This paper explores these questions and considers the technology and social factors that have accelerated this change and led to our ability to move from mass marketing communications to one-to-one marketing communications.

Here is the URL:  http://evolutiondirectmarketing.wordpress.com

As I completed this article my first thought was “wow, I wonder how the oil industry reacted to this article”, since it basically provided a mirror into the future and excellent insight as to how to avoid being myopic in a single thinking perspective.  So I poked around a bit but didn’t find anything that provided any enlightenment on my question.  However, I did come across a great tie in associated with the BP Oil spill, referencing marketing myopia in terms of an “upstream product recall”, which was a problem for BP, resulting from a heightened awareness of environment issues.  I found this an interesting take on the concept of marketing myopia.  Levitt suggests that the oil companies had a single focus perspective on expansion and growth through multiplying consumers that purchased more products.  Levitt of course didn’t know it at the time but his quote in the 1960 article “the petroleum business is a distressing example of how complacency and wrongheadedness can stubbornly convert opportunity into near disaster”, coupled with the oil industry’s continued myopic perspective, 40 years later, also reflects their short sightedness in considering how to deal with major problems before they happened, as was apparent in the way the BP Oil explosion was managed.  Like the pharmaceutical industry, BP was faced with an upstream product recall that further damaged their brand and reputation. 

From what I can see, the oil companies continue to take a product-based approach, defining themselves as being in the business of selling gasoline.  They need to ask themselves what business they are in.  Yes, they are selling gas, but they are also selling convenience.  How can they further play this up?

I found this quote some time ago but thought it was a very applicale as a close to this paper.  Regardless of what industry you are in, we can all learn a lesson from Charles Revlon, owner of Revlon International Corp., who clearly understood his cusotmers and once said, “In the factory we make cosmetics.  In the department stores we sell hope.”

1. What type of disruption needs to happen for the oil industry to run out of luck?
2. Do we see the oil companies doing anything to become more customer focused vs. product focused?
3. What other business models do we see at risk because they have a myopic, short sighted perspective?
4. What can businesses do to ensure that they don’t become myopic and keep their eye on the customer?

1. Amateurs and innovators are attracted to electronics, therefore when something is invented, there is always someone else trying to do it faster, bigger and better…and they do!
2. The Federal Government played a role in decentralizing technology for a variety of reasons.  One of the key reasons is the catalyst of war.  The government needed technology to solve their problems, so they would open up the request for such technology to multiple sources, creating competition and innovation.
3.  Through disrupting technology, competition (a result of our free market economy) is always around the corner with improvements and better technology to solve customers’ problems, looking for the next big thing to make them rich!

In this paper I focus on #3 as this article signaled several instances where disruptive innovation theory was at play. 

Clayton Christensen speaks about the drivers of innovation. In his book “Seeing what’s Next”, he states “government tries to identify and address market failures and increase the pace of innovation within an industry” (Christensen, 2004).  In Cowen’s book, one of the key drivers of innovation was war.  During WWII, there was a need for electronic computers to calculate the right variables to enable the guns firing tables.  This was extremely difficult and time consuming to do.  Initially women with college degrees in Math were hired to compute the tables, but this took too long.  An enterprising engineer suggested that he build an electronic calculator that would ultimately solve the problem in seconds, rather than hours. From this point on, moving from WWII to the Cold War, the need for faster electronic calculators continued to increase.  What followed diminished any social control that was the hope of the original developers of the technology.  Through a conference, the government reached out broadly to encourage further development of the computers, which stimulated competition and furthered innovation.   Some developed the technology, others made money at it, and yet others improved and enhanced it.

Another meaningful parallel to Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory is demonstrated by Cowen, in her account of the birth of radio broadcasting.  Cowen shares with us how RCA and its allies were trumped by Westinghouse when Westinghouse ran with the idea that the potential market for receivers was potentially huge.  If they could manufacture them, they could conquer the mass market.  Westinghouse began broadcasting music, elections, and baseball games from its factory rooftops and radio broadcasting was born.  At the time, RCA, as the incumbent, saw early on the potential for radio, but the management was so focused on setting up RCA in business that they had little time to develop the idea.

The social control pendulum continued to swing as RCA brought Westinghouse into the folds of its consortium, which eventually led to the creation of the first media network, NBC.  And it forever continues to swing, through government led regulations and anti-trust laws.

1. Reflecting on the previous reading by Bagdikian, what obstacles to social control will the networks potentially face in the future?
2. With the internet still in its early years, what kind of regulation can we envision that will begin to put social control on the internet and what will the impact be?
3. How much control should the government have on the creation and distribution of social content?

Christensen, C. (2004). Chapter 4: How Nonmarket Factors Affect Innovation. In C. Christensen, Seeing What’s Next (p. 73). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corp.

Taking this perspective in the context of current events, let’s look at the current oil crisis and the role the media has had in gas prices going up and down.  According to the website www.mediamatters.com, a non-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media, “Conservative media (e.g. Fox Networks) claim that recent proposals to repeal tax breaks for the five largest oil companies will make gasoline more expensive. However, energy experts say that cutting the tax incentives will have little to no effect on prices at the pump.” (Media Matters, 2011). Journalistic malpractice seems to be everywhere on this issue and we get to a point where we don’t know what to believe.  We’ve become increasingly skeptical of our government and the media outlets that support them.

But are we, as media consumers, doing anything about it?  What is our role in driving media reform?  Are we to also blame?

In a time where reality stars are considered presidential candidates (pick you poison: Trump or Palin), we also need to look at ourselves and understand how we, as media consumers, allow this to happen.  Have our minds become so numb, and our attitudes so apathetic that we don’t care enough to fight back through our media consumer habits?  We let ourselves get caught up in the merchandising and don’t really think about being robbed of knowledge.  We do have choices.  Cable television provides us with alternatives in which independent points of view can be heard.  We have access to these cable channels, which accordingly to Cowan in his excerpt from A Social History of American Technology, “the social control that the networks and their advertisers had once exercised over the content of broadcasts had ended”. (Cowan, 1997)  However, we seem to like the entertainment that the networks provide and we seek it out through our viewing habits, as demonstrated by the high Nielson ratings of the reality shows during sweeps week.  With the large broadcast networks, we do have a right to something better, but we seem to think this is just the way it is.  As a media consuming society, I believe it is going to take an understanding, and in turn a grassroots action movement from the people to make media reform something to pay attention to.  Like the recent attempts at reform of our financial institutions, we must also seek out this kind of action with the media monopoly.

…If it is important to us.

• What role will the internet potentially have in instigating change in media?
• What must the government do to truly uphold the laws in place, like the Telecommunications Act of 1996?   What will the impact be if they did so?
• What types of disruptive events need to occur to bring this issue to the surface as something to pay attention to now?

Media Matters. (2011, May 13). Conservative Media Defend Tax Breaks For Big Oil With False Claim About Gas Prices. Retrieved from Media Matters for America: Research: http://mediamatters.org/research/201105100015?lid=1166354&rid=60959842

Cowan, R. S. (1997). Communications Technologies and Social Control. In R. S. Cowan, A Social History of American Technology (p. 292). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• What technology evolutions allowed us to move from mass communications to interpersonal communications?
• What technologies were disrupted by improvements in the way interpersonal communications evolved?
• What were the social influences and behaviors that drove the refinement of interpersonal communications?

Definitions (for the context of my paper):

• Mass Communications – a message created by a person or a group of people sent through a transmitting device (a medium) to a large audience or market.
• Interpersonal Communications – the process of sending and receiving relevant information between two or more people, allows for more specific tailoring of the message and more personal communication than mass communication methods
• Advertising – a form of communication used to persuade an audience to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services, usually to drive consumer behavior.
• Direct Marketing – a sub discipline of advertising, with emphasis on measurable results (responses) from its intended audience regardless of medium.  

3 Most Important Developments:

Overall Timeline: 

Past – Early 1900’s to 1980’s:  Transformation from print to broadcasting as a marketing medium

Present – 1980’s:  Lead / demand generation drive 1:1 marketing techniques aimed at executing relevant communications to a targeted audience

Future – 2011:  Emerging web-based channels and techniques put consumers in control.

Timeline Chart

My timeline was not well-defined in my draft paper. Here, I’ve outlined the 3 most important timeline snapshots within a 100 year period, 1900 (Flyers)-2004 (Facebook).  I will explore the evolution of mass communications leading up to interpersonal communications, in the context of marketing.  I will not go deep into internet specific marketing tactics, but rather explore how the onset of the internet was a key enabler to innovate interpersonal (1:1) marketing tactics.  Direct marketing is a form of advertising, so it is important to first understand the evolution of advertising.  The evolution of print advertising really occurred in the 19^th century, with large corporations embracing print advertising late in the 19^th century, marking the age of consumerism.  While I will touch on the important technical innovations leading up to this time, such as the significance of the printing press and the telegraph invention, I will use early 1900 as my benchmark to establish a focal point for my discussion regarding the evolution of mass communications used as a marketing medium.

Theories to Be Applied

Supervening Social Needs (Winston)

• Describes the social forces necessary for an innovation to be adopted
• He believes society shapes its technologies more than technologies shape society

I believe this will be one of the most important theories that I thread through my paper.  All communication is dependent on technology (except face to face).  As these technologies became more sophisticated, mass communication was enabled.  Like “chicken and egg”, did the technology impact the content, or did the content impact the technology?    Winston’s views around supervening social necessity suggest that society and circumstances shape technological developments.  The type of technology determines what gets communicated.  I will apply Winston’s theory as I examine the evolution from mass communications to personalized communications and the technologies and social circumstances that shaped the direct marketing industry. 

Direct marketing history is sketchy, at best, so it will be important to highlight the social necessities that drove general marketing innovation.  The emergence of the modern corporation, economic and political considerations and general cultural factors must be examined.  Additionally, the differences between direct marketing and advertising will be considered.  The primary difference will be the around the idea of measurability.  Even our forebears sent mail and measured the results (but with far fewer tools than we have today).  Direct mail holds up a mirror to our lives and the social circumstances that impacted the technology can in turn be applied to how this technology was used to market to individuals.

Disruptive Innovations (Christensen) Published in 1997

• Two types of technology-driven changes:
  • Sustaining technologies continue the industry’s rate of improvement in “product performance”
  • Disruptive technologies disrupt or redefine “performance trajectories”

 Winston makes the argument that technology changes are driven by society (supervening social need).  Coupling this with Christensen’s disruptive innovation theories, we can explore and understand the communication technologies that evolved to enable mass communications to interpersonal communications, and link them to the society needs and circumstances that influenced this evolution, and in turn, influenced direct marketing.  There are actually two paths that I will examine regarding disruptive and sustaining technologies and the impact they had on communications.  First, I’ll take a look at the technology itself.  In “A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions”, Irving Fang illustrates the history of mass communications in terms of six “information revolutions”:  writing, printing, mass media, entertainment, media in the home, and the information highway.  With the timeline that I will be focusing on, “mass media” touches on the impact of the printing press, but quickly moves into the emergence of newspapers.  Christensen’s disruptive innovation theories will allow us to look at the process of the technology evolutions during this time and determine the sustaining or disruptive nature in which one communication technology improved or replaced another.  Second, I will look at the signals of change and the government and non-market influences affecting the result.  For example, what opportunities existed where innovation disruption provided a solution that filled a specific need that currently wasn’t being met?  What were the jobs that needed to be done and what circumstances did they connect to?

Linear Innovation – Diffusion Theory (Rogers)

• The process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.
• 5 steps of Adoption:

-          Knowledge

-          Persuasion

-          Decision (adopt or reject)

-          Implementation

-          Confirmation

According to Rogers, “the innovation decision process is the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude towards the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of the decision”.  Rogers speaks about the adoption process as it pertains to an individual (vs. a group).  I will examine the adoption process as it mirrors the sales cycle.  For the purposes of my paper, I’ve defined the sales cycle as a time elapsed between customer initiation of the buying process and the point at which a final decision is made to purchase (adopt) a product or service.

If direct marketing is about interpersonal communications and driving an individual to take an action, and if we make the correlation that the adoption process mirrors an effective sales cycle, we can understand the mental thought process that occurs as an individual moves from knowledge to confirmation and the direct marketing messages and mass media channels that are used at different stages to help move the individual through the 5 steps of adoption.  With this understanding, we can explore the importance of the selected channel as it relates to where the consumer is at in the adoption process.  This adoption process in relevant to marketers.  Through analysis and understanding marketers are able to develop an integrated marketing and communications plans focused at specific stages of the adoption process.  At the very core of direct marketing is measurability.  And through this measurability direct marketers can drive successful campaigns and initiatives that take a consumer through the knowledge / awareness stages to confirmation / purchase.

Mediamorphosis (Fidler) – 1997

• “[T]he transformation of a communication medium, usually brought about by the complex interplay of perceived needs, competitive and political pressures, and social and technological innovation” (1997)
• Convergence (old media morph into new forms)

Fidler’s Mediamorphosis provides a foundational overview of the communication technologies and the impact this had on media.  Like Winston, Fidler believes that technology along does not drive change.  The change must be accompanied by a reason for this change.  He states “the forms of media that exist today are the result of innumerable small-scale convergences that have occurred frequently throughout time.”  I will use Fidler’s theories to guide my considerations of the emergence of interpersonal communications and the mediamorphosis that marked the melding of the inventions that enabled interpersonal communications. For example, Newspapers are morphing into the digital age to offer video segments on their websites.

After reading the paper, I thought about my process for writing my paper and developing a 7 page presentation, based on a Presentation Zen type of presentation.    One of my key findings was that I really needed to know my stuff.  I needed to understand it inside and out, so I could credibly speak to it.  Further, I felt that I needed to tie in my own experiences to provide a personal point of view.  The process of writing the paper seemed like the logical place to start, thinking that this would serve as a springboard for my presentation.  And it did.  I spent a great deal of time reflecting on the different angles I could take but knew that I really needed to roll up my messages in a focus set of key take aways to engage the reader and drive home the most salient points.  As Kathy quoted in the syllabus…it’s easier to do a long presentation than a short one!

After I felt that my paper was solid, I moved to developing my slides.  I personally like to have a visual theme to carry through and link to the topic.  I actually had a great deal of fun selecting my theme of “business children” and threading this through the key ideas of value prop, profit formula, key resources and  key processes, and I think my audience enjoyed them.

The key take aways from this experience for me are:

• Be overly prepared and know your material
• Use the presentation to support your discussion, vs. having the presentation BE your discussion
• Focus on a few key ideas vs many
• Engage your audience, ask good questions that stimulate a dialog and audience contributions
• Allow extra time – even if you’ve rehearsed, as you always end up needing it!

This is a draft list of references and resources that will be used on my final paper on the evolution of direct marketing and the communications technologies, behaviors and social needs that drove the distinction between broadcast (one to many) and communications (one to one).  I will also look at the convergence of these patterns of communication and the impact they have on us as consumers:

References:

Henkin, D. (2006) The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America.  The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

-          Henkin explains how a growing postal network initiated major cultural shifts during the 19^th laying the foundation for the interconnectedness that now defines our ever-evolving world of telecommunications.  He provides a model for understanding the social and cultural history of new communications medium and how the postal service laid the foundation for the history of communications.  I will weave this history and its social implications into my analysis of the evolution of direct marketing and the communications technologies, behaviors and social needs that drove the distinction between broadcast and communications.

Church, R. & Godley, Andrew (2003).  The Emergence of Modern Marketing.  Frank Cass and Company LTD. London, England

-          The Emergence of Modern Marketing is a collection of essays that provides an overview of the marketing methods that were adopted in the 19^th century onwards.  It is interesting to note that while some things change others remain the same.  I will use these essays to draw comparisons of the marketing methods that were evident in 19^th and the groundwork that they laid for today’s marketing and direct marketing efforts.

Christensen, C.M. (2004).  Seeing What’s Next.  Harvard School Publishing Corporation.  Boston, Mass.

-          Christensen’s theories have been evident in driving change in innovation. I am interesting in drawing correlations in the social needs behind these changes and the relationship they had with communication technologies that fueled direct marketing engines like the printing press, to digital printing to the internet.

Donovan, H. M. Advertising Response: A Research into Influences That Increase Sales. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1924.

Strong, Edward K. The Psychology of Selling and Advertising. New York: McGraw Hill, 1925.

Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. 2 ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2005.

Martineau, Pierre. Motivation in Advertising: Motives that Make People Buy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.

Kreshel, Peggy J. “Advertising Research in the Pre-Depression Years: A Cultural History.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 15 (Spring 1993): 59-75.

Alternatives to Newspaper Advertising, 1890-1920: Printers’ Innovative Prod…

I have become very interested in learning how Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation theories explain the events that have, and continue to, shape innovation today.  Having a career that has spanned over the past 20 years, primarily in technology-enabled organizations, the more I read about disruptive innovation and business model theories, the more I can relate them directly to some of my own work experiences.  It’s one of those “if I knew then what I know now” things. The Harvard Business Review article, “Reinventing Your Business Model”, touches on the primary factor to enabling disruptive innovations to occur.  Without an innovation-driven ecosystem, disruptive innovation cannot occur. 

In a March 2011 debate held by The Economist, featured guest (John Hagel, 2011) reinforces this by stating that “In the end, the real opportunity may be to shift the focus from technology and product innovation to a different, more powerful, form of innovation: institutional innovation. By rethinking the roles and relationships of large numbers of independent entities, we might be able to generate innovation-driven ecosystems that will change the way we pursue product and technology innovation.”

In the late 80s and early 90’s I had the good fortune to be involved with Hewlett Packard LaserJet technology was newly launched. What I didn’t understand then, but reflect on now when discussing disruptive innovation and business models, is the significance of HP developing InkJet technology alongside LaserJet technology.  When it was clear to HP that the two technologies needed to be separated to provide the right focus and business model to effectively launch and grow the markets, HP made the decision to spin out InkJet technology into its own printer division, providing the management team the opportunity to create a unique business model for Inkjet technology vs. force fitting into the model that existed for LaserJet.  At the time I didn’t think about it too much, aside from a worry that InkJet printers may cannibalize LaserJet printers if they are competing in same market. Now I get it!  HP knew that they needed to make significant changes to their existing model to enable the success of InkJet printers, yet wanted to do it in such a way that the strong HP brand was leveraged.

As Clayton Christensen reiterates in an interview with World Trade Magazine, “They (HP) gave the InkJet people the charter to kill the LaserJet.  In the process of doing that, both businesses grew.”

I mentioned my experience with HP LaserJet to frame up the power of a well devised business model in association with a disruptive innovation.  In this case, HP created new growth through the disruptive innovation of InkJet technology.   As Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann suggest, breakthrough, game changing products rarely emerge from established businesses UNLESS there is a new business model attached to it.

So, how did HP, and other companies, successfully pull off new business growth through an innovative business model?

1. Value was created for customers by helping them get an important job done (CVP):
• In the case of HP, they found a way to create and deliver value for their customers with both technologies based on price and functionality.  With the emergence of the personal computer market, owners of desktop computers wanted easy and direct access to their printers.   The “incumbent” dot matrix technology was noisy and had poor resolution.  HP realized the field was wide open for product innovations. 
2. Value was created for both the customer and the company through the right profit formula:
• Because the market was ripe for personal printing technology, HP was able to carve out a profit formula that delivered the right value proposition to their customers, allowing HP to scale and achieve their desired result
3. Value was created through the synergy of resources and the way they interacted.
• The right people, distribution methods and channels other elements were selected unique to the delivery of the disruptive innovation. But, unlike many organizations, HP was able to successfully ride the coat tails of the LaserJet brand while still uniquely delivering the HP brand promise by developing it through a separate business unit.
4. Value was created  by putting together the right processes:
• By setting up a unique organization, HP was able to shape the processes, ruled, metrics and norm to get the job done.

Fast forward 20+ years and we see both LaserJet and InkJet technologies and printers successfully co-existing as market leaders.  Like Dow Corning, through a solid value proposition, the right people and resources, the flexibility to create new rules and through trial and error, HP got out of its own way and created a new business model that reinforced and complemented its core business.

Credits:

Johnson, M., Christensen, C., & Kagermann, H. (December 2008).  Reinventing Your Business Model.  Harvard Business Review

Christensen, C. (December 12, 2006), World Trade Magazine, www.worldtrademag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-2006_A_10000000000000016779

John Hagel (March 2011).  The Economist Debate,  www.economist.com/debate/days/view/671

What does Madame Tussaud, Unilever, General Motors, the Motion Picture industry have in common? Their early stories, influences and business development practices represent the economies of marketing, which was impacted by politics, war and the leaders of their time.  Their business experiences have shaped the way we think about marketing today.  The channels may be different, but the disciplines and principles are the same.

This book is a collection of 7 essays representing a historical view of businesses and the values, processes and resources that shaped modern marketing.  Each going through the cycles of real or potential disruption.  And each demonstrating the systematic marketing practices that made or broke their success.  Themes that pepper these essays include product distribution, diversification, product development, market research, selling strategies, advertising and branding.

As I thought about how to frame up my book report, I reflected on each story, considering their similarities and differences.  Most are based in Europe, most were doing business during wartime, and most became multi-national companies.  Because this report is limited, I have chosen to focus on 2 of the essays and the key marketing principle that emerged from each.  This book is based on a chronological look at historical facts vs. theory.  Therefore it is not relevant as to whether I agree or disagree with the concepts presented, but rather how I perceive their influence on how we approach marketing today.  I found this book very interesting in the way that marketing practices had withstood the test of time.  Even then, the values, processes and resources drove the outcomes and direction of their business.

BRAND VALUES:  Madame Marie Tussaud was systematic in creating her “brand”. She began her career in France, in the 1780’s, near the time of the French Revolution.  In addition to creating wax models of aristocrats and royals, a common practice was to create death masks from actual guillotined heads.  As the violence escalated, the entertainment value of this industry was lost, so they sent the more “glamorous” masks and models on tour in Britain, Germany and India, which Marie eventually led.  Right from the start Marie led her business through what we know today to be marketing best practices that reinforced her brand.  She was always present at her exhibits, greeting guests and the door and welcoming them warmly.  She never discounted or gave away tickets (even Queen Victoria had to pay), which helped create a brand proposition of quality and value.  She differentiated by creating models from actual living or dead bodies of her subjects (vs. from a picture).  She coordinated her tours with other big events, to that she could capitalize on the maximum number of visitors that would crowd the city.  She understood that crucial to her success was where and how the exhibition was displayed.  And she had an acute perception of what would attract customers.  Madame Tussaud was a master at creating and being true to her brand.  Madame Marie Tussaud was in her 70’s when her touring days ended, and became as much of an attraction as her wax models.

DIVERSIFICATION AND RESOURCES:  Another essay focuses on the rise of 3
consumer product companies, with a special emphasis on product diversification
and each vying for market dominance.  These three companies, Colman, Reckitt’s and Lever/Unilever, were family driven, which was common during this time.  But each approached their primary business challenges of diversification differently, based on their resources and leadership.  In the case of Colman, failed
diversification is attributed in large part to the failure of their management.  Most of it based on family dysfunction, maintaining a closed structure within the family, with discouraged opportunities for diversification through mergers and acquisitions, but they also faced the problem of the younger generation not being brought into the folds of the decision- process from an early stage, leading to lethargy later on when they were needed.  Reckitt too had roots in family   hierarchies, but they nurtured their younger generations and saw the need to  recruit senior positions outside the family.  They were open to external
influence on their business, which lead to successful diversification and
growth. Lever / Unilever, on the other hand was the extreme. They transitioned
to a non-family managed hierarchy quickly, which caused its own set of problems,
resulting in too much diversification and lack of marketing focus of their wide
range of products, which were accumulated primarily through acquisitions.  Lever recovered from this mishap, and Colman and Reckitt eventually merged, putting Reckitt, the smaller of the two companies, in the drivers seat.  Today,
these companies have obviously worked out their limitations in terms of
diversification as they remain the two of the largest household products
manufacturers in the world.  Even 100 years ago…if you put the right people in the right positions, they most likely make the right decisions.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interesting in learning about the holistic nature of marketing and how basic marketing disciplines
and principles are the underpinning of all business fundamentals.  Today and yesterday, business decisions are really a function of how we build our business practices, through shared values, understanding the customer, developing processes that aid business success, and hiring the right people.