Introduction
For modern business companies, the ability to produce goods and services that uniquely resonate with target consumers is a critical success factor. The marketing tasks facing organizations, as a rule, are not limited to narrow frameworks and imply searching for flexible algorithms for promotion and creation of value propositions. As an article to consider to prove the relevance of a customer-centric approach, the article “Marketing Myopia” by Levitt (1960) will be reviewed, and its key findings will be analyzed. The main success factors influencing the efficiency of marketing campaigns should not be limited to a focus on sales without taking into account client interests. Innovation is one of the central incentives for successful promotion, and this thesis forms the basis of Levitt’s (1960) idea about the inadmissibility of narrow goals in the construction of productive ways of addressing consumer needs.
Relevance of the Author’s Ideas
The topic that Levitt (1960) raises in his article remains relevant to this day, even though this discussion is more than half a century old. While considering the marketing practices typical of the American industries of that time, the researcher draws attention, first of all, to the shortcomings of individual approaches (Levitt, 1960). The limited possibilities of media advertising, carried out, as a rule, through the products of the film industry, were ineffective in assessing the real interests of consumers, which, in turn, did not allow for the restructuring of weak promotion strategies. In today’s marketing environment and customer engagement principles, similar theses are relevant. The inadmissibility of a blind desire to capitalize on sales, ignoring the real demand characteristics, indicates the relevance of the ideas presented, and the myopia metaphor describes the limited advertising potential in the best possible way.
Individual Innovators’ Examples
The value of optimization as a strategy to transform market competitiveness is examined with the examples of individual innovators who have made a significant contribution to the history of marketing. For instance, Levitt (1960) mentions Thomas Edison as an inventor who took the energy industry to the next level with his inventions, including the creation of the incandescent lamp, which replaced obsolete kerosene lamps. Such an example is intended to emphasize the importance of an individual idea as a stimulus that can be stronger than traditional practices. Srivastava and Zerrillo (2019) also consider Edison’s personality, but in the context of Asian countries, and evaluate the likelihood of restructuring marketing strategies if this inventor had operated in a different world region. Thus, the idea is proposed that individual developments can be more useful than mass practices if the corresponding proposals are designed to optimize and improve rather than slow down and restrain.
As an excuse for past marketers, Levitt (1960) mentions various pressures and barriers that were inevitable. For example, the author notes the deterrents in the form of monopolization of individual industries by a narrow circle of companies, which did not allow other market participants to count on the comprehensive development and effectiveness of alternative promotion practices (Levitt, 1960). However, even in such conditions, some businesses were able to develop successfully, and the example of Henry Ford and his automobile concern is proof of this.
In his business strategy, Ford pursued a strategy of manufacturing products that were of interest to the target consumer first, which, as Levitt (1960) states, characterized the innovator as both senseless and, at the same time, a successful marketer of his time. In modern concepts of promotion, the ideas of many of Ford’s principles have been preserved, which testifies to the effectiveness of the approaches that he promoted. Link (2018) argues that along with charismatic leadership as a management principle, Henry Ford adopted a deep market analysis tactic that set his business apart from those competitors and allowed him to gain public confidence, which had always been one of the key goals of marketing. For modern companies, the focus on assessing the prospects for promotion is almost always based on demand planning as an option that determines the success of sales. Therefore, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and other prominent innovators are cited in Levitt’s (1960) article as iconic reformers who moved away from outdated and short-sighted marketing tactics.
The Importance of the Complete Analytical Cycle
In addition to the proposed descriptions of the achievements of individual innovators, Levitt (1960) provides an assessment of a comprehensive marketing analysis that involves planning at all stages, including interaction with the target audience. Functional decisions made by marketers should focus not only on sales but also on creation, delivery, feedback, and other important characteristics. As the researcher argues, customer satisfaction is one of the ultimate goals to achieve, and neglecting this criterion is fraught with a drop in demand and low sales (Levitt, 1960). Examples of transportation, oil, and other industries are provided to show the incompetence of responsible managers and the importance of working to create effective value propositions that address customer needs in the first place.
Sustainable Leadership
The effectiveness of marketing models is measured not in the context of available resources but through the strength of leadership control over the flexibility of development strategies, which, according to Levitt (1960), is of greater value than the material base. As support for this idea, Yun et al. (2018) cite the example of the Apple Corporation, particularly the work of Steve Jobs, as the company’s main inspiration and symbol. Through an innovative approach to analyzing the market and customer needs, Jobs and his colleague Wozniak created a business model that served the interests of end users, namely ordinary consumers of digital equipment, which allowed them to build one of the most profitable organizations ever (Yun et al., 2018). This example can be used as evidence in favor of the thesis about the importance of innovation and the risks that stagnation in marketing brings.
As one of the final ideas, Levitt (1960) argues that organizations should regard themselves not as selling units but as addressers of customer needs. This applies to all involved participants, including marketers, managers, and other parties whose activities are aimed at promoting relevant goods and services. As Keller and Alsdorf (2012) note, history shows that individual achievements that changed the world were not only brilliant discoveries but also incentives for further improvement attempts. Therefore, the desire for flexibility and focus on customer needs in marketing are essential success components.
Conclusion
Customer focus in marketing is the main theme of Levitt’s (1960) article, in which the author talks about the low probability of sustainable promotion of goods and services in the case of focusing exclusively on selling tasks. The examples of outstanding innovators and their achievements demonstrate the importance of constantly seeking new solutions. Flexibility and sustainable leadership are essential success factors, and given the ideas presented, one can speak of the relevance of Levitt’s (1960) ideas to today’s marketing sector.
References
Keller, T. & Alsdorf, K. (2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God’s work. Penguin Random House.
Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 1-14. Web.
Link, S. (2018). The charismatic corporation: Finance, administration, and shop floor management under Henry Ford. Business History Review, 92(1), 85-115. Web.
Srivastava, R. K., & Zerrillo, P. (2019). Innovation: Does Asia need Newton or Edison?Asian Management Insights, 6(1). Web.
Yun, J. J., Jung, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2018). Open innovation of James Watt and Steve Jobs: Insights for sustainability of economic growth. Sustainability, 10(5), 1553. Web.