<p>Theodore Levitt's article published in Harvard Business Review says that people do not want quarter-inch drills, they want quarter-inch holes. This line of thought probably emerges from a line of thought which is of the opinion that in order to thrive, a corporation should focus more on the customer's needs rather than the product itself, which is also the essence of the mentioned article. There is a lot of hype around this article which I find surprising, prompting me to ask a question.
Coming to the drill-hole example, it is indeed true that all people want are quarter-inch holes not drills by themselves, this sounds profound in the first instance. People want a solution ultimately, so if a new corporation designs something better than a drill say, a laser tool, then the drill corporation gets supplanted. So what Theodore would say is, the drill company should not be myopic about their role as a corporation, their goal is to create solutions for making holes and not drills so they should adapt to their customer needs. Ultimately, in doing so they lose their identity as a drill manufacturer, so what's exactly the hype about this article, is it just about how big corporations can avoid becoming obsolete by losing their identity ? I am asking is it that, in Theodore's view that the central essence of identity of a corporation is not it's product but merely it's name, as long as company X creates holes, no matter by what tool, it is not myopic ?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-08T07:39:22.093Z
Hi! Having never heard of this example I enjoyed reading your question. I strikes that the anecdote is really weird, as I don't anyone who wanted a quarter-inch hole *as an end product*, rather than say a wall mount.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-08T07:40:16.307Z
Having said that, I am not sure your question is on-topic here, as branding/non-quantitative marketing seems very opinion-based to me.
Giskard
<consumer-theory><corporate-finance><marketing>
Is Theodore Levitt's concept of 'marketing myopia' flawed?
Aditya Prakash
# Is Theodore Levitt's concept of 'marketing myopia' flawed?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-07)

Theodore Levitt's article published in Harvard Business Review says that people do not want quarter-inch drills, they want quarter-inch holes. This line of thought probably emerges from a line of thought which is of the opinion that in order to thrive, a corporation should focus more on the customer's needs rather than the product itself, which is also the essence of the mentioned article. There is a lot of hype around this article which I find surprising, prompting me to ask a question.
Coming to the drill-hole example, it is indeed true that all people want are quarter-inch holes not drills by themselves, this sounds profound in the first instance. People want a solution ultimately, so if a new corporation designs something better than a drill say, a laser tool, then the drill corporation gets supplanted. So what Theodore would say is, the drill company should not be myopic about their role as a corporation, their goal is to create solutions for making holes and not drills so they should adapt to their customer needs. Ultimately, in doing so they lose their identity as a drill manufacturer, so what's exactly the hype about this article, is it just about how big corporations can avoid becoming obsolete by losing their identity ? I am asking is it that, in Theodore's view that the central essence of identity of a corporation is not it's product but merely it's name, as long as company X creates holes, no matter by what tool, it is not myopic ?

**Tags:** consumer-theory, corporate-finance, marketing

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi! Having never heard of this example I enjoyed reading your question. I strikes that the anecdote is really weird, as I don't anyone who wanted a quarter-inch hole *as an end product*, rather than say a wall mount.  
> **username_1**: Having said that, I am not sure your question is on-topic here, as branding/non-quantitative marketing seems very opinion-based to me.  

---

## 0 answers

