Skip To Site Navigation

Blogs

At last someone is marketing marketing.

A review of "Greater Good" by John Quelch and Katherine Jocz. Well mostly a rant, but a bit of a review as well.

One of the peculiar features of capitalist democracy as an economic order is that it never spends a penny promoting itself. Dictatorships of left or right have always pumped out feel-good news stories and feature films explaining how young Masha's selfless labours at the tractor factory have benefited the whole economy. Our system, by contrast, is happy to spend $500m explaining a minor enhancement to a razor, but spends nothing on explaining how the system works to our collective advantage. I don't suppose the line "Gillette, the best a western free-market constitutional monarchy can get!" even made it into research. 

This leads to a peculiar kind of ingratitude among capitalism's beneficiaries. So whereas a few million Russians were happy to die defending their right to queue for a potato, we now live in a place where you can wander into Tesco at 3am and buy a microwave for £30 - and nobody has a good word to say about it.

In fact, until this book appeared, it never seems to have occurred to anyone that a commercial business is a far more democratic entity than almost any other. If by 'democratic' you mean something people can get kill off when they're sick of it, it's certainly true.

Let's consider a not-unfamilliar scenario: a BBC journalist, an MP, a representative from some Health Quango and an NHS Health advisor are all sitting round a glass table on television giving someone from, say, McDonald's, Tesco or KFC some gyp. As they all sanctimoniously witter on, it never for one moment occurs to anyone to point out that the corporation is the only vaguely accountable entity at the table. If we wished, we could close it down in a month - simply by not spending our money there. Indeed I am sure McDonald's would gladly adopt the business model of the BBC, whereby everyone in Britain would pay them £120 a year whether they ate there or not.

People vote for Tesco and McDonald's every day - and with their wallets. By contrast the MP almost certainly represents a safe seat handed to them by an unelected party clique; likewise the BBC, the Quangocrat and the whinger from the NHS are also completely immune from market forces (which perhaps explains why you can get a pizza to come to your home but not a doctor). In fact under democracy these self-annointed people are now more unaccountable than ever - at least under Stalin there was always the enlivening possibility that they might get shot.

As Quelch and Jocz point out in this badly-needed book Marketing (by this they mean Marketing in its broadest sense) is the space in which consumers and suppliers reach a happy and imaginative accommodation.

In fact it is a discipline whose astounding contribution to net value creation is unfairly overlooked by almost everyone, not least those who work in it.

Classical economists are liable to neglect marketing, assuming that businesses simply passively respond to consumer demand - assuming complete rationality and perfect information on the part of consumers. Cynics are likely to see marketing as merely the exploitation of human frailty. Marketers themselves are far more likely to look at what they do as a competitive zero-sum game, overlooking the greater good they create.

It seems to me that marketing is the means by which the inherent conflict between buyer and seller is resolved in the most efficient and creative way possible.  

For God's sake read this book now, and buy a spare copy to send to one of your unfashionable public-sector friends.

You yourself should read the first half repeatedly to reassure yourself that the business you work in is not a necessary evil but a very desirable good.  

your friend should read the second half of the book to realise that the absence of marketing thinking in the non-commercial sector is not a virtue but a failing.

 

All Comments

  February 20, 2008

Sold! I'll be buying a copy this week. Great point when you argue McDonald's is more accountable than the BBC. I am sick to the back teeth of sanctimonious misguided lefties lining up to stick the boot into McDonald's, holding them up as entirely responsible for the so-called obesity crisis and everyhting else deemed 'bad'. It's about time common sense fought back. Kids are fat because of wilful self-absuse. When I was a kid it was cheaper to bake a potato than go to McDonald's. That remains the case. If kids choose instead to eat in McDonald's it's because they are lazy, lack imagination and have too much money. Instead of this crazy notion that they eat in McDonald's because it's all they can afford. I'm not even sure working class kids do patronise McDonald's as much as it is claimed. Everytime I walk in, it's all middle class families and office workers. Anyway, rant over. Sorry if this is a bit off beam. Great blog Rory.

  February 20, 2008

Rory, you should have a look at the Adam Smith Institute. They have been promoting this message for some time now and have really good blog. If you ever god forbid, happen to be stuck in a room a BBC journalist, an MP, a representative from some Health Quango and an NHS Health advisor (even Sartre wasn't that cruel) then you should remind them that free-market capitalism has been the biggest power for good the world has ever seen. The look on their faces will be priceless.

  February 20, 2008

hear, hear!

  February 20, 2008

I'm off to the Adam Smith Institute to have a look at their blog. Though having been fined £60 and awarded three penalty points for driving at 36mph on an empty dual-carriageway, my attitude towards government has rapidly gone from Milton Friedman to Timothy McVeigh.

  February 20, 2008

What a disagrace. This government has taken all the fun out of driving. Maybe we could alll have a whip round to pay Rory's fine!?

  February 21, 2008

Really interesting blog. Tescos, Macdonalds and all other successful companies, that some like to take a pop at, offer products and services that the market bears but moreover chooses to bear. These firms who are taking products/services to market, and making healthy profit, should be applauded and learned from as opposed to criticised - IMO

  February 21, 2008

Also interesting is the fact that the absence of marketing activity in public services is not some hair-shirted virtue - it actually explains why they are so appalling. For, without the need to market, they never really put any effort into uncovering what value means and to whom.

  February 21, 2008

Well said, Rod. Always hilarious to see urbran trendy lefties (this means YOU Jeanette Winterson) complaining about the proliferation of Tesco at the expense of the lesser spotted organic bilberry or whatever, without realising that as a lefty she ought to support the widesperad availablity of cheaper nutritious food for all. (See Delia Smith on the subject.)

  February 21, 2008

Anthony is right. No one ever points out that Starbucks has created business for independent coffee shops, and the opening of a branch of Tesco can regenerate an entire area. Looking around my local scruffy high street in stockwell i ask myself is it really true that independent retailers have character? .... One independent Indian convenience store or Portuguese café/ or fried chicken shop seems much like any other to me.

  February 22, 2008

I agree. It's Euro luxury good brands that lefties should hate, not healthy democratising brands from the Good Ol' U S of A.

  February 25, 2008

They should also hate Fair Trade.

  February 27, 2008

This whole conversation is developing along agreeably right-wing lines. Splendid. Incidentally they should also hate organic food. Load of toss which involves willfully reducing agricultural productivity to satisfy some insane notion of inner purity,

  March 7, 2008

Do you know this lot Rory? http://www.samizdata.net/blog/

  March 7, 2008

I'm not Siobhan by the way.

  March 8, 2008

"I'm not Siobhan by the way." well who are you? get your own account its free - you don't have to share. End the confusion now!!

  March 9, 2008

Samizdata is great - many thanks, Siobhan - or whoever you are!

  April 15, 2008

Up to a point, M'Lords Copper. The US has a market-based health system. The result is that they spend more per capita than us or the French, yet millions of yanks have to choose between buying food and heart medicine. And their attempt to introduce a market for 'security services' can be refuted with one word: Blackwater. It is interesting that a lot of middle class types have a go at McDonald's but don't see any problem in forking out a big cheque for the BBC every year. However it's really, really hard to find *anyone* in the UK who disapproves of the BBC, apart from James Murdoch, and maybe Rory. Does anybody really think that the UK would be a better place if we commercialised it? I like the License fee for the same reason I like Lottery funding. The Lottery is a way of punishing the kids who mucked around in maths, by making them pay a Stupid Tax for the rest of their lives, to subsidise my trips to the Opera. Similarly the BBC takes money from mouthbreathers and allows me to watch great documentaries on BBC4 and have Radio 3 in the car, all for free. This is actually a quite sophisticated kind of asymmetric market, a description of which won a Nobel Prize for Joseph Stiglitz. Insurance works the same way: if everybody pays for what they use, then heavy users (ie people whose houses are definitely going to burn down) are priced out of the market, and light users (people whose houses will never burn down) wouldn't bother buying it. So insurance works best if there's an inefficient market. I don't know if my house is going to burn down, so I buy insurance. The insurer doesn't know whether it will burn down, so offers me insurance. The NHS works on the same principle: the market is completely inefficient, in that unfit smokers pay the same as marathon runners (proportional to their income). The result is actually more cost--effective than a system where insurers compete to cherrypick the macrobiotic Californians and price the lardasses (who can only afford to eat at McDonald's) out of the system. Simplistic market models, when applied to macroeconomic decisions, just don't work very well. Supporters of Milton Friedman should look at a country which was actually run by Chicago economists for 2 decades: Chile under Pinochet.

To comment on this post you have to be logged in
 
ADVERTISEMENT