Customer Reviews

Marketing Myopia (Harvard Business Review Classics) (Harvard Business Review Classics)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Theodore Levitt was lecturer in Business Administration at the Harvard Business School when this Harvard Business Review Classic was originally published. He now is Professor of Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard Business School.

This article was groundbreaking when it was published originally in 1960. It questions in a new and challenging way by urging organizations to define their industries broadly to take advantage of growth opportunities. "In truth, there is no such thing as a growth industry, I believe. There are only companies organized and operated to create and capitalize on growth opportunities." He discusses the four conditions which are responsible for a self-deceiving cycle of bountiful expansion and undetected decay: (1) increasing population; (2) production pressures; (3) mass production; and (4) dangers of research & development. Each is discussed in detail. During this process, he describes the difference between sales and marketing: "Selling focuses on the needs of the seller, marketing on the needs of the buyer." Levitt use railroads, oil and corner grocery industries to explain his points. The main point he tries to get across is that "the organization must learn to think of itself not a producing goods or services, but as buying customers, as doing the things that will make people want to do business with it." This e-document is complemented with a retrospective commentary by the author, written in 1975.

Fantastic article by Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt. It was an eye-opener for many companies in the 1960s and still is the starting point for marketing-courses at business schools. The author claims that most of the ideas within the article are based on works by others, in particular Peter F. Drucker, but of the simple and understandable language and examples the message comes across even better. Yes, perhaps some of the examples are out of date, but the message still rings true. Highly recommended to all MBA-students and people interested in management/marketing. The author uses simple business US-English.

This is a timeless piece. With many great examples of how we get caught up in our own thinking. The best story is how the railroad industry leaders were derailed when the failed to recognize they were in the transportation industry, not the railroad industry. I read this article every year or so just to keep me on my toes. Brilliant.

Excellent Book!
Changed the way I though about my business and customers. Helped me realize what my true business is and how to better target my marketing. A must for every small business owner.

I've been directed to read this article from "The Innovator's Solution" by Clayton Christensen.
I've found it very interesting because it changes the entrepreneur's perspective of the market.
As Levitt declared in an MBA course, "People don't want to buy quarter-inch drill. They want a quanter-inch hole."
It is the satisfaction of this job-to-do that an enterprise must be focused on, not on the product features by itself.
I think this article can be an eye opener, not the final solution, to any serious manager/entrepreneur.
Use it "cum grano salis" as Latins told, "With a grain of salt" could be its translation.

The article by Ted Levitt has a style and tone similar to Peter Druckers writings. The main lesson for a company or its top management is to ask why it does what it does, or in other words, what is the its reason for existence or Raison d'ętre. The answer can be, in the examples provided by the author, 'railroad' vs. 'transportation', or 'oil' vs. 'energy'. By defining the objective incorrectly the company can doom itself to decline or extinction.

The author then further drives the point home by trying to explain a company can be inwardly focussed, on its products, or outwardly focussed, on its customers.

Then the author commits two follies. First, it tries to predict the future. The article's strong argument upto this point severely weakens once the reader realizes that the demise of oil companies and the rise of alternative fuel sources, as predicted, did not really happen for next 50 years after the article was written.

Second, the inward-outward argument almost turns into marketing vs. rest of enterprise including operations, finance, technical research. The american auto industry example is (finally) true but only if you ignore all the successful reinventions by the american auto industry in past 50 years. It is still unclear, atleast to me, that the 'quality' advantage of Japanese car companies was really acheived as a result of any marketing effort or was it just a process of continous improvement in companies like Toyota. It is difficult say if this was not the result of inward focus in the company.