Introduction
It is evident that many organizations are working towards becoming customer-centric. Companies are aiming at satisfying as many customers as possible by producing products that are expected to fit different demographic parameters of the society. In this regard, this paper aims at evaluating whether this marketing initiative is flawed or it can be a success if pursued.
In order for the paper to clearly demystify the underlying facts in this paper, relationship theory of marketing will be used to investigate whether this marketing strategy is flawed or it can be successful. From its foundations, the paper will justify whether the study is worth investigating and why it is important to the marketing department.
Flaws in Wanting To Please So Many Customers
Many organizations that have set on pleasing as many customers as possible have resulted in having many files for inactive customers stashed in their cabinet walls. This is because many organizations have a tendency to serve clients and later open a file for them on the assumption that these customers will stay and become loyal customers. In most incidences, this optimistic marketing strategy fails.
This is because the organization’s marketing department did not take its time to develop a good relationship with the customer prior to opening a file on them. Therefore, after a year or so, when the company decides to evaluate the number of customers in its portfolio, it establishes that they have many docile customers (Ferrell and Hartline, 2010).
According to Zimmerman (2001), the reasons why customers leave a certain organization can partially be attributed to the fact that they feel that the organization does not care about them. This scenario is likely to arise where the organization aims at pleasing too many customers simultaneously.
Many companies spend more than 80% of their marketing budget in pursuit of new customers instead of maintaining and nurturing a relationship with the existing ones (Ferrell and Hartline, 2010). This marketing strategy cost organizations more than six times selling the same product to a prospecting customer than it would have cost selling the same to an already established customer.
Therefore, it is the duty of the marketing department to develop good relationship with the customers so that they can often purchase the organization’s products (Lamb, Hair and McDaniel, 2008). This relationship can be built by treating customers as strategic partners in the company as this will prove to them that the company cares about their concerns.
This objective is only attainable if the organization satisfies its customers by selling the right products that are supported by the right promotion paraphernalia that ascertains that the products are available for the market at the right time and in the right place for the customers (The University of Michigan, 2002).
For the organization to achieve this objective, it should dedicate its best staff to do this job. This is because customers are easily won by competitors, more so when they detect indifference or insincerity in the organization’s marketing strategy (Fragasso, 2008). Therefore, it is the duty of the organization’s marketing department to create long-term customer relationships.
It is evident that this cannot be attained if the organization constantly wants to satisfy the needs of so many different customers at the same time. This enormous challenge can only be achieved if marketing department makes it its duty to maintain its customers rather than to focus on amassing new ones.
It should project its budgetary allocation towards nurturing good relationship with its customers as this guarantees the organization continued business with its established customer base (Boone and Kurt, 2010). As noted by Aslib (2009), this initiative is expected to increase the organization’s sales by a 50% margin without increasing its marketing department’s budgetary allocation.
Another pitfall that arises from this marketing approach where organizations pursue to please many different types of customers is that most organisations end up failing in the core objective of customer satisfaction.
This is because customer satisfaction in any product sold by an organization arises if the product delivered is able to meet the customer’s needs holistically. This marketing scenario enables the organization employees to intervene where necessary to ensure that the customer experience is superb (Kotler et al, 2009).
However, this is not possible if the organization is constantly looking for new and different customers to satisfy. When an organisation has a big pool of new customers to satisfy, its service or product delivery becomes inconsistent which often leads to a conflict in the services or products delivered. For instance, General Motors is a prime example for this scenario.
This is because at one point in the company’s history, its products were tailored to fulfil certain demographics of the society. For example, the company had cars meant to meet the needs of various sections of the society. It had small family minivans for families, sports cars for the sporty people and trucks for working class as well as vehicles for goods transport among many other brands of vehicles (McKee, 2011).
This diversification strategy to please different customers resulted in a conflict of interest in the General Motor brands. For example, the company produced Pontiac, a popular car in the 60’s and 70’s as it signified power and style. However, Pontiac introduced other brands under its umbrella such as the Trans Sport which was a minivan, the Sunfire, a compact car among others brands.
Pontiac’s marketing strategy to satisfy customers makes one to question which facet of the society was the original Pontiac made for. This is because along the way, the company had lost track of its initial objective to manufacture a car for a certain section of the society as they mixed up its production in an attempt to fulfil the desires of as many customers as possible at the same time (Lamb, Hair and McDaniel, 2011).
The ability of any organization to fully satisfy its customers is entrenched in its unwritten rules and its trademark products that build its legacy. This is not possible for an organization whose culture is deeply rooted on the belief that it should satisfy as many customers as possible.
This wide range of production denies the organization the chance to have a product that can be accurately identified as its leading product. This pitfall can only be eradicated if the organization specializes and dedicates its resources on fulfilling the needs of a particular section in the market (Dempsey, 2004).
The organization’s aim to satisfy various customers will result in poor advertising programs. For instance, due to the magnitude of the products that the organization will be selling to its customers the best advertisement methods that can be implemented would only be the use of flyers that only show the name of the business, a few basics features of the product being sold and lastly, the address of the organization.
This marketing strategy results in little or no response from prospective customers (Aaker, 2008). Businesses that adopt this model are doomed to fail as they do not take into consideration the psychological sequence of the buyers. This is because the marketers lack time to accurately strategize on the best marketing criteria for each business product that is on sale from the organization.
Therefore, there is a need for organizations to brand their products that target a particular section of the society rather than the whole community. This branding will also give the organization the chance to formulate award winning advertisements that are expected to promote their products to prospective customers.
Such advertisements are precise as they leave no room for irrelevant complaints from factions of the society that are not in the organization’s target audience (Kotler and Lee, 2006).
Reason Why Companies Embark On Selling To Too Many Different Types of Buyers
According to Egan and Harker (2005), organizations spend too much time asking prospective customers from all walks of life their opinions on various products they offer. This approach in the marketing strategy forms a weak link in the organization’s market research.
This is because in asking all types of groups questions that are expected to provide the marketing department with the data expected to pilot how the organization will sell its products will result in biased or untrue information.
As noted by Doyle (2001), it is evident that majority of those respondents answer the questioners based on two beliefs. First, they might respond to the questions by giving answers that they know the questioner wants to hear. Secondly, they may give answers that are expected to attest their intelligence or that are expected to make them sound smarter.
This problem in collecting marketing data worsens when the group to be questioned is gathered together to form a focus group. Such group’s main agenda is to please their cohorts. Therefore, they give biased responses so as to achieve their objectives.
This makes the focus groups inherently flawed in their marketing objectives as they mislead organizations into believing that their products will be bought if they sell them to different types of customers.
According to Kapferer (2007), these focus groups conceive an artificial marketing environment for organizations based on intellectual information that they collect and forget that most buyers’ decision to buy is mostly influenced by their emotions rather than their knowledge.
Therefore, it is prudent to say that focus groups have misled organizations into believing that selling goods to numerous types of groups would increase the organizations market share or profits (Dibb and Simkin, 2008). This belief has led to the failure of many products such as the McDonald’s Mclean sandwich that was greatly hyped by its marketing focus group (McDonald, 2002).
The Relationship Theory of Marketing
The relationship theory of marketing will play a crucial role in depicting the importance of having good customer relations for organizations. According to Buttle, (2006), the relationship marketing theory is concerned with attracting customers, development of good relationship with customers and lastly, their retention.
This theory has put more emphasis on customer satisfaction and retention as opposed to stressing on the importance of increasing the sales transaction of the organization. The theory has differed from other theories proposed in marketing. This is because it articulates that having long-term customer relations is the most important element in any successful marketing department.
Relationship marketing theory holds that customer retention supersedes any advertisement message that can be formulated by the marketing department in the organization (Kleinaltenkamp and Ehret, 2006).
Relationship marketing involves finding new customers that are within the organization’s target group, formulation of strategies that are expected to attract them to the organization, nurturing the relationship that the organization has with those customers, retaining its already existing customers, enticing back former customers who might have been lost to its competitors and lastly, reduction of the costs of marketing that come with serving organization clients.
This theory proves the aim of pleasing too many different types of customers is flawed. This is because such strategy simply advocates for a purchase-exchange process between the customer and the seller thus negating the fundamental ideologies of this theory, which is having an organization transaction that is expected to create some ties between the seller and the buyer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that this paper has exhaustively discussed the shortcomings that arise from a market strategy that aims at pleasing too many different types of customers. The paper has managed to show that this strategy is flowed.
The paper has also effectively identified the flaws that have resulted in this marketing strategy. It is also evident that the relationship marketing theory negates the strategy of seeking to please too many customers. Therefore, it is prudent to conclude that the aim of selling the goods to customers is flawed and any organization planning to do so is doomed to fail.
Reference List
Aaker, D., 2008. Strategic Market Management. New York: John Wiley.
Aslib, B. 2009. Aslib information. New York: Aslib.
Boone, L., E. and Kurt, D., L., 2010. Contemporary Business. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Buttle, F., 2006. Relationship marketing: theory and practice. New York: Cengage Learning.
Dempsey, B., 2004. Target your brand. Marketing Journal, 129 (13), 32-35.
Dibb, S., and Simkin, L., 2008. Marketing Planning: A Workbook for Marketing Managers.New York: Cengage Learning.
Doyle, P., 2001. The Marketing Book. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Egan, J. and Harker, M., 2005. Relationship marketing. London: Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Ferrell, O., C. and Hartline, M., 2010. Marketing Strategy. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Fragasso, P., M.,2008. Marketing for Rainmakers: 52 Rules of Engagement to Attract and Retain Customers for Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kapferer, J., N., 2007. Strategic Brand Management; Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page.
Kleinaltenkamp, M. and Ehret, M., 2006. Relationship theory and business markets. Journal of business & industrial marketing 21(2) pp10-22.
Kotler, P. and Lee,N., 2006. Marketing in the Public Sector: A Roadmap for Improved Performance. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V. and Saunders , J., 2009. Principles of marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lamb, C., W., Hair, J., F. and McDaniel, C., 2008. Marketing. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Lamb, C., W., Hair, J., F. and McDaniel, C., 2011. Essentials of Marketing. Marketing Series. Beaverton: SAGE.
McDonald, M., H., B., 2002. Marketing plans; How to prepare them, how to use them. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
McKee, S., 2011, Customers Your Company Doesn’t Want, Business Week. Web.
The University of Michigan. 2002. Advertising and selling. Michigan: Advertising & Selling Co.
Zimmerman, F., M., 2001. The Turnaround Experience: Real World Lessons in Revitalizing Corporations and Organizations. Chicago: F & J Zimmerman Co.