In response to Pam's post

Pam

Your analogy of the class exercise is a good one. It is very difficult for a single product to satisfy everyone. As you mentioned some of the requests would be impossible to incorporate into a paper airplane.  Look at this link http://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2006-08/most-incredible-knife.  A Swiss Army knife that weighs almost 3 pounds and has 85 tools seems a bit extreme. Rather than go to such extremes, many companies will offer different versions of their product enabling the widest customer base as possible. This doesn’t always work either. Do you remember Pepsi Clear?

Can the marketing concept reach a point of diminishing returns? That is, is there a point at which marketers can offer too much choice to too many consumers (try to satisfy too many needs/wants), or is the proliferation of product choices indicative of successful implementation of the marketing concept?

A perfect example of trying to satisfy everyone is what happened to General Motors. They used all the features of Ansoff’s opportunity matrix; market penetration, market development, product development and diversification to ensure the largest customer base possible by having many strategic business units in the automobile market. At one time names like Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Saturn may have been considered in your decision making process when purchasing a new car. The consumers, being bombarded with the vast choices available in the new car market finally said enough and with low sales volume GM stopped producing these brands. Proliferation and diversification are key elements for a company to grow and be successful. Choices are great but there is a point when enough is too much.

 

Are the differences between a GMC and a Chevy truck enough to keep both brands?