Marketing a New Philosophy of Management - Research Paper Example

Concept of Marketing Executive Summary During previous years the main concept of marketing has certainly changed its status. Nevertheless, the basic concept of marketing has remained fundamentally unaffected. This study involves a multiple-baseline framework in order to evaluate the effects of concept of Selling with a posh name on basic concept of Marketing. The study is meant to assess how the selected topic fits in to the overall marketing theory, arguments for and against the opinion or statement, preferably using real-life observations and/or real data or live examples, and recommendations as to available strategies and practices that can be used to overcome the problem or misconception. The end of this study will find several considerable results. Its possible outcome involves significant improvement in the knowledge and understanding of most modern concepts of marketing. The study will give a new direction to future training and research work within the field of marketing. Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………04 Concept of Marketing…………………………………...……………………….05 Marketing practices of firms………………………..……………………………06 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….08 Recommendation………………………………………………………………...09 References………………………………………………………………………..10 Concept of Marketing Introduction Over the years the marketing concept has certainly grown in popularity and status, finding application as a generic business philosophy in a wide range of contexts. However, the concept itself has remained essentially unchanged. New concept of marketing encourages firms to have a posh name in order to succeed in today’s competition. Despite the often devout adherence to the concept as a normative pillar, in recent years writers such as Houston and Gassenheimer have challenged the marketing concept, arguing that much marketing activity is in fact about the forestalling of competition and the supremacy of markets, not consumer autonomy. (Wensley, 2005) Others have raised doubts about its role in improving the competitiveness of organizations. On the basis of empirical evidence they have suggested that the implementation of the marketing concept has actually undefined competitiveness. These authors were among the first to question, perhaps unfairly, the value of the marketing concept. (Hooley and Lynch, 2003) But, the key point to which they helped to draw our attention was that the implementation of the marketing concept was becoming the Achilles' heel of the discipline. In the absence of clear guidelines about how to put it into practice and make it effective, that which was left was little more than vacuous rhetoric. ( Samli, Palda and Barker, 2008). This paper argues for the continued development and reappraisal of the marketing concept of something having a posh name. The main point is that the marketing concept, as it is often written about, assumes many of the characteristics of an ideology or an article of faith. It is believed that several difficult issues, which beset the discipline, may be resolved by separating the marketing ideology from the core concept. The message of this article is directed as much towards the use that individuals make of the concept as it is towards what it represents as a guiding precept. It will discuss some of the problems, criticisms and recommendations for marketing of posh names. Concept of Marketing Some would prefer to argue that the problem is not with the marketing concept itself but in the management of those organizations that try in vain to put it into practice(Baker, 2007). Thus, one might argue that it has never really been properly tried in any case. Having faith in the marketing concept is a necessary quality that is needed by those of individuals who teach the subject. At one time or another majority will have made use of the most basic a priori plausibility argument to substantiate the value of the marketing concept. It would go something like this: (1) The marketing concept defines basic benchmarks against which marketing practice, i.e. what organizations do, can be judged. (2) What organizations achieve as a result of this action can be measured by market share and profitability. (3) High-performance organizations score highly against such measures. (4) Low-performance organizations score poorly against such measures. (Wensley, 2005) It is then a relatively simple task to find an organization which is successful and attribute this performance in some way to its marketing and thus to the marketing concept. When diligent students ask us for examples of companies which can be described as marketing driven, our standard response is to cite companies which are "marketing oriented" by our criteria, i.e. which have successfully adopted the marketing concept. Those who are sensitive to the dangers of defining excellence as anything that is fixed at any one point in time may add the caveat that any such success has occurred in certain specific circumstances, and with particular activities or campaigns. Also, by taking a broader and longer view, it is often possible to show that paragons of marketing virtue can become deficient in some other respect and do not "truly" operate the marketing concept. This will usually introduce other factors to which one can attribute success in the long term. It will also underscore Levitt's idea that the marketing concept is not a fixed point in space, nor is its implementation ever successfully achieved "for ever". (Houston, 2004) It embraces organizational and individual practices that must be continually revised, updated and revisited. Marketing practices of firms The basic metrology of marketing admits, as evidence of good practice, what organizations have achieved and what they have done--the latter taking on the role of an independent variable in a simple diagnostic routine, the former being the dependent variable. However, the issue of how things get done may be invisible to this regime. It is more difficult to measure but it does have a significant bearing on the value of the marketing concept. Studies of the marketing practice of firms have shown a large number of firms still struggling with the most basic of marketing approaches. Problems of implementation abound. And so we must ask ourselves what is it about the marketing concept that makes it so difficult to implement? So, after almost 40 years of "trying", some would argue that the question that has to be asked is: why has the concept not been fully implemented? The normative answer is that the marketing concept is an idealized goal that no company is able (or will be able) fully to achieve. (Houston, 2004) Despite this, the practical advantage of the concept is in providing a specific objective at which companies can aim. More profoundly, it expresses an ideology--a way of thinking--about business that offers a framework for success. The logic of this argument is that it is not necessary to fully implement the concept. A partial implementation should provide sufficient benefits through the adoption of the underlying approach to business. The authors believe that what has happened is that the marketing concept has developed the characteristics of an ideology. A concept--an idea of a class of objects--is, after all, only a method of classification, not a dominant way of thinking (Hooley, G. and Lynch, 2003). The idea of consumers as a class and unit of analysis for the firm has led to the development of new "marketing" techniques of analysis. Yet, the original exposition of the marketing concept by Drucker, Levitt and others was more than the simple proposition of a new concept. The manner in which it was communicated added force and authority to the concept. An ideology was propagated in a manner that was itself polemical and dogmatic in tone. This was so for understandable reasons. As the myth goes, the old sales and production concepts had to be challenged and swept away into the dustbin of history. (King, 2005) Business required their replacement by a new concept better suited to the new economic supply/demand conditions. Conclusion Hence, it is evident that it is easier to sell something having a posh name. The way in which the concept emerged in the business literature therefore contained a powerful normative element that has become ideological, rather than conceptual. This, in part, seems to have contributed to the problems of firms "adopting" the marketing concept. Any "concept" presents difficulties in operationalization. But for marketing, after all this time and experience, with a clear, prescriptive, analysis-planning-control framework readily available, these sometimes appear to be overwhelming. Many companies have enthusiastically embraced the confident assertions of the marketing concept and devoted considerable resources of thought and effort to its implementation. The numerous problems, which have been encountered in implementing it, are well documented (Hayes, 2006). These can be categorized as problems with: (1) The definition and analysis of markets. (2) Co-ordination and integration of marketing with other functions and the resolution of sibling conflicts. (3) Temporary revenue requirements opposed to longer-term market share matters. (4) Resistance to the organizational changes implicit in the adoption and implementation of the concept. One reason for such problems is that what managers are being asked to adopt is not just the concept, but also the ideology of marketing as the business philosophy. Hence the frequent comment that they have taken on "the trappings of marketing without the substance". (Baker, 2007) So, even though it may never fully be implemented, the onus is on the proponents of the marketing concept to "de-ideologize" it and attempt to integrate it with broader and alternative business philosophies. Recommendations Marketing theorists should be devoting more attention, not only to the implementation of its ideology, but also to the development of the ideology, which is to be implemented. In theory at least, it is eminently applicable to any activity involving exchange as Kotler and Bagozzi have demonstrated. (Samli, Palda and Barker, 2008) This shows that it indeed contains a powerful and consistent ideology, but, as with the analogy of monetarism and Marxism, this does not mean that it is "correct". A leading British marketing theorist takes another view: There has been a tendency to overemphasize the interests of the consumer, and my own preferred definition is that it is concerned with mutually satisfying exchange relationships. (Wensley, 2005) It is a more accurate interpretation of the marketing concept because marketing is not about satisfying consumer needs alone--it must also satisfy company needs. There must be a balance of consumer and company interests for posh names. In this sense the consumer is not wholly "sovereign", but is endowed with a constitutional form of sovereignty, which is limited by other interests. This suggests that the mainstream marketing ideology itself is not accurate. That is, firms' activities should not be determined only by consumer demand--not even in the long-term, indirect sense. On the contrary, perhaps they should aim to direct demand. References Baker, M.J., (2007) "Marketing A New Philosophy of Management?", Quarterly Review of Marketing, Winter, pp. 1-4. Hayes, H.N., (2006) "Another Chance for the Marketing Concept?", Business, pp. 10-18. Hooley, G. and Lynch, J., (2003) "Marketing Lessons from UK's High-flying Companies", Journal of Marketing Management, pp. 65-74. Houston, F.S., (2004) "The Marketing Concept--What It Is and What It Is Not", Journal of Marketing, pp, 81-7. King, S., (2005) "Has Marketing Failed, or Was It Never Really Tried?", Journal of Marketing Management, pp. 1-19. Samli, A., Palda, K. and Barker, A., (2008) "Toward a Mature Marketing Concept", Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 45-51. Webster F.W., (2005) "The Rediscovery of the Marketing Concept", Business Horizons, pp. 29-39. Wensley, R. (2005) "The Voice of the Consumer?: Speculations on the Limits to the Marketing Analogy", European Journal of Marketing, pp. 49-60. Read More