Giving Customers What They Want: Why Market Orientation is
Still Vital to Customer Retention
The old adage, "build a better mousetrap and the world will
beat a path to your door" might have made sense in much
simpler times. But today, with complex factors such as
competition and the Internet impacting business, running a
successful company requires much more than innovation. At the
core of the business dynamic remains the most important driver
in a company’s growth: the response to the ever-changing
demands of the customer. Case in point: Iridium. The
much-ballyhooed company managed to build the first-ever
worldwide mobile phone system, rolling out commercial service,
with some glitches, in 1998. Considering the red-hot demand
for much more limited cellular phone service, Iridium seemed
destined to outpace the weaker competition.
But by 1999, Iridium had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, one of the largest failures to date. With little
customer interest, the company simply couldn’t support the
hefty debt load from building its expensive $5 billion
satellite system. The consumer never beat a path to Iridium’s
door.
Ajay K. Kohli, professor of marketing at Goizueta, offers an
explanation for that disaster. "Iridium simply didn’t focus on
the customer as carefully as it might have, and it went out of
business. It targeted business travelers and hoping they would
use a fairly bulky and heavy phone at a fairly high price
point." Despite the cutting-edge technology and financial
backing of Motorola, the failure to cater to the customer’s
needs ultimately doomed Iridium. In December 2000, a group of
private investors bought the company’s operating assets for a
mere $25 million.
Now, Kohli notes that many of the country’s food
conglomerates have accurately tapped into consumer demand as
well, expanding their prepackaged food lines to include more
wholesome fare. In 1999, H.J. Heinz picked up a 20% stake in
natural foods purveyor Hain Celestial Group, while General
Mills bought the Cascadian Farm and Muir Glen product lines in
early 2000. Kraft, J.M. Smuckers, ConAgra and others in the
industry are following suit, establishing product lines or
buying existing companies in the natural and organic foods
industry.
Kohli has tracked the strong link between market
orientation and a company’s bottom line. In his award-winning
research paper, "Market Orientation: Antecedents and
Consequences," he and co-author Bernard J. Jaworski, the
managing director of research and development for Marketspace,
illustrate how market orientation acts as the key to company
performance.
This February, the pair became the first-ever recipients of
the Sheth Foundation/Journal of Marketing Award, for
their study. Originally published in the July 1993 issue of
the Journal of Marketing, the duo’s research remains
relevant today, continuing to spawn additional academic
research and organizational change. The award honors an
article published in the Journal of Marketing six to
ten years prior, for the strongest long-term impact on the
marketing field.
The authors describe market orientation as the process of
generating and disseminating market intelligence in a company,
and then the development and implementation of marketing
strategy based on that intelligence. The paper notes that
since "customer needs and expectations continually evolve over
time," companies must track and respond to "changing
marketplace needs." While setting aside resources to establish
a market orientation can be costly, their findings illustrate
the benefits that companies ultimately reap from this forward
thinking business approach.
The data compiled came from a sampling of "member companies
of the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) and the top 1000
companies (in sales revenues) listed in the Dun &
Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory." A total of 222
business units participated in the study, and data were
obtained from marketing and nonmarketing managers via a mail
survey using an extensive questionnaire. To cross-validate the
data, the authors took a second sampling of member companies
from the American Marketing Association, resulting in 230
responses.
Several "organizational factors," say Kohli and Jaworski,
including top management’s emphasis on market orientation,
contribute to a company’s success in this area. The research
finds, "Top management reinforcement of the importance of a
market orientation is likely to encourage individuals in the
organization to track changing markets, share market
intelligence with others in the organization, and be
responsive to market needs."
The pair also draw a link between the willingness of
management to take occasional business risks, with the
trickle-down effect on lower level personnel to "propose and
introduce new offerings" responding to customer needs. Other
in-house matters, such as interdepartmental conflict and
connectedness impact the company’s market orientation.
"Interdepartmental conflict appears to reduce a market
orientation, whereas connectedness appears to play a
facilitative role," says the study. Additionally, the authors
were unable to establish a link between departmentalization
and market orientation, suggesting that the number of
departments in a business unit matter less than the
"connectedness and level of conflict among departments."
Despite prior thought on the matter, formalization, or the
"existence of formal rules and regulations in an
organization," appears to be unrelated to market orientation.
The existence of rules, past researchers have argued, may lend
an organization to be less willing to adapt to outside forces.
However, say Kohli and Jaworski, "mere emphasis on rules is
less relevant than the precise nature of the rules." Certain
established procedures can actually facilitate market
assessment and intelligence dissemination. The duo’s research
also illustrates how "centralization," the hierarchal decision
making system whereby top managers and not lower level
employees impact the decision making process, acts as a
barrier to market orientation.
Surprisingly, a company’s responsiveness to customers
translates into much more than the expected result of
satisfied repeat customers. It also creates "esprit de corps,"
or what the authors describe as "a feeling of belonging to one
big organizational family dedicated to meeting and exceeding
market needs and expectations."
Another surprising finding of the research involves market
turbulence ("the rate of change in the composition of
customers and their preferences"), competitive intensity
(degree of competition among firms in similar industries) and
technological turbulence ("the rate of technological change").
The paper notes: "The findings of the study suggest that the
market orientation of a business is an important determinant
of its performance," regardless of the varying degrees of
these three factors. While Kohli describes this as the most
unexpected finding, he also notes that the relatively small
sample size used may not be powerful enough for this
particular test.
Implementation of marketing efforts remain much more
elusive, as employees and managers often fall back to more
familiar ways of doing business. "Organizational change,
however, is difficult," says Kohli. "Perhaps the toughest part
is changing the mindset."
While information technology can facilitate some company
changes, employee reward systems play into market orientation
in a major way. "Organizations that reward employees on the
basis of factors such as customer satisfaction, building
customer relationships, and so on tend to be more
market-oriented," they say.
The arrival of the Internet has only enhanced the
importance of the Kohli and Jaworski study, with the Internet
enabling better connectivity among businesses and consumers.
"Customers now can choose from among a greater number of
competing alternatives to fulfill their requirements," Kohli
adds. "For this reason, it is perhaps even more important to
be market oriented today than before the advent of the
Internet."
|