Redmarketer

June 11, 2008

Marketing = Business

Filed under: Marketing Philosophy — Robert John Ed @ 12:55 pm

Peter Drucker said:

“Marketing and innovation are the two chief functions of business. You get paid for creating a customer, which is marketing. And you get paid for creating a new dimension of performance, which is innovation. Everything else is a cost center.”

For those of you unfamiliar with Peter Ferdinand Drucker, he was a pretty smart guy. And he thought at a different level than most of us did, holistically. I agree with his premise here, but I’d take it a step further.

In my estimation, marketing as a term reflects the entirety of your operations and information flow to acquire profits. Including innovation. Innovation is part of the product or service development process, which is done to find or create value for the end user. Which is why marketing is so important. Everyone working in your organization is a marketer; some just aren’t yet aware. Everything anyone does in the organization is at one time or another meant to add value to the end consumer and increase ROI.

That doesn’t mean that people in marketing are more important than, say, accounting. In fact, it means that everyone’s jobs are that much more equal. They are all working toward the common goal of increasing marketing (business) effectiveness and adding to the bottom line.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. See for some context and clarification. Try searching the page for “function” to see the ways in which he is using the word.
    In using the word function Drucker wasn’t referring to organizational activities, but special purposes.

    Comment by Bob Embry — June 13, 2008 @ 12:11 am

  2. Bob-

    I’m unsure what you want me to refer to for context and clarification? Additionally, I don’t know what you mean by “special purposes” in defining “function.” I first learned of Drucker and this quote in college from this book: http://tinyurl.com/6ogn3c and had thought it was pretty cut and dry.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken in my interpretation, could you elaborate a bit?

    Comment by Robert John Ed — June 13, 2008 @ 12:58 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: