From my direct PR experience working with Ford (and a previous life as an analyst of the motor industry), there are undoubtedly many myths created about old Henry – but I think you’ll find Levitt is as guilty as most writers of using a case study for his own purposes.

I agree that originally Ford understood the market for a low priced car – and the automated production process was a way of delivering that – but once he had his product, Henry did not respond to customer requirements – or indeed drive them, in the same way that GM did.

In a similar way, Apple and Ryanair strike me less as customer responsive organisations and more as ones that get their products “right”. My point is really that neither focuses on customer relations to the same extent that they use marketing to create a buzz around their products – regardless of the reality of actually how good they are. Classic command and control smoke and mirrors in marketing.

I think your definition of marketing as “the interface between supply and demand” is very broad and encompasses much of management in a variety of other disciplines in there. But then, the delight of definitions for PR, marketing, etc is that you can usually find one to match whatever you want – especially as every book seems to create a new one to meet the author’s purposes.

In respect of John’s point about budget spend on advertising raise the very point about the purpose and value of PR. Any organisation spending huge sums on an area which is not proven to be effective (in the main), has to be asking questions about this. So is marketing powerful because it controls a budget? Or is it vulnerable because of this?

Interesting that as such questions start to be asked, marketing is morphing more into PR’s traditional territory. Especially as arguably the areas where PR works are even more difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship about.

Mind you, look at the money being spent in areas such as designing apps for iPhone and you wonder whether marketing’s ability to allegedly clothe the Emperor aren’t simply continuing.

http://www.media-proinc.com

My reading of Henry Ford comes from Professor Theodore Levitt at Harvard Business School. His marketing classic “Marketing Myopia” makes the case forcibly that your account of how Henry Ford arrived at his production line solution is a popular myth. Henry Ford worked outside in – from the market to production to deliver the right product at the right price. The fact that he might of lost the plot somewhat at some point is irrelevant.

I define marketing’s economic function as the interface between supply and demand, as do the authors of Greater Good. I’ve never read a better definition. I shall look in more detail at marketing as a business and societal force when I review Greater Good fully.

Counter-intuitively, two of the most successful companies right now are command and control freaks and marketing led companies – Apple and Ryanair. Neither one of them goes in for social media conversation the way social media gurus advocate. Both are innovators when it comes to the use of Web technology, connectivity and developing sound business models.

I dispute your assertion that Apple does not thrive on customer feedback. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what Apple learned from its Newton product? Most of Apple’s later success was based on the lessons learned from customers from that product’s spectacular flop.

Apple has a relationship to its customers that only now – many years on – is the PC world trying to emulate. Are Apple’s products better? I doubt it – but the marketing is the best there is.

But they are not the only shows in town. Theirs are but two routes to success.

Secondly, your discussion of marketing is primarily one of marketing communications – but marketing is much more than this. Likewise, PR when you compare it to advertising means solely tactical press relations – but advertising is actually a communications tool that can be used for marketing or PR purposes (among others – eg recruitment advertising for HR purposes). And, we both know that press relations is just one aspect of PR.

What irritates me most though is the implication that marketing = sales. Sales is an expert function in its own right and marketing is one approach (as can be PR) to increasing customer demand and satisfaction.

I also take a bit of issue with you over Apple – and Henry Ford’s motor business – being customer oriented whilst also being command and control driven. Apple may well know how to hit the buttons of many people, but its approach seems to be driven from an internal vision, not really customer feedback. There are many, many issues with Apple products that should have been addressed much earlier than occurs – the company seems largely dragged to respond to customer complaints.

And, Henry Ford was driven by the economies of production – not customer requirements – that’s what opened the door for GM to better respond to customers with more interesting products. Old Henry didn’t much develop his original products for decades (although it is a myth that the Model T was only available in black).

However, overall, like you, I don’t see the value of PR and marketing fighting turf wars. The perspectives of professionals in both areas (along with others such as sales), are needed. But it would be helpful if colleagues in marketing bothered to learn more about the wider remit and perspective of PR professionals.