8/8/2019 Marketing Died Schultz

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marketing-died-schultz 1/2

2004 was a watershed year formarketing. According toreports, marketing either died, was declared impotent ormost likely just became irrele-

 vant to many senior managers.Cincinnati-based Procter &Gamble Co. declared “Market-ing is broken.” Big-time con-sultant McLean, Va.-basedBooz Allen Hamilton Inc. pon-

ficated, “The failure of so many CMOs ...ndicates a serious disparity bet ween com-anies’ needs and marketing’s profferedolutions.” Even the H arvard Businesseview, that paragon of obvious knowledge,uggested “ ... too much showmanship ...oo little expertise.”

The American Marketing Associationoined the chorus. They scrapped their mid-980s view of marketing and started over

with a new definition (See M arketing News,New definition of marketing reinforces ideaf integration,” page 8, Jan. 1, 2005).

Many reasons for the demise, decline orenouement of marketing have been

ffered. These range from the rise of thenternet enabling consumers to “Googleway” most seller advantages, to Wal-Mart’seduction of all product advantages to a sin-le “every day low price,” to managementrofessor Henry Mintzberg’s claim that “The

MBA trains the wrong people in the wrongways with the wrong consequences.”

Clearly, something’s rotten in marketing.his much concern can’t simply be the resultf some intergalactic harmonic conver-ence. Too many experts agree something ismiss. As above, many culprits have been sug-

ested. However, one has escaped notice—ut no longer. I am pointing the finger for

marketing’s decline directly at the grouphat deserves it: market and marketingesearch. I’m throwing an alternati ve blameog on the fire.

Marketing is in trouble because marketingesearch is in trouble. No, make that, today,

marketing research is in a death spiral and’s taking marketing down with it. Market-

ng can’t and won’t get any better until weotally rethink and reinvent market and

marketing research.Before you crank up your blog-him-out-

f -the- water messages, why do I suggestesearch is the culprit? Marketing generally ucceeds when the marketer knows, under-ands or at least recognizes the importancend value of the consumer in the marketinghain. Only customers have money. Only ustomers buy products and services. Only ustomers create market share. Only success

with customers makes Six Sigma, Balancedcorecards, EVA, ROI and all the current

marketing buzz terms relevant.The truth is, most marketing organiza-

ons know little or nothing about their cus-omers, not withstanding the billions thatave been spent on CRM and data analy tics.rganizations have data and even more

nalysis, but they ’re sadly lacking in cus-omer insights and understanding. Why ?

Today ’s marketing research doesn’t tellhem any thing worthwhile. More sophisti-ated analysis about more irrelevant dataust doesn’t help. Research is supposed toresent the “voice of the customer.” Today, itoesn’t. And going forward it can’t and

won’t in its present form.Most marketing research has degenerated

o an overused set of tools and techniques,ften selected on the basis of a low-cost sup-lier. Research has become commoditized,

ust like the toilet paper aisle at Wal-Mart.Today ’s market research tools don’t pro-

de insights. And when they do, results areoo limited, too late and too esoteric to make

much of an impact on decision-making.eing able to classify a consumer as a “bluelood, RV-driving, time-constrained soccer

mom” sounds good in the presentationroom but has little value in the marketplace.

Marketing research has wrapped itself ina set of beliefs and methodologies that arerooted in ref uted behav iorist psychologicalconcepts. Most are based on a stimulus-response attitudinal model that posits mar-keting is all about awareness, recognition,emotions and most of all, recall. Worst of all,there’s the false belief that marketers cancontrol customer behavior simply by influ-encing identifiable attitudes.

Researchers purport that consumers canand will reveal their innermost thoughts,needs, desires, ambitions, hopes and dreamsthrough a focus group in Des Moines, Har-risburg or Austin. Or that survey responserates, now hovering in the low double digits,

are truly useful. Or that meaningful infor-mation can be obtained by telephone when60% or more of all households signify they don’t want to hear from marketers or mar-keting researchers by putting their names ona “Do Not Call” list.

Today, consumers are too smart, too busy,too blasé or simply too uncooperati ve formost traditional research methodologies.

 About all you get fromresearch today is a big bill,some statistical jargon,some meaningless analysisand not much more insightthan you had before.

By now you’re probably steaming. But even theresearch industry expertsk now the problem—andthey don’t know what to doeither. The 2004 ESOMAR Congress, held in Lisbon,Portugal, focused on rein- venting the market researchdiscipline. Unfortunately,the solutions focused moreon how to keep the industry solvent than how to solvemarketing problems. Forexample, the award-winning conferencepaper recommended that researchers devel-op a consulting model to leverage theirresults up to the C-level. Few suggestions were offered on new techniques, approach-es or methodologies, the reason being, I

think, that if you’ve been profitably sellingfocus groups or telephone surveys or con- joint analysis for years, why change? Today,tools and techniques are the basis for mar-keting research, not customer insights andcertainly not radical new concepts andapproaches.

Glimmers of hope shine on the horizon:New York-based Ad vertising Research Foun-

dation Inc. (ARF), undernew leadership, seems to beinterested in moving for- ward. Big-time marketersà la P&G recognize the need. A few research organizationsare trying new methodolo-gies. And a limited numberof academicians are trying toextricate themselves fromstatistical mire that says theanalysis is more importantthan the results.

But changing researchersand research techniques isan uphill battle. No one wants to learn that whatthey ’ve been doing is wrongor that what they ’ve beenselling—or worse, buying—

is irrelevant. It’s going to take a concertedeffort from all the players to make thechange.

If you’d like to throw a log on thisresearch fire to generate some heat, let mek now. My kindling wood hasn’t had much

impact yet. But maybe together we can shedsome light on what’s really wrong with mar-keting.s

 Don E. Schultz is a pro fessor (emeritu s-in- ser- vice) of inte grated marketing communicationsat Northwe stern Uni versity in Evan ston, Ill. Hecan be reached at dschult z@northwe stern.eduor at news@ama.org.

Marketing News  Feb. 15, 2005 7

y Don E.Schult z

I N T E G RAT E D

M A R K E T I N G

M R d eserves blame for marketing’s decline

8/8/2019 Marketing Died Schultz

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marketing-died-schultz 2/2