AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF

MARKETING MYOPIA
Michael D.Richard
JamesA. Womack
Arthur W.Allaway

Since its introduction, much has been writ-
ten on t h e various aspects of Marketing
Myopia. It appears that Marketing Myopia per-
tains to seveml types of narrow-mindedness.
The purpose of this article is to organize the
fypes of Marketing Myopia in a classification
scheme. The analysis suggests a new perspec-
tive, which can result in cross-fertilization of
ideas and, in turn, produce innovative market-
ing strategies. This article will briefly review
the different explanations of Marketing
Myopia and then classify the types along two
dimensions.
The proposed analysis is also intended to
enrich rather than replace the existing expla-
nations. Thus, the integrated analysis will
serve to clarify and reinforce the caveat pro-
posed 30 years ago. The indicants of Marketing
Myopia include a lack of vision and self-
imposed strategic limitations on the part of the
firm.
Finally, the analysis suggests a new perspec-
tive for the firm;a recommendation for seeking
innovative marketing strategies in order to
remdve some of the myopia-caused restrictions
on the mnge of stmtegic options.

Michael D. Richard is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Mississippi State University. He received his Ph.D. hom the
University of Alabama Dr.Richard's research and publication interests include choice models, market share models, and
marketing strategy.
Jamas A. Womack is a graduate student at Auburn University. Mr. Womack's research interests include marketing
strategy and personal selling.
Arthur W.Allaway is Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Alabama. He received his Ph.D. from the
University of Texas. Dr. Allaway's research and publication interests include choice models, market share models, and
optimal control models.

Vol. 9 No.3 Summer 1992 65

- - __ .- -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER M . ” G
Foundations of Murketing
Myopic
Marketing Myopia was initially described as
a firm’s shortsightedness or narrowness when
it is attempting to define its business.4
Marketing Myopia is analogous to a product
orientation, whereby the firm defines itself as a
product-producer. One alternative is a cus-
tomer orientation (i.e., the Marketing Concept),
whereby the firm defines itself as a satisfier of
customer wants and needs; that is, the cus-
tomer orientation helps the firm to anticipate
and adapt to changes in customer demand.4
The customer orientation has also been con-
sidered as a type of Marketing Myopia, Firms
overemphasize the satisfaction of customer
wants and needs8 and, as a result, have ignored
competition. A competitor orientation has been
proposed as a replacement for the customer ori-
entation: with this orientation, a firm’s strategy
is influenced by its competitors.8
Manager tenure has also created a type of
Marketing Myopia. Some marketing managers
possess too narrow a perspective as a result of
spending their entire career in a single indus-
try.’ This myopia fosters the erroneous mind-
set that each industry is unique. It restricts the
firm’s ability to learn from the experiences of
firms in other industries facing parallel prob-
lems and opportunities.
hh#Marketing strategies transcend industry
boundaries.’ Finns can solve marketing prob-
lems and exploit opportunities by looking
beyond immediate competitors €or strategies. A
broader perspective can result in cross-fertil-
ization of ideas and, in turn, produce innova-
tive marketing strategies?
Dimensions of Marketing
Myopia
The preceding discussion suggests the need
for a systematic way to classify the types of
Marketing Myopia. The types can be classified
along two dimensions. The first concerns man-
agement’s definition of the firm. Firms can be
narrowly defined by the type of product pro-
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
duced. Such firms are inward-oriented toward
the firm. For example, a firm can be defined as
a cold breakfast cereal firm.
Firms with a single-industry per-
spective are preoccupied with the
actions and reactions of immediate
competitors.
Firms can be more broadly defined by the
nature of the customer wants and needs satis-
fied. These firms are outward-oriented toward
the market. Thus a firm can be more broadly
defined as a breakfast foods firm.
The second dimension concerns the firm’s
business environment perspective. In essence,
these firms have an inward orientation toward
that industry. Firms with a single-industry per-
spective are preoccupied with the actions and
reactions of immediate competitors. In addition,
they are considered to have inbred manage-
ment. Some managers have spent the majority
of their professional careers in one industry.
Inbred management is not necessarily undesir-
able, but it is potentially detrimental when it
fosters the contention that it can learn nothing
horn firms in other industries, and it keeps its
firm perceptually insulated from such other
firms.For example, managers of the cold break-
fast cereal firm may be concerned only with the
actions and reactions of other cold cereal firms.
Firms with a multi-industry perspective, on
the other hand, have a broader outlook of the
market. While they are concerned with immedi-
ate competitors, they also realize that firms in
other industries can serve as sources of innova-
tive strategies as well as being potential competi-
tors. Such management is said to be cross-bred,
in that managers may have experience in a broad
range of industries or they are willing to learn
from firms facing similar situations in other
industries. Firms with a multi-industry perspec-
tive are outward-oriented and not perceptually
insulated from other industries.
These dimensions provide the manager with
a way to consider systematically the types of
Marketing Myopia.
 AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF -GMYOmA
The combination of the two dimensions pro-
duces a matrix with four scenarios: (I)Classic
Myopic firm,with a product definitiodsingle-
industry perspective, (2) Competitive Myopic
firm,with a customer definition/single-indus-
try perspective, (3) Efficiency Myopic firm,
with a product definition/multi-industry per-
spective, and (4) Innovative firm,with a cus-
tomer definition/multi-industry perspective.
While the dimensions are depicted as dichoto-
mous, they are actually continuous. A given
firm may not always fall clearly in the center
of any scenario, but may be positioned
throughout the matrix depending on the degree
of commitment to any of the dimensions.
These scenarios are presented in Figure 1.
Classic Myopic Firm
The Classic Myopic firms are those associ-
ated with a product definitiodsingle-industry
perspective. These firms are narrowly defined
by their product and so do not practice the
Marketing Concept. They possess a single-
industry perspective, being concerned only
with the actions and reactions of immediate
competitors. Management is inbred, and since
managers consider their industry unique, they
are unwilling to learn from firms in other
industries. Because of the lack of cross-fertil-
ization of ideas, firms with this type of
Marketing Myopia are limited in strategic
a1ternatives.
ALP serves as a prime example of the Classic
Myopic firm. A&P’s management defined the
- -- . -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organization by the type of products sold (gro-
ceries). This definition led to the decision not
to add highly profitable non-grocery items as
competitors did. The wants and needs of the
consumer were also ignored. Consumers
increasingly desired such features as national
brand merchandise, a deli, a seafood section,
and extended hours. While A&P resisted these
changes, other grocers were pleased to offer
these features. In essence, A&P failed to prac-
tice the Marketing Concept.
A&P also had a single-industry perspective.
While other grocers looked to different indus-
tries for distribution expertise (e.g., computer-
ized warehousing), A&P adhered to outdated
methods of distribution. When faced with
extinction, A&P applied “grocery solutions” to
the problem: it engaged in aggressive price-cut-
ting to attract customers. However, this strate-
gy proved unsuccessful.
Elgin Watch is a another example of the
Classic Myopic firm. Elgin defined itself as a
producer of fine, traditionally styled, manual-
ly-wound watches. Elgin was not aware of the
changing consumer tastes for watches, the fact
that consumers increasingly desired low-
priced and convenient (i.e,, self-winding)
watches.
Elgin Watch also had a single-industry per-
spective. It was taken by surprise by a new
class of competitors entering the market. The
semi-conductor manufacturers were seeking
applications for digital watches. They captured
67
____-. __-
 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER h ” G
a large share of the market by offering the con-
sumer low-priced, self-winding watches. In
addition, they employed new channels of dis-
tribution [mass merchandisers and discoun-
ters) which had been overlooked by Elgin.
Competitive Myopic Firm
The Competitive Myopic firm is analogous
tb a compromise between the customer and
competitor orientations. These firms are asso-
ciated with a customer definition/single-indus-
try perspective. They are defined by the
customer wants and needs satisfied, and so
they practice the Marketing Concept. In addi-
tion, they have a single-industry perspective,
being concerned only with the actions and
reactions of immediate competitors. Managers
are also inbred, adhering to the notion of the
uniqueness of their industry. Therefore they
are not willing to learn from firms facing paral-
lel situations in other industries. As a result,
there is no cross-fertilization of ideas.
While these firms practice the Marketing
Concept, they lack creativity in strategy.
Therefore, such firms are limited in their
strategic alternatives. They tend to think in
terms of acceptable businesses or expansions
for the industry they are in, and they are likely
to mimic similar firms’ marketing actions. Line
extensions and “me-too” products are popular
strategies for this type of firm.
Schlitz Brewing is an example of the
Competitive Myopic firm. It did practice the
Marketing Concept with its customer defini-
tion, as is evidenced by the introduction of a
myriad of product extensions (e.g., light beer
and premium priced beer).
When Philip Morris purchased Miller
Brewing, tobacco executives were brought in to
run the ailing brewing company. This infusion
of talent was responsible for the introduction of
a host of marketing strategies to the brewing
industry [e.g., product segmentation, target mar-
ket advertising, and efficient distribution].
These ideas were also embraced by Anheuser-
Busch. As a result, the market share of both
soared. In contrast, Schlitz, which had a single-
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
industry perspective, did not adopt the sophisti-
cated marketing techniques and, as a result, its
market share was cut in half within five years.
Effidmcy Myopic Firm
The EfficiencyMyopic firms only partially
embrace the innovative firm idea.’ The
Efficiency Myopic firms are those associated
with a product definition/multi-industry per-
spective. These firms are defined by the prod-
uct and so do not practice the Marketing
Concept. Since they have a multi-industry per-
spective, they do look to other industries as
potential competitors and as sources of solu-
tions to problems. Managers are crossbred,
and their experience in other industries, or
their acceptance of the notion of similarities
between industries, contributes to their will-
ingness to learn from firms in other industries.
As a result of cross-fertilization of ideas, these
firms have somewhat more strategic alterna-
tives than the previous two myopic types.
However, rather than looking to other indus-
tries for marketing solutions, these firms, con-
cerned with improvements in production
efficiency, borrow only technological innova-
tions. Their marketing managers assume that
consumers desire less expensive and/or more
efficient versions of existing products, and so
are apt to introduce new and improved ver-
sions of existing products.
General Foods serves as a prime example of
an Efficiency Myopic firm. While very success-
ful in food processing, General Foods did not
achieve success in the fast-food restaurant
business with its purchase of Burger Chef.
Management defined Burger Chef as a fast-food
hamburger restaurant. As a result of this prod-
uct definition, Burger Chef lost market share to
competitors that introduced such items as fish
sandwiches, chicken products, and a salad bar.
General Foods did possess a multi-industry
perspective and attempted to apply food-pro-
cessing skills to fast-food restaurants.
Unfortunately, the multi-industry perspective
did not offset the problems associated with
product definition.
 AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF MARKETING MYOPIA
Recent woes at IBM demonstrates the prob-
lems associated with an Efficiency Myopic
firm.6 IBM has defined itself by its product
(computers). While Japanese computer firms
deployed systems engineers to assist customers
in developing software (and gained valuable
customer information in the process), IBM
declined to provide this service. The Japanese
have used their knowledge of customer needs
to capture market share in the mainframe com-
puter market.
Firms with a multi-industry per-
spective have a broader outlook of
the market.
While IBM’s expertise was in the mainframe
computer market, it proved that it had a multi-
industry perspective. As a late entrant to the
PC market, IBM proved that it could produce
and market a new product. However, the
multi-industry perspective has not enabled the
company to capture lost share.
InnwcrtiveFirIxl
The Innovative firm is associated with a cus-
tomer definition/multi-industry perspective, It
possesses none of the narrowness of the previ-
ous firms. These firms, being defined by the
customer wants and needs satisfied, practice
the Marketing Concept. They also possess a
multi-industry perspective, looking to other
industries as potential competitors as well as
sources for solutions to problems, and so they
apply innovative strategies borrowed from
those firms. Management is cross-bred and
willing to apply new strategies to marketing
problems and opportunities.
As a result of cross-fertilization of ideas,
these firms enjoy a wide range of strategic
alternatives. They are farsighted or flexible
enough to apply unique solutions to problems
and opportunities.
One Innovative firm appears to be Apple
Computer.3 The hiring of John Sculley from
Pepsico reveals Apple’s willingness to apply
marketing strategies from the soft drink to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
~ ~
PC industry. Since Sculley became CEO of
Apple, revenues have quadrupled and return
on shareholders’ equity is the highest in the
industry.3 Much of this success is attributed to
Apple’s new low-priced PC, the MacIntosh
Classic. Some of the marketing strategies of the
soft drink industry appear applicable in the PC
industry. Even the name MacIntosh Classic has
a cola counterpart (Coke Classic).
In 1989 Xerox won the prestigious Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award while
regaining much of its lost market share.9 Much
of the Xerox success is attributed to its embrac-
ing of benchmarking. Xerox monitors perfor-
mance in several product and service areas,
and the ultimate goal for each area is the level
of performance achieved by the world leader,
regardless of industry. For example, the bench-
mark is L.L. Bean for distribution and
American Express for billing.9 In that sense,
Xerox epitomizes the multi-industry perspec-
tive. As a result, Xerox’s market share and cus-
tomer satisfaction have soared.
The Innovative firm is associated
with a customer definitiodmulti-
industrv nerspective.
Wal-Mart Stores is still another Innovative
firm.1 Wal-Mart provides a variety of merchan-
dise at low prices to small towns in the United
States, markets that have been ignored by other
retailers. While many retailers subordinate dis-
tribution to merchandising, Wal-Mart has bor-
rowed sophisticated distribution practices
from other industries. Such innovations as the
handling of palletized quantities and a state-of-
the-art warehouse scanning system have low-
ered costs for Wal-Mart.1 Even the practice of
greeting all customers as they enter the store is
a borrowed strategy from the hotelhestaurant
industry. Wal-Mart has enjoyed a meteoric rise
in the field of retailing.
The Innovative category implies a new per-
spective on the part of the firm. First, the firm
should seek to satisfy customer wants and
needs. Second, the firm should realize that
69
~~~
 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

other industries can be sources of innovative
strategies for reaching the consumer. Both
strategies are important in order to achieve
performance objectives. Of course, the
Innovative firm will provide little benefit
without effective leadership to implement
these strategies.
Marketing strategies transcend
industry boundaries.
The Innovative firm is not intended as a cure
for Marketing Myopia, just as the Marketing
Concept was not meant as a cure.5 The
Marketing Concept has, in some cases, been
carried to an unproductive extreme.5 The same
is possible with the Innovative firm perspec-
tive. However, what is important in this per-
spective is to not overlook other industries and
thereby to remove some of the restrictions on
the range of strategic options.
Managezlal -
Recommendations
For marketing managers who consider the
Innovative firm orientation desirable, the obvi-
ous question is how to achieve it, Five recom-
mendations are offered here.
1. Take a generic view of your firm/industry.
Determine how the firm/industry has been
defined and consider a broader definition. A
firm’s statement of Corporate Mission can help
a firm define itself through examination of
needs satisfied, lines of business engaged in,
products sold, and so on. Rather than focusing
on the products produced, examine the needs
satisfied as well as potential product substi-
tutes for those needs. The result should be a
broader definition of your firm and industry.
2. Monitor other industries. You should be
aware of marketing strategies in a wide range
of industries. These industries can serve as
sources of innovative strategies for satisfying
existing consumers as well as attracting new
consumers. You might scan business publica-
tions, as well as attend seminars where you
will be exposed to marketing people from
other industries.
3. Engage in benchmarking to determine the
objectives for relevant areas of marketing. Once
you determine the objectives, you can develop
a list of firms to emulate. Finally, analyze inno-
vative strategies of the benchmark firms for
possible adoption. The second recommenda-
tion above can help in benchmarking.
4. Recruit marketing people, Marketing man-
agers hired away from other industries can
bring new perspectives and solutions to mar-
keting problems. In essence, these people can
be “debriefed” when added to the management
team. In addition, brainstorming sessions
between these new and existing managers can
yield new strategies.
5. Be flexible enough to apply unique solu-
tions to problems. Also be flexible enough to
change unsuccessful strategies. Flexibility can
be fostered by upper management’s commit-
ment to flexibility and innovation. Manage-
ment must encourage marketing managers to
try new strategies without fear of reprimand.
In this era of global competition, the stakes
are enormous. Companies affiliated with
Marketing Myopia lack vision and impose
strategic limitations on themselves. To remain
competitive and survive into the twenty-first
century, companies can combine the Marketing
Concept and cross-fertilization of ideas for
innovative strategies.

End Notes
1. Bergmann, Joan,“The Saga of Sam Walton,”Ston?s, 70 (1988),129-142.
2. Houston, Franklin S.,“The Marketing Concept: What It Is and What It Is Not,” Journal of
Marketing, 50 (1986),81-87.
3. “John Sculley on Sabbatical,”Fortune, 119 (March 27,1989),79-80.

70

- - --
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 AN INTEGRATED VIEW OF MARKFXNGMYOPIA

4. Levitt, Theodore, “Marketing Myopia,” Hurvurd Business Review, 38 (1960),45-56.

5.Levitt, Theodore, “Marketing Myopia,” Harvurd Business Review, 53 (1975),26-44and 173-
181.
6.Loomis, Carol,“Can JohnAkers Save IBM?” Fortune, 123 (July15,1991),40-56.
7. Lovelock, Christopher H., “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights,’’Journal
ofMarkefhg, 47 (1983],9-20.
8.Oxenfeldt, Alfred R., and William L. Moore, “Customer or Competitor: Which Guideline for
Marketing?”Management Review, 67 (1978).43-48.
9. “Pushing to Improve Quality,”Research TechnologyManagement, 33 (1990), 19-22.

71

- - - ___ .-
-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.