Marketing as the cause of the global crisis
Alexey Kudrin, Ilmar Rimshevich, Stanley Fisher, Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Filat, George Soros. What do you think is common to all these people? No, this is not the six leaders from the Forbes list. All these people are united in talk about what the cause of the global crisis is. They agree that the crisis is a reality and they are trying to understand how to get out of it.
The answer to the question is known. The main cause of the global crisis is marketing. In general, marketing is considered by few as a cause of the crisis, but it was he who caused it. How? Everything is very simple. In general, the crisis arose due to the fact that there was a lack of liquidity, in other words, the crisis arose due to a shortage of money. Among other things, this means that it is necessary to analyze a business strategy and modernize it for new conditions.
The lack of money is directly linked to marketing, because money is issued to service transactions for the sale of goods and services. When goods and services are sold a lot, you need a lot of money. When a little, respectively, need little money. Sales volumes are directly related to marketing. The better marketing works, the more goods and services are sold, and accordingly, the more money you need.
Until some time marketing managed its role 100%. He provided such a volume of sales of goods and services, under which produced a sufficient amount of money. Everything worked as a watch. However, recently, marketing has ceased to cope with its role, and this is precisely the reason for the global crisis. Why did this happen? If we consider marketing as something homogeneous, as something immutable, then the answer to the question will not be found.
The situation in the economy has changed, but marketing does not exist and for this reason it does not correspond to it and does not cope with its task.
However, if you take into account the fact that marketing can change, the answer can be found very quickly and easily, because it lies on the surface. If marketing can change, it means that marketing has not changed enough. The situation in the economy has changed, but marketing is not there, and for this reason it does not correspond to it and does not cope with its task.
What kind of changes have occurred in the economy? The answer is obvious – there is a shortage of consumers in the economy, since the volume of sales of goods and services is insufficient. Consumers are simply not enough. There used to be a shortage of goods, but now there is a shortage of consumers. In principle, the occurrence of such a situation is quite logical. At the same time, the shortage of goods was eliminated through marketing.
When there was an absolute shortage of goods, i.e. when they were not enough in principle, marketing 1.0 was applied. He allowed to resolve this issue. Then came the relative shortage of goods, i.e. shortage of goods that best meet the needs of people. Under these conditions, marketing 2.0 was used, which coped brilliantly with its task. Now is the time for marketing noo-marketing, which should help resolve the issue of consumer shortages.
So, it becomes obvious that the cause of the global crisis is that companies did not switch from marketing 1.0 to marketing 2.0 in a timely manner. As a result, they could not create for themselves the right amount of consumers. Accordingly, the number of consumers remained at the same level, and in some places it decreased, as an example, you can take the car market, it has decreased in many countries.
When you constantly read articles about business, you clearly understand that if the number of consumers remains at the same level, then the base for monetary circulation remains at the same level. However, for the economy it is necessary that the amount of money increased in order to be able to finance the development of production and the creation of new jobs.
If you increase the amount of money without increasing the base for their circulation, and the base is the needs of people, then inflation will happen, and it is undesirable to allow it, because it impairs trust in money. To reduce the level of confidence in the money bankers will never go. If earlier the basis for money circulation were goods and services, the amount of which should correspond to the amount of money so that there was no inflation, now the needs of people are the basis.
The greater the needs of people, the more opportunities for issuing money, which serve as one of the tools to meet these needs. But the trouble is that consumers are not created by themselves, someone needs to deal with this. Once a great number of consumers were created by nature, but now all natural needs are already satisfied.