Marketing's Lost Frontier
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Markets, Globalization & Development Review Volume 1 Number 1 Article 3 2016 Marketing’s Lost Frontier: The Poor Ravi Achrol George Washington University Philip Kotler Northwestern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/mgdr Part of the Anthropology Commons, Economics Commons, Marketing Commons, Other Business Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Achrol, Ravi and Kotler, Philip (2016) "Marketing’s Lost Frontier: The Poor," Markets, Globalization & Development Review: Vol. 1: No. 1, Article 3. DOI: 10.23860/MGDR-2016-01-01-03 Available at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/mgdr/vol1/iss1/3https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/mgdr/vol1/ iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Markets, Globalization & Development Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Marketing’s Lost Frontier: The Poor This article is available in Markets, Globalization & Development Review: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/mgdr/vol1/ iss1/3 Achrol and Kotler: Poor - Lost Frontier Marketing’s Lost Frontier: The Poor Introduction We congratulate the International Society of Markets and Development (ISMD) on launching its new journal Markets, Globalization & Development Review (MGDR), co-edited by Nikhilesh Dholakia and Deniz Atik. This article’s second author was privileged to have been involved in the Society’s first conference in Istanbul. The Society is positioned to lead what should be among the foremost issues before the world in the 3rd Millennium – bringing the poor and struggling masses into the mainstream of economic opportunity and wellbeing. Both of us authors are honored to write this article for the inaugural issue of ISMD’s new journal. The majority of the peoples of this world have been left behind by the economic miracle of the 20th Century. Seventy-one percent of the world’s 7 billion human inhabitants in 2011 lived in poverty –15 percent lived in extreme poverty earning less than US $2 per day; and 56 percent earned less than the US standard of poverty of $10 per day (Pew Research Center 2015). The 3.2 billion people at the base of the world wealth pyramid, own just 3% of the world's wealth. In contrast the top one percent own just over half of the world's wealth and the top 10 percent own 87.7 percent (Credit Sussie 2013). It is perplexing--why has poverty defied the ingenuity of humans in the 20th century? Why can’t the people who have sent men to the moon, unraveled the genetic code, cloned life, built glittering cities in China in not much more than a decade, why can’t the architects of modern miracles of science solve one of the oldest economic and social problems plaguing humankind? In 2000 the United Nations issued an impressive document called the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) signed by 180 Heads of State. But in May 2005 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the poor countries will not meet many, or even most, of the MDG. The UN’s new Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015, p.6) acknowledges that whereas significant progress was made, progress has been uneven, particularly in the least developed economies, and that some MDG are off-track. The MGD have been superseded by The 2030 Agenda for Stainable Development (ASD) with an even more expansive and ambitious set of 17 goals and 169 targets. So overwhelming is the scope of this document that it will surely provide more grist for the UN’s many critics who have long called it irrelevant and ineffective. For those with a management mindset the new UN document will appear fanciful being devoid of the critical analysis of what worked and what didn't with Published by DigitalCommons@URI, 2016 1 Markets, Globalization & Development Review, Vol. 1 [2016], No. 1, Art. 3 the MGD and why: it is only from such analysis that new vision and goals should emerge. Influential analysts and financial experts like Jeffery Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz and George Soros have expressed opinions that after five decades and over $2 trillion in “foreign aid,” the post-World War II development regime (including the IMF and the World Bank) is in some disrepute and disarray. Maybe it is for lack of determined effort from governments and the community of nations.1 Some like Jeffrey Sachs believe that the solution calls for a vast transfer of money from the West to the poor countries (Sachs 2005). But throwing more money at the problem will be no more effective than the effectiveness of the development model used. It is possible today’s aid programs are designed with the wrong theoretical tools, or at least, there may be more effective ones available. No doubt the problem of poverty is mired in a catalytic web of contributing causes – each hard to break – but collectively forging an almost insurmountable barrier. The causes include scarce economic conditions, chronic diseases, poor nutrition, substance abuse, adverse natural environments (poor soils, drought), minimal infrastructure (roads, water, and electricity), negative social factors (crime, domestic violence, and discrimination), little education, lack of family planning, and so on. The plethora of causes has spawned a diverse set of solutions and a correspondingly long list of international, domestic, and nongovernment intervention programs. The cumulative impact of these, however, has been marginal at best. What impact there has been on the poor is made even less significant in comparison with the huge economic gains enjoyed by the rest of world society. Relatively speaking, and may be absolutely too, the poor have become poorer as the world prospered and the natural habitats of the poor withered, oftentimes as a direct consequence. The solutions and designs of contemporary poverty alleviation programs are based on models derived from conventional economic theory and sociology. But one model, which has been successful in stimulating the consumer societies of affluent nations, is largely absent from the mix. This is the marketing model. As unlikely as it may seem at 1 Critics see this as ridiculously small. Only a few nations achieve the small UN target for development aid of 0.7% of GDP. The Borgen Project, an anti-poverty advocacy organization, estimates the annual cost of eliminating starvation globally at $19 billion a year, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the $1000 billion of annual military spending (Wikipedia online 2007). https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/mgdr/vol1/iss1/3 DOI: 10.23860/MGDR-2016-01-01-03 2 Achrol and Kotler: Poor - Lost Frontier first, the marketing model may offer a viewpoint and methodology that has a better chance of succeeding where others have failed. The marketing approach is part of the more general model of private sector led growth. Indeed there are encouraging signs of significant trickle down effects from economic growth driven by private industry and open markets. Since the 1980s, globalization and global economic growth have had a noticeable impact on reducing extreme poverty. In October 2015 the World Bank projected that for the first-time the number of people living in extreme poverty (earning US $ 1.90 or less a day) was expected to fall below 10 percent. That is down from 37 percent in 1990. Despite this progress, the number of poor people – at US $10-per-day level – remains extremely high, at about 5 billion or 71% of the world population. Moreover, what progress there has been is very uneven. The most dramatic declines in poverty were in East and South Asia where the bulk of economic growth in the past 25 years occurred. China alone accounted for most of the decline in extreme poverty – between 1981 and 2011, 753 million people in China moved above the $1.90 a day threshold (World Bank 2015, 2016). From the 1970s, Marketing has become a dominant force in the corporate world, along with Finance. Its reach has spread far and wide outside of commercial markets for goods and services. True the vast amount of modern marketing is preoccupied with selling more to, and targeting the needs of the working class, the middle class, and the affluent class. But it is also used to meet the goals and satisfy the needs of consumers of nonprofit organizations, social service agencies, museums, health care firms, sports teams, and art galleries. The marketing challenge is that the poor do not have much consumption power, money. A company wishing to serve the poor would have to produce products and services very cheaply, price them low, and distribute them in the least expensive way. For a commercial enterprise this may seem a herculean task bordering on infeasibility. Given the pressures from investors, why struggle to find ways to serve the needs of the poor for meager results when there are many avenues to make larger profits in middle and upper market segments? One solution is that there are so many poor – in Africa, India, China and other less developed economies – that companies could make up for their small margins by the sheer volume of sales. Companies like Hindustan Unilever have risen to this challenge by selling detergent in affordable single-use packets. Another way is to explore shared- consumption such as with mobile phones in certain markets. But the biggest argument is the sum-total argument, the potentially huge Published by DigitalCommons@URI, 2016 3 Markets, Globalization & Development Review, Vol. 1 [2016], No. 1, Art. 3 economic and social dividend from expanding markets to include such a large mass of under-consuming humanity at the Base of the Pyramid. If the lives of poor people could reach their true potential, not only would they prosper, but their prosperity would contribute to the wellbeing of everyone else.