Solving the Great Controversy

With the lockdown on and my idle time weighing me down in a never-ending spiral of binge-watching, I decided to put my brain to some use and solve one of the greatest debates in the world of business - does marketing create needs or does it satisfy needs?

Before answering this, let us simply define the elements of this debate. A need is a basic biological motive, which is necessary to fulfill for survival. A want is a need that represents the way society has taught us to satisfy them. Many people confuse satisfaction as the creation of a new need, and thus believe the marketers can do the impossible, create needs out of thin air!

For example, thirst is a biological factor that has to be fulfilled. Marketers teach us to want Coca-Cola to satisfy that thirst rather than, say, milk. Thus, the need is already there (thirst); marketers simply recommend ways to satisfy it. This essentially is the argument used by marketers. They believe that people have an understanding of what their requirements are, marketers themselves cannot create new needs or reduce existing needs, they can only highlight the optimum way to satisfy the consumer. As consumers, we can be swayed into wanting to use one way over the other to fulfill needs but this cannot mean there has been a creation of a new need. Let us take a look at another example, humans have a need to showcase their status quo. Now, Mercedes or BMW is able to sell their product saying that it plays a part in fulfilling that need, and so they are successful in swaying their consumers. It does not however indicate that it is necessary for us to buy the brand for our survival.

Understanding biological factors are complex: there are physiological needs for food, clothing, security, social needs in spiritual intimacy, influence, affection, and personal needs in knowledge and self-expression. It is thus, intrinsic and cannot be created by external factors. It is also said that over time the needs of people change and evolve. I disagree with that statement strongly. For example, we know that human connection and a sense of belongingness are essential to survival. This here is a need. In the era before social media, this need could be satisfied by sending postal letters, and in today’s time, it can be fulfilled by social media. Here, postal letters and social media are just ways to satisfy our needs, we can survive and thrive without them too. Therefore, the needs do not change over time, however, the want to satisfy it certainly does.

Another example with relevance right now would be that of online streaming devices during this lockdown period. I can definitely survive without Netflix (well actually I might go through crazy withdrawal symptoms) but the way it is advertised, and its popularity in society almost makes it seem crucial to existence right? This is just a case of smart marketing. It's the job of each marketer to understand the needs of the customers and use this knowledge to their advantage. By using this knowledge to their advantage, they can highlight that their product is the best way to fulfill a consumer’s requirement. Sometimes, they are able to make their product synonyms with the fulfillment of their need, and it seems like there cannot be another way to satisfy it. Essentially, smart marketers are not creators, they tap into wants and create a demand. The act of marketing doesn't magically create the problem that the product or service will solve, they only point out the best avenue.

To conclude, consumers have the ability and capability to decide whether they want a product or not. Marketing has no power over the consumer in terms of their biological and intrinsic factors but can be used as a means of product selection from the platter served to them. Now, the next time you consume a product, figure it out for yourself, is it a need or a want?

- Sanaah Khurana