1. Assumption: that people always choose to buy the cheapest product.
Wendy: In our marketing class we learned that price is only one aspect of the decision to buy something. Andy and I often choose to buy something that is not the cheapest product available for reasons such as where it is made or sold, or if our purchase helps someone we know to make a living. I think governments do this (choose to buy something more expensive for various reasons) as well as individuals.
Jonathan:This is an assumption for identical goods. A car sold by your best friend is not really the same as a car sold by the guy who murdered your mother. Altruism is something that people value. Unfortunately, governments often buy things from cronies (Haliburton) at the expense of taxpayers.
2. Assumption: that the ownership of stuff measures wealth or wellbeing.
Wendy:need I say more?
Jonathan: It doesn’t measure wellbeing and it only indicates relative wellbeing if people chose more wealth over less. We assume that people generally try to increase their wellbeing. There are also models of irrational people (think addicts), but that is more complicated and so most models just assume that each person knows what is in their best interest. Simplifying assumptions do not mean that we assume that people are rational. It is what people would do if they were rational. It is like models of physics that assume zero friction. Physicists know that there is friction, but models are simpler if we leave it out.
3. Assumption: that more consumerism is good or desireable.
Wendy: See #2
Jonathan: If people desire it and there are no externalities, then it is.
4. Assumption: that the rise of Global Production is good (same question as above, probably).
Wendy: See #2,3
Jonathan: Another kind of externality is a coordination problem like a prisoner’s dilemma situation where everyone is competing for status. If everyone would be better off with less production, but everyone just wants to get more than their neighbor, then everyone could be made worse off. I could draw it out for you sometime.
5. Assumption: that consumer goods (manufacturing) are equal or better in value to survival goods (food, water, fuel).
Wendy: This is not true in the case of any kind of upset or conflict. Trade can be cut off in a single day and then those countries that are dependant on export crops or manufacturing and importing food or fuel are suddenly vulnerable to starvation. This seems to happen often in the world.
Jonathan: It is a bit out of fashion these days, but this is captured by the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. I don’t think it happens often that disrupted trade causes starvation. War causes starvation whether people try to produce food self-sufficiently or not because it cuts production. A country that is always cut off from trade is much more likely to suffer from starvation because there will be problems every time there is normal fluctuation in the weather. Kenya is trying to set up a grain commodities market to prevent starvation due to fluctuations in local production.
6. Assumption: that if the amount of win outnumbers the amount of loss, the change is acceptable.
Jonathan: Unfortunately, some economists do sometimes subscribe to this theory! It is called the Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function.
A few of the rich could be winning in such large amounts that it seems to balance what could be a widespread loss amoung many people who started out with very little to begin with.
7. Assumption: that the situation in #6 will not be the probable cause of conflict or war in the world, or increase racism or class hatred.
Jonathan: No. However, sometimes this potential problem is ignored partly because it is harder to measure. Conflict is a well-understood problem from inequality and there are many others.
8. Assumption: that environmental concerns will eventually work themselves out by those wanting to make a profit off them.
Wendy: Is this an assumption of economics? If so, I don't see how any profit-based company would ever invest in something like the storage of Nuclear waste or other long-term environmental damage control, because the pay-back is not going to happen in our lifetime.
Jonathan: No. Externalities are perfectly-well understood by all economists. It is non-economist libertarians who tend to caricature us as being free-market fundamentalists. About 3/4 of economists vote Democratic however.
9. Assumption: that the best quality goods are always created through competition.
Wendy: Just look around a Wallmart, or any kind of new housing development. Good quality just doesn't win the battle.
Jonathan: No. Competition tends to promote cost reduction. Walmart and fancy department stores are arguably competing equally. They specialize in different niches though. In reality there is no perfect competition and there is no way to really objectively quantify the amount of actual competition in a market. Even a duopoly may face severe competition. Quality may even be increased through granting a monopoly. That is what the patent system is supposed to do.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Discussion with Jonathan, Economics Prof
Question:
Jonathan, I still have trouble accepting that everything has a study to prove or disprove it. On page 230 the text says,
"While economists universally agree with this proposition (that compensation is the only motivator), some social psychologists or organizational behaviorists argue that there are other reasons employees work. They suggest that offering explicit incentives such as compensation could actually reduce job performance and productivity by eliminating the intrinsic desire to carry out some activity. Their argument is based on the belief that individuals often have pride in their work and enjoy carrying out required tasks and that paying people to carry out some task reduces the intrinsic enjoyment of that task. Thus, they argue, firms should appeal to intrinsic motivation rather than compensation if they want workers to perform well."
First of all, this paragraph makes the concept sound ridiculous, and oversimplifies it grossly. Secondly, the test arrogently proclaims that "no evidance has been provided to show that it plays any kind of important role"
What is the assumption here? That every aspect of work and of society has had a study done about it and that if there is no "evidance" prooving something it has no merit? Studies and "proof" are very expensive and have to be paid for by someone and done by someone, and it seems to me that very few of our interactions have been formally studied such as this.
Our world is full of people who are motivated by much more than compensation. The use of Mother Teresa as an example doesn't match the rest of their thesis that compensation must come from an exterier thing that companies "give" their employees. Isn't the motivation to work for the intrinsic value of work also a kind of compensation? According to their argument about Mother Teresa it would be. So why ridicule the social scientists? Much compensation is internal and can't be controlled by a firm or company.
Answer:
Not everything does have a study, but it is amazing how many things do. Studies are never definitive either. Each study is just one more piece of evidence. E=MC^2 is just a theory with a bunch of studies that back it up (and it has a lot more evidence than any economic theory), but it is just a theory and it could be falsified by future studies.
I don’t think “economists universally agree with this proposition (that compensation is the only motivator)”. Economists nearly universally agree that increasing someone’s monetary compensation will increase their incentives to do something. That is what some psychologists disagree with. There are psychological studies that show cases where increasing someone’s compensation can decrease their incentive. Economists usually ignore these examples as mere anomalies, but I find them fascinating.
The idea that "no evidance has been provided to show that it plays any kind of important role" is just that nobody has been able to figure out how to pay people less (everything else constant including working conditions) while increasing their incentive to work. However, you CAN increase people’s incentive to work by making them feel like they are making a difference in the world (non-profits and gov’t often pay less money, but people still work for partly altruistic reasons – and the military relies as much on patriotism as on salaries) or by making employees feel like they are part of a community or team with social support.
-Jonathan
Jonathan, I still have trouble accepting that everything has a study to prove or disprove it. On page 230 the text says,
"While economists universally agree with this proposition (that compensation is the only motivator), some social psychologists or organizational behaviorists argue that there are other reasons employees work. They suggest that offering explicit incentives such as compensation could actually reduce job performance and productivity by eliminating the intrinsic desire to carry out some activity. Their argument is based on the belief that individuals often have pride in their work and enjoy carrying out required tasks and that paying people to carry out some task reduces the intrinsic enjoyment of that task. Thus, they argue, firms should appeal to intrinsic motivation rather than compensation if they want workers to perform well."
First of all, this paragraph makes the concept sound ridiculous, and oversimplifies it grossly. Secondly, the test arrogently proclaims that "no evidance has been provided to show that it plays any kind of important role"
What is the assumption here? That every aspect of work and of society has had a study done about it and that if there is no "evidance" prooving something it has no merit? Studies and "proof" are very expensive and have to be paid for by someone and done by someone, and it seems to me that very few of our interactions have been formally studied such as this.
Our world is full of people who are motivated by much more than compensation. The use of Mother Teresa as an example doesn't match the rest of their thesis that compensation must come from an exterier thing that companies "give" their employees. Isn't the motivation to work for the intrinsic value of work also a kind of compensation? According to their argument about Mother Teresa it would be. So why ridicule the social scientists? Much compensation is internal and can't be controlled by a firm or company.
Answer:
Not everything does have a study, but it is amazing how many things do. Studies are never definitive either. Each study is just one more piece of evidence. E=MC^2 is just a theory with a bunch of studies that back it up (and it has a lot more evidence than any economic theory), but it is just a theory and it could be falsified by future studies.
I don’t think “economists universally agree with this proposition (that compensation is the only motivator)”. Economists nearly universally agree that increasing someone’s monetary compensation will increase their incentives to do something. That is what some psychologists disagree with. There are psychological studies that show cases where increasing someone’s compensation can decrease their incentive. Economists usually ignore these examples as mere anomalies, but I find them fascinating.
The idea that "no evidance has been provided to show that it plays any kind of important role" is just that nobody has been able to figure out how to pay people less (everything else constant including working conditions) while increasing their incentive to work. However, you CAN increase people’s incentive to work by making them feel like they are making a difference in the world (non-profits and gov’t often pay less money, but people still work for partly altruistic reasons – and the military relies as much on patriotism as on salaries) or by making employees feel like they are part of a community or team with social support.
-Jonathan
Monday, November 12, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Positive Sum Game Plan
In this paper I intend to develop practical considerations for the International College of Integrative Medicine to employ which run parallel to my support of the positive sum theory of marketing. Jagdish, Sheth, David Gardner, and Dennis Garrett describe the idea of marketing as a positive sum game in their book Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation (1988, p.196). They assert that “the main purpose of marketing is to create and distribute values among the market parties through the process of market transactions and market relationships” (p. 196). For this to happen, both the buyers and the sellers must gain value, both “winning” in the game of business. This is a departure from the traditional stereotype of business being about winning profit over consumers. To buy into Sheth, Gardner and Garrett’s theory, one must also assume that marketing does and should have a positive relationship with society. In analyzing this relationship, it is essential to note that what is positive in the short run is not always positive in the long run, and that some business transactions and relationships can cause harm to society over time, creating a negative sum game.
Sheth, Gardner and Garrett describe several schools of theory, including one that they call “the most controversial school in the history of marketing” (1988, Marketing Theory, p. 28). This is the social exchange theory of marketing. In this way of thinking, everything we do is about marketing, not just economic transactions. We need to ask what provides long term values to society in all of our actions and interactions. Marketing becomes not just about customer satisfaction, but about societal transformation. This is the theory that would most readily be employed for a positive sum game plan. This idea could facilitate a better world for everyone.
Steven Vargo and Robert Lusch in their article “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” describe societal thinking as being service centered. They write, “the service centered view of marketing implies that marketing is a continuous series of social and economic processes that is largely focused on operant resources with which the firm is constantly striving to make better value propositions than its competitors” (2004, Journal of Marketing, p.5). Their use of the word “operant” implies that resources are not considered passive, but are meant to produce effects larger than themselves. Theodore Levitt reminds us in “Marketing Success Through Differentiation-of Anything” that a product is always both tangible and intangible (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, p. 195). Value is created through the product itself, the effects a product or resource produce, and the intangibles of the experience that product or service elicits. Using the assumption of a positive sum game as the goal, that value should be something which transforms society in the long run.
Vargo and Lusch argue that the dominant logic of marketing is moving toward a service centered, or value based philosophy. They write
The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value and transactions. Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the co-creation of value, relationships (2004, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, p. 1)
For both the customer and the corporation to win, relationships need to be of ultimate importance. Value is created in the co-creation of products and services based around human needs and desires. The customer needs to be in relationship with the business and vise versa as they work together for a positive sum game. Vargo and Lusch ask us to “cultivate relationships that involve customers in developing customized, competitively compelling value propositions to meet specific needs” (p. 5). These authors agree that businesses who use a positive sum game will find that success and profit follows their commitment to the customer and society as a whole.
George Day introduces the term “market driven” in his book The Market Driven Organization; Understanding, Attracting, and Keeping Valuable Customers (1999). Being market driven involves holding on to a positive sum game. It encourages a holistic goal: our “dominant beliefs, values, and behaviors emphasizing superior customer value and the continual quest for new sources of advantage” (p. 6). This is a goal I have for the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM). I think that we currently strive to be market driven, and I hope to offer some practical ideas for how we can continue and improve this orientation. First, I will discuss the importance of finding and adjusting our marketing mix. Second I will talk about our need for strategic planning and fact based decision making. Finally, I will stress the importance of relating an experience of ICIM to our members in the context of a positive corporate culture.
In ICIM, our marketing mix involves a combination of forces, some of which are not in our control. Our business is constantly affected by governmental laws, by current consumer health fads, and by changing and evolving research in the field. We also deal with elements that we can control and create, in partnership with our member/consumers. Our branding, our quality, our outreach and our differentiation from our competitors are all essentials for our marketing mix to be successful. For us to be part of a positive sum game, our marketing mix needs to be carefully balanced in a strategic bid that will find profit while offering value. Neil Borden talks about this in his article “Concept of the Marketing Mix” (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, p. 171).
In the same collection of articles, Theodore Levitt warns that “there is no guarantee against product obsolescence” (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, “Marketing Myopia, p. 29). As we consider our marketing mix we need to strategically plan for a time when elements of wider culture could make our product of medical education dramatically morph. Either integrative medicine could become an accepted part of the medical realm and our group would need to join the ranks of mainstream academia, or the government and population could reject the ideas of integrative medicine, making our role into a lobbying force for change. The most important thing to balance as we analyze and adjust our marketing mix is that we constantly evaluate and listen to what our members really need.
To be market-driven means to have exterior focus on the wider marketplace and includes knowing who we serve and how. Our customers are our members, and we exist to support them and provide resources for them in their personal quest to build a practice of medicine consistent with their philosophies of natural healing. Others who share or could share the same philosophy are the wider market. Being market-driven also means that we must be flexible, quickly changing as the marketplace situation changes (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, pp. 12-13).
Being ready and able to change is one thing, but knowing what to change into involves a different skill: strategic planning. To have a positive sum game, both parties need to benefit. We may offer great value to our members, but if we can’t stay competitive, we will not be able to gain enough to survive. Day writes:
Being market-driven does not mean focusing on current markets. Managers know that their current served market is only a faction of the total market, and will be watching for the emergence of un-served segments with different requirements and growth rates that might be attractive to serve (1999, The Market Driven Organization, p.38)
One thing that is sorely missing in ICIM is the availability of measurable understandings of the true effectiveness of what we are doing. We need to streamline our activities and energy primarily into the projects that do us the most good, thereby maximizing profitability and creative growth (Day, The Market Driven Organization, 1999, pp. 112-122). There is statistic information that could help us improve our strategic thinking. We need to answer questions such as:
• How many doctors are there in each region who are interested in integrative medicine, but who are not affiliated with any educational group? What venues attract those physicians and bring them together where we could communicate with them?
• Why do people really join ICIM? What are they looking for?
• What are the most common reasons for a member not to renew?
• How many people on our data base are seriously potential members or conference attendees? How many don’t care?
• How do our membership and exhibitor prices and service compare to our competition?
We need an active strategic long-range planning committee who can make fact based decisions and plan for our future obsolescence and our response to changing circumstances.
Lastly, I recommend that ICIM continue to put relationships with our members as a top priority in everything we do. We are largely non-economic in our work. Our product is interaction based rather than depending on transactions of buying or selling. Just as each product is a combination of the tangible and the intangible, we need to acknowledge that our product goes “beyond the function and price to compete on the basis of providing an experience” (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, p.16). We want our members’ experience of us to be one of a positive corporate culture, positive long-term relationships, and the end result of a positive sum game.
In an article entitled “Customer Mind-Set of Employees Throughout the Organization,” Karen Norman Kennedy, Felicia Lassk, and Jerry Goolsby point out that achieving a market-driven organization must involve people on all levels of an organization. They write, “consistently, for ideal performance, all workers in this internal value chain must understand the expectations and requirements of both internal and external entities that receive the benefit of their work” (2002, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, p. 161).
In our goal of being a sincerely caring community of colleagues and friends, we are already taking steps to achieve a market-driven status. Building community means hearing the stories of the challenges in the lives of integrative doctors. As we care for our members’ needs, we will observe the role ICIM plays in their lives and practices. As we share and identify our own challenges as integrative doctors, we will constantly search for how ICIM can provide solutions to those problems (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, p. 89).
In Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, Sheth, Gardner, and Garrett raise the question as to whether marketing should be considered to be a science or a standardized art (1988, p.13). I believe that marketing is both a science and an art. It takes logical theory and knowledge of social sciences to track the proper marketing mix of an organization or analyze a long-term prediction of the market for strategic thinking. Yet, strategic thinking also employs the non-scientific elements of intuition and sensitivity. True listening and bonding in relationships can never be a science, but must always be dependant on the human heart and the magic of energetic synergy.
Each of these recommended areas of study for ICIM will need a mix of skills that can engage scientific understanding and artistic creativity to succeed. By making value our business plan and keeping ourselves market-driven in orientation I am confident that our efforts will result in a positive sum game.
References
Day, George, The Market Driven Organization: Understanding, Attracting, and Keeping Valuable Customers, 1999, The Free Press: New York, NY.
Dolan, Robert, ed., Strategic Marketing Management, 1991, Harvard Business School Publications; Boston, Mass.
Kennedy, Karen Norman, Felicia Lassk, and Jerry Goolsby, “Customer Mind-Set of Employees Throughout the Organization,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 2., 2002, Academy of Marketing Science.
Sheth, Jagdish, David Gardner, and Dennis Garrett, Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, 1988, John Wiley & Sons; USA.
Vargo, Stephen, and Robert Lusch, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68., 2004.
Sheth, Gardner and Garrett describe several schools of theory, including one that they call “the most controversial school in the history of marketing” (1988, Marketing Theory, p. 28). This is the social exchange theory of marketing. In this way of thinking, everything we do is about marketing, not just economic transactions. We need to ask what provides long term values to society in all of our actions and interactions. Marketing becomes not just about customer satisfaction, but about societal transformation. This is the theory that would most readily be employed for a positive sum game plan. This idea could facilitate a better world for everyone.
Steven Vargo and Robert Lusch in their article “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” describe societal thinking as being service centered. They write, “the service centered view of marketing implies that marketing is a continuous series of social and economic processes that is largely focused on operant resources with which the firm is constantly striving to make better value propositions than its competitors” (2004, Journal of Marketing, p.5). Their use of the word “operant” implies that resources are not considered passive, but are meant to produce effects larger than themselves. Theodore Levitt reminds us in “Marketing Success Through Differentiation-of Anything” that a product is always both tangible and intangible (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, p. 195). Value is created through the product itself, the effects a product or resource produce, and the intangibles of the experience that product or service elicits. Using the assumption of a positive sum game as the goal, that value should be something which transforms society in the long run.
Vargo and Lusch argue that the dominant logic of marketing is moving toward a service centered, or value based philosophy. They write
The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value and transactions. Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the co-creation of value, relationships (2004, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, p. 1)
For both the customer and the corporation to win, relationships need to be of ultimate importance. Value is created in the co-creation of products and services based around human needs and desires. The customer needs to be in relationship with the business and vise versa as they work together for a positive sum game. Vargo and Lusch ask us to “cultivate relationships that involve customers in developing customized, competitively compelling value propositions to meet specific needs” (p. 5). These authors agree that businesses who use a positive sum game will find that success and profit follows their commitment to the customer and society as a whole.
George Day introduces the term “market driven” in his book The Market Driven Organization; Understanding, Attracting, and Keeping Valuable Customers (1999). Being market driven involves holding on to a positive sum game. It encourages a holistic goal: our “dominant beliefs, values, and behaviors emphasizing superior customer value and the continual quest for new sources of advantage” (p. 6). This is a goal I have for the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM). I think that we currently strive to be market driven, and I hope to offer some practical ideas for how we can continue and improve this orientation. First, I will discuss the importance of finding and adjusting our marketing mix. Second I will talk about our need for strategic planning and fact based decision making. Finally, I will stress the importance of relating an experience of ICIM to our members in the context of a positive corporate culture.
In ICIM, our marketing mix involves a combination of forces, some of which are not in our control. Our business is constantly affected by governmental laws, by current consumer health fads, and by changing and evolving research in the field. We also deal with elements that we can control and create, in partnership with our member/consumers. Our branding, our quality, our outreach and our differentiation from our competitors are all essentials for our marketing mix to be successful. For us to be part of a positive sum game, our marketing mix needs to be carefully balanced in a strategic bid that will find profit while offering value. Neil Borden talks about this in his article “Concept of the Marketing Mix” (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, p. 171).
In the same collection of articles, Theodore Levitt warns that “there is no guarantee against product obsolescence” (1991, Dolan ed. Strategic Marketing Management, “Marketing Myopia, p. 29). As we consider our marketing mix we need to strategically plan for a time when elements of wider culture could make our product of medical education dramatically morph. Either integrative medicine could become an accepted part of the medical realm and our group would need to join the ranks of mainstream academia, or the government and population could reject the ideas of integrative medicine, making our role into a lobbying force for change. The most important thing to balance as we analyze and adjust our marketing mix is that we constantly evaluate and listen to what our members really need.
To be market-driven means to have exterior focus on the wider marketplace and includes knowing who we serve and how. Our customers are our members, and we exist to support them and provide resources for them in their personal quest to build a practice of medicine consistent with their philosophies of natural healing. Others who share or could share the same philosophy are the wider market. Being market-driven also means that we must be flexible, quickly changing as the marketplace situation changes (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, pp. 12-13).
Being ready and able to change is one thing, but knowing what to change into involves a different skill: strategic planning. To have a positive sum game, both parties need to benefit. We may offer great value to our members, but if we can’t stay competitive, we will not be able to gain enough to survive. Day writes:
Being market-driven does not mean focusing on current markets. Managers know that their current served market is only a faction of the total market, and will be watching for the emergence of un-served segments with different requirements and growth rates that might be attractive to serve (1999, The Market Driven Organization, p.38)
One thing that is sorely missing in ICIM is the availability of measurable understandings of the true effectiveness of what we are doing. We need to streamline our activities and energy primarily into the projects that do us the most good, thereby maximizing profitability and creative growth (Day, The Market Driven Organization, 1999, pp. 112-122). There is statistic information that could help us improve our strategic thinking. We need to answer questions such as:
• How many doctors are there in each region who are interested in integrative medicine, but who are not affiliated with any educational group? What venues attract those physicians and bring them together where we could communicate with them?
• Why do people really join ICIM? What are they looking for?
• What are the most common reasons for a member not to renew?
• How many people on our data base are seriously potential members or conference attendees? How many don’t care?
• How do our membership and exhibitor prices and service compare to our competition?
We need an active strategic long-range planning committee who can make fact based decisions and plan for our future obsolescence and our response to changing circumstances.
Lastly, I recommend that ICIM continue to put relationships with our members as a top priority in everything we do. We are largely non-economic in our work. Our product is interaction based rather than depending on transactions of buying or selling. Just as each product is a combination of the tangible and the intangible, we need to acknowledge that our product goes “beyond the function and price to compete on the basis of providing an experience” (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, p.16). We want our members’ experience of us to be one of a positive corporate culture, positive long-term relationships, and the end result of a positive sum game.
In an article entitled “Customer Mind-Set of Employees Throughout the Organization,” Karen Norman Kennedy, Felicia Lassk, and Jerry Goolsby point out that achieving a market-driven organization must involve people on all levels of an organization. They write, “consistently, for ideal performance, all workers in this internal value chain must understand the expectations and requirements of both internal and external entities that receive the benefit of their work” (2002, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, p. 161).
In our goal of being a sincerely caring community of colleagues and friends, we are already taking steps to achieve a market-driven status. Building community means hearing the stories of the challenges in the lives of integrative doctors. As we care for our members’ needs, we will observe the role ICIM plays in their lives and practices. As we share and identify our own challenges as integrative doctors, we will constantly search for how ICIM can provide solutions to those problems (1999, Day, The Market Driven Organization, p. 89).
In Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, Sheth, Gardner, and Garrett raise the question as to whether marketing should be considered to be a science or a standardized art (1988, p.13). I believe that marketing is both a science and an art. It takes logical theory and knowledge of social sciences to track the proper marketing mix of an organization or analyze a long-term prediction of the market for strategic thinking. Yet, strategic thinking also employs the non-scientific elements of intuition and sensitivity. True listening and bonding in relationships can never be a science, but must always be dependant on the human heart and the magic of energetic synergy.
Each of these recommended areas of study for ICIM will need a mix of skills that can engage scientific understanding and artistic creativity to succeed. By making value our business plan and keeping ourselves market-driven in orientation I am confident that our efforts will result in a positive sum game.
References
Day, George, The Market Driven Organization: Understanding, Attracting, and Keeping Valuable Customers, 1999, The Free Press: New York, NY.
Dolan, Robert, ed., Strategic Marketing Management, 1991, Harvard Business School Publications; Boston, Mass.
Kennedy, Karen Norman, Felicia Lassk, and Jerry Goolsby, “Customer Mind-Set of Employees Throughout the Organization,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 2., 2002, Academy of Marketing Science.
Sheth, Jagdish, David Gardner, and Dennis Garrett, Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, 1988, John Wiley & Sons; USA.
Vargo, Stephen, and Robert Lusch, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68., 2004.
Monday, November 5, 2007
conversation with Hamid #2
intellect and intuition constantly work together, intuition like whispers, intellect like purpose, the body hold thousands of years of information.
we have a worldwide system of economics that relys on two components:
1)force and the extentions of force (the castle takes the resources of the peasants or kills them). we have invested in force beyond our means, and now we are in a cage that controls most of our lives, from what clothes we can wear to how we can make money to how we can imagine reality.
2)resource flows. we have concentrated force to take as many resources as we can, to maximize profit, maximize resources used and wasted. he buys a cup of coffee for one dollar and sells it for ten, or as much as he can get. our expected rate of return is immoral for the out of perportion resource flows.
one person opting out or several people doing small projects cannot change the world. Hamid believes the only way to stop it is complete transformation of the economy of force. the magic is the sermon on the mount, which goes beyond religion to be a basic moral template of the sharing of resources. the world does not have to grind to a hault, businesses do not have to stop, but with the guidance of the sermon on the mount can shift their thinking to and economy of sharing and the world will be changed.
we don't have the luxury of time. Hamid gives his own ideas three years and then he will just play tennis.
much of what we do for peace is a waste of time. we waste our energy obsessing about a scratch on the car, when the whole thing is broken and needs and overhaul. how will obsessing over a scratch matter?
the Hamids, the Wendys, the Peter Suters of the world are but drops of ink in the ocean.
immorality is judged by only one thing; its part in the standard economy, the system of force.
Hamid hopes to write a book that people will read. his ideas are his product. he has to get the product right before he can try to market it.
we have a worldwide system of economics that relys on two components:
1)force and the extentions of force (the castle takes the resources of the peasants or kills them). we have invested in force beyond our means, and now we are in a cage that controls most of our lives, from what clothes we can wear to how we can make money to how we can imagine reality.
2)resource flows. we have concentrated force to take as many resources as we can, to maximize profit, maximize resources used and wasted. he buys a cup of coffee for one dollar and sells it for ten, or as much as he can get. our expected rate of return is immoral for the out of perportion resource flows.
one person opting out or several people doing small projects cannot change the world. Hamid believes the only way to stop it is complete transformation of the economy of force. the magic is the sermon on the mount, which goes beyond religion to be a basic moral template of the sharing of resources. the world does not have to grind to a hault, businesses do not have to stop, but with the guidance of the sermon on the mount can shift their thinking to and economy of sharing and the world will be changed.
we don't have the luxury of time. Hamid gives his own ideas three years and then he will just play tennis.
much of what we do for peace is a waste of time. we waste our energy obsessing about a scratch on the car, when the whole thing is broken and needs and overhaul. how will obsessing over a scratch matter?
the Hamids, the Wendys, the Peter Suters of the world are but drops of ink in the ocean.
immorality is judged by only one thing; its part in the standard economy, the system of force.
Hamid hopes to write a book that people will read. his ideas are his product. he has to get the product right before he can try to market it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
