Synopsis: – Article Example

Marketing Plan Similarity and Difference In order to justify the price of doing business, many companies charge additional fees or raise their pricing model on products. The article describes activities of Marks & Spencer, Netflix and Bank of America to adjust their profit expectations to include pricing changes that directly impacted consumers. When companies do not involve customers in their pricing decisions, they are not necessarily rejecting the price itself, but the perceived value of why they are forced to pay higher fees (Bertini & Gourville, 2012). When pricing becomes mechanical in nature and not with consideration about the consumers’ behaviors, they are not able to coerce customers into believing that price changes actually represent superior service or improve relationship development and loyalty. The similarity in this case is the mechanistic method of pricing for profit.
The difference here is that customers maintain more long-term buying power in certain markets, even if businesses think they have the upper hand in setting pricing structure. With media assistance, even if the business is attempting to create value when justifying these new pricing changes, the customer gains rapid knowledge and can thereby cause considerable profit problems when they cancel accounts or boycott products. Even value-added advertisements will not, necessarily, outperform the power of media influence when a business changes their pricing models or pricing strategies.
The analysis indicates strong relationship importance, and these businesses did not consult with customers, but simply raised prices without any real justification. Again, the difference is that value-added proposals may give customers a sense that they are being heard and therefore companies should consider whether customers will perceive that ideals have radically changed and no longer trust the decision-making of their service or product providers.
References
Bertini, M. & Gourville, J.T. (2012). Pricing to Create Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), pp.96-104.