketing atD httpDGGwww.marketingprofs.comG#Gmarsdenoetting1.aspLi.<<2jpf;utCr R#,." D ,2++>-. 1onsumer resistanceD proposal for an integrative framework. 5.#)/>) Sa R#ll!* ,2+13-% e"po!ered custo"ers "ay shun social "edia "arketing atD httpDGGwww.retailwire.comGnews/articleG1*)#=Gstudy/empowered/consumers/resist/social/ marketing/efforts S$!/)!n Br#'n Li$e begins at ?0& Kurther thoughts on "arketing*s "id(li$e crisis, &arketing Intelligence M 5lanning% @ol. 13 ;o. 1% 1))#% pp. "/1>