Fluent Essays

Marketing Myopia EssayThe 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.1-Essay must include an introduction.2- Must also reference at least one journal article from the CSU Online Library and one article from a business-related or news website; therefore, your essay should be supported by at least two sources.  (2, CSU Library articals are attached, must use one of the 2, and an additional source from business related news.) 3- 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. Citation for the attached articles are: 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. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/220579945?accountid=33337 Smith, N. C., Drumwright, M. E., & Gentile, M. C. (2010). The new marketing myopia. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 4-11. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=bth&AN=50171170&site=ehost-live&scope=site Marketing Myopia EssayThe 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 market Abstract Full Text Back to previous page document 1 of 1 Marketing myopia: An integrated view Richard, Michael D; Womack, James A; Allaway, Arthur W. The Journal of Product and Brand Management; Santa Barbara Vol. 2, Iss. 3, (1993): 49. Marketing myopia was initially described as a firms shortsightedness or narrowness when attempting to define its business. The types of marketing myopia can be classified along 2 dimensions: 1. the managements definition of the firm, and 2. the firms 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. FOUNDATIONS OF MARKETING MYOPIA Marketing myopia was initially described as a firms 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 firms 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 firms 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 managements 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 firms business environment perspective. In essence, these firms have an inward orientation toward that industry. Firms with a single-industry perspective are preoccupied with the 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&Ps 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 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 cross-fertilization 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 industries as potential competitors and as sources of solutions to problems. Managers are cross-bred and their experience in other industries, or their acceptance of the notion of similarities between industries, contributes to their willingness to learn from firms in other industries. As a result of cross-fertilization of ideas, these firms have more strategic alternatives than the previous two myopic types. However, rather than looking to other industries for marketing solutions, these firms, concerned with improvements in production efficiency, borrow only technological innovations. Their marketing managers assume that consumers desire less expensive and/or more efficient versions of existing products, and so are apt to introduce new and improved versions of existing products. General foods serves as a prime example of an efficiency myopic form. While very successful in food processing, General Foods did not achieve success in the fast-food restaurant business with its purchase of Burger Chef. Management defined Burger Chef as a fast-food hamburger restaurant. As a result of this product definition, Burger Chef lost market share to competitors which introduced such items as fish sandwiches, chicken products, and a salad bar. General foods did possess a multi-industry perspective and attempted to apply food processing skills to fast-food restaurants. Unfortunately, the multi-industry perspective did not offset the problems associated with product definition. Recent woes at IBM demonstrate the problems associated with an efficiency myopic firm (Loomis, 1991). IBM has defined itself by its product (computers). While Japanese computer firms deployed systems engineers to assist customers in developing software (and gained valuable customer information in the process), IBM declined to provide this service. The Japanese have used their knowledge of customer needs to capture market share in the mainframe computer market. While IBMs expertise was in the mainframe computer market, it proved that it had a multi-industry perspective. As a late entrant to the PC market, IBM proved that it could produce and market a new product. However, the multi-industry perspective has not enabled the company to recapture lost share. INNOVATIVE FIRMS Innovative firms are associated with a customer definition/multi-industry perspective. They possess none of the narrowness of the previous firms. These firms, being defined by the customer wants and needs which they satisfy, practice the marketing concept. They also possess a multi-industry perspective, looking to other industries as potential competitors as well as sources of solutions to problems, and so they apply innovative strategies borrowed from those firms. Management is cross-bred and willing to apply new strategies to marketing problems and opportunities. As a result of cross-fertilization of ideas, these firms enjoy a wide range of strategic alternatives. They are farsighted or flexible enough to apply unique solutions to problems and opportunities. One innovative firm appears to be Apple Computer (Sculley, 1989). The hiring of John Sculley from Pepsico reveals Apples willingness to apply marketing strategies from the soft drinks to the PC industry. Since Sculley became CEO of Apple, revenues have quadrupled and return on shareholders equity is the highest in the industry (Sculley, 1989). Much of this success is attributed to Apples new low-priced PC, the Macintosh Classic. Some of the marketing strategies of the soft drinks industry appears to be applicable in the PC industry. Even the name Macintosh Classic has a cola counterpart (Coke Classic). In 1989 Xerox won the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award while regaining much of its lost market share, (Research Technology Management, 1990). Much of the Xerox success is attributed to its embracing of benchmarking. Xerox monitors performance in several product and service areas, and the ultimate goal for each area is the level of performance achieved by the world leader, regardless of industry. For example, the benchmark is L.L. Bean for distribution and American Express for billing. In that sense, Xerox epitomizes the multi-industry perspective. As a result, Xeroxs market share and customer satisfaction have soared. Wal-Mart Stores is still another innovative firm (Bergmann, 1988). Wal-Mart provides a variety of merchandise at low prices to small towns in the United States, markets which have been ignored by other retailers. While many retailers subordinate distribution to merchandising, Wal-Mart has borrowed sophisticated distribution practices from other industries. Such innovations as the handling of palletized quantities and a state-of the-art warehouse scanning system have lowered costs for Wal-Mart (Bergmann, 1988). Even the practice of greeting all customers as they enter the store is a borrowed strategy from the hotel/restaurant industry. Wal-Mart has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the field of retailing. The innovative category implies a new perspective on the part of the firm. First, the firm should seek to satisfy customer wants and needs. Second, the firm should realize that other industries can be sources of innovative strategies for reaching the consumer. Both strategies are important in order to achieve performance objectives. Of course, the innovative firm will gain little benefit without effective leadership to implement these strategies. The innovative firm is not intended as a cure for marketing myopia, just as the marketing concept was not meant as a cure. The marketing concept has, in some cases, been carried to an unproductive extreme (Levitt, 1975). The same is possible with the innovative firm perspective. However, what is important in this perspective is to not overlook other industries and thereby to remove some of the restrictions on the range of strategic options. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For marketing managers who consider the innovative firm orientation desirable, the obvious question is how to achieve it. Five recommendations are offered here: (1) TAKE A GENERIC VIEW OF YOUR FIRM/INDUSTRY. Determine how the firm/industry has been defined and consider a broader definition. A firms statement of corporate mission can help it to define itself through examination of needs satisfied, lines of business engaged in, products sold, and so on. Rather than focussing on the products produced, examine the needs satisfied as well as potential product substitutes for those needs. The result should be a broader definition of your firm and industry. (2) MONITOR OTHER INDUSTRIES. You should be aware of marketing strategies in a wide range of industries. These industries can serve as sources of innovative strategies for satisfying existing consumers as well as attracting new consumers. You might scan business publications, as well as attend seminars where you will be exposed to marketing people from other industries. (3) ENGAGE IN BENCHMARKING TO DETERMINE THE OBJECTIVES FOR RELEVANT AREAS OF MARKETING. Once you determine the objectives, you can develop a list of firms to emulate. Finally, analyze innovative strategies of the benchmark firms for possible adoption. The second recommendation above can help in benchmarking. (4) RECRUIT MARKETING PEOPLE. Marketing managers hired away from other industries can bring new perspectives and solutions to marketing problems. In essence, these people can be debriefed when added to the management team. In addition, brainstorming sessions between these new and existing managers can yield new strategies. (5) BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO APPLY UNIQUE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. Also be flexible enough to change unsuccessful strategies. Flexibility can be fostered by upper managements commitment to flexibility and innovation. Management must encourage marketing managers to try new strategies without fear of reprimand. In this era of global competition, the stakes are enormous. Companies afflicted with marketing myopia lack vision and impose strategic limitations on themselves. To remain competitive and survive into the twenty-first century, companies can combine the marketing concept and cross-fertilization of ideas for innovative strategies. REFERENCES Bergmann, J. (1988), The Saga of Sam Walton, Stores, Vol. 70, pp. 129-42. Details Subject Marketing management; Market orientation; Definitions; Corporate objectives Location United States--US Classification 9190: United States 7000: Marketing 2310: Planning Title Marketing myopia: An integrated view Author Richard, Michael D; Womack, James A; Allaway, Arthur W Publication title The Journal of Product and Brand Management; Santa Barbara Volume 2 Houston, F.S. (1986) ,The Marketing Concept: What It Is and What It Is Not, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 81-87. John Sculley on Sabbatical, (1989), Fortune, Vol. 119, 27 March, pp. 79-80. Levitt, T. (1960), Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38, pp. 45-56. Levitt, T.(1975), Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53, pp. 26-44 and 173-181. Loomis, C. (1991), Can John Akers Save IBM?, Fortune, Vol. 123, 15 July, pp. 40-56. Lovelock, C.H. (1983), Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, pp. 9-20. Oxenfeldt, A.R. and Moore, W.L., Customer or Competitor: Which Guideline for Marketing?, Management Review, Vol. 67, pp. 43-48. Pushing to Improve Quality, Research Technology Management (1990), Vol. 33, pp. 19-22. Michael D. Richard is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Mississippi State University. James A. Womack is a graduate student at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Arthur W. Allaway is Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Alabama. Copyright MCB University Press Limited 1993 Issue 3 Pages 49 Number of pages 6 Publication year 1993 Publication date 1993 Publisher Emerald Group Publishing Limited Place of publication Santa Barbara Country of publication United Kingdom, Santa Barbara Publication subject Business And Economics--Marketing And Purchasing ISSN 10610421 Source type Scholarly Journals Language of publication English Document type Journal Article Accession number 00804703 ProQuest document ID 220579945 Document URL https://search-proquest- com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/220579 945?accountid=33337 Copyright Copyright MCB University Press Limited 1993 Last updated 2018-10-15 Database ABI/INFORM Collection Database copyright © 2018 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions