Separating the Creation of a Value into Goods Marketing and Services Marketing - Coursework Example

Separating the Creation of a Value into Goods Marketing and Services Marketing Name Instructor Course Date Separating the Creation of a Value into Goods Marketing and Services Marketing “There is no reason for services marketing to be a separate area of marketing. All marketing deals with is the creation of value by organization and the consumption of value by individual consumers. Separating the types of value creation process is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to a simple process.” Introduction While services marketing paradigm makes use of such characteristics as the inseparability, intangibility, heterogeneity, and lastly, perishability of services to differentiate them from goods, and use different approaches to marketing services, none of this is necessary if value cannot be seen by customers (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). It follows that if the seller does not make a buyer see value in a proposed service or good, then that marketing strategy or move, is different from those that do, regardless of whether it is a good or a service being proposed to the customer (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Services provide benefits to buyers via temporary possession or temporary access, as opposed to ownership seen with goods (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Payments for services are in the form of access fees or rental fees. This makes many marketers view services differently, and package them differently than they would with goods. This approach has its implications and various opportunities arise (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). For instance some quarters of the marketing business propose that goods be marketed following the service format (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Over time, in marketing efforts have been made to bring goods and services into one sense of commodity referred to as the product. In which case it would make it advantageous to bring about the amalgamation of value creation and value consumption into marketing (Carlson, Grove, & Dorsc, 2003). However, the term product has been unsuccessful in its fulfilling of the representation of both goods and services (Lovelock, Patterson, & Wirtz, 2014). In most cases, when the term product is used it refers mostly to goods and only to services in a few distinct separate cases. As such, it is definitive that goods and services are two distinct commodities that are offered from a seller to a buyer in the intent of fulfilling a specific utility value. In this case, it is arguable that the service and the good offer different forms of utility that can only be satisfied separately and in unique ways. When a supplier offers a good or service for sale to a consumer they offer just the aspect of value preposition. It is on the part of consumption by the consumer does value actualization actually occur. Resultantly, value is a co-creation outcome between the intent of the seller to satisfy a need and the willingness of a buyer to purchase that satisfaction (Park & Ha, 2015). The fact that goods and services target the satisfaction of different needs means that they provide different forms of utility. However, the utility that they provide is only known to the seller and to the consumer only at the time of actual purchase and consumption. So in marketing, a good or service it is up to the seller to make known to the buyer the actual utility they are presenting. This entails going into particulate detail on the service or product they are offering. The marketing of a good or service requires delving into the detail unique particulars of the item and connecting it to the utility need of the consumer (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). It is only through the separation of goods marketing and service marketing can a seller be able to present the consumer with a direct connection of the item they are offering, its utility, and the specific need it is meant to target in the consumer. The marketing of goods and services in the market generally entails the application of different levels of techniques and complexities. It is generally considered easier to create value and market a good than it is to create value in and market a service. As one of the major characteristics of goods and a differentiator to services is the aspect of physicality and tangibility. A good is physical meaning it can be seen and touched. On the other hand a service is not tangible meaning that its perception is not basically set to any specific senses of perception of the human being (Brady & Cronin Jr, 2001). With a good it is possible for a consumer to directly and immediately assess and even access value and utility of the good before purchase while with a service this is impossible thus creating different levels of self marketing between the good and the service. This generally means that the creation of value in a good and in a service is very distinct and separate issues. The creation of value in a good and thus marketing it is simply first by ensuring what the consumer sees and feels matches with what they need and desire. Through market research it is possible to achieve this as a good is physically represent able. Once this is achieved, the only thing that is left is to ensure that it does actually serve the purpose intended or the need that the consumer bares in it. On the other hand, a service is more complex in creating value for and in marketing. A service cannot be seen as such is a measure of confidence and trust in both the seller and the consumer. Confidence and trust in marketing and business are in themselves aspects that are impossible to quantify especially in specific cultures within the modern society versed with individualism (Furrer, Liu, & Sudharshan, 2000). As such, as opposed to product value creation and marketing service value creation and marketing is much more complex. It requires more intricate techniques that are able to reach out to the consumer and create value of the service in relation to a good and the utility that it presents. Resultantly, it is thus not possible for a combined approach to the marketing of both goods and services and still cerate the same level of marketing value impact on the consumer. Their separation creates the ability to better market services which have a broader dominant logic. The value of a good can and is divided into separate units and can thus be presented as such while the value of a service is nested only in the component of service delivery directly to the consumer. In either of the presentation of a good or a service to the consumer it undergoes the various stages of production, marketing, purchasing, delivery, and consumption. When dealing with value creation in a good, value can be created and presented in each of the above stages. This is because a good comes into being throughout the whole process up to the point where the consumer actualizes its value. As such, a good has value in each of these stages and can thus still be actualized by a consumer should the need arise. Such a need can arise in result of either the seller or the consumer. The consumer may require a product while still in its production stage or even before production is complete and thus its value will be ascertain at that point such as in the case of complementary products as a differentiation strategy (Naipaul & Parsa, 2000) In other instances, a consumer may require marketing a product before completion of its production or as it goes through the whole process as maybe at each stage it has a specific utility and need that it satisfies. Taking this perspective, the marketing techniques for goods are very flexible and can be applied at any part of the production level of the good in relation to the value and utility it would have at that point. On the other hand, the value of a service is only actualized at the completeness or delivery of the service by the seller to the consumer. A service’s value and utility requires for the presence of both the seller and the buyer throughout the stages of production, marketing, purchasing, delivery, and consumption. The realization here is that marketing the value of a service can only occur through the service delivery itself. The marketing techniques of a service should thus be very different from those of a good to ensure effectiveness in marketing and selling. Marketing the value of a service requires actual delivery of the service to the consumer while the marketing of value of a product can be accrued at any stage of production. The consideration of the difference in value between the good and service in the various stages of production, marketing, purchasing, delivery, and consumption further brings a complication in marketing a service’s value as opposed to a good’s value. Marketing strategies for a good will in all times ensure that the good is still in the possession of the seller. Only until after the purchase of the commodity can a consumer actualize the value of a good. However, in marketing the value of a service there is need for the actual offer of the service. As such, marketing and consumption of the service by the consumer sometimes has to occur simultaneously. This means that there stands the danger that the consumer may chose not to purchased or rather pay or underpay for the service after they have actualized its value and utility and probably devalued it (Yap & Sweeney, 2007). In consideration of such a fact, marketing strategies of services would most likely require an extension of security by the seller. This means that the seller should have security that once the consumer has consumed the service they would still honor the deal. As such a service is in most cases sold before it is marketed or offered as all those stages are performed in one. However, this is not the case when it comes to the marketing of goods. Goods can be marketed without the risk of loss of value or utility to the consumer thus less likely to require security (Abimbola, 2001). Taking for instance, in most cases when one wants to buy a car they can be allowed to feel it or even test drive it as a marketing technique. Whether they buy the car or not they would not have actualized its value or it’s utility in satisfying their need to buy a car. However, if it was a service being offered of test driving a car one would have to pay before the test drive regardless they are satisfied with the ride at the end or not to offset the risk of refusal incase it fails to live up to their expectations. The contact that the consumer has with the people, system, equipments, and process that is involved in service delivery is what brings about the perception of value in a service. This also depends on the brand or marketing make that a service is associated with (Grace & O’Cass, 2005). The value of a service is and can only be obtained at a particular time and in direct contact between the seller and the consumer within the environment (De Groot, Wilson & Boumans, 2002). On the other hand, a good can be obtained at any point of time as long as there can be proved viability of the good. Perish ability applies to both goods and services but goods have a shelf life time before they reach perish ability. On the other hand, services do not have a shelf life, they perish immediately after they have been offered and their value utility consumed by the consumer. In relation, marketing and value creation for services must be time specific and service specific. Various human variables must be taken into account to ensure that the seller, the buyer, and the service are at the same place at the same time. Strategizing marketing techniques for a service must be inclusive of the other stages of the service, which is production, all the stages from production to consumption. This is because all these stages all occur at once during the exchange between the seller and the buyer. In result, this shows that in the offer of a service the value of the service is one large entity encompassing all the stages from production to consumption. Value marketing for a product must thus take into account all the stages of the service being offered in compounded culmination of the realization of its value by the consumer. Strategizing for such marketing and service value can then not be combined with that of a good. A good does not perish in such specificity of time. This means that marketing and valuing a good can take into account various real-time variables as they occur such as to make the product appealing to the targeted market segment despite the changes in the external environment (Bitner, 1992). Offering value and marketing for a service must be current time specific so that to ensure that it is addressing the targeted utility need for the consumer at that specific time. The value of a service is also very specific to the state of the individual who is offering it. In most cases, the marketing, sale, and value of a service are tied to the ability of the person offering the service. As such, value marketing for a service is mainly invective also in the human aspect of the person offering the service. Goods on the other hand are not very dependent on the human service value. This is because goods are mostly tangible and offer their own utility. Once a consumer procures a good they can obtain its utility directly from the good without the involvement of the seller. As such, service marketing is more involving of the human aspect as a marketer and ability to be able to instill confidence in the service. This means not only is the service being marketed but also the individual offering the service. It is an amalgamation of the service and the person offering it. Service marketing and value techniques must address this issue while that of good does not. There is thus a reason for the separation of service marketing in marketing. Marketing does in fact deal with the creation of value to the consumer of the product that is being marketed. Creating the two different types of value creation will in fact provide for an opportunity to intensify and maximize the marketing potential of each side for the attainment of better results. However, as discussed there are different entities that make up a product and a service. The two differ in various contexts and this brings about the need for them to be handled differently in order to maximize the potential of marketing strategies and obtain higher sales. While it is easier to provide proof of a good’s ability to satisfy a consumers need the same does not apply to services. Services are more of a feeling of satisfaction that can only be derived from procuring the service itself. This means that more intrinsic marketing and value presentation of a service is required that of a good. The value of a service can only be portrayed to the consumer through the creating of confidence and an allure of expectations. On the other hand, a good sells itself through the creation of the view that it has the physical characteristics to satisfy the consumer’s need (McColl-Kennedy et.al, 2012). While a good can be self representing a service relies mostly on the human aspect of the seller that is physically presenting the service (Bitner, Ostrom, & Morgan, 2008). The connection between the seller and the offer of a service’s utility and value is stronger than in goods and is the main selling point of the service. As such, it is vital of service marketing to be a separate valuing entity from good marketing value. This will allow for the exploration of all the intrinsic aspects, especially those ties to the human connection and interaction that determine the utility and value of different services. Bibliography Abimbola, T., 2001. Branding as a competitive strategy for demand management in SMEs. Journal of research in marketing and entrepreneurship, 3(2), pp. 97-106. Bitner, M. J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing, pp. 57-71. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L. & Morgan, F., 2008. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50(3), p. 66. Brady, M. K. & Cronin Jr., J. J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of marketing, 65(3), pp. 34-49. Carlson, L., Grove, S. J. & Dorsch, M. J., 2003. Services advertising and integrated marketing communications: An empirical examination. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25(2), pp. 69-82. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3), pp. 393-408. Furrer, O., Liu, B. C. & Sudharshan, D., 2000. The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of service research, 2(4), pp. 355-371. Grace, D. & O’Cass, A., 2005. Service branding: consumer verdicts on service brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), pp. 125-139. Lovelock, C. & Gummesson, E., 2004. Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of service research, 7(1), pp. 20-41. Lovelock, C., Patterson, P. G. & Wirtz, J., 2014. Services Marketing. Sidney: Pearson Australia. McColl-Kennedy, J. R. et al., 2012. Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research. Naipaul, S. & Parsa, H. G., 2000. Supplementary Services as a Differentiation Strategy: An Empirical Investigation of Lovelock's Model in Tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1(1), pp. 67-80. Park, J. & Ha, S., 2015. Co-creation of service recovery: Utilitarian and hedonic value and post-recovery responses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), pp. 83-96. Yap, K. B. & Sweeney, J. C., 2007. Zone-of-tolerance moderates the service quality-outcome relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(2), pp. 137-148. Read More