In their above titled article, Stephen Butscher and Michael Laker extol the virtues of developing products that are market driven as opposed to those developed in a more insular fashion (2000). Citing examples of mistakes from good pedigree companies like Porsche, Volkswagen, and Mercedes, they aptly illustrate the pitfalls of misunderstanding what exactly a potential customer might want or pay for a particular product. Given the relative size of these companies investments, misunderstanding or assuming what customers may want can result in the loss of millions of dollars, not to say thousands of jobs.
Butscher and Laker draw a line between product development conducted “inside out” versus their preference for the greater market-driven “outside in.” In effect, the thrust of their hypothesis is toward conducting effective, thorough, and targeted marketing research before committing to a new product design. The suggestion is that the failed new product lines referenced in their article might have succeeded if marketing managers had adhered to the basic five step approach to marketing research. According to Perreault and McCarthy in their book Basic Marketing: A Global-Managerial Approach:
The scientific method [of marketing research] is a decision-making approach that focuses on being objective and orderly in testing ideas before accepting them. With the scientific method, managers don’t just assume that their intuition is correct. Instead, they use their intuition and observations to develop hypotheses…Then they test their hypothesis before making final decisions. (2002, p223).
In the above context, the use and importance of marketing research seems not only sensible but imperative to effective decision making. However, the underlying assumption easily missed in this conclusion is that consumers will respond consistently from research to eventual purchase. Saying a new product sounds compelling versus actually making a purchase are very different. Equally, the focus of marketing research could easily become fixated on how to make one manufacturer’s product more appealing than another’s.
Pushing the Buy Button
In a frightening nod toward the extreme cutting edge of marketing research, Clint Witchalls exposes just how far some companies are prepared to go in order to understand how potential customers make decisions over what they buy (2004). Witchalls’ article uses the fitting title of Pushing the Buy Button in reference to research being undertaken in London, U.K. Neurosense, a medical research company, is investigating which brain pathways control an individual’s buying decisions. Daimler Chrysler, among other companies, has funded the research. As Witchalls explains in his article, this neurological research could revolutionize how companies conduct marketing research:
Since the 1950s, the best tool for identifying which ads and products people will like has been the focus group. The problem is, it’s notoriously unreliable, largely because social dynamics get in the way of truthful answers. Some subjects want to please the focus-group leader. Others want to dominate the group. “Almost every focus group throws up someone more vocal and bossy, who either inspires others to follow or react against [them] or both,” says Tim Ambler, senior fellow at London Business School. Perhaps that’s why only one in 100 products survives in the marketplace after the typical product launch. (2002, p2).
While one might understand the pursuit of improvements in obtaining consumer feedback for new products, researching neural-pathways with a view to being potentially able to influence consciously or subconsciously individuals’ buying behaviors is an extremely troubling notion. Visions of thought control and George Orwell’s “Big Brother” come to mind. Certainly one can see the commercial worth of such scientific endeavor; however its ethical application seems highly questionable. Again borrowing from Witchalls’ article:
The use of brain research to sell products has created some controversy. Detractors fear that once the “buy button” in the brain is identified, unscrupulous companies will use this knowledge to get us hooked on their products, to the detriment of our health, our wallets and our sanity. Already, they point out, aggressive marketing contributes indirectly to obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, lung disease and gambling. Others object to the commercial use of medical equipment. (2002, p2).
Conclusion
There is a place for marketing research in attempting to avoid the great product failures of the past. Ford’s Edsel and countless other “inside out” developed products seem to underscore the importance of effective marketing research. In the narrow context of ensuring that when a company may intend to invest millions of dollars and risk thousands of jobs, undertaking targeted marketing intelligence must be a prerequisite.
However, in the seemingly ever increasing circle of improving sales and making a profit, the pursuit of selling $150 trainers to families on food stamps, or cigarettes to third world nations must be questioned. In the context of the macro definition of marketing as “the creation and delivery of a standard of living,” somehow pursuit of profits may simply have overshadowed marketing’s role in improving the quality as opposed to quantity of living for the majority of U.S. and other Western societies.
References
Butscher, S.A. & Laker, M. (2000 Summer). Market-driven product development. Marketing Management: Chicago, vol.9(2).
Perreault-McCarthy. (2002). Basic Marketing: A Global-Managerial Approach. The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Penguin Putnam Inc., London: UK.
Witchalls, C. (2004, March, 22). Pushing the buy button. Newsweek (Atlantic Edition), vol.143(12).
