BUSI745A2

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

745

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by fmalik89

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 1 Marketing Paper: Myopia Assignment Faizan Malik School of Business, Liberty University Author Note Faizan Malik I have no known conflict of interest to disclose Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Faizan Malik Email: FMalik@liberty.edu

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 2 Introduction Marketing myopia, a term coined by Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt, is a business approach that emphasizes adding value to one’s existing products rather than focusing solely on sales. Organizations that exhibit such near-sighted focus, fail to meet customer needs, and/or emphasize internal needs over those of the customer are at risk of becoming obsolete. With factors such as globalization, advancements in technology, and increased competition, marketing myopia may now play an even more significant role for many organizations. Organizations that balance both external (i.e., customers) and internal (i.e., cost reduction) needs are often the most successful. Fateful Purposes and Shadows of Obsolescence Levitt explains that organizational success begins with the executive team, meaning any failures of an organization are top-down. Citing examples of failures of those in the railroad industry, Levitt states that a failure to be customer-oriented led to its eventual downfall. Customer needs were essentially unchanged, they still need some form of transportation, but the railroad industry failed to understand they belonged to the transportation industry and note solely the railroad industry (Levitt, 2008). As such, customers chose alternative players within the transportation market, such as the automobile and airline industries, as they offered faster and more convenient options for transportation. A similar fate was nearly experienced by the Hollywood film industry as well, which failed to recognize the difference between the “Movie” and entertainment industries (Levitt, 2008). The emergence of television nearly made Hollywood extinct, as those in the industry also failed to differentiate themselves and allowed customers to explore other options. The film industry, however, was eventually saved due to the emergence of new creators. In both examples, the respective industries maintained their product-oriented

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 3 methodologies which led to their subsequent failures. This is echoed by many organizations, as they focus on their basic units of output or products, rather than the customer who prefers a single point of accountability across an organization. As such, organizations are shifting their structures to better align themselves with their customers (Rubin, 1997). A common theme highlighted by Levitt is the sense of superiority felt by many organizations, specifically in instances where products have no immediate challengers within the industry. Citing examples of dry cleaning, electric utilities, and grocery stores, all of these industries once flourished due to no competition. However, as time passed and technologies advanced, competition arouse that subsequently led to these industries facing near obsoletion. New types of clothing masteries, energy, and big-chain supermarkets eventually decreased the need for the once flourishing businesses in the dry cleaning, electric utility, and grocery industries. Levitt explains that this is because the “growth industry” does not exist, but rather only organizations that capitalize on the growth. Such growth industries tend to follow the same four-stage cycle: a belief that “growth is assured by an expanding and more affluent population, there is no competitive substitute for the industry’s major product, too much faith in mass production and the advantages of rapidly declining unit costs as output rises, and preoccupation with a product that lends itself to carefully controlled scientific experimentation, improvement, and manufacturing cost reduction” (Levitt, p.18-19, 2008). Organizations that hold false beliefs of their invincibility are often those that become obsolete. Common Myths Another faulty belief described by Levitt is the concept of the increasing population automatically leads to increasing demand. Essentially, when there are more people available to buy your product, the more successful your business will be. Although carries some validity,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 4 population growth alone will not mitigate issues related to product-driven organizations. Citing the example of petroleum, Levitt analyzes the use of petroleum throughout history. Despite the appearance of their sustained success, the petroleum industry faced near obsoletion throughout history, only to be saved by the need for petroleum for heating and transportation. Innovation and improvement within the industry, such as oil exploration and refinement, which often originates outside of the petroleum industry, has assisted with their success as well. However, despite the sustained success, Levitt cites two major factors that may ultimately push the petroleum industry into obsoletion: the notion of indispensability and an uncertain future. With new technologies for electricity generation, increased usage of electric cars, and a shift towards digitalization, the electricity demand, not fossil fuels, is poised to increase (Helm, 2016). Another common myth highlighted by Levitt is the belief that mass production of products equates to increased sales. With the decreased costs often associated with mass production, forecasting profits can be intriguing for any business. However, oftentimes an organization that mass products will emphasize the production of their goods, rather than marketing or their customer’s needs. Using the automobile industry as an example, Levitt highlights the disconnect between the automobile industry in Detroit and the actual needs of their customers, including more comprehensive service packages. Henry Ford, conversely, saw the need to meet customer needs and, with the advent of assembly lines, successfully sold missions of affordable cars to the masses. The last common myth described by Levitt is the belief that research and development alone can be used in place of marketing. When marketing departments are treated as “stepchildren” and more emphasis is placed on profits, as opposed to improving the product, the organization faces a further disconnect with the needs of their customers and is more likely to become obsolete. This is especially for markets such as the technology industry, where

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 5 although innovation is rapid, with the amount of competition that exists, an emphasis on marketing is needed to reach target audiences even for the most well-known brands. The strongest brands often possess the strongest marketing, for example, Apple. As such, they can enjoy the benefits of strong customer loyalty, the ability to charge premium prices, and the strength to support new products. To do so, as explained by Ghodeswar, organizations must have a strong understanding of customer beliefs, behaviors, product attributes, competitors, and their overall needs (Ghodeswar, 2008). Conclusion Levitt concludes with a reminder for organizations that industries are best served with customer-satisfying processes rather than good-producing processes, an understanding he states is vital for businesspeople to comprehend (Levitt, 2008). This comes with an understanding that selling should not be completely ignored, but warns organizations should not equate selling to marketing. “In short, the organization must learn to think of itself not as producing goods or services but as buying customers, as doing the things that will make people want to do business with it” (Levitt, p.13, 2008).

MYOPIA ASSIGNMENT 6 References Levitt, T. (2004). Marketing myopia. Harvard business review . Ghodeswar, B. M. (2008). Building brand identity in competitive markets: a conceptual model. Journal of product & brand management , 17 (1), 4-12. Helm, D. (2016). The future of fossil fuels—is it the end?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy , 32 (2), 191-205. Rubin, M. (1997). Creating customer-oriented companies. PRISM-CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS- , 5-28.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

BUSI745A2

Related Documents