Marketing Myopia Critique - Essay Example

?Do you agree or disagree with the basic premise on “Marketing Myopia? Marketing Myopia is a breakthrough article that has deeply influencedthe management models during its publication. Its principles are still at work and very much applicable today. Theodore Levitt, in this important piece, argued that organizations must look to the future and never be complacent about their products because it is constant threat from obsolescence. This point is valid for several reasons and the most important of which is change. A growth industry builds its success by replacing a previous utility or product and it is at risk of such same risk of replacement by future innovations. Thinking outside the box is not some initiative to make a difference or of being creative. Rather, it is a crucial component of every organization’s attempt for competitive advantage and survival. Levitt argued that there is really no such thing as a growth industry because everything works within a cyclical process. Here, an industry or a business may assume its strength because of the unchallenged superiority of the product, which displaced another that it has substituted. His evidences are legitimate and numerous. He cited the experiences of many industries that were considered boom sectors but eventually declined after several years. The cycle features organizations and products constantly replacing another because of wrong management perspective. The examples provided were the dry cleaning industry, the railroad industry and the grocery stores. Levitt also predicted that the electric utilities and gadgetry is in danger of the same trouble because technologies will then be discovered to offer newer and more efficient products. The idea is that when managers fail to think outside the box – beyond the periphery of their visions, their products tend to be swallowed by the cycle. On the other hand, once management think about the future and the decline of their product so that they are able to provide solutions and new innovations that will replace their own, competitors will have less opportunities for competitive advantage. Much of Levitt’s arguments are anchored on one simple principle – that survival for industries rests on perspectives. There are industries that are focused on their products and, hence, myopic in their management models. For example, the railroad company was focused on their product, which is the railroad. Had they opted to adopt a perspective that went beyond it, they would have thought about their business as that of transportation and, hence, was able to prevent the decline of their profits. Personally, I have experienced this myopia on account of my work experiences with three industries. For example, I worked for an Auto dealership several years ago. Now the management of this organization has been focused much on automobiles. For several months of my stay, I saw how such singularity in objective has hurt the sales of the organization. Clients are not only interested in cars but they look for things and services that go with it. For example, when sales people have everything there is to know about cars, we cannot answer questions about technology like how their mobile phones can be integrated with car accessories, for example. This is because we did not have them – no products offered beyond cars and, hence, we cannot offer services, much less the know-how. So fewer clients came to visit because we cannot offer more. The clients did not come because they did not want to. There was no reason to. This was also the same with some companies in the moving and storage company, which I was connected with for a time. There was a lot of opportunities either as additional services within moving and storage and related and new products and services that could have been served and provided customers the value and convenience of having many services at one outlet or in a single transaction. I can see many other industries not cited in the article that display marketing myopia. For example, there is the case of e-commerce. For a time, many thought that it is revolutionary and would demolish the traditional bricks and mortar business. Industry leaders hail the technological and enabling capabilities of the networked world. Many have invested and for a time, it appears like it was a boom industry. But not long after, there emerged the Internet bubble. What happened was that industry decision makers and managers fail to consider the potency and the persistence of the traditional stores. They failed to integrate these two marketing channels and the result was conflict and b=cannibalization of market. A specific organization that I think suffers from marketing myopia is Apple. Much has been said about the success of the organization being built on its fidelity to its products. And the company appears to be quite successful with its own business model that emphasizes the Apple brand, product control and singularity. But the current market trends should be alarming for them. The success of Google’s Android, an open source operating system for mobile devices demonstrates this as it provides a formidable challenge because it allows for a dilution of products and services. It allowed Android the market segregation responsible for its dominance in the market today. Apple is too preoccupied about its products, its own perceived innovations and it does not pay any attention to whatever is happening outside of its creative laboratories. The operating systems that work in Apple devices is more closed and controlled than ever, alienating many consumers in the process. Again, Levitt’s concept of marketing myopia is valid and sensible even today. I agree with every element of this management model strongly. It successfully defined the cyclical process that transpires in many industries. By pointing out that management perspective is key in navigating this cycle and, hence, survive it, he established an effective model that has been supported by the experiences of many organizations who either failed or succeeded across different sectors and periods. In addition, I have experienced and seen what Levitt must have meant with his essay. In reading the article, I was able to realize many of his points just today. The management models and styles that I have come across with in the past appear sensible until Levitt’s work provided the crucial insights that allowed me to link what I experienced with the failures of organizations. Read More

 

Read More