CRITIQUE OF MARKETING MYOPIA

Critique of Marketing Myopia

Written in 1960, the paper Marketing Myopia was written by Theodore Levitt, a professor of marketing at Harvard Business School. It has been republished a number of times since then. The publication that this critique is based on is from the Best of HBR series, in the July-August edition of the Harvard Business Review (pages 138-149).

In Levitts article, he explores and details issues he saw with big business short-sightedness (i.e. myopia) and failure to adopt a broader consideration of external factors in their corporate strategies, including the neglect to evaluate the needs and wants of the consumer. This inattention has resulted and is resulting in the collapse of long-established firms. Levitt uses examples from many industries including the railroad, petroleum, automobile, movie, and electronics markets, along with other references to grocery chains, dry cleaners, and buggy whip manufacturers to develop his case that firms have placed too much importance on their product and selling it, as opposed to adapting a broader, more flexible classification of their purpose and offerings. Levitt presented four main conditions which could lead to this failure:

1. The belief that growth is assured by an expanding and more affluent population; 2. The belief that there is no competitive substitute for the industrys major product; 3. Too much faith in mass production and in the advantages of rapidly declining unit costs as output rises;

4. Preoccupation with a product that lends itself to carefully controlled scientific {activities}. (Levitt, p. 140)

Levitt argued that firms strategies should evolve with the consumer, paying more attention to actually listening to and marketing to consumers instead of blindly selling to them, and exercise the foresight to see what new innovative services or products may be lurking on the horizon that could be taken advantage of to benefit both the individual firm and the market as a whole.

CRITIQUE OF MARKETING MYOPIA

This article makes a number of valid points about big industry, keeping in mind that it was written over 50 years ago. Even today, a number of large firms appear to have a myopic vision of their place in their respective markets and their futures. Today, there is short-sightedness present as it relates to monitoring and gathering valuable information from global consumers, suppliers, and competitors (Lodish & Mela, 2007), and in the failure to take a long-term focus on company strategy, marketing, and brand management (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2004). Marketing myopia still exists, but it is presenting a different face.

For the most part, changes or improvements made within large industries were a result of pressure or direction from government, regulatory bodies, or as a response to conditions which significantly threatened a firms existence. If a company was or is very successful in a market where it doesnt have to make much effort to build or retain customers, an air of complacency can set in if managers are not careful, and exploration of future threats and/or opportunities can be neglected.

A number of todays industries appear to me to have continued to exhibit components of the four conditions presented by Levitt. Today, the examples of challenged industries has changed from those in the 1960s now, mobile phones, gourmet coffee (Doz, 2004), and flat panel television industries (Lodish, 2007) show how myopic vision can result in stagnation and failure in modern times. I feel that the continued growth of populations in the western world, and advancements in developing countries had been assumed to be an ever-increasing source of dependent customers who will provide a steady revenue source for big business. Firms with global reach need to take advantage of their expanse and use available resources to learn new and innovative ideas that may not be present in their local market. As stated by Doz (p. 6), {companies} must choose to engage with the world; otherwise it will engage us.

The attitude that if you build more of it and make it better, they will buy it continued to exist to the end of the 20th century. Expanding economies of scale and technological improvements were being targeted to lower average production costs, without due consideration for the customer.

CRITIQUE OF MARKETING MYOPIA

Levitt may have been somewhat limited in his interpretation of the current state of big business at the time. In order for a firm to be successful in the market, especially todays global environment, all valuable stakeholders, not only the consumer, need to be involved, consulted, and called upon to ensure that the firm is developing appropriately in the areas of customer needs, environmental responsibility, corporate citizenship, and ethics, to name a few. This argument was presented in an article by Smith, Drumwright, and Gentile (2010) which stated that firms and marketers have taken Levitts position to far, and that there has been little focus on the requirement that the firm consider multiple stakeholders beyond the consumer (Smith, p. 6). Smiths article suggests that marketers make an effort to 1) identify the applicable and important stakeholders are to a firm, and 2) incorporate appropriate feedback regarding expectations and issues within the firms decision making process as it relates to product development and marketing. Continued success of a firm needs to be based on sound decisions made with the use of appropriate information from all pertinent sources, and not just one body (i.e. consumers).

Theodore Levitts paper on Marketing Myopia was important as it appeared to cause the business world to take notice as it relates to industries view of consumers and their importance to the survival of a firm. Through good examples at the time, the author shows that simply having an internal focus on pushing an invincible and untouchable product out to customers without their input will not support existence over the long term. It is also important to not lose sight of the fact that all stakeholders need to be involved in business decisions, and not be limited to solely a customer focus.

CRITIQUE OF MARKETING MYOPIA

References

Doz, Y., Santos, J., Williamson, P.J. (Jan/Feb, 2004), Marketing Myopia Revisited: Why Every Company Needs to Learn From the World, Ivey Business Journal, 1-6 Levitt, T. (2004, July-August), Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Review Top Line Growth, 138-149 Lodish, L.M., Mela, C.F. (July-August, 2004), If Brands are Built over Years, Why are They Managed over Quarters?, Harvard Business Review, 104-112 Smith, N.C., Drumwright, M.E., & Gentile, M.C. (2010, Spring), The New Marketing Myopia, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 4-11