Great post as usual and I love the definition. I’m inclined to agree with Courtney where the focus seems to be personal greed rather than providing value.

I want to expand one section of your comments. We make a mistake if we think we add value. We need to discovered the customer’s value. In the end, it doesn’t make any different what value we see in our product or service. It’s uncovering the value the client sees in the product or service. This is another way of saying, some focusing on our products and start focusing on our customers. Hope this helps expand the discussion.

Sorry — the headline mentioned a new definition of marketing and I took that as being it.

I find focusing on the desired outcome of a process (the Oyster Principle — http://oysterprinciple.com) works very well as a definition. The other components of the process are implied — and would be articulated in a description of the marketing process. But a description is different from a definition, in much the same way that a vision statement is different from a mission statement.

In that sense, it’s no different to the classic, seriously-flawed definition of marketing as “identify a need and satisfy it”. It’s devoid of any implementation (and, in this case, of any emotional dimension) — but a definition usually is. Definitions (in terms of human performance) are usually simple statements of cause-and-effect — what to do and why to do it. Not how.

The implied components would include identifying a need, finding a solution, testing, pricing, distribution, targeting that market (needs define markets) with the most effective offers, using the most effective and affordable media mix, then ensuring that the Three Criteria of Fulfilment (safety, efficacy and value) are met so as to trigger the emotional fulfilment that impels your elated buyers to talk about you enthusiastically to others with the same need.

Excellent post, but for me “everything you do in your business that puts money in your pocket” is just too broad a definition for marketing.

Saving on costs can add more to your bottom line than selling products and services, at least in percentage terms. If your net profit margin is 25% (hah!), every $1 you take in sales revenue adds just 25 cents to your bottom line. But every $1 you save in costs adds $1 to your bottom line… a fact lost on most small and home-based entrepreneurs.

By that definition, saving on costs qualifies as marketing, because it “puts money in your pocket”. (And are we talking revenue or profit? If you’re a typical Internet marketer showing your “income”, it’s always gross revenue, because that’s far more impressive to inexperienced people who don’t realize that after costs — including JV commissions of 75%-100% — are deducted from that $750,000 launch “income”, the net profits can be very thin indeed. I’ve seen launches of that magnitude result in net profits to the individual concerned of less than $3,000.)

I find the most useful — and targeted — definition of marketing is one I formulated almost 20 years ago for my MBA marketing students: “turning your buyers into your most productive, profitable sellers.”

If you can achieve that, consistently, your grasp of marketing is pretty darned solid.

Best regards,

John