4/6/14 Response to “A Generic Concept of Marketing”

Today I chose an article with many parallels to prior ones—this one is also by Philip Kotler and the Journal of Marketing but actually predates his other one (“Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations”, 1979) being published in 1972. I’m actually very glad I chose these two articles, because the transition between the thinking and modes of defining “marketing” is clear just in the years these two articles span.

As Kotler reiterated in his 1979 article, he originally stated in “A Generic Concept of Marketing” that “in 1969, this author and Professor Levy advanced the view that marketing is a relevant discipline for all organizations insofar as all organizations can be said to have customers and products.” While in the other article, this thinking was already beginning to be accepted an acted upon by entities such as nonprofits, here, this thinking was novel and still very criticized.

Kotler organizes his article by outlining three “consciousnesses” or, ways of thinking, about marketing. The first was a very traditional idea of marketing, that marketing “is concerned with sellers, buyers, and ‘econonmic’ products and services. […] The objective is an exchange of goods for money or other resources.” The second “consciousness” is what Kotler and Levy proposed, that “marketers do not see payment as a necessary condition to define the domain of marketing phenomena. Marketing analysis and planning are relevant in all organizations producing products and services for an intended consuming group, whether or not payment is required.”

My first thought was that my work at BBBSCM would fall into this category, because we are not exactly “selling” anything, no tangible products, and even the mentoring “service” we offer does not cost money (to our volunteers). Kotler says that “consciousness two replaces the core concept of market transactions with the broader concept of organization-client transactions. Marketing is no longer restricted only to transactions […] of economic resources, [but] is relevant where one can identify an organization, a client group, and products broadly defined.” By this standard, we can certainly label products and client groups of BBBSCM. We have three major products: site-based mentoring programs, community-based mentoring programs, and corporate-based mentoring programs. But also offer other “products”, like the Rodman Ride for Kids that we are always apart of. In this sense, BBBSCM has at least three or four “products” by Kotler’s thinking. As for client groups, BBBSCM has many: mentors, mentor alums, mentees, mentee alums, community mentors versus corporate mentors, corporate mentors versus site mentors (college students), and let’s not forget about donors and sponors. These are a good portion of BBBSCM’s client groups. By “broadly defining” these terms, it is clear that BBBSCM is a good candidate for marketing efforts based on Kotler’s newfound consciousness that marketing extends beyond just economic transactions between buyers and sellers.

Kotler expands upon this notion with “consciousness three”, wherein “An organization may engage in marketing activity not only with its customers but also with all other publics in its environment, [i.e.] […] the organization’s supporters, suppliers, employees, government, the general public, and other key publics.” And here is where my second thought came in about BBBSCM—perhaps all of our “client groups”, many of which do not directly affect our “products” or programming, like donors and sponsors, makes BBBSCM more of an example of this third consciousness about marketing. According to Kotler’s thinking, BBBSCM must routinely communicate with many key publics, as I listed before, that are not solely associated with our “products”. With this in mind, BBBSCM is a good example of this further broadened notion of marketing.

Lastly, Kotler asks: “What then is the disciplinary focus of marketing? The core concept of marketing is the transaction. A transaction is the exchange of values between two parties. The things-of-value need not be limited to goods, services, and money; they include other resources such as time, energy, and feelings. Transactions occur not only between buyers and sellers, and organizations and clients, but also between any two parties.” In fact, Kotler seems to be examining not only the ever-changing definition of marketing, but also the definition of the “transaction,” because at this point, it cannot solely be an economic definition. If it were, BBBSCM’s marketing efforts would not be considered marketing at all.

In the end, I don’t think Kotler provided a “generic concept of marketing”, rather, an influential piece on the new form of marketing, that proved to have even greater impact just a few years later when he wrote his article on how nonprofits use marketing.

4/3/14 Response to “Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations”

The other article I read today is called “Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations”, a very very outdated article from the January 1979 edition of the Journal of Marketing.

I chose this article knowing it was outdated in order to get a better understanding about how the practice of marketing seeped from for-profit corporations into the worlds of the “third sector”, as author Philip Kotler considers non-profits to be a part of. This article did describe this quite well, starting with how the difficult economy forced universities to attempt marketing, in turn inspiring hospitals to do the same, and eventually non-profits caught on.

“Ten years ago, Sidney J. Levy and I advanced the thesis that marketing is not just a business function-it is a valid function for non-business organizations as well-and that all organizations have marketing problems and all need to understand marketing (Kotler and Levy 1969). The article created considerable controversy. Many academic marketers attacked it, saying that marketing made sense only in profit oriented enterprises. However other marketing professors found the idea stimulating and, without necessarily agreeing that it was valid, began to study and experiment with it.”

This quote indicates that discussion of marketing in the “third sector” began in 1969 (’69!!!) but wasn’t taken seriously. I find this very interesting considering now, nearly 50 years later, it goes without question that non-profits should take marketing efforts seriously, perhaps even more seriously than others! I think one possible explanation for this distract change in trend and in thinking is of course, the economy, which was a MAJOR pressure for organizations of all kinds to be much more active in making profits, but also the effect of the Information Age, wherein consumers are so overwhelmed with advertising and products that organizations have to try harder to differentiate themselves and stand out (the internet and Information Age came full force 10-20 years after this article came out). Interestingly enough, Kotler goes on to say: “It is likely that within
10 years, much of the third sector will have some understanding and appreciation of the marketing concept.”

“Marketing will lead to a better understanding of the needs of different client segments; to a more careful shaping and launching of new services; to a pruning of weak services; to more effective methods of delivering services; to more flexible pricing approaches; and to higher levels of client satisfaction. Altogether, marketing offers a great potential to third sector organizations to survive, grow, and strengthen their contributions to the general welfare.”

Updating this conclusive quote would be beneficial to think about in what ways my role as Marketing Intern is or isn’t achieving these things. Firstly, “a better understanding of the needs of different client segments” can definitely relate to the inclusion of social media within marketing strategies. As part of the research for the social media plan I created for BBBSCM, I learned that each network should be used for a different purpose (at least slightly) considering each network is comprised of a different market. It is the duty of the organization to discover who these different markets are and what kind of content they prefer. This could also pertain to the e-newsletters, in the sense that each segment of the newsletter is aimed at a different client segment (alums, parents, sponsors, donors, volunteers, etc.).

As for the other effects of marketing, I’m not sure that my position covers these things. However, it goes without saying that with every marketing effort is the desire and hope to “strengthen contributions to the general welfare”–making people see why what we do is important, making people want to volunteer or sponsor, ultimately aiming to close the achievement gap in the lives of many underprivileged youth.