Question

Topic: Branding

Competition Is Necessary For Marketing To Exist. Do You Agree With This Statement?

Posted by Anonymous on 7/9/2004 at 4:59 PM ET 500 Points
There is no possibility of marketing to exist without competition. Atleast not in its true sense because the need for marketing your product goes away. What do the experts think?
Does a monopoly need to market? Also, in case of sudden opening up of markets to competition, isnt the existing complacent monopolistic company in protected markets doomed. Do you need to brand a product and carry out brand awareness campaigns, marketing exercises etc. when you are a monopoly?
I am asking this question because of my personal interest in this issue. Your comments.
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted by Blaine Wilkerson on 7/9/2004 at 5:06 PM Accepted
    I disagree.

    There is more to marketing than competition. Brand awareness is just one of the many other resons for marketing to exist.

    Just because one may perceive there is no competition, does NOT mean everyone is going to know about the product or know why they should buy it or want it. Same for the company...without marketing, you don't know who what or where to sell your goods.


    I could go on, but this is a fictious topic.

    In addition, I'm curious...what monopolies do you know of? Please list them here.

    Thanks!
  • Posted by Pepper Blue on 7/9/2004 at 5:19 PM Accepted
    A monopoly absolutely has to market even though they have no competition.

    Look at PEMEX, the Mexican national oil company, a monopoly for sure.

    They understand that the still need to keep their company positively branded and their marketing efforts reach far and deep, local, regional, national and international.

    They know they need to market the brand as being socially, economically and environmentally responsible.

    They need to market the brand as being a safe place to work.

    They need to market the brand as a good place for investors to put their money.

    Just to name a few.

    I hope that helps.
  • Posted by SteveByrneMarketing on 7/9/2004 at 5:54 PM Member
    Yes -- a monopoly needs to market, particularly a monopoly with more supply than the world would buy without marketing campaigns. The diamond industry is an example. While not a true monopoly, De Beers controlled the majority of supply, quantity available to customers and therefore the price. Yet, “A Diamond Is Forever” was needed to build more demand for diamonds. There are many more diamonds available than the market can absorb, hence roll out of supply in a way that keeps the price at high levels. There are many similar case studies.

    Here’s a link to De Beers story:
    https://www.econ.umn.edu/~jbishop/tsounta.pdf


    Hope this helps
  • Posted by Blaine Wilkerson on 7/9/2004 at 6:03 PM Member
    What say you, Clint? What do you think so far?
  • Posted by tjh on 7/9/2004 at 7:03 PM Member
    Competition is really the competition for attention.

    The ultimate goal of marketing is to own and influence some of that attention.

    The need for marketing is directly proportionate to the level of distraction in the human mind, any kind of distraction.

    Dallying with distraction is something human minds excel at.

    Marketing will always be needed.

    'twas ever thus.
  • Posted by Blaine Wilkerson on 7/9/2004 at 7:04 PM Member
    No, I don't think awareness is the only aspect of marketing. But I do not believe a monopoly is exempt.

    Clint, in order to help us out; What is your definition of "MARKETING"? What purpose does it serve? Do you believe it exists only to present competitive media?

    I know where you are coming from. Why would a company need to market if they have monopolized a sector or product? Right? OK, well... what is GM was the only auto manufacturer? Don't you think they would need to tell people about the available automoblies? Find people who buy automoblies (no, it is not the public's responsibility to find what they need...well, to an extent, but if they don't know something exists...why would they need it and why would they look for it...plus, if the company who produced the product they need did not market, how would people find them?)? How would GM tell people where to buy cars? How would they price them? What features would they place in the in cars? What colors would they have? How many would they make? How many dealerships would they build? Where would they build them? Etc, etc, etc...
  • Posted by SteveByrneMarketing on 7/9/2004 at 8:03 PM Member
    “in a hypothetical situation, if GM would be the only car manufacturer in the world and be a complete monopoly, would it still follow the marketing mix?”

    Clint, since a “a perfect monopoly” can only exist in a "hypothetical situation", the dynamics involved can never really be known

    If this situation existed it still wouldn’t be a perfect monopoly. Say GM tried to sell poorly designed and manufactured cars for $100,000 each. Would they sell a billion plus cars to customers worldwide? (my bad guess of the current market) Pricing, distribution and lots of marketing mix stuff would have to be considered. Wouldn’t people find alternative forms of transportation (competition) from motorized bikes to skateboards. I really can’t thing of an example where there is NO COMPETITION. In the real world there is always some choice.

    What say yee …
  • Posted by telemoxie on 7/9/2004 at 11:36 PM Member
    It seems to me that you have it backwards. Marketing creates competition, not the other way around.
  • Posted on 7/10/2004 at 5:07 PM Accepted
    Even if a business is the only one offering a particular product or service, it will still market. It must initially obtain customers.

    Furthermore, even if there is no direct competition, the business is still competing with prospects' perceptions that may include, "I can do this myself" or "I can get by without this."

    Once customers are obtained, the business will want to keep them, or at least make them happy so that they spread the good word.

    Of course, I'm assuming that one wants his business to grow, thrive or survive.

    I don't believe in situations with no competition. There are always choices.

    Marketing is so much more than advertising or promotion.
  • Posted on 7/20/2004 at 3:26 PM Member
    If we use a Five-Forces model, there are plenty of industries without competition in the form of industry rivals, but ample substitutes usually exist. Even in your proposed scenario where GM is the only manufacturer of cars, as others have pointed out, people could still use bicycles, scooters, or their feet to simply walk. The most basic competitor is always no product at all. Why do I need to even transport myself? Maybe I'll just stay home.

    The only example where this is not the case is with necessities - items like food. What if - hypothetically - one company owned all the food on earth? It could set prices as high as it wanted, never advertise, and then you may be right that the need for marketing becomes blurred.
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(Branding)