Marketing Products and Services in a Dynamic Environment - Assignment Example

Marketing Products and Services in a Dynamic Environment By Marketing Products and Services in a Dynamic Environment Table of Contents Introduction 3 Theoretical foundation 3 Goods-Dominant (GD) Logic 3 Service-Dominant (SD) Logic 4 Aristotelian Perspectives 5 Adam Smith’s Economic Science 7 Alternative Perspectives 9 Conclusion 10 Works Cited 11 Introduction The article entitled “On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective,” authored by Vargo, Maglio, and Akaka (2008) redefines the traditional outlook on service and value creation by replacing the perspectives of the goods-dominant logic with the service-dominant logic (SD). Theoretically, the article posits that the exchange of service is the key concern of organizations, societies, and markets (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008, p. 146). The article explores the merits of Aristotle’s views that differentiate between exchange-value and use value. The author makes special references to the claims advanced by Adam Smith and other prominent economic thinkers as understood within the domain of goods-dominant logic with the intention of exposing its fundamental strengths and weaknesses as compared with the service-dominant logic. Theoretical foundation Goods-Dominant (GD) Logic The theoretical foundation of the article marks a determined departure from the conventional systems of through that privilege the goods-dominant logic as a key determinant of economic exchange. The author affirms that all kinds of exchange are based on service (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008, p. 145). This marked departure from the conventions of goods-based logic promotes a sense of disharmony between traditional accounting practices and the modern economic assumptions that emphasize more on the need to develop value-based systems. In essence, the author makes the claim that all forms of transactions are ultimately reducible to service for the benefit of the end users. The author explores the dimensions of service science from the multiple dimensions that include the relationship between production and utilization of the value. Other relationships explored include the product and process in light of their relationship with the generation of value. The study trains some significant focus on the connection between transaction and relationship between the transacting parties. The difference between the goods-dominant logic and the service-dominant logic as understood within the framework of this study involves a range of options that significantly connect within the element of productivity (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008, p. 147). The goods-dominant logic operates under a system that offers unique advantages to the end user. Theoretically, this concept is built on the assumption that the roles of the producer and that of the end user are clearly distinct. In line with this ideal, the consumer primarily plays the role of utilizing the value. The value of a good and a service is realized at the point in time when the consumer acquires it. Service-Dominant (SD) Logic Service-dominant system takes the view that the consumer and the producer relate in multiple connections and roles, which manifest in the different ways that connect effectively with the production process. It might be important to consider the fact that some of the issues that connect with the determination of value are necessarily connected with certain fundamentals that regulate the manner of conducting business among various disciplines (Socci, 2005, p. 50). It might be argued that the determining aspects of commerce are the creation of value in ways that align with the various aspects of trade and industry. The different approaches to value have the effect of redefining the manner in which processes are conducted within the objective of exposing the underlying connections. One of the dominant characteristics of value as understood from the perspective of service-dominant value is the combined effects from both the consuming end and the producers. For instance, the creation of a good only reaches the point of value at the specific point of consumption. Within this perspective, goods can only achieve the aspect of value through their usefulness at the precise moment of acquisition by the consumer. The goods and services must also address the specific needs of the consumers. In this regard, it becomes appropriate to consider the fact that some of the issues that connect with the value of goods have to be understood within the framework of utility. Goods must address certain aspects of utility that align with the requirements of the consumers. This position differs significantly from the one held by the goods-dominant perspective in the sense that they entail the appropriation of services within the understanding of multiple issues that connect with the issues of service science. Goods-dominant value often restricts the meaning of value to the exchange of the goods from the producer to the consumer. The mere acquisition of the goods by the consumer achieves the ultimate value as enshrined in within the goods-dominant value. Another distinguishing feature is that service-dominant value connects effectively with the process of achieving meaning from a range of perspectives. On this score, the consumer of the goods must fulfill certain roles by offering finances or other goods in exchange of the goods. Such an exchange enables the producer or manufacturer to continue with the process of creating value in order to sustain the chain. Aristotelian Perspectives The article explores the various concepts that have developed overtime to explain the difference between use-value and exchange value. The explanation of use-value begins with some of the ideas developed by Aristotle to explain the essence of the concept. Aristotle sought to situate the meaning of use value within the definition of the various attributes that attend to the concept. For instance, he sought to differentiate between things as they appeared in nature and the attributes that qualified them to acquire the definitive characteristics. In essence, Aristotle was of the view that use value related to the definition of goods or things in accordance with qualities, quantities, and relations. As such, it became necessary to consider the fact that some of the qualities assigned to a range of physical objects were ultimately reducible to the primary qualities as they manifested to the perceptions of the user. Aristotle’s perception of use-value acquires significance through the incorporation of the concept of the primacy of the senses over other aspects of knowing. Such position would imply that the use value of things could not acquire universal significance owing to the relativity in some of the sensory aspects of knowledge. The problem of ascertaining the actual use-value of things connects with the inherent difficulties associated with the determination of value as understood within the element of value (Socci, 2005, p. 51). Variations in perceptions would then imply certain fundamental weaknesses in the concept of use-value since there could not be some universal yardstick that could be used to ascertain the actual essence of use value. Alternative definitions have sought to broaden the concept of use value by including certain aspects that transcend beyond the experience of the senses. This article adopts a comprehensive coverage of the range of issues that connected with the concepts of use-vale and exchange value. Strengths and weaknesses of various scholars are examined in relation to the functional aspects of both issues. It might be important to consider the fact that many of the aspects use-value has been associated along the lines of need. However, the obvious challenge that confronts the concept of need is the impossibility of measurement in relation to need. The intensity or level of need cannot be quantified. This makes it problematic to consider need as one of the aspects that can be used to determine either the use-value of a commodity or the exchange value of the same. Finding a commensurate measure for determining exchange value remains one of the fundamental challenges in identifying a clean description of the concept. Aristotle rejected both money and need since they could not constitute a fundamental denominator on which other attributes relate. As such, the concept of exchange value remains fluid in the sense that it cannot be reduced into strict application of processes as they relate to specific aspects of change. It might be considered that the determination of exchange value requires a balance between certain thresholds that reconcile the distance between the aspirations of the consumer and the nature of product as designed or developed by the supplier. On this score, it remains important to consider some of the fundamental questions that connect with the question of value within the range of activities that take place between the points of production and the points of consumption. There seems to be some close association between the use-value of a commodity and the qualities of pleasure and satisfaction. The author considers these two aspects within the general range of activities that connect within the element of value. It might be important to consider the fact that the purchase of goods or services, according medieval thinkers, was primarily intended to satisfy pleasure. According to these thinkers, only pleasure can be purchased (Socci, 2005). This implies that the determination of the value of a good or service must connect to the level of pleasure that the buyer intends to obtain from the item. Adam Smith’s Economic Science The contributions of Adam Smith in the science of value were notable for the introduction of the new concepts, which he referred to as value-in-use, and the second aspect he called value-in-exchange. Smith opined that things and goods that had the greatest value in use manifested the lowest value in exchange. He also argued that the things and goods that held the greatest value-in-exchange had the lowest levels of value-in-exchange. His ideas meant that the two concepts related on a kind of polar opposite in terms of quality and measurement. Smith did not clarify whether there exists any mid positions in his thinking. One of the most notable contributions that he assigned to the entire concept revolved around the matter of labor. The connection of labor with exchange was because some of the issues that affected the processes of labor were directly meant to increase and actualize pleasure. According to Smith, the level of pleasure that attached to various issues was primarily connected with the establishment of various issues that contributed meaningfully to the attainment of labor. On this score, it might be argued that the accomplishment of labor was a factor that relied on the demand of the consumer. Smith’s position can be appropriated to offer important insights into the relationship between demand and supply. Matters of quality and quantity of goods and services are some of the issues that often determine the trends of the markets in terms of the determining forces and influences. Such influences may relate to environment, preferences, trends, cultural factors, and market mechanics. Smith’s position on labor is consistent with the ideas of economic theorists who sought to explain the difference in the levels of wealth between countries in the context of the cost of labor. Ultimately, the most important attributes that has been explored in determining the role of labor connects with the manner in which countries and civilizations produced surplus for export. The wealth of many countries according to Smith depended on the effort that the applied in the production of the surplus and the amount of money used to compensate for the labor used within the systems of production. The creation of a balance of power between countries could be determined in the manner in which various individuals established their ideas in order to align with the need to justify the acquisition of free labor or cheap labor from the slave market or in the colonies. Competition between various countries and the need to flourish in geopolitical power was significantly dependent on market dominance (Grönroos, & Ravald, 2011, p. 15). This categorization acquires significance when measured against other factors that attempt to develop alternative points of reference to the dominant schools of thought. Perhaps the most influential aspects of Smith’s economic thought as established in the concept of exchange are the concept of productive labor and unproductive labor. According to Smith, the essence of labor is the production of productive labor, which entails tangible goods as the outcome of such labor. Smith categorized the production of intangible services as unproductive labor. Productive labor was assigned higher importance that unproductive labor and considered as the sole determinant of the essence of exchange (Grönroos, & Ravald, 2011, p. 11). Scholars have sought to link Smith’s ideas with the intellectual climate of the time, which was significantly promoted by aspects of thought drawn from Newtonian School of thought. In this regard, it becomes appropriate to determine the impact of Smith’s economic science as a reflection of the dominant belief in physical objects as embraced within the Newtonian school of thought. Alternative Perspectives Competing perspectives have been developed to explain the manner in which certain aspects of thought conform to the ideas of value-in-exchange and value-in-use. The determination of these challenges has often been considered in light of the various aspects that connect sufficiently with systems that affirm the existence of materials and goods as derivatives of labor (Grönroos, & Ravald, 2011, p. 10). The various points of view appear to favor the aspect of service as the dominant point of view. The determination of a range of activities within the aspect of service is usually considered as the basis of exchange. The value of goods as understood within the aspect of service often entails the determination of a range of factors that connect effectively with the provision of service. Matters of competitive advantage are explored within this study as consequences of certain structures that align with the various attributes of service. The sum of perspectives explored by economic philosophers across the limits of time show that the various aspects of the economy are necessarily service economies. Within this perspective, the role of the customer is redefined in a manner that makes them into the co-creators of value within the economic set-up. It becomes important to determine the sequence of ideas in terms of the various forces that affect the delivery of services within the economic framework of service. The determination of value of a product is a process that involves various factors that derive from the experiences of the individual. This experiment makes it difficult to determine the various issues the relate to variations within the manifestations of service. Conclusion The designated roles of the customers and the firms entail a range of factors that determine the various forms that determine the connection between the processes and the outcomes of the products. The modern environment is dynamic and requires the application of a range of strategies that might be relied upon to increase the aspect of value within the market. The roles of customers have changed significantly, as they have become active participants within the entire chain of supply. The customer often engage in various issues that require the determination of various aspects of thought that develops within industries for the sake of promoting aspects of knowledge that connect systems and processes. The phenomenon of globalization and liberalization has increased the service aspect of world economies in the sense that value has become subject to various forces from the global customer pool. As such, there is sufficient proof that performance on the current markets requires the appropriations of relevant factors that emphasize on the service nature of commerce. Works Cited Grönroos, C, & Ravald, A 2011, Service as business logic: Implications for value creation and marketing, Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5-22. Socci, A, C 2005, Value-based marketing for bottom-line success, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(1), 50-51. Vargo, S, L, Maglio, P, P, & Akaka, M, R 2008, On Value and Value-co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective, European Management Journal, 26, 145-152. Read More