Some commentators have suggested that its publication marked the beginning of the modern marketing movement. Its theme is that the vision of most organizations is too constricted by a narrow understanding of what business they are in. It exhorted CEOs to re-examine their corporate vision; and redefine their markets in terms of wider perspectives. It was successful in its impact because it was, as with all of Levitt's work, essentially practical and pragmatic.
According to the author, Theodore Levitt, the failure of companies starts from the top – the executives. In two major examples given by the author, he emphasizes how the (major) industries suffered drastically because they failed to see what the customers actually needed; had it been the opposite, they would have avoided the impending cataclysm. Then the author compares them to companies that are more versatile and how their management, which is customer-oriented, did to keep a growth industry growing, even when the obvious opportunities had exhausted. An error of analysis occurs due to constriction of views when readers think that it is unfair to compete versatile product industry with a service industry. The author exerts that the pride ‘growth’ industries take in the fact that their product has no parable substitute and future of intention to switch when substitute does come across prove destructive. There are conditions that lead a company deluded to ride a growth escalation into descent. The belief that growth is guaranteed by the ever-increasing buying power of the consumer is mistaken and that is what leads to a decline – absence of problem lead to an absence of thinking. Lack of research according to consumers growing need rather than their buying power is what is needed. The charter of success if not measured by applying present value method of investment evaluation, employee relations and in working with developing countries, a company asks for trouble when innovation occurs from outside the industry and finally, the wishful thinking that there is no competitive substitute for the major product. Multimillion-dollar businesses have transferred to competitors due to this delusion. The industry is blinded by its constricted views on its products and zero attention to customers’ basic needs and preferences. Major industries have grown by fits and starts, always saved by innovations from outside – making the company’s product obsolete and to the company’s horror, not by their own research. To make a company successful, customer-oriented strategies need to be adhered to and mass-production is one of the enemies of success along with the already afore mentioned. Theodore states that selling focuses on needs of seller whereas marketing on the needs of buyer. Most important point for a company to consider is that the product offered for sale is determined not by the seller but by the buyer, in a way that product becomes a consequence of the marketing endeavor. The cost of a company realizing the primary worth of its customers over the secondary worth of its product is millions of dollars, as it fails to research customer wants and only researches their preferences between products it already offers. Companies, which innovate according to customers’ needs, are not focusing on creating something technologically sophisticated but satisfying a powerful customer need. Another looming danger is not the firm’s less attention towards research and development but quite vice versa, when this happens, marketing becomes an enduring act that must be carried out once the essentials of research and product creation is complete. The customers are thought to be objects who will take whatever is offered, in fact, they are unpredictable, shortsighted and stubborn who need to be taken care of. If the customer-satisfying process is made primary then the industry develops backwards: first worrying about physical delivery of customer satisfaction, then to creating products achieving customer satisfaction and then the finding of raw materials necessary for making its products. During research and development, the executive scientists fail to see the actual problem of the company – the customers – not because they deny the existence of this problem, but during the course of operation of the organization, the management has been conditioned to look in the opposite direction. No organization attains greatness without a vigorous leader and the chief executive is responsible to create such an environment – to set the company’s style, direction and goals. If a chief executive believes any road will take him to greatness, then he might as well resign because if an organization does not know that, they do not need to highlight the fact with a ceremonial figurehead… everyone will eventually know.
