The paper "Separating the Creation of a Value into Goods Marketing and Services Marketing" is a great example of marketing coursework. “ There is no reason for services marketing to be a separate area of marketing. All marketing deals with is the creation of value by the organization and the consumption of value by individual consumers. Separating the types of the value creation process is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to a simple process. ” Introduction While services marketing paradigm makes use of such characteristics as the inseparability, intangibility, heterogeneity, and lastly, perishability of services to differentiate them from goods and use different approaches to marketing services, none of this is necessary if a value cannot be seen by customers (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004).
It follows that if the seller does not make a buyer see value in a proposed service or good, then that marketing strategy or move, is different from those that do, regardless of whether it is a good or a service being proposed to the customer (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Services provide benefits to buyers via temporary possession or temporary access, as opposed to ownership seen with goods (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004).
Payments for services are in the form of access fees or rental fees. This makes many marketers view services differently, and package them differently than they would with goods. This approach has its implications and various opportunities arise (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). For instance, some quarters of the marketing business propose that goods be marketed following the service format (Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Over time, in marketing efforts have been made to bring goods and services into one sense of commodity referred to like the product.
In which case it would make it advantageous to bring about the amalgamation of value creation and value consumption into marketing (Carlson, Grove, & Dorsc, 2003). However, the term product has been unsuccessful in its fulfilling of the representation of both goods and services (Lovelock, Patterson, & Wirtz, 2014). In most cases, when the term product is used it refers mostly to goods and only to services in a few distinct separate cases. As such, it is definitive that goods and services are two distinct commodities that are offered from a seller to a buyer in the intent of fulfilling a specific utility value.
In this case, it is arguable that the service and the good offer different forms of utility that can only be satisfied separately and in unique ways. When a supplier offers a good or service for sale to a consumer they offer just the aspect of value proposition. It is on the part of consumption by the consumer does value actualization actually occur. Resultantly, value is a co-creation outcome between the intent of the seller to satisfy a need and the willingness of a buyer to purchase that satisfaction (Park & Ha, 2015).
The fact that goods and services target the satisfaction of different needs means that they provide different forms of utility. However, the utility that they provide is only known to the seller and to the consumer only at the time of actual purchase and consumption. So in marketing, a good or service it is up to the seller to make known to the buyer the actual utility they are presenting.
This entails going into particulate detail on the service or product they are offering. The marketing of a good or service requires delving into the detail unique particulars of the item and connecting it to the utility need of the consumer (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). It is only through the separation of goods marketing and service marketing can a seller be able to present the consumer with a direct connection of the item they are offering, its utility, and the specific need it is meant to target in the consumer.
Abimbola, T., 2001. Branding as a competitive strategy for demand management in SMEs. Journal of research in marketing and entrepreneurship, 3(2), pp. 97-106.
Bitner, M. J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing, pp. 57-71.
Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L. & Morgan, F., 2008. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50(3), p. 66.
Brady, M. K. & Cronin Jr., J. J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of marketing, 65(3), pp. 34-49.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J. & Dorsch, M. J., 2003. Services advertising and integrated marketing communications: An empirical examination. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25(2), pp. 69-82.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics, 41(3), pp. 393-408.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. C. & Sudharshan, D., 2000. The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of service research, 2(4), pp. 355-371.
Grace, D. & O’Cass, A., 2005. Service branding: consumer verdicts on service brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), pp. 125-139.
Lovelock, C. & Gummesson, E., 2004. Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of service research, 7(1), pp. 20-41.
Lovelock, C., Patterson, P. G. & Wirtz, J., 2014. Services Marketing. Sidney: Pearson Australia.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R. et al., 2012. Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research.
Naipaul, S. & Parsa, H. G., 2000. Supplementary Services as a Differentiation Strategy: An Empirical Investigation of Lovelock's Model in Tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1(1), pp. 67-80.
Park, J. & Ha, S., 2015. Co-creation of service recovery: Utilitarian and hedonic value and post-recovery responses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), pp. 83-96.
Yap, K. B. & Sweeney, J. C., 2007. Zone-of-tolerance moderates the service quality-outcome relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(2), pp. 137-148.