An comment blog post on “susan’s blog” (https://blogs.ubc.ca/susanz/), “really a good offer?”
In summary, the blog post by susan, “really a good offer” was about how a marketer should be the winner but in order to sell, they should make it seem as if they are the losers; this implies that both the buyers and the losers can win in the market whilst having market efficiency.
Such understanding of the implication implication is an unique way to perceive the real world market outcome; marketing is often mentioned as a over simplified and qualitative view of the market, but this concept of how the marketers are the winners that appears to be losers, puts to light to the fact that marketing is quite a pragmatic analysis of the real world market and convinced me that marketing perception of the world is at time more accurate than finance, accounting and economical analysis of the market outcomes.
I do not necessarily agree with this idea but it is intriguing since the whole marketing process is looked at as if it was a competition because this relates marketing to other disciplines of commerce such as managerial economics and managerial accounting.
Without thinking too much, people may think that a purchase of a product is either a win lose outcome or an equal base outcome and it is true to some extent. Take managerial economics; there is monopoly/oligopoly where the buyer loses since there is more power on the seller side due to fact that there is only one or there are a very limited number of companies offering the service and or the product. In the case of a perfect competition, the outcome should be on a equal stand for both the buyer and the seller, since the actual price equals actual demand for the last person to purchase the service or product.
The quantitative discipline is obviously more focused on the market outcome. Marketing, however, takes into consideration of the perception of the outcome of the consumers and the sellers, in other words, utility of the people in the market, it opens up a completely additional new factor for the outcome situation that is not on the financial statement.
Some may argue that it is impractical since utility has little relevance on the performance on the financial performance of the company. I would agree to a certain extent. If you think outside the box, however, the performance of the stock is up to the “perception” of the shareholders and that determines the stock price thus the value of equity and “weighted average cost of capital” of the company.
Considering the above discussion, it makes me think that businesses should utilize marketing more often in the process of quantitatively evaluating companies, although it may seem more qualitative by the nature of the subject field.