MARKETING MYOPIA 1
Marketing Myopia
Samantha N. Bostwick
Liberty University
BUSI 745: Marketing for Competitive Advantage
Dr. Kendrick Brunson
July 19, 2020
MARKETING MYOPIA 2
Marketing Myopia
This paper will provide a thorough analysis on the 1960’s publication of Marketing
Myopia by Theodore Levitt. The late Harvard Business School professor famously termed
marketing myopia as a near sighted focus on selling products and services instead of meeting
customer needs. In the now famous publication, Levitt (2008) discusses how top leadership,
assumed strengths, mass production, and over reliance on research and development leave
companies without an industry. This paper intends to provide a detailed review of Levitt’s
contribution to marketing with analysis and consideration of differing viewpoints on the 1960’s
publication.
Failure from the Top Down
Levitt states that executives are responsible for the success or failure of a firm. He
discusses the railroad industry and Hollywood films as two examples of failure starting at the
top. Both railroad and Hollywood executives failed to find and meet the needs of customers.
Instead of rail companies proactively integrating alternative transportation for customers, the
industry died because those needs were met by competitors. Similarly, Hollywood failed to
consider the entertainment needs of customers and was almost completely eradicated by
television. Levitt contends that in both cases it was failure of executive leadership to provide
customer-oriented growth. He stresses that the lack of constant watchfulness of opportunities to
serve customers needs leads to any company’s demise. Thus, executives who create and
implement broad aims and coordination of efforts and fail to focus on customer needs are
ultimately responsible for the failure of a firm.
Assumed Strengths Lead to Obsolescence
MARKETING MYOPIA 3
In addition to lack of executive foresight into customer needs, Levitt also cites assumed
strengths as a downfall for firms, even those with unchallenged superiority of their products.
Assumed strengths appear in many industries, Levitt points to dry cleaning, electric utilities, and
grocery stores as examples of industries that incorrectly assumed superiority. The dry-cleaning
industry was welcomed by consumers who needed a safe and effective way to clean garments,
but the industry didn’t anticipate that the clothing needs of customers would change. New
clothing with material that didn’t require dry-cleaning was sold, dramatically reducing the use of
dry cleaners. Electric utilities and corner stores suffered the same fate of elimination by
competition because they failed to anticipate the needs of the customer. Each of these industries
assumed that they had strengths that could not be replaced, and in each case the industry was led
to obsolescence. This lesson repeats today as technology firms are infamous for their rapid
desuetude.
There’s No Such Thing as a Growth Industry
A growth industry is a fallacy according to Levitt. He believed that any industry could be
intercepted by competition that was better able to fulfill customer’s needs. Levitt suggests that
any industry that deludes itself into thinking it is on an automatic growth escalator will die. The
four conditions that usually guarantee industry death include: the belief that growth is assured by
expanding population and that there is no competitive substitute, preoccupation with controlled
improvement, manufacturing, and cost reduction, and too much faith in mass production. The
population myth allows companies to become complacent, assuming an unending need of their
products by an expanding population, as in the case with oil. This allows competitive electric
cars like Tesla to come in and steal customers. The idea of indispensability is just as dangerous
and allows industries to lose business to innovative companies that find other ways of meeting
MARKETING MYOPIA 4
customer needs. Preoccupation with controlled improvement, manufacturing, and cost reduction
can often consume resource allocation leaving marketing duties (consumer research)
underfunded, thus contributing to a culture of selling products in place of a culture that creates
value. Day (2011) stresses the importance of vigilant market learning that enhances deep insights
for organizational success. Mass production can lead to emphasized selling in place of
marketing. Levitt stresses the difference between selling and marketing, stating that marketing is
more sophisticated and complex than selling. The detrimental effects of mass production are
discussed below.
Mass Production
The possibilities of mass production offer considerable potential for widespread use, cost
reduction, higher levels of efficiency, and prompt distribution of products. But production
pressures can create a selling focused culture that neglects the creation of value generating
goods. Levitt found that organizations that focused on mass production and selling over creating
value for customers put marketing effort as a necessary consequence of the product. He insisted
that products should be a consequence of marketing efforts. If marketing strived to assess what
customers value, then products could be sold to meet those values instead of trying to convince
customers of the value in a current product. Preoccupation with mass production can leave
companies without an industry.
The Dangers of Research and Development
The last danger discussed in Levitt’s paper is top management that becomes wholly
transfixed with research and development, shortchanging marketing activities and treating the
marketing department as the stepchild. When executives put more faith in profit from advances
MARKETING MYOPIA 5
in technology and possibilities of product improvement, than they do to the marketing
departments ability to find and meet customer needs, the organization is likely to fail. This
problem is especially evident in the newer technology industries that can easily get hyper
focused on expanding research and production at the expense of marketing. Levitt found that
when this happens, the realities of the market are lost to the cycle of research and development.
Vorhies and Morgan (2005) found that market analysis was an essential activity for sustained
competitive advantage. Firms that are heavily dependent on research and development alienate
essential activities that allow them to have a finger on the pulse of what customers really want. If
they are unable to meet customer needs, no amount of research and development can save them.
Conclusion
Levitt finishes his publication with the wise advice to begin with the end in mind. He
reminds his readers that successful industries are born from customer satisfying processes, not
good producing processes. Marketing resources including tangible value propositions, physical
or human processes, and intellectual or relational properties are both directly and indirectly tied
to competitive advantage (Davcik & Sharma, 2016), and must be utilized to create value
satisfying goods that customers want to buy.
MARKETING MYOPIA 6
References
Davcik, N. S., & Sharma, P. (2016). Marketing resources, performance, and competitive
advantage: A review and future research directions. Journal of Business
Research, 69(12), 5547–5552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.169
Day, G. (2011). Closing the Marketing Capabilities Gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183-195.
Retrieved July 17, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41228619
Levitt, T. (2008). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review Press.
Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80–94.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.1.80.55505
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
