“Marketing Myopia” Myopia

Years ago, Theodore Levitt, a marketing professor at the Harvard Business School, published a popular article entitled "Marketing Myopia." Many people in business today, despite not having read the article, subscribe to the idea. It is that companies should define themselves in terms of broad industry perspective rather than narrow product position. To take Levitt's favorite examples, railroad companies were to see themselves in the transportation business, oil companies in the energy business.

The idea was a good one—like all good ideas, within reason. Why not open up perspectives, beyond existing positions: fast food beyond hamburgers (McDonald’s), delivering packages beyond selling books (Amazon), offering unassembled kitchens beyond unassembled tables (IKEA). Just so long as the competencies of the company are respected.

Many firms had a field day with Levitt’s idea, rushing to redefine themselves in all kinds of fancy ways—for example, the mission of a ball bearing company became "reducing friction." It was even better for the business schools. What better way to stimulate the students than to get them musing about how the chicken factory could be in the business of providing protein, or garbage collection could become beautification? Unfortunately, it was all too easy, a cerebral exercise that, while opening vistas, could detach people from the mundane work of plucking and compacting.

Often the problem came down to extravagant assumptions about the intrinsic capabilities of a company—namely that these are almost limitless, or at least highly adaptable. A prominent writer on strategic planning suggested, in apparent seriousness, that "buggy whip manufacturers might still be around if they had said their business was not making buggy whips but self-starters for carriages".(1) But what in the world would have enabled them to do that? These two products shared nothing in common—no material supply, no technology, no production process, no distribution channel—save a thought in somebody's head about making vehicles move. Why should starters have been any more of a logical product diversification for them than, say, fan belts? "Instead of being in transportation accessories or guidance systems," why could the buggy whip manufacturers not have defined their business as "flagellation"?(2)

How can a few clever words on a piece of paper enable a railroad to fly airplanes? Levitt wrote that "once it genuinely thinks of its business as taking care of people's transportation needs, nothing can stop it from creating its own extravagantly profitable growth"(3) Nothing except the limitations of its own distinctive competences.

Levitt's intention was to broaden the vision of managers. At that he may have succeeded—all too well. By elevating strategy from past position, to perspective—from place on the ground to that in some stratosphere—he may have reduced its depth. Market opportunities got elevated past internal strengths. Products ceased to count (railroad executives defined their industry "wrong" because "they were product-oriented instead of consumer-oriented"), as did production ("the particular form of manufacturing, processing, or what-have-you cannot be considered as a vital aspect of the industry"). But what makes marketing intrinsically more important than product or production, or, for that matter, Ludvig in the laboratory? Companies have to build on whatever capabilities they can make use of, without being overwhelmed by weaknesses that they never considered, marketing ones included.

Critics of Levitt's article have had their own field day with the terminology, pointing out the dangers of "marketing hyperopia," where "vision is better for distant than for near objects"(4), or of "marketing macropia," which escalates previously narrow market segments "beyond experience or prudence".(5) I prefer to conclude that “marketing myopia” has often turned out to be myopic.

 

? Henry Mintzberg 2018. An earlier version of this appeared in my book The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, which Tom Peters called “my favorite management book of the last 25 years…no contest.”

Follow this TWOG on Twitter @mintzberg141, or receive the blogs directly in your inbox by subscribing here. To help disseminate these blogs, we also have a Facebook page and a LinkedIn page.

_______________

1 G.A. Steiner, Strategic Planning; What Every Manager Must Know (New York: Free Press, 1979).

2 Heller, quoted R. Norman (1977) Management for Growth, New York: Wiley (p. 34)

3 T. Levitt ,“Marketing Myopia.” Harvard Business Review  (July/August 1960, p. 53)

4 P. Kotler and R. Singh, “Marketing Warfare in the 1980s.” Journal of Business Strategy (Winter, 1981:30-41).

5 J.P. Baughman, Problems and Performance of the Role of the Chief Executive in the General Electric Company, 1882-1974 (working paper Graduate School of Business Administration Harvard University, 1974).

Vincent Guimont-Hebert, MBA, P.Eng

Directeur principal, Développement durable

6 年

Interesting perspective that, if we push the envelope a bit further, could also apply to companies now redefining themselves through their contribution to solve global social / environmental challenges. Considering the increasing importance and loyalty given by investors and consumers (mostly millenials for now) to "purpose-driven" corporations, I think that it's not a bad marketing strategy if it is integrated to the core operations of the value chain, while respecting (or even enhancing) the original distinctive competencies of the company. As long as it's not just words on a piece of paper, as you wrote Professor Mintzberg.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Henry Mintzberg的更多文章

  • Time for the next Reformation?

    Time for the next Reformation?

    The closest model for the kind of change that the world needs now is probably the Reformation of the 16th century.

  • Let's get clever!

    Let's get clever!

    What’s the use of occupying Wall Street? It’s the behaviors behind the closed doors of Wall Street that are the…

  • The Biggest Joke in Climate Change

    The Biggest Joke in Climate Change

    Here we have the biggest joke in climate change. But climate change is no joke, so we had better stop planning and…

    1 条评论
  • The Extremists versus the Moderates

    The Extremists versus the Moderates

    Yet again there is a cease fire in the Middle East. Yet again nothing will change, at least until this conflict is…

    1 条评论
  • RebalancingSociety.org is up

    RebalancingSociety.org is up

    RebalancingSociety.org is now up, thirst years in the making.

  • PANDEMIC AND POLLUTION

    PANDEMIC AND POLLUTION

    Revised 19 November, 7 December 2020, 7 January and 5 March 2021 Overview The orthodoxies of administration and the…

  • Hoping for the best is not an acceptable strategy

    Hoping for the best is not an acceptable strategy

    GETTING PAST THE PANDEMIC Or, read the full story. Follow this TWOG on Twitter @mintzberg141, or receive the blogs…

    1 条评论
  • Zoom à tout prix? Pas si vite!

    Zoom à tout prix? Pas si vite!

    Coécrit avec Hanieh Mohammadi, doctorante à la Faculté de gestion Désautels de l’Université McGill Nous sommes entichés…

  • Where has all the judgement gone?

    Where has all the judgement gone?

    With Dulcie Naimer, and thanks to Pete Seeger (hear him or sing along) Where has all the judgement gone? Long time…

  • Wishing us all a happier new year… with 2021 vision

    Wishing us all a happier new year… with 2021 vision

    2020 was not a good year for vision, mine included. In April, I drafted a view of this pandemic intended to open up…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了