Marketing is more than increasing sales

Another iPhone launch, and another masterclass in marketing from Apple.

Look at how the company executes a pre-launch strategy to build anticipation and generate awareness. Examine closely how Apple uses its retail partners to make the launch events an actual occasion rather than just the start of availability. Study carefully how Apple initially uses premium prices at the outset to maximise profits and communicate exclusivity, and then later as the reference price to discount from in order to drive sales from less involved market segments. But most important, look at how Apple always runs out of product long before the initial launch ends.

Sales managers and finance people must think Apple is insane. Why make less stock than the guaranteed demand? Only marketers, the good ones at least, understand that the success of the iPhone 4 hinges as much on running out of initial supplies as it does on the phone’s sleek new design. By running out of iPhones, Apple actually ensures its product will eventually be more successful. Scarcity keeps its retailers like Vodafone and O2 onside by restricting their supply. It also ensures a vital additional hit of publicity as media coverage of retailers selling out of iPhones underlines both the massive demand for the new product and the continued success of Apple.

The anticipated scarcity also drives thousands of consumers into store to pre-order their iPhone – a vital success factor for a product that is actually (whisper it) little more than an upgrade to a phone that most of these consumers already own. It also ensures essential word of mouth from consumers who did manage to get one of the phones before they sold out. Surely someone last week bored you with the news that they had secured one of the precious new machines or gave you a demonstration of their hot new phone? This is wonderful free promotion for Apple and the sort of thing Google’s Android phone, with its bogof approach, is hardly likely to achieve.

If marketers want their brand to have equity they must avoid the perception that it is available in unlimited amounts to everyone – no matter how many units they actually sell. Apple sold 1 million iPhones last Thursday but, thanks to their limited supply strategy, each consumer who managed to get their hands on one felt like they had obtained something precious and rare. Contrast that with brands like Cadbury and Nestlé, which regularly allow WHSmith to destroy the equity of their biggest chocolate brands by allowing the retailer to over-promote the products at their point of sale. Seemingly every time you head to WHSmith for a newspaper you are pestered to buy a gigantic bar at a discount price from the several towers of chocolate piled behind the sales assistant. These brands might be selling more chocolate thanks to this promotion but they are clearly doing untold damage to their brand as a result.

Too many marketers in companies like Cadbury and Nestlé come directly from sales positions – as their subsequent brand strategies reveal. In many organisations, the senior marketer even enjoys the title of “head of sales and marketing”.  Why not “HR and finance” or “operations and accounting”? These roles have as much in common with each other as sales and marketing. If marketing was the same as sales, we would have called it sales. There is a reason we use a different word. Marketing is a completely separate discipline and, in many cases, a good marketer will do everything in their power to actually prevent a sale if it’s not in the long-term interests of the brand. How could a sales and marketing executive possibly handle that challenge?

Annual

See Mark Ritson appear at The Annual, Marketing Week’s new conference on 29 September 2010 www.theannual.co.uk

Show me a well-managed, successful brand and I will show you a company actively restricting sales from certain segments. Abercrombie & Fitch makes an XL size that most over 30s can’t get into with a blowtorch (trust me, I know). Pret A Manger closes its high street outlets at 5.30pm even though people would still buy from them for another two hours. Chanel makes six rather than 6,000 couture dresses despite global demand. Sloan MIT only enrols 400 students each year to its MBA course even though it gets 10,000 excellent applications. In each and every case, these brands could sell more. But like Apple they know that marketing is a game of chess, not checkers.

Only marketers know that some sales are bad for business. They cost you money. They spread you too thin. They result in inappropriate segments trashing your brand. They are inconsistent with your positioning. Or, in the case of Apple, they will come to you anyway and bring more of their friends if you make them wait for a while. 

So, dear marketer, I ask this question of you: when was the last time you walked away from a sale or worked hard to exclude some consumers from your brand? If you can’t give me an example I am afraid you are not really a marketer, you actually work in sales. The good news is that there are many companies out there that don’t know the difference and would hire you anyway.

Just don’t apply to Apple for a marketing role.

Mark Ritson is an associate professor of marketing and a consultant to some of the world’s biggest brands

Readers' comments (9)

  • This article is fantastic and a great lesson for those sales people, who think that they are Marketers and those Marketers who deeply believe in the difference between Sales and Marketing and fight every day to defend the role and importance of Marketing in organisations. Thank you Mark

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a wonderful article and about time that someone actually explained the difference between marketing and sales to the sales managers who see to direct most marketing activity.

    It's better to sell less for a long time, than sell a lot for a little. As apple demonstrates repeatedly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have done it several times, but then I did learn from your predecessor. Latest example is ignoring social & fun oriented OL casino punters in favour of serious money orineted ones. Critical to making that strategic choice though is good segmentation behind it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It seems like the world needs both the Apples and Cadburys. If you can compete on volume, why wouldn't you? I don't think Cadbury is really set up to be a premium or exclusive company, nor should they be.

    Plus the strategy of low supply at first for more sales later may work when you are marketing a different product version every year, but how would that work with chocolate bars? They have been pumping out the same stuff for decades.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I tend to agree with Scott. What if your target customers appreciate having the product available. Would you hurt your brand if you restrict access on purpose?. For example I hate to find bank branches closed at 5:30 in Australia. When a financial institution launches a new product it would be great if we could stop by after work to discuss it with someone face to face.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Excellent pushback from Luis and Scott, but I still beg to differ.

    I think Apple have bamboozled you too as well. They actually sell millions of phones (1 million on launch day) they just make it look like these phones are precious and in short supply.

    My point is that you can have very healthy sales and preserve a feeling of specialness for the brand. Or to put it in confectionery terms: you can have your chocolate bar, and eat it too.

    Sales that drive the brand, rather than sales that come at the expense of the brand. That's the objective.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks for this - probably my favourite article I've read recently.

    This disconnect, (almost opposite!) between sales and marketing is what was repeatedly engrained on me while studying marketing, but not quite so succinctly.

    It still really annoys me to see companies advertising jobs as Sales/Marketing; zero differentiation between them. I think some of those same companies would be horrified at the notion of restricting sales and passing up 'opportunities' to preserve the brand and protect the segment.

    Unfortunately, there are still too many sales-led companies out there; and it's culturally-embedded.

    I forget which, but some renowned marketing scholar once said "the point of marketing is to make selling obsolete".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When oh when will marketers give sales people the respect and appreciation they deserve by acknowledging the value of successful selling and appreciate the hard work of all professional sales people.
    For too many years sales has been seen as a subservient function to marketing.
    Sales create revenue, marketing consumes it.
    Sales actually produce PROFIT, marketing is only a means to it.
    If marketing was the same as selling it would be called selling.
    The reason a different word is used is because marketing is a completely separate discipline.
    MARKETING IS A GAME OF CHESS not
    Checkers!!!
    SELLING IS A REAL SCIENCE, the art of which most marketers could never learn.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Marketing people create the demand and the environment to make sales. Sales people merely are the mystery black box busters in the purchase decision model.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Job of the Week

Top Jobs

social+media Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
knowledge+bank