Make Marketing History

The views of a marketing deviant.

Monday, November 24, 2008

That's Not Marketing Either.


Actually, no. A brand should exist solely to meet a customer need and, if it does, then its needs and those of the customer will be congruent. A construct doesn't have independent needs.

On the other hand, a company does have independent needs and this suggestion is more a reflection of the interconnectedness of marketing and corporate strategy than anything else.

Successful corporate strategy connects the needs of customers to the need of a company to achieve a return on investment. Not vice versa.

8 Comments:

Blogger Charles Frith said...

So the company and the brand are seperate?

6:33 AM, November 24, 2008  
Blogger john dodds said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:24 AM, November 24, 2008  
Blogger john dodds said...

Yes. In many cases, probably the majority, the company has a number of brands that it markets. Meanwhile there are many elements of a company that the customer does not encounter directly and these therefore do not contribute to the customers' view of the brand.

8:26 AM, November 24, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hello mr dodds. i had not heard of motrin before. now all i remember about the company is the little internet hype that occured because of that ad. i guess this contributes to my view of any other product/brand of the company. p

10:24 AM, November 24, 2008  
Blogger faris said...

hello mate!

ahh yes indeed. you are absolutely right/

reformulation:

marketing should be the the connection of a company's need to a consumer need in a way that solves both. this is often called a brand.

?

FX

6:43 AM, November 26, 2008  
Blogger john dodds said...

My problem is the equal billing given to the customer and company need. Companies only exist to meet the customer need so that must be paramount in the definition.

The company need is subservient to that. Though of course the company has the free will to enter the fray or not.

"This can often be achieved via a brand" would be as far as I would go because I don't think marketing has to involve brands. Heretical huh?

9:08 AM, November 26, 2008  
Blogger faris said...

but see, even if you put consumers at the heart of the company, that's not WHY they exist - they exist to make money.

So - if they solved consumer needs without making money? No joy.

Marketing defo doesn't have to involve brands:

Marketing is understanding what consumers want and giving it to them [to make money]

It is NOT advertising.

FX

9:16 AM, November 26, 2008  
Blogger john dodds said...

Agreed - companies exist to make a return on their shareholder investment by meeting customer needs.


Disagree - if I'm correctly inferring that you see marketing and advertising as separate. Advertising is a subset of marketing.

Undecided - about your definition ;O)

9:27 AM, November 26, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home