Peter Drucker, the historical and essential author of management, was one of the first to approach the concept of marketing in the early 1950s. He emphasized that marketing is not a separate and specific function of the company, but a global approach of the company from the customer’s point of view. In this sense, the marketing concept is close to a specific corporate culture based on a set of shared values and beliefs that put the customer at the heart of the company (Deshpandé and Webster 1989). Today, it is easier to speak of a marketing perspective as opposed, for example, to a product or production perspective that focuses more on the company’s offer and its capabilities.
By holding marketing accountable for the return on investment of its actions, the company and its shareholders have pushed it to focus on and value two major assets: the customer and the brand. Customer equity, defined as the sum of a customer’s lifetime values, and brand equity, are now recognized as key elements in the evaluation of a company. In B2B environments in general and service environments in particular, it is possible to hypothesize that customer equity plays a more important role than brand equity14.
1.2.1.2. The search for a balance between satisfaction and benefit
Marketing and customer orientation are not seen as an expense but as an investment that needs to be skillfully managed by finding the right long-term balance between customer satisfaction and profitability for the company. If it is quite simple to satisfy the customer as it is also quite simple to reach a given level of profitability, the difficulty lies in maintaining the balance between satisfaction and profit. Some people will want to allow the occasional and exceptional “sales opportunity” that offers the company a much higher profitability than customer satisfaction. But this imbalance cannot be maintained over time without running the risk of exposing oneself sooner or later to a competition that, either for the same level of profit, manages to offer the customer greater satisfaction, or for the same level of satisfaction, manages to lower the price with lower profitability. The opposite situation, where satisfaction is higher than profitability, is just as dangerous, since it is difficult to imagine the company maintaining its competitiveness over time with such an imbalance in its profitability.
When managers in B2B environments are asked about the percentage of business achieved at such a fine balance, they are often surprised by the proportion of those who acknowledge that they satisfy the customer more than the company. B2B seems to be much more characterized than B2C by an imbalance between satisfaction and profit in favor of the former. The duration of the relationship, the proximity with the customer, the passion for the job and the technical challenge can explain a lesser vigilance of managers on this balance. By wanting to please the customer, the employee often pleases himself/herself first. In this proximity to the customer, which is the basis of customer orientation, saying no to the customer is often difficult.
However, there are several reasons why a manager might say no to a client:
– financial and economic reasons: in order to achieve what the client requests, it would be necessary to commit resources (financial, technical, human, time, etc.) that would be too great in relation to the expected return;
– technical reasons: the provider is not sure to be able to bring the expected result to the customer;
– safety reasons: what the client asks for carries a risk both for his/her own employees and for the service provider;
– image reasons: what the customer asks for can damage the reputation of the provider.
However, we must distinguish between over-quality and customer delight, because while we must guard against the former, the latter is inherent to customer orientation. The notion of delight appears in the field of marketing through the notions of customer satisfaction and experience.
Customer delight, considered as a positive emotional reaction (Oliver et al. 1997), consists of surprising the customer, in going beyond his/her expectations (see Table 1.1 for illustrations of these differences between over-quality and enchantment).
Table 1.1. Over-quality and customer delight
| Over-quality | Enchantment |
| – A superior performance that the provider brings compared to what is expected by the client or what was agreed upon.– The customer does not always perceive this superior performance.– This performance has no real value for the customer.– The customer is not willing to pay for this performance.– The extra performance does not lead to increased customer satisfaction.– But it can mean an additional cost to the provider (direct or indirect, visible or hidden costs).– Example: cleaning an additional space that was not foreseen in the contract. | – An additional value that the provider brings to its client that is not expected or asked for.– The customer clearly perceives this additional value.– This additional value brings the customer an additional benefit.– The customer might be willing to pay to benefit from this value.– Customer satisfaction is positively (and strongly) impacted.– It may involve additional cost for the provider, but it is a profitable investment.– Example: cleaning a site at the end of an intervention. |
This issue of the balance between satisfaction and profit questions the relationship between the service provider and its client more broadly. In complex cases and relationships where the financial and technical stakes are high, the question of the commitment of the service provider and also of the client arises. The service provider is not the only one involved in maintaining the balance between satisfaction and profitability. This balance will also depend on the client’s commitment to participate, to get involved in the long-term, to aim towards a partnership relationship. This will in turn justify for the service provider the investment in a relationship which, if it can be unbalanced at the beginning, because it requires taking a real risk, turning out to be more balanced in the long-term.
1.2.2. Strategic marketing
Strategic marketing will determine the company’s long-term orientation by deciding on its positioning and its major strategic axes. Strategic marketing relies on a thorough analysis and knowledge of the market and the environment in order to align its structuring decisions.
1.2.2.1. Knowledge of the market and the environment
In accordance with a strategic methodology, the analysis of the environment is divided into micro- and macro-environments. The micro-environment is close to the notion of market and groups together actors with whom the company has regular interactions and who constitute its daily life: clients, customers, distributors and intermediaries, and influencers. On the other hand, the macro-environment has a less direct and more distant influence on the company, but it is just as real and can sometimes be very strong15.
Analyzing one’s environment means first of all locating and identifying each of the actors and then understanding their positions, their evolutions and their strategies in order to anticipate their impact on the company and also to think about collaborative perspectives or the ways in which the company can influence them. This will be the subject of the second part.
1.2.2.2. Positioning the offer
Positioning is the heart of strategic marketing by ensuring that the offer has a clear, distinct and privileged place in the customer’s mind so that it is preferred over competing
