Business Finance
Principles of Marketing Myopia Essay, business & finance homework help

Question Description

Marketing Myopia Essay

As discussed in the Unit I Lesson, the marketing concept consists of elements that concern market segmentation and how it relates to target markets. Also, recall that promotion is used to reach those target markets.

In this essay, define the marketing concept and summarize its relationship to marketing myopia. Give an example of marketing myopia that you have seen. Your essay must include an introduction. You must also reference at least one journal article from the Online Library and one article from a business-related or news website; therefore, your essay should be supported by at least two sources.

Your essay must be at least three pages in length and double-spaced, not counting the title and reference pages. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA citations.

Resources on the Myopia

Gallo, A. (2016, August 22). A refresher on marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2-5.

Richard, M. D., Womack, J. A., & Allaway, A. W. (1993). Marketing myopia: An integrated view. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2(3), 49.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

MARKETING A Refresher on Marketing Myopia by Amy Gallo AUGUST 22, 2016 PAUL GARBETT FOR HBR Every year, a large majority of product launches fail. There’s debate about exactly what percentage— some say it is 75%, others claim it’s closer to 95%. Regardless of which number is right, there is no doubt that a lot of time and energy go into marketing products that will no longer exist in a year. Why is this? Some of the failure is likely attributable to the fact that many company leaders, including executives, have what’s called marketing myopia—a nearsighted focus on selling products and services, rather than seeing the “big picture” of what consumers really want. COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 I talked with John Deighton, a professor at Harvard Business School and an authority on consumer behavior and marketing, to better understand this classic concept, its origins, and its relevance to organizations today. Where did the concept originate? The term was coined by the late Harvard Business School marketing professor, Theodore Levitt, in a 1960 article by the same name (republished in 2004). The “heart of the article,” according to Deighton, is Levitt’s argument that companies are too focused on producing goods or services and don’t spend enough time understanding what customers want or need. Therefore, he “encouraged executives to switch from a production orientation to a consumer orientation.” As Levitt used to tell his students, “People don’t want a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!” “The genius of the original article is that it is so easy to be myopic when it comes to marketing,” says Deighton. “Any marketer is obligated to be concerned with programs, tactics, campaigns, etc. Unfortunately, the clock never stops long enough to answer the question, ‘Why are you doing what you are doing?’ So it’s far too easy to lose sight of the big picture.” The other thing that made the article so significant at the time of its publication is that it reminded CEOs that marketing is part of their job: “[Levitt] tells the leader of the organization: you are in business because you have a customer. Therefore you have to think about marketing,” Deighton explains. What is marketing myopia? The myopia that Levitt describes is a lack of insight into what a business is doing for its customers. Organizations invest so much time, energy, and money in what they currently do that they’re often blind to the future. They get lulled into thinking they’re in a “growth industry,” which, according to Levitt, don’t exist. Instead, there are really only companies continuously capitalizing on growth opportunities. There are several examples in the article that illustrate the main concept, that your product is not your business. Perhaps the most famous is the railroad lines, which Levitt argues fell into steep decline because they thought they were in the train business rather than the transportation business. If those leaders had seen themselves as helping customers get from one place to another, they might’ve expanded the business into other forms of transportation like cars, trucks, or airplanes. Unfortunately, they let other companies seize those opportunities and steal away their passengers instead. Luckily, there is a cure for marketing myopia. Levitt suggests that leaders ask themselves: What business are we really in? Deighton says that the best way for leaders to answer that question is by asking themselves another: What are we really doing for the customer? Successful companies focus on customer needs, not their own products and services, which can—and will—be replaced by competitive alternatives, either ones they make themselves or those produced by existing or potential competitors. COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3 VIDEO AVAILABLE ONLINE TO VIEW, PLEASE VISIT THIS ARTICLE AT HBR.ORG How relevant is it today? Deighton says the idea of marketing myopia is “still very applicable” today, “in part because the original idea wasn’t very prescriptive. Levitt didn’t offer ‘ten steps to eliminate marketing myopia’. Instead, he was all about provoking people to think differently.” In fact, Deighton still uses the concept frequently when he introduces what marketing is to business school students. And you don’t have to look very far to see companies or industries that are suffering from this malady today. Deighton points to an example close to home for this writer: the publishing industry. He suggests that it’s time for publishers to ask Levitt’s central question: What business are we really in? “There seems to be a myopic attachment to the word ‘publish’ that is a production-oriented take on the industry. But what are customers really looking for?” They don’t want newspapers or magazines, he says. “They want to be entertained, informed, stimulated, by people more interesting than their friends and acquaintances,” he argues. “Only a production-oriented publisher would defend the form of delivery over the value of the experience it delivers.” There are, of course, contemporary companies that are taking Levitt’s advice to heart. Deighton points to IBM Interactive Experience, IBM’s consultancy that combines analytics, design, and technology (and brings in $2 billion in revenue) as an “attempt to think past what they produce and say, ‘we’re not in the business of information processing, we’re delivering the communications that are valued by consumers.’” How has marketing myopia evolved? The concept has stayed in tact over the last 50-plus years. Deighton says that that is because the original article was like a “polemic, almost like a religion. And any attempts to augment, complicate, or interfere with the polemic don’t work.” The idea has become the foundation of modern marketing. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its limits. In 2010, Craig Smith at INSEAD, Minette Drumwright at UT Austin, and Mary Gentile at Babson, published a paper called “The New Marketing Myopia.” They posited that marketers have taken Levitt’s advice to an extreme, creating a new kind of short sightedness, marked by a single-minded focus on the customer, a narrow definition of the customer, and a failure to address the multiple stakeholders who have arisen out of the “changed societal context of business”. There is no doubt that Levitt believed the entire corporation must be viewed as a customer-creating and customer-satisfying organism, and Deighton admits that this is one of the potential pitfalls of Levitt’s original idea: it “puts great trust in the consumer.” In his original article, Levitt acknowledged how difficult it can be to listen to customers; he wrote: “Consumers are unpredictable, varied, fickle, stupid, shortsighted, stubborn, and generally bothersome.” But Smith, Drumwright, and Gentile go even further, arguing that it’s not just about listening to consumers but about hearing all of the stakeholders who contribute to your company’s success, such as employees, suppliers, shareholders, competitors, media, and community members. COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4 Deighton says that the concept of “industries” has also been challenged over the last decade or so. The industry a company is in today may not be the same one it’s in next year: “In today’s very fluid times, it’s more accurate to say ‘eco-system.’ Disruptions are constantly challenging the stability of industries.” Take programmatic ad buying. As Deighton explains. “People who apply technology to ad targeting don’t necessarily think they are in a particular industry. They recognize that the product will change, the medium will change, everything on the production side is in play. The only constant is the consumer need they fill.” Marketing myopia remains an important reminder of the risks your company runs if you don’t pay close attention to your consumers’ needs. Levitt believed that executives couldn’t predict the future —and shouldn’t try. Instead, by concentrating on meeting customer needs rather than on selling products—by always keeping in mind the business that they’re really in—companies could be better prepared for whatever the future would bring. Amy Gallo is a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review and the author of the HBR Guide to Managing Conflict at Work. She writes and speaks about workplace dynamics. Follow her on Twitter at @amyegallo. COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5 Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the property of Harvard Business School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest July 09 2017 18:45 _______________________________________________________________ COLUMBIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 09 July 2017 ProQuest Table of contents 1. Marketing myopia: An integrated view.......................................................................................................... 1 09 July 2017 ii ProQuest Document 1 of 1 Marketing myopia: An integrated view Author: Richard, Michael D; Womack, James A; Allaway, Arthur W Publication info: The Journal of Product and Brand Management ; Santa Barbara 2.3 (1993): 49. ProQuest document link Abstract: Marketing myopia was initially described as a firm's shortsightedness or narrowness when attempting to define its business. The types of marketing myopia can be classified along 2 dimensions: 1. the management's definition of the firm, and 2. the firm's business environment perspective. The combination of the 2 dimensions produces a matrix with 4 types of firms: 1. classic myopia, with a product-definition/single-industry perspective, 2. competitive myopia, with a customer-definition/single-industry perspective, 3. efficiency myopia, with a product-definition/multi-industry perspective, and 4. innovative myopia, with a customer-definition/multi-industry perspective. Marketing managers who wish to achieve the innovative firm orientation should: 1. take a generic view of their firm or industry, 2. monitor other industries, 3. engage in benchmarking to determine the objectives for relevant areas of marketing, 4. recruit marketing people, and 5. be flexible enough to apply unique solutions to problems. Full text: FOUNDATIONS OF MARKETING MYOPIA Marketing myopia was initially described as a firm's shortsightedness or narrowness when it is attempting to define its business (Levitt, 1960). Marketing myopia is analogous to product orientation, whereby the firm defines itself as a product producer. One alternative is customer orientation (i.e., the marketing concept), whereby the firm defines itself as a satisfier of customer wants and needs; that is, the customer orientation helps the firm to anticipate and adapt to changes in customer demand (Levitt, 1960). Customer orientation has also been considered as a type of marketing myopia. Firms overemphasize the satisfaction of customer wants and needs and as a result ignore competition. Competitor orientation has been proposed as a replacement for the customer orientation; with this orientation, a firm's strategy is influenced by its competitors (Oxenfeldt and Moore, 1978). Manager tenure has also created a type of marketing myopia. Some marketing managers possess too narrow a perspective as a result of spending their entire career in a single industry (Lovelock, 1983). This myopia fosters the erroneous mindset that each industry is unique. It restricts the firm's ability to learn from the experiences of firms in other industries facing parallel problems and opportunities. Marketing strategies transcend industry boundaries (Lovelock, 1983). Firms can solve marketing problems and exploit opportunities by looking beyond immediate competitors for strategies. A broader perspective can result in cross-fertilization of ideas and, in turn, produce innovative marketing strategies (Houston, 1986). DIMENSIONS OF MARKETING MYOPIA The preceding discussion suggests the need for a systematic way in which to classify the types of marketing myopia. The types can be classified along two dimensions. The first concerns management's definition of the firm. Firms can be narrowly defined by the type of product produced. Such firms are inwardly oriented. For example, a firm can be defined as a cold breakfast-cereal firm, Firms can be more broadly defined by the nature of the customer wants and needs which they satisfy. These firms are outwardly oriented toward the market. Thus a firm can be more broadly defined as a breakfast foods firm. The second dimension concerns the firm's business environment perspective. In essence, these firms have an inward orientation toward that industry. Firms with a single-industry perspective are preoccupied with the 09 July 2017 Page 1 of 6 ProQuest actions and reactions of immediate competitors. In addition, they are considered to have inbred management. Some managers have spent the greater part of their professional careers in one industry. Inbred management is not necessarily undesirable, but it is potentially detrimental when it fosters the contention that it can learn nothing from firms in other industries, and it keeps its firm perceptually insulated from such other firms. For example, managers of the cold breakfast cereal firm may be concerned only with the actions and reactions of other cold cereal firms. Firms with a multi-industry perspective, on the other hand, have a broader view of the market. While they are concerned with immediate competitors, they also realize that firms in other industries can serve as sources of innovative strategies as well as being potential competitors. Such management is said to be cross-bred, in that managers may have experience in a broad range of industries or they are willing to learn from firms facing similar situations in other industries. Firms with a multi-industry perspective are outwardly oriented and not perceptually insulted from other industries. These dimensions provide the manager with a way to consider systematically the types of marketing myopia. The combination of the two dimensions produces a matrix with four types of firm: (1) Classic myopia with product-definition/single-industry perspective. (2) Competitive myopia, with a customer-definition/single-industry perspective. (3) Efficiency myopia with a product-definition/multi-industry perspective, and (4) Innovative, with a customer-definition /multi-industry perspective. While the dimensions are depicted as dichotomous, they are actually continuous. A given firm may not always fall clearly in the center of one of the four types, but may be positioned anywhere within the matrix depending on the degree if commitment to any of the dimensions. These scenarios are presented in Figure 1. (Figure 1 omitted) CLASSIC MYOPIC FIRMS Classic myopic firms are those which are associated with a product-definition/single industry perspective. These firms are narrowly defined by their product and so do not practice the marketing concept. They possess a single-industry perspective, being concerned only with the actions and reactions of immediate competitors. Management is inbred, and since managers consider their industry to be unique, they are unwilling to learn from firms in other industries. Because of the lack of cross-fertilization of ideas, firms with this type of marketing myopia are limited in their strategic alternatives. A&P serves as a prime example of the classic myopic firm. A&P's management defined the organization by the type of product sold (groceries). This definition led to the decision not to add highly profitable nongrocery items as competitors did. The wants and needs of the consumer were also ignored. Consumers increasingly desired such features as national brand merchandise, a delicatessen, a seafood section and extended hours. While A&P resisted these changes, other grocers were pleased to offer these features. In essence, A&P failed to practice the marketing concept. A&P also had a single-industry perspective. While other grocers looked to different industries for distribution expertise (e.g., computerized warehousing), A&P adhered to outdated methods of distribution. When faced with extinction, A&P applied "grocery solutions" to the problem: it engaged in aggressive price-cutting to attract customers. However, this strategy proved unsuccessful. Elgin Watch is another example of the classic myopic firm. Elgin defined itself as a producer of fine, traditionally styled, manually-wound watches. Elgin was not aware of the changing consumer tastes for watches, the fact that consumers increasingly desired low-priced and convenient (ie., self-winding) watches. Elgin Watch also had a single-industry perspective. It was taken by surprise by a new class of competitor entering the market. The semiconductor manufacturers were seeking applications for digital watches. They captured a large share of the market by offering the consumer low-priced, self-winding watches. In addition, they employed new channels of distribution (mass merchandisers and discounters) which had been overlooked 09 July 2017 Page 2 of 6 ProQuest by Elgin. COMPETITIVE MYOPIC FIRMS Competitive myopic firms are analogous to a compromise between customer and competitor orientations. These firms are associated with a customer definition/single industry perspective. They are defined by the customer wants and needs which they satisfy, and so they practice the marketing concept. In addition, they have a single-industry perspective, being concerned only with the actions and reactions of immediate competitors. Managers are also inbred, adhering to the notion of the uniqueness of their industry. Therefore they are not willing to learn from firms facing parallel situations in other industries. As a result, there is no crossfertilization of ideas. While these firms practice the marketing concept, they lack relativity in strategy. Therefore, such firms are limited in their strategic alternatives. They tend to think in terms of acceptable businesses or expansion for the industry they are in and they are likely to mimic similar firms' marketing actions. Line extensions and "me-too" products are popular strategies for this type of firm. Schlitz Brewing is an example of the competitive myopic firm. It did practice the marking concept with its customer definition as is evidence by the introduction of a myriad product extension (e.g., light beer and premium-priced beer). When Philip Morris purchased Miller Brewing, tobacco executives were brought in to run the ailing brewing company. This infusion of talent was responsible for the introduction of a host of marketing strategies to the brewing industry (e.g., product segmentation, target market advertising, and efficient distribution). These ideas were also embraced by Anheurser-Busch. As a result the market share of both soared. In contrast, Schlitz, which had a single-industry perspective, did not adopt the sophisticated marketing techniques and, as a result, its market share was cut in half within five years. EFFICIENCY MYOPIC FIRMS Efficiency myopic firms only partially embrace the innovative firm idea (Lovelock, 1983). They are those firms which are associated with a product-definition/multi industry perspective; they do look to other indus ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Here is teh answer. Thanks

Assignment Title: Marketing Concept and Marketing Myopia

There are five alternative concepts based on which a company can design, and execute its
marketing strategies (Bhasin, 2017). These concepts include production concept, product
concept, selling concept, marketing concept, and societal marketing concept (Kotler &
Armstrong, 2014). In today’s competitive business environment among these five concepts,
marketing concept is adopted by the majority marketers. Customer-oriented products and service
designed is now the top priority of the marketers. Ignoring of the marketing concept, rather ties
up in the marketing myopia makes a marketer unsuccessful.
This paper aims at discussing the key idea of marketing concept and marketing myopia,
articulating relationship of marketing concept and marketing myopia, and providing a real world
example of companies suffered from marketing myopia.
Marking Concept & Marketing Myopia, and Relationship in Between These
Marketing Concept
Marketing concept is a philosophy that point outs the idea of focusing on the wants and
needs of the customers, and delivering that best satisfy the wants and needs of the customers
(Cant, Strydom, Jooste, & Plessis, 2007). Under this concept, the marketers require to carefully
analyze the wants and demands of the customers, and then de...

FinAccGuru (1385)
Rice University

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Just what I needed… fantastic!

Use Studypool every time I am stuck with an assignment I need guidance.


Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors