THERE IS MORE IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH, PROFESSOR KOTLER…
Than Is Dreamt Of In Your Philosophy
I recently received an e-mail from Professor Philip Kotler, author of a
great many books on marketing, in response to my review of his latest book on
marketing professional services. An abbreviated version of that review appeared
on Amazon, which prompted the following response from Professor Kotler. Because
we are dealing with significant philosophical differences about marketing
professional services, and in the best interests of fairness, I am publishing
that correspondence. I welcome, of course, any discourse on this and any article
in The Marcus Letter – or any other
article I write anywhere else, of course. Your comments are invited.
Bruce W. Marcus
On
Bruce:
I am puzzled about your review of Marketing Professional Services. Five out of
six people agree with the 5 star positive review that it received from someone.
Your review suggests that the book is useless and misleading and yet many large
law firms have received our seminars based on the manuscript with enthusiasm.
You also say that the book is loaded with factual and conceptual errors. Could
you share them with us? We would like to improve the book by learning whatever
we can.
My general feeling is that you had a deeper reason to damn the book which I
can't fathom. Also I would never do that to an author and at least I would give
a more balanced review of its good and bad points.
Cordially,
Philip Kotler
I
responded as follows…..
Philip…
You have obviously seen only the abbreviated review in Amazon. The full
review is in The Marcus Letter on Professional Services Marketing
(www.marcusletter.com), my online
newsletter. It will answer your questions about why I reviewed the book as I
did, and list some of the mistakes and inaccuracies you ask about.
It will also explain the reason for my taking the trouble to do the
review. I have been involved with law and accounting firm marketing since 1951
– well before the Bates decision. In The
Marcus Letter, you will see a summary of my background, especially in this
field. I have seen the process change through the years, reflecting an
increasing understanding of the distinctive -- and frequently unique –
characteristics of marketing a professional firm. You will see, as well, many
articles on various aspects of the process, every one of which is written from
experience, not from theory. I write about what works, not what theoretically
should work.
I review a great many books on marketing (see the review in The
Marcus Letter on the book by Larry Smith),
and normally do not review books that I view negatively. However, I’ve spent a
great many years trying to fathom and resolve the mysteries of the distinctive
characteristics of professional services marketing, and I feel that your book,
particularly enhanced by your reputation, sets the process back to the
mid-1970s. Those of us who work with professional firms have a difficult enough
time building marketing cultures in firms and for professions in which
competition, and the means to compete successfully, are not traditional, without
the active distractions of anachronistic theories. That is my “deeper
reason” for the negative review.
Look at The Marcus Letter, which is read internationally by more than 22,000
lawyers, accountants, consultants, and the marketers who serve them. If you have
a rebuttal to my review, I will happily print it, verbatim, in The
Marcus Letter.
To
which he responded…
Marcus:
I will put the following question to you. Suppose a mid-size law firm has had
flat revenue and profits for a number of years. The firm decides that it is time
to create a plan to bring about stronger growth and improved profits. Advise
them on ten steps they ought to take to grow their business.
I would bet that at least 90% of your advice would be found in our book. I would
go further and say that our book would give professionals a marketing mindset,
something beyond thinking about products, prices, places, and promotion. It
would get them to think about what market(s) they want to go after, how to make
contacts, how to gain visibility by joining organizations, giving talks, writing
articles, developing a customer database system, improving their branding,
developing strategic plans, and so on.
In short, I believe that our book would give them useful ideas.
If you don't agree, you are in a minority one, since the book has received kudos
from many lawyers who saw the manuscript.
And let me know what book you would advise this hypothetical law firm to read
that would better equip them with a marketing mindset for developing their
business.
I wish that you had written such a book so that I can see what profound things
that you have to say that we haven't said.
Philip Kotler
And
herewith, my response to him…
My Dear Professor Kotler…
Your questions puzzle me. I, and a great many marketing directors for law and accounting firms, face and solve the problem of building marketing programs every day of our working lives. We solve them with approaches that may, in several areas, appear to be contiguous with your ideas, but hardly use your ideas as blueprints.
Yes, of course a marketing program begins with the prospective clientele at its core. Objectives are indeed defined. Positioning is invaluable – not as you describe it, but as it’s defined in my article (A Fixed Position In A Moving World) on the subject in The Marcus Letter. And yes the tools of marketing are used to meet the firm and marketing objectives. All of this we do, and have done since the Bates decision made marketing viable for professionals in 1977. We do all this and more without reference to the four P’s or the four X’s or the four any other abstract academic theories that are drawn from product marketing. We even deal with pricing concepts, although not as described in your book.
No question that many of the concepts I use and endorse are addressed in your book. But your context is wrong, and the ideas distorted through theoretical views that come from a lack of direct experience and understanding of the unique problems of professionals. Giving advice, particularly to people who have no frame of reference nor tradition of marketing, is easy. Taking responsibility for the results of that advice – which I and most working marketing consultants have always done and must do – defines the validity of that advice.
The secret, which is missing from your book, is that the differences between marketing a product and marketing a professional services must be recognized before any marketing effort can be made. Those differences have nothing to do with intangibility – a constant irrelevancy – but with the nature and culture of the professional. Understanding these differences, and the nuances involved, is crucial. A few specifics, for example...
There is another problem that gives reality to my review of your book. Since Bates, and since you first delineated the principles of marketing you espouse, many crucial things have changed (beyond the obvious effects of technology, which is profound)…
· The nature of the markets served by the professions, and indeed, the entire commercial world, has evolved substantially.
· As experience has accrued in professional services marketing, the nature of practice itself has changed. It is now much more dynamic, calling for greater innovation. Law and accounting firms have learned to compete in ways we never thought possible 20 years ago. Today’s professional services marketers are infinitely more sophisticated than they were just after Bates. Your book, as I suggest in my review, freezes the process as it might have been in 1977 – the year of Bates.
There is some sense of this, by the way, in my article, Ten Myths That Impede Professional Services Marketing, which your Professor Hayes has seen.
As to your other points, there are sophisticated lawyers, and there are unsophisticated lawyers (and accountants as well). There are lawyers who understand the points I’ve just delineated, and there are the naïve ones. Good lawyers and accountants they may be, but sophisticated marketers they rarely are (with notable exceptions, of course). I am not impressed, then, with the fact that there are some lawyers who accept your concepts of marketing. With no marketing tradition, nor true concept of competition, they have no frame of reference.
As for better books on the
subject, there are a great many. There is, of course, the material in The
Marcus Letter, which reflects my own experience (I do not write theory –
but only what I know from experience works.)
No, I’m not a minority of one. I’ve discussed your book with a great many colleagues in the professions. I don’t think I’m even a minority.
As I told you, out of fairness, I’m publishing your rebuttals, including any you have to this response, on The Marcus Letter. I disagree with you, but you have a right to be heard.
Bruce W. Marcus
On
My Dear Marcus:
I want to express my appreciation to you for airing our debate publicly in The Marcus Letter. You are a gentleman.
I would like to respond to your
last letter.
1. You take the word "product" too literally. It encompasses services as well, as in the expression, a "service product." Perhaps a better term would be "offerings." The term product is a shorthand that covers anything that might be produced and offered for sale, such as "physical goods, services, experiences, events, persons, places, properties, organizations, information, and ideas." (See my new 11th edition of Marketing Management, pp. 5-8). Throughout this book, I emphasize how the characteristics of different "offerings" affect how they are sold. I wrote a whole chapter 15 ("Designing and Managing Services") that shows that services must be handled differently than physical products. I go into how services can be positioned and differentiated, how service quality can be measured and improved, and how service productivity can be enhanced.
2. When you talk about thousands of people behind the manufacture and distribution of a product, you again are thinking physical product. American Express, Citibank, and Marriott have thousands of people behind the manufacture of a service. Our book addresses the problems facing a one-man professional firm to law firms that number in the hundreds. Some very large law firms are run on manufacturing principles but this is not our emphasis. In all businesses, people deal with people. You can bet that Boeing's chief engineer is as much a professional service provider who stays with United Airlines (its client) as a lawyer is to his client.
3. You suggest that no one can properly write about marketing professional services who hasn't been a practitioner. In my case, I have been a professional consultant for over thirty years and have advised dozens of professional firms on how to develop a marketing strategy and business plan, including dental and medical practices, architectural firms, engineering firm, law firms, accounting firms, and so on. In this regard, our experience is not much different. I might add that I never thought that experience is a sufficient indicator of intelligence.
4. I agree with you that some very good material has been written on
professional services marketing. I am a fan of
5. I don't think you should imply that the reason a number of professional firms respect our advice is that many professionals lack the sophistication to know good marketing from bad marketing. You know that if you put six economists in a room, you will get eight opinions (and this applies to marketing).
6. You suggest that our book freezes the marketing process as in 1977. I disagree with you. Most professional services firms are frozen in 1977 and our book aims to bring them into the 21st century, showing them how to grow their client base and their profitability.
7. You suggest that companies with physical products can afford to have a marketing department to take responsibility for marketing. The truth is that marketing departments cannot do the whole job in any organization. David Packard of Hewlett Packard exclaimed "Marketing is far too important to leave to the marketing department." Most companies recognize that every employee can affect customer attitudes and satisfaction and all of them must participate in marketing. They must all "think customer."
8. The marketing discipline is a powerful framework to remind people of the variables and forces that affect demand. It is used by firms making physical goods and services and those marketing celebrities, cities, ideas and causes. It is not limited to physical products. Do you know of a better framework for bringing together all the aspects that need to be considered in building growth and profit plans for a professional services business?
9. I still would like to see you list some best advice points that you have given to professional firm that we haven't listed in the book. We would be glad to add them in the next edition.
As I said, you are a gentleman to include our letters along with yours in The Marcus Letter. We hope that you can include this letter as well.
Cordially,
Philip
Kotler
To which I replied…
My Dear Professor Kotler…
One of the things I know from my extensive work in knowledge management I learned from one of the smartest clients I’ve ever had. He noted that different people process the same information differently. A simple, and almost obvious, observation, but absolutely true. And herein lies a tale of the difference between us.
I know quite well what a product is. I know, as well, what a nonprofessional service is. I’ve done considerable work for Citibank and other banks, and for the travel industry. I even understand that there are aspects of professional services that are at least commodities, if not products. Look at the marketing for personal injury lawyers, and for tax services.
But there is no way to equate professional services – for lawyers, accountants, physicians and many consultants -- with products. Simply put, the next tube of toothpaste in my favorite brand will be, I know, the same as the last one. The next matter I have with my lawyer will not be the same as the last, nor will it be the same if I switch lawyers.
More significantly, I can sell toothpaste by brand when the product is the interface, as I mentioned, between the manufacturer and the consumer. That’s why branding works so well with product, but not quite so well in professional services. And while the line between professional and nonprofessional services is sometimes blurred, the differences can be profound. I can sell you a vacation when you hadn’t planned on it; I can’t persuade you to sue somebody just because that’s what I sell. No matter how good a marketer a matrimonial lawyer may be, he can’t persuade a happily married man, to get a divorce. Marketing a product or nonprofessional service sells a product. Marketing a professional service sells a concept, a reputation, a distinction between your firm and others. Nobody ever wakes up in the morning and says, “What I really need today is a good audit.” Or “It’s a great day to write a contract with someone.” This substantially colors the nature of marketing a professional service.
When you talk of the Boeing chief engineer who sells his services, you confuse, I think, professional with professionalism. This is a long-standing debate that I’ve addressed in the past, and that frequently arises. When we speak of professionals we usually mean accountants, lawyers, physicians and some consultants. They serve a distinctive purpose, have specific professional degrees, function under canons of ethics that are prescribed by law, regulation, or professional governing bodies, and serve specific social or governmental needs. It is assumed that they function with a degree of professionalism, both by regulation and law, and with professional pride. Professionalism was best defined by a friend and former client, the head of the then in-house think tank at AT&T. He said a professional – a pro – was someone who was thoroughly proficient in his or her trade. A given, I suggested. Then he added, “A pro is somebody who functions at peak capacity and ability even when he doesn’t feel like it.” And, by the way, not every professional is a professional equal of other professionals.
I think you misread what you take to be my suggestion that no one can properly write about marketing professional services who hasn’t done it. It helps to have not only the experience, but the responsibility for results as well. And intelligence is not a factor here, nor is experience an indicator of intelligence. I never said that. There are accountants and lawyers who are more skilled than others, and consultants who solve some problems and not others. Experience means practical rather than theoretical, although theoretical is often the precursor of the practical. But the two are not automatically interchangeable.
I think I’ve addressed the key points you raise in your note to me, but one. Our differences are not on points of advice, they are in conceptual framework. There are contiguities between the marketing processes for selling a product or nonprofessional service, and selling a service. But there are more significant differences, and they color the ways in which marketing functions for a professional service. I continue to believe that equating the framework for selling a product with that of selling a professional service may do no harm, but it will do no good, either.
Yours,
Bruce W. Marcus
Dear Marcus:
Thank you for including my last letter on your site. I appreciate your
openness and our discussion will be useful to your readers.
Cordially,
Philip Kotler
This has indeed been a useful exchange. And if I remain firm in my beliefs, at least this exchange afforded me the opportunity to reevaluate and rethink them. Thank you, Professor Kotler. See the new article entitled A New Era In Competing For Clients.
Bruce W. Marcus
On July 15, Professor
Kotler wrote….
Dear Bruce:
Thank you for the note. If any of your clients write about our debate, and give their views, I would look forward to hearing about it.
I still feel that while
you rejected the marketing discipline framework, you didn't provide any
alternative framework that brings all the variables and forces into
consideration that face a professional firm. Nor did I see how you would package
your advice to a mid-size law firm wanting "wisdom" on how to grow.
Cordially,
Philip Kotler
And on July 16 he
added…
Now that you feel that
our discussion has "helped develop (for you) an insight into new directions
for professional services marketing," I was wondering if you would be kind
enough to send another customer review of our book to Amazon with or without
your name naming its strong and weak points (if you wish) but giving it a rating
of more than 1.
To which I reply…
Dear Professor
Kotler….
I think you have completely misunderstood and misconstrued my remarks.
Reexamining my concepts and positions is something I do regularly. I enjoy being
challenged, because I try to understand the dynamic of the professions, and the
markets they serve. Change is the only constant, and how we serve the
professions now is considerably different from how we served them in the early
post-Bates years. Marketing in this
distinctive arena is particularly challenging, because of the singular nature of
the professions. If you are under the impression that my basic positions and
views have changed, or in any way resemble yours, then you haven’t been
listening.
I understand that opposing views can sometimes be valid, but I continue
to insist that my original impression of your book remains.
As for your challenge for an “alternative framework”, I refer you to
the extensive literature on The Marcus Letter, as well as elsewhere, and by many
others. My views are perfectly clear. See, for example, my article entitled, A
NEW ERA IN COMPETING FOR CLIENTS. The fact is that there is no one
alternative framework, any more than there is a single bullet to cure cancer or
a single contract for all transactions. Of the very large number of marketing
programs I’ve developed for law and accounting firms over a great many years,
no two are the same in strategy, because no two firms in any profession are
exactly the same, nor are their markets and clientele.
I believe that in marketing a professional firm, there are four basic
points that should be addressed, and included in developing a distinctive
functional strategy for each firm…
· Know
your market. Not merely demographics, but its needs and wants,
relevant to the service you offer.
· Know
your firm. Not merely as an organization, but its structure
to meet the needs of the market it seeks to serve.
· Know
your tools. These are the tools and devices of marketing –
the press release, the brochure, the seminar, etc. They are tools, and not the
marketing program itself.
· Manage
your tools. Use the tools as communications devices to project
your understanding and ability to serve the needs of your market.
These principles work
for me, and have successfully served a great many clients over the years. They
are not esoteric nor derivative theory, they are working tools. They leave room
for a great deal of latitude to serve the needs of a firm, and for original
thinking.
Professor Kotler, the
complex world of professional services is changing rapidly. Those of us who
serve that world must change as well, if we are to stay relevant to the needs of
our clients, as we help our clients stay relevant to the needs of their own
dynamic market.
Yours,
Bruce W. Marcus
I
believe that this debate addresses several important aspects of professional
services marketing. I also think that there may be no last word on this subject. Therefore, any comments from readers will be
published, assuming I have your permission to do so.