1 mês, 1 semana atrás - macroblocks
· 4
min de leitura
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
responder à publicação