a C for the P…

Each of the original 4 Ps of the marketing has a corresponding C.

Product has Customer value

Price has Cost to customer

Place has Convenience

Promotion has Communication

All the Cs give the customer side of the story. The Ps take a seller point of view of the entire situation, the Cs on the other hand give the buyer perspective.

The P that I propose to add to the list of the Ps of marketing, Promise, has a corresponding C of its own. This C is credibility.

Now as I said in the last entry in the blog that I will take the word of a noble man but not of a man whose character I doubt; similar is the case with one and all, the catch is that someone who is a noble man to me may not be to you and vice-versa. Thus a promise is a promise if it has a credibility for the person to whom it is made, because it is this person’s belief in the words of the promiser that elevates a set of word from the state of being another man’s rattle to a promise.

With this I rest my case.

the next P…

Anyone who has read about marketing must’ve come across the 4 Ps of marketing, namely:
Product
Price
Place
Promotion

Modern marketing talks of even more Ps. Why this love for the letter? Honestly, I don’t know.
The additional Ps to marketing are:
People
Process
Physical Evidence

Mr. Kotler talks of yet two more Ps:
Political situation
Public opinion

I have an addition of my own to make to this growing count of Ps. Hopefully, students of marketing will be cursing me for making this addition.
The P that I want to add to marketing is ‘promise’.
Now my first job was as a call center agent and that fallowed one which involved a long training in sales. The training still continues and I am not sure if I will become a seller.
My experience has taught me that promises are important. The importance depends on the situation at hand. A call center agent would make promises that are intangible just to calm down an angry, irritated or possible worried customer. A seller would do the same about the product he is selling. The promises are mostly intangible. A seasoned agent or seller will tell you what harm a tangible promise can cause.
The whole idea is that when the metrics for measuring the product quality are weak promises become important. The more this weakness the greater is the importance that the promises assume.
If I may take the example of the presidential speech form the movie ‘Independence Day’; it was more of a pep-talk; it was a promise that carried through the sale of the idea that humans would fight the aliens. Now the promise was just that the race would not go down without a fight, there was no guarantee of victory, but the promise worked. Promises often work based upon not the content but who makes them and the way they are made. After all, those are just words, which do not bind anyone to act accordingly. I would believe the word of a man I think is noble, but never of a man whose character I doubt. And I am sure so would everyone else. So if someone wants me to believe the promises they make to me, it is of utmost importance that they do something to establish respect for themselves with me. The easiest approach for them would be to fulfill the promises they make to me. For a first timer, I would go to someone I respect and who has had an encounter with the man in question and act upon his advice. So it will do good to the man in question to fulfill the promise he has made to all the people I respect. He cannot possibly know whom I respect and whom I don’t so he better keep is word always. Ideal situation? I know!

the dynamic good

The bad to good transition

I have always felt that a bad to good transition works much better in all situations compared to a always good approach. The probable reason, I feel, is that transitions are always easier to notice compared to a static state (think about a sudden change in the brightness of the single bulb lighting the room while you are busy reading for the exam the next day)
There are four possible approaches to any situations-

• always good OR static good
• always bad OR static bad
• good to bad transition OR dynamic bad
• bad to good transition OR dynamic good

The ‘always good’ approach is well received and appreciated by most. The impact is a positive one.
The ‘always bad’ approach in contrast does not go down well with most and is bound to draw some form of resentment
The ‘good to bad transition’ is obviously not well received; plus, being a transition it is much more visible and hence can lead to very strong negative sentiment among people for the subject in transition.
The ‘bad to good transition’ is very well received. Everyone supports a change for the better. They may not like supporting it but when communities are involved this becomes a ‘no-choice’ scenario for them, especially since this is a good way for community to show that it cares. Going beyond the community dynamics, this approach, as discussed earlier is far more visible than the static good state. The impact for this approach is thus a stronger one compared to static good, and it is the positive one.