back to all posts / Marketing Myopia / hierarchy
Cover Image
Marketing Myopia cover
1 month, 1 week ago - vertiblocks · 1 min read

Marketing Myopia

📣 marketing 📈 business📺 commentary

This article was originally published on June 8, 2022 on walnutmind.org, at the age of 18.

“Consumers are unpredictable, varied, fickle, stupid, shortsighted, stubborn, and generally bothersome. This is not what the engineer managers say, but deep down in their consciousness, it is what they believe."


Prioritising customer utility exceeds product utility. Theodore Levitt's Marketing Myopia comments on what it hints at; the myopic viewpoint businesses have, prioritising themselves over their consumers. Businesses are established for capitalising on growth opportunities, not for operating in growth industries, and hence, change aligned with changes in the target market is critical for business success.

Reading Theodore Levitt’s Marketing Myopia was refreshing. Despite being published over half a century ago, much of Levitt’s argument still holds true to this day. His central thesis revolves around the idea that businesses get caught up in the myopic view of producing products rather than fulfilling consumer needs and wants effectively. He makes a clear distinction between marketing and selling. Businesses fall into the trap of measuring success by maximising their stock turnover instead of optimising delivery; this myopic focus can lead to missing significant market trends and opportunities.
0
0
77
1 month, 1 week ago - macroblocks · 2 min read

Marketing Myopia - Defining Business Strategy

One of Levitt’s most prominent examples is the railroad industry. In the early days of the railroad industry, businesses were overly focused on developing and expanding their railroads that they failed to see the potential of the automobile and other modes of transport. As a result, the railroad industry missed out on a major market opportunity and could not recover. Levitt attributes this to a management failure because they defined their business around railroads rather than the more significant objective, getting from point A to point B; transport.

This perspective is quite interesting. When one comes to terms with the idea, it seems rational in the truth that businesses are conceived because they feel they can satisfy a consumer need, and if that need is no longer required, there is no longer business. As Levitt stated, “If a company’s own research does not make a product obsolete, another’s will” (Levitt, 36). What Levitt attributes this failure to is not that they are not attempting to sell more but rather that their service portfolio is misaligned with current and future market demands. Businesses tend to fall into the logical fallacy of thinking that because they began operations in times of demand for a particular offering, this demand will continue to persist and that their old ways of marketing will continue to draw in business growth. What they miss out on is that the business dynamic is fast-paced and ever-changing under the laws of ruthless market norms.

Levitt made a fascinating point when it came to the automobile industry. He used gas stations as a metaphor for tax collectors- no matter how refined the marketing is, the principal values are disliked. No matter how you look at it, oil is oil. He indicated that with the advent of methods of transport that eliminate the need to interact with gas stations, consumers would flee. This is precisely what is happening with the inception of electric vehicle manufacturers such as Tesla, whose very USP lies in the very fact that customers do not have to deal with oil and people who want to take their money [1].

Hence I conclude the bottom line: It is unreasonable for businesses to latch onto their roots in a market whose flock may perch on another tree tomorrow.

0
0
119
1 month, 1 week ago - horiblocks · 4 min read

Marketing Myopia - Image Sells

Case Study: Fashion

The notion goes that the higher quality a product is, the less reliant it is on being customer-oriented. Whilst that may be sound, in theory, it is not always true, especially if the brand lacks substantial brand goodwill. Take the example of the luxury fashion brands; would you still be willing to purchase a $600 belt that matches the craftsmanship of Louis Vuitton (LV), with the caveat being that it is from a new startup? My guess would be that even if it were half price at $300, consumers would be very reluctant to purchase it, and only if it would be in excess of 70-80% discount rates would then consumers be willing to take a punt for what its worth - the sole cost of goods.

A common mistake in business is conflating product quality with demand. So what is the deal here? How can brands such as LV become a success by selling objectively overpriced items and have consumers who have an inflated view of the item’s value? The answer is marketing. What LV may be selling you is their high perceived quality, but what the consumer really ends up buying is the brand’s perceived image. It is a matter of irrational consumer behaviour; everything from the logo to their marketing campaigns is catered toward portraying an elitist image. This is not to say quality does not matter, but that it does not supersede the importance of marketing. It does not matter how good a product is if there is no attention. According to LV’s holding organisation LVMH, they experienced organic growth of 36% (LVMH).

Suppose you consider that Supreme also sells equally marked-up clothing at a comparable level of quality and excuse the difference in their scales of operation. In that case, you might be wondering why Supreme is not embracing its sales growth. Unfortunately, the sales trends of Supreme have been shrouded in secrecy by their holding organisation VF. I would only imagine strong growth would follow a positive statement about Supreme's stance. In fact, there was no mention of their sales, which were outright excluded with the following rationale, "exclude the contribution from the Supreme brand through the one-year anniversary of the acquisition" (VF Corporation). Instead, VF released expectations of generating strong sales of $600 million for 2022. I say this statement offers nothing more than some wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, the matter of whether this was intentional to hide their less than ideal market growth is trivial. The more pressing issue is that consumer perception of Supreme's relevance has been on a steady decline. This is evident in all forms; their new clothing 'drops' are no longer sold out in a matter of minutes, nor is Supreme the burning topic amongst the streetwear fanatics (Servantes, Ian). Why is this so? I aim to attribute this in two ways. One that Supreme, from Levitt's standpoint, has failed to adapt to the changes in its target market. In essence, the hype of "exclusivity" can only last for so long, and it appears that the market is catching up to this realisation. Two, in MIT professor Dan Ariely’s language, Supreme has set up a lackluster anchor that associates exclusivity with prestige rather than the brand itself (Ariely, Dan). Supreme is in the clothing business but is actively distancing itself from its target market, a target market whose attention was only brought by short-term hype. If Supreme is to escape the niche target market it has engulfed itself in, it must rethink its marketing strategy in a way that is geared toward creating a memorable and long-lasting brand image (not merely on the backs of some celebrities). For now, only time will tell how this persistent stance on exclusivity and the adamance on a “no mainstream ATL marketing strategy” will play out in the long run. 

0
0
117
1 month, 1 week ago - macroblocks · 4 min read

Marketing Myopia - Customer First

The philosophy of modern business magnates is that the more they innovate and shoot their darts into the sky, the added brand exposure will eventually lead to some resonating with the target market and become lucrative cash cows.

The idea here is that product orientation is a future-proofing mechanism. Although rationally sound, this is unreasonable and myopic. The question of whether a business should be product or market-oriented is quite a controversial one, as there always seem to be exceptions. However, in general, being market-oriented is the better approach for long-term success.

Case Study: Technology

The technology magnates that prioritise innovation have no problem garnering eager customers. The problem arises when they stop innovating, which is bound to happen sooner or later, and the ships will begin to sink.

The issue is that these brands rely on the same common recipe- generate hype and capitalise on the niche, early adopters. They do not create or market their products in a sustainable way for long-term growth. Take the example of Huawei. What market share could Huawei’s new folding smartphone at a price tag of $3,000 have? For a quick statistic, according to Wired, a mere 5 million out of 1.5 billion phones are foldable (Ashworth, Boone). This is not to say that these ideas do not have merit and innovations should not be taking place, but rather that at the same time, businesses should have the managerial tenacity to determine the right time and approach to market such a product instead of releasing a mere proof-of-concept that is not improving the consumer's utility on a day-to-day basis.

Levitt's argument is somewhat similar to that of Clayton Christensen's “The Innovator's Dilemma”. Both Levitt and Christensen argue that businesses can become so focused on their existing product or market that they fail to see disruptive new technologies or markets that could threaten their business. However, the difference is that Levitt's theory suggests that businesses need to be market-oriented in order to be successful, whereas Christensen's theory suggests that businesses need to be innovation-oriented in order to be successful (Christensen, Clayton M). Christensen believes in spreading risk; in other words, diversifying the product/service portfolio is critical. On the contrary, Levitt does not bring this to light and instead argues that a simple mindset shift in bringing what the customer wants or desires is the right path to pursue. Whilst both views have their merit, I believe Levitt failed to consider that it is perfectly possible for businesses to be successful through the example of Apple.

Many people would consider Apple to be a product-oriented company since it takes great pride in its quality and the little details that are illustrative of perfection. However, I would argue that they are rather an example of market orientation done right. People tend to associate Steve Jobs with being adamant about making products for the future without concern for present market needs. According to Levitt, he would have been accused of being quite myopic. However, I would look at it from the standpoint that, in most cases, people do not really know what they want, let alone what they want from their lives. Unless goods and services are placed in context, choosing becomes very difficult. What Jobs had rather attempted to do was have a strong vision aligned with the customer's potential needs in mind. Levitt, nevertheless, does acknowledge the exception to the rule but does not expand on this, "Unless a leader knows where he is going, any road will take him there. If any road is okay, he chief executive might as well pack his attaché case and go fishing...Everybody will notice soon enough" (Levitt, 81). I believe this association between quality and utility is precisely what many people misinterpret. Job's persistence for quality-first is seen as arrogance rather than a visionary who is accountable for putting the consumer before all else. Although the quality was necessary, to Jobs, quality was secondary to consumer utility. Whilst it stands to reason that there is a positive correlation between the two, not necessarily. A simple matter of increasing product quality does not mean the product is guaranteed to have an equally high consumer utility.

If you take a moment to consider the innovation Apple has done over the years, many would say it is marginal. I find this interesting on two fronts. One is that this is partially incorrect since our ideas of what is considered grand innovation have been clouded by competitors who are gasping to release another hyped product. The other is that Apple is slow at rolling new changes because, as the age-old saying goes, 'do not fix what is not broken.' Innovation that does not enhance the product's value is merely creativity [2].

0
0
109
1 month, 1 week ago - microblocks · 1 min read

Marketing Myopia: Takeaways

A business should be defined by what it does for its consumers and not by what product it produces. Whether product or market-oriented, I believe a common ground we can all agree on is that being market-oriented builds brand trust, memorability, and reliability that is ought to last through tough times. What businesses lack nowadays is forward-thinking. It is very easy to get caught up in the operational side of things and to lose sight of the people that we are trying to serve. In order to avoid Levitt's marketing myopia, businesses need to take a step back and assess what it is that they are trying to achieve. Only then will they be able to develop a sustainable marketing strategy that will lead to success.

Key Takeaways:
  • Realise what line of business you are in; live and breathe its vision.
  • Distinguish utility and quality; do not mistake utility for quality.
  • Prioritise needs; market orientation over product orientation.

0
0
117
3 weeks ago - macroblocks · 4 min read

Marketing Myopia: Key Quotes

"Every major industry was once a growth industry…In every case, the reason growth is threatened, slowed, or stopped is not because the market is saturated. It is because there has been a failure of management."  
      
"The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined…They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business."  
      
"The DuPonts and the Cornings have succeeded not primarily because of their product or research orientation but because they have been thoroughly customer oriented also. It is constant watchfulness for opportunities to apply their technical know-how to the creation of customer-satisfying uses that accounts for their prodigious output of successful new products. Without a very sophisticated eye on the customer, most of their new products might have been wrong, their sales methods useless."  
      
"In truth, there is no such thing as a growth industry, I believe. There are only companies organized and operated to create and capitalize on growth opportunities…Industries that assume themselves to be riding some automatic growth escalator invariably descend into stagnation."  
      
"In the days of the kerosene lamp, the oil companies competed with each other and against gaslight by trying to improve the illuminating characteristics of kerosene. Then suddenly the impossible happened. Edison invented a light that was totally nondependent on crude oil. Had it not been for the growing use of kerosene in space heaters, the incandescent lamp would have completely finished oil as a growth industry at that time. Oil would have been good for little else than axle grease."  
      
"The best way for a firm to be lucky is to make its own luck. That requires knowing what makes a business successful. One of the greatest enemies of this knowledge is mass production."  
      
"Mass production does indeed generate great pressure to "move" the product. But what usually gets emphasized is selling, not marketing. Marketing, a more sophisticated and complex process, gets ignored."  
      
"Selling focuses on the needs of the seller, marketing on the needs of the buyer. Selling is preoccupied with the seller's need to convert the product into cash, marketing with the idea of satisfying the needs of the customer by means of the product and the whole cluster of things associated with creating, delivering, and, finally, consuming it."  
      
"The more usual way is to take the costs and then determine the price; and although that method may be scientific in a narrow sense, it is not scientific in the broad sense, because what earthly use is it to know the cost if it tells you that you cannot manufacture at a price at which the article can be sold?"  
      
"It [oil company] has to think of itself as taking care of customer needs, not finding, refining, or even selling oil. Once it geniunely thinks of its business as taking care of people's transportation needs, nothing can stop it from creating its own extravagantly profitable growth."  
      
"The irony of some industries oriented towards technical research and development is that the scientists who occupy the high executive positions are totally unscientific when it comes to defining their companies' overall needs and purposes. They violate the first two rules of the scientific method: being aware of and defining their companies' problems and then developing testable hypotheses about solving them. They are scientific only about the convenient things, such as laboratory and product experiments."  
      
"The organization must learn to think of itself not as producing goods or services but as buying customers, as doing the things that will make people want to do business with it."
0
0
69
3 weeks ago - microblocks · 1 min read

Marketing Myopia: Works Cited

    Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins UK, 2009.
    Ashworth, Boone. "Love Them or Hate Them, Folding Phones Are Sticking Around." WIRED, 8 Feb. 2022, www.wired.com/story/folding-phones-are-here-to-stay/. Accessed 7 June 2022.
    Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business. Harper Collins, 2003.
    Levitt, Theodore. Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Press, 2008.
    "New Records for LVMH in 2021." LVMH, www.lvmh.com/news-documents/press-releases/new-records-for-lvmh-in-2021/. Accessed 7 June 2022.
    Servantes, Ian. "Is Supreme Dead?" Input, 27 Jan. 2022, www.inputmag.com/style/is-supreme-dead-vf-corp-owner-james-jebbia-streetwear-fashion-collabs-resellers-hypebeasts. Accessed 6 June 2022.
    VF Corporation. "VF Corporation Reports Broad-Based Growth in Fourth Quarter and Introduces Full Year Fiscal 2023 Outlook." VF, 19 May 2022, www.vfc.com/news/press-release/1791/vf-corporation-reports-broad-based-growth-in-fourth-quarter. Accessed 7 June 2022.
0
0
66

nothing here

be the first to share your perspective

join the discussion

sign in to reply

sign in to contribute