I don't know much about the specifics of marketing theory but I did chance upon an assertion that marketing cannot create needs where there was none.
-Paul Keith
I usually would advise caution when assertions are being made, because they can generally be meaningless if not substantiated by fact or at least solid theory.
"The earth is flat." - an assertion that was based on a not-so-solid "theory" - and it would have remained flat if Copernicus had not messed things up with his ruddy rational mathematical proofs, observations and theories. Mankind has seemed to
need fairy stories (myths, religions) for ever, and it hurts when those myths are blasted away. Copernicus was lucky to get out of it alive.
So, the assertion that "marketing cannot create needs" may be as useful as the statement that "the earth is flat".
Conversely, I don't know that anyone asserted absolutely that marketing
can definitely create new markets by creating a new need where there was none before, but it is certainly the sort of thing that marketing students were taught that they should aim for in Marketing 101.
It is often debated that maybe you can't really create a new need where there was none before, and that it might simply be that you discover something that was already there - a latent or potential need. Certainly, SUVs are an interesting case, and marketers
believe that sort of thing to be a consummate achievement of marketing.
I think it was British Leyland/Landrover that started the SUV concept off in the '70s, by producing an up-market and more comfortable version of the hardy utility Landrover called a Range Rover. The A1s (e.g., Princess Anne and her hubby Mark) would tend to buy them to drive them and their retrievers to their riding/hunt events or grouse shoots, so it was instantly OK with the A1s and the Chelsea set and the B1s who aspired to being and wanted to emulate the A1s. It created a new market for what might have formerly been considered an impractical vehicle, and the market has evolved so that an SUV is commonplace and people now feel they
need one and don't have to justify it. It is more likely that they
want one at a deep subconscious level because they have been so conditioned and have probably got into a state of
Ahamkara over it. Happens all the time.
For example, Oakley-branded sunglasses. Nike-branded hoodies. In some cities, impoverished youths will apparently even mug you if you are wearing these things - just to steal them from you - because they "need" them so bad to feel "self-actualised".
Nothing wrong in this. It's good for business and economic growth. However, I personally wonder whether we may risk being debased and limited in our self-development by succumbing to the various marketing ploys, against which we may have poor defences to their subtle intrusion. At the same time, having studied marketing and psychology, I cannot but be admiringly appreciative of the way in which the application of good marketing theory, strategy and tactics can manipulate whole markets and the minds of the people in those markets - e.g., Apple and the Church of the late and great Steve Jobs, selling new cereal products for children via TV commercials. These are not points put forward to argue, nor are they opinions, just interesting questions/observations that occur to me.
Following on from this, I am not sure that I can usefully contribute to a good deal of your post, as (though I could be wrong, of course) you seem to be entering a debate about things using ambiguous terminology that probably needs definition before I can fully understand what you are intending to mean.
For example, "marketing" and "gamification" - I have my definition for the former, but I suspect it may not be the same as yours, judging from how you use the term, and I have no definition at all for the latter, as it is currently meaningless BS to me (QED).
I learned to do this (define my terms in a discussion) by watching a BBC TV programme called "The Brains Trust" on our B&W TV when I was a child. There was a panel of erudite scholars and philosophers who were posed a subject to discuss. When sloppy definition cropped up, one particular wise professor would tend to say, "Well, it all depends what you mean by [insert term]...". For all I know, you might be able to make all sorts of valid arguments using the term "gamification" - if it had an agreed definition to contribute to a logical proposition.
So I won't enter into a debate about those things, if you don't mind.
Thus, where you say:
...your latter post falls apart...
- I am at a loss, as there seems to be nothing to "fall apart". Whilst it might be badly/hastily written, I was not trying to structure a proposition or argument for
debate, but was genarally merely pointing out that Maslow's theory would seem to be a weak thing on which to base an argument for anything, because the research that relates to it has apparently only been able to throw the whole thing into question - i.e., the opposite of substantiating it (QED). There is apparently no proof that the theory holds out in practice (QED).
This would be quite the reverse, for example, to the validity of the theory (unverifiable at the time it was proposed) of gravitational lenses postulated by Einstein.
Thus the thesis of Nikki Chau's post is
definitely invalid to start with, so why waste time discussing an invalid proposition unless it is to explore the reasons why it is invalid? That's arguably likely to be the only useful thing (analysis of reasoning as to why the argument is invalid) that could be gained from discussing it. Otherwise we might be better off - and have more fun - debating (say) the existence of winged fairies (because everyone already knows that the wingless variety exists as pixies).
Similarly, I am at a loss when you say:
..and that the author is aiming this more at...
- as I have no idea what she is aiming at, and I don't see how you can have special knowledge of what she is aiming at either, when what she is saying is irrational (QED).
Show Posts
