Marketing – a new look at the business in smart colours
For a couple of decades, the Russian marketing was the big evolutionary path. The same can be said about marketers. Today in many companies marketing is already at a high enough level (though it is mostly the large companies of the Federal scale). However, you can often see a picture marketers from time to time focus on certain strategic areas and on certain marketing instruments. This has the advantages of concentration of attention and effort on one area allows you to make breakthroughs. There are downsides to the concentration of resources in one direction inevitably leads to the diversion of them from all the others, to omission of important things. The last three sentences too generalized. I understand the introduction and all that.
Speaking about strategic directions in marketing, there are two key customer focus and branding. These directions can be called a key because they absorb the wood marketingtask which ultimately comes down to these two areas. Branding process, having a core on the inside, directed outward and accumulates in itself all the best that the company has and wishes to inform customers. Customer-oriented selling process, the center of attention which is the client in this case there is accumulated all the things that the company really needs and can give to the client. The result of these two opposing processes, the formation of profit. And the more fundamentally and harmoniously they built, the more and more stable the profit earned by the company. This is a New Word in the essence of the business. So many times I have carefully read this paragraph. But. I couldn’t understand why branding and customer orientation – two multi-directional process. If the focus from customer centricity customer, and directions to it, the vector of customer focus comes from the company, and above, what the Branding process, having a core internally outwards . One object – the consumer. The action stems from the company towards the consumer. Why the different directions? Help to understand how the author found different directions! Profit is the arithmetic (or what?) the addition of two processes: branding and customer focus? And what is the value chain porter is not pleased with the auxiliary and the main activities that resulted in a profit? There are too many things that clouds the mind.
Marketing tools we talk about several basic traditional marketing mix of 4P, there are other and more and more they appear. But the appearance of each of them adds marketing effectiveness, as not one gets the system of their application. A basic a few – very modestly. Decided to save some space, not to enumerate? And where examples are not folding new tools? Can link to old posts there are on this subject? And that means application system marketing tools ? It is a well-established term with a definite interpretation among all marketers.
My model is an attempt to offer a comprehensive approach to the construction of marketing at both the strategic (the answer to the question of what to do) and tactical (how to do) levels. Great, so all previous attempts by other marketers to build integrated marketing in the company was insolvent. So, Kotler, Jean-Jacques Lambert (the first two schools that I came up with) – in the furnace! But not to offend anyone write modestly attempt.
The reason why marketers choose certain areas of our efforts that is changing their view or views of the management about the degree of contribution of selected areas in the formation of the company’s profits. Sometimes the bias can be toward building a strong brand, sometimes in total customer orientation (in the most advanced cases of either the one or the other). And rarely these two directions together. If we translate these areas into the scheme, it might look like. Why can? Either looks or does not look.
Scheme 1. Brand, Customer and Profits as successive elements. That is, all fit into the scheme: investments brand, the customer profit investment. That is, the process is, first, consecutive, second, closed. Consider each element of the chain in more detail. Stop. In the figure, three elements, four in the text. The figure does not see investment . And who sees? So we have a client generates a profit to the company. Well, for income, so be it, I agree, but for the profit – thank you. I know that I still do not like in this scheme? It combines raznosoly elements. Profit is the result of work of the company, the Client is an entity, a Brand mental model in the mind of the subject and inseparable from him (I would have drawn the arrow from the customer to the brand, because it is a figment of the consumer’s mind :). A comprehensive approach does not mean system.
Investment in the brand. It is well known that the unique products in the modern world is almost non-existent. Exceptions are so rare that they are unlikely to be considered. Mobile communication products, financial services, clothing, etc. the vast majority of marketers work in an environment where any elements of their product are already present in competing products and companies. Functional differences between them or they are virtually invisible to the consumer. The only tool that can make changes to consumers ‘ perception of the existing product and giving it distinctive qualities with the help of marketing communication, that is, the branding of the product.
It is quite obvious that all these tasks are important for business and, therefore, it seems quite clear the need to invest in the brand. However, this scheme does not allow to understand, where, in fact, consumers, take into account its interests and can we be sure that the one branding is enough to solve business challenges. I think not, there is a certain trap that I usually try to ignore those who specializiruetsya on branding. This is understandable, anyone who delves into the study and development of any branch of marketing, sooner or later begins to think that study of the Central theme in marketing. A strong brand allows us to solve these tasks, but its role in their decision not the only one. Wheels help the car to get from point a to point b, but not only the wheel involved in this task. There are other important elements. And the next element in the chain of the client because the brand is created for the client. This is what scheme does not allow to understand where, in fact, the consumer ? Scheme 1? or any other? I’m sure who ever took up the branding was always thinking about the consumer! Another thing is that their thoughts about them and the needs of the client at odds. How can you build a brand without knowledge of competitors – unique products in the modern world is almost non-existent ? Successful brand repositioning relative to its competitors it is also not possible, but a competitor in the scheme no 🙁 And who would agree that the brand is created for the client.
Customers and customer orientation. Marketing in General is, by definition, customer driven. But this axiom is not very popular , perhaps due to the fact that marketers are susceptible to different new fashion marketing theory, and branding among them, and what business owners perceive as their main goal, above all, profit, not customer satisfaction. A feeling that only Igor Mann is convinced that customer orientation is the focus of the marketing and all the other marketers believe in other, more important concept. But customer orientation is a key task of business, and customer focus to the next link in our scheme. The key task of the business is not customer orientation, and the transmission of values to all stakeholders of the business. The feeling that units understand that client. it’s not potabilisation, it’s not the clients, and building relationships with all stakholders.