The article states that "the continued use of antiquated marketing concepts is more of a hazard to managers than a benefit". Wow- is this really true? The "outdated" tool discussed in the article is STP- which is segmentation, targeting, and positioning. These three concepts are important in any company's marketing strategy, which we have learned since Principles of Marketing. So- what makes them so hazardous? The author of this article seems to think that media is developed for mass markets, and that targeting isn't a realistic concept. It also mentions how media focuses on having high reach as opposed to targeting, which I don't necessarily agree with. In our course, we always talk about how marketers need to have high frequency by having many touchpoints throughout the Consumer Decision Journey. In my opinion, I think it is more valuable for a firm to reach a smaller, more targeted group of consumers many times, as opposed to a larger group of less-targeted consumers just once. If marketing is all about developing and maintaining relationships with consumers, why wouldn't targeting continue to help that?
The next idea that the author of the article criticizes is positioning. Traditionally, positioning assumed that marketers' products had to fit in some kind of systematic grid. But, like the article said, "human brains don't have niches of compartments". I agree with this, because I think that the idea of positioning is a bit too generalized. It assumes that a product has to fit in a specific and particular box in order to find a valuable place in the market. This reminded me of our term project last semester working with Marketing Management students. Our group had an extremely different idea of what positioning meant- and their idea of it was extremely systematic.
The article also criticizes how STP "assumes inherently that all product and usage knowledge comes from the product or brand, ignoring such currently important factors as product/service experience... word-of-mouth.." I thought that this statement was spot on. We are continuously taught that marketing products or services is about the experience. This ties into the constantly sought-after idea of emotional connection with consumers. By creating a valuable experience for consumers, they can think positively about your brand, advocate for it, and emotionally connect with it: isn't that the goal here?
Listening to your consumers is a crucial part of being successful in marketing- which I think the article illustrated nicely. It is crazy to think that brands don't listen to their consumers, because how can they effectively reach them that way? Like the article said, "customers and prospects are continuously talking about their needs wants and desires". What better way for marketers to understand these needs, wants, and desires than by simply listening?
Overall, this article related to our course material nicely, and it got me thinking about whether or not traditional marketing concepts are outdated. I think that many of these concepts should be altered or re-looked at as time goes on, but the traditional framework of what marketing is seems to hold true even years later.
Another very good reflection. The article you read was written by Don Schultz, who is an emritus professor of marketing communications at Northwestern's Medill School. This use to be a journalism program, not a business program. About 25 years ago, Don Schultz was one of those leading the charge on Integrated Marketing Communications. This was a new concept to journalism and advertising programs, as they primarily focused on the 'skills' side of advertising (how to create an ad) and not the strategy. Business schools were more strategy, and less skills, focused. Schultz has a history of taking fundamental marketing concepts and setting up the straw man argument to discredit them. It does provide interesting reading and making you think.
ReplyDelete