what i _shouldn't_ write for my Marketing response; but want to sooooo bad
“About one-half of a buyer’s dollar goes to pay the costs of marketing.” (18) If you could eliminate all marketing costs for a $1.00 package of Wrigley’s Chewing Gum: 1) Would the consumer’s price drop? Explain. 2) Would the consumer be better off? Explain.
If one were to take a product, such as Wrigley's Chewing Gum, and disect the process from the beginnings of the business to the product in the hot hands of consumers; it would rapidly become overwhelmingly clear how vital to success even just the smallest attention to the theories and concepts that come together in Marketing are. To ask whether or not marketing costs even could be eliminated is tantamount to simply saying, 'maybe we shouldn't even be selling gum.' Marketing costs encompass 50 to 60 % of the buyer's dollar for a reason. There has to be packaging, the packaging has to reflect the right 'mood' to the consumer; for instance, on the internationally recognized 'DoubleMint' gum packs, everyone knows that the logo has a nice crisp arrow in shades of green, white and just the smallest hint of red. These colors make us think of wintery, minty candies; of the green leaves of the flavoring- everyone hums the cheerful tune~ 'Double You Pleasure; Double Your Fun,' or has heard of the 'DoubleMint Twins.' Even the powdered foil liners are a result of Marketing; the stay fresh packs, the things that the product couldn't exist without. Each of these things comes from years of market research, consumer feedback and a long standing company firm in it's foundations in the candy industry.
Suppose one could eliminate the marketing costs because of this establishment in the industry. If a business were to only focus upon eliminating costs; eventually the product would change and loose the quality to which had driven it to the top. If marketing costs were removed, there is a chance that on something as impulsive and thoughtless as a $1.00 pack of gum that the cost to the consumer would not change. Wrigley's would have no way of knowing if the consumer was dissastisfied with the cost of the product without their marketing data; and they would also fail to attract new business to their brand from lack of promotion; also a marketing cost. The popularity of their gum would wane; and Bubbilicious would indubidably inch ever closer to becoming the next 'top gum.' Also, a company that is going to pinch every penny from their business is not going to lower the cost of an end product when they have established a market prime for it. Wrigley's eliminated the .25 cent 5 stick packs in favor of more expensive 18 stick packs many years ago; and to muck around now with their successful product to acheive a .50 cent pack would out the consumer mind in a bind wondering about the costs and profits; any kid can tell you that their first real consumer quandrance was how to stretch each cent of hard earned 'allowance' to the highest possible yeild of candy; including how many pennies each piece of gum costs in each kind of pack.
Would the consumer be better off if the Marketing costs were eliminated? In the case of a brand as strong as Wrigley's, to say 'yes' would be very shortsighted indeed. In every market, as we know from years of Marketing, there is close competition for each consumer dollar. Nostalgia will carry a brand for a time; but if the brand fails to update themselves with the generations of consumers and the ways they want their dollars to stretch, they will find themselves scrambling to rebuild; like sailors pumping out a sinking ship. The consumer would eventually fall into dissatisfaction and abandon their loyalty to the gum to seek out a brand that does seem to know what they want; minty fresh breath and the savior to their peers because they always are carrying delicious, top-ranked gum. Who doesn't love spreading good breath? If Marketing were no more, gum would become no more, and we would all asphixiate upon the Halitosis thick air. That doesn't sound better off to me. Does it to you?