Resistance to Change in Marketing - Essay Example

Question Resistance to change is a key challenge for any marketing effort. Overcoming resistance to change involves clear and effective communication targeted at the right people and addressing the right issues. There are many stakeholders who often have an interest in preserving the status quo; and so it is important for a marketing plan to take these stakeholders and their concerns into account when deciding how to best approach a given market. Failure to do this is tantamount to ensuring failure of the marketing plan right out of the gate. There are several key stakeholders relevant to Monsanto's attempt to introduce genetically modified crops in Europe. It is crucial for Monsanto to identify all of these stakeholders and their interests if the company hopes to successfully position its GM products within this market. The Financial Times excerpt illustrates Monsanto's failure to do this early on, thereby making the kind of resistance they encountered likely. It is not at all surprising that their lack of effective communication targeted at those with the greatest ability to make or break the successful marketing of GM products had the result it did. Further, when resistance was encountered, the response was not optimally designed to overcome it; and this basically assured continued and even intensified resistance to the company's efforts. The first stakeholders whom Monsanto needs to take into consideration are the environmentalists such as Greenpeace. These groups are committed to ensuring that GM products do not pose a danger to the environment. For example, they may be concerned that crops that are genetically engineered to be insect resistant could cross pollinate and eventually throw off the balance of the ecosystem by causing the demise of some insect species that feed on various plant types. This could reverberate through the food chain as other animals that depend on those insects end up being deprived of their food source, thus putting them in danger; and so on up the food chain. Another concern of the environmentalists might have is the unknown repercussions of human interference in the genetic makeup of food sources. A second stakeholder group that needs to be taken into account by Monsanto is the European consumers. Ultimately, this is the most important group to win over, as they will be the ones who purchase these GM products. They will influence the decision-making process of the government regulators, the third stakeholder group. Moreover, the concerns of the environmentalists will be muted, as they have been in North America, if the European public-at-large is confident that the science behind GM products is sound and that the risks to the environment and to public health are minimal if not absent. European consumers essentially share the same interests as environmentalists, but couched in a somewhat different way. This stakeholder group expects the products they purchase, and particularly their food supply, to be 100% safe. They understandably want to protect themselves and their families from any potential harm or risk that might be associated with consumption of GM products. While environmentalists are concerned more with the effects of production on the environment as a whole, consumers are more specifically concerned with individual safety. That being said, much of the concern of European consumers regarding GM products is fed by the anti-GM campaign carried on by the environmentalists. The third stakeholder group is government officials and regulators. This group has an interest in carrying out its responsibility to the European public safety. They also have a significant political interest in holding onto power in a democratic system. Doing so requires that they maintain a strong correlation between their own regulatory activities and the will of the public (Minder par. 5). To some extent, this political interest is also tied to the interests of the environmentalists, who also wield political power in the form of campaign contributions and general support or lack of support for various candidates. Therefore, government officials and regulators in Europe, while hopefully wanting to simply do what is right, will no doubt be looking to the will of concerned special interests such as environmentalists, as well as the will of the voting public which can be influenced by those special interests, in deciding what course of action to take. In formulating an effective marketing plan for its GM products in Europe, Monsanto must not neglect to consider another key stakeholder in this process: that is the company itself, along with its employees and shareholders. Certainly Monsanto has a huge interest in the outcome of this process. Investors need to see ongoing growth prospects for the company and a high level of financial performance and profitability if they are going to continue pumping funds into Monsanto's coffers. Breaking into promising new markets such as Europe will be critical to the company's financial outlook. On the other hand, stumbling in that endeavor could result in shaken investor confidence which could spell disaster for Monsanto's ability to fuel its own long-term growth. That is why an effective marketing plan that is well devised to address the interests of all stakeholders is arguably the most critical aspect of business planning. In summary, the main stakeholders relevant to Monsanto's attempt to introduce GM products to Europe are special interest groups, particularly environmentalists, European consumers, European governmental officials and regulators, and Monsanto itself along with its employees and shareholders. Each of these stakeholders has unique interests in the outcome of this process. Nevertheless, all of these unique interests are intertwined to some extent, as the interests of one stakeholder influence those of the others. Ultimately, Monsanto must identify all of these stakeholders and interests, understand how they are interrelated, and effectively address them in its marketing communication plan in order to ensure success. While the company has already encountered a setback brought about by its failure to do this sooner, hopefully the damage is not irreversible. With a well-devised strategic marketing approach, Monsanto can go a log way toward bringing the European market around to an attitude toward GM products that is more positive and conducive to the company's business objectives. Question 2 Monsanto could have developed relationships with all of the stakeholders identified above to give it a better chance of achieving its objectives. Communications would play a critical role in developing these relationships. In fact, a separate communications plan targeted specifically at each stakeholder is crucial to a successful overall marketing strategy. Such a plan would enable the company to get its points and counterarguments across to the right people at the right times, and to couch the benefits of GM products in a way that speaks to the divergent interests of all the stakeholders. Starting with the environmentalists, Monsanto needs to avoid taking an adversarial approach, as this group is instrumental in molding public opinion about GM products. Instead, the company would be far better served by conveying a sense that they are kindred spirits with the environmentalists in their concerns. This can be accomplished by meeting with the leaders of the environmental movement and discussing the extent to which Monsanto has focused on environmental safety when it developed its biotechnology that led to GM products. Monsanto needs to show documentation of the scientific basis for its claims of environmental safety, and be willing to allow environmentalists to review the company's product development activities in order to foster their confidence. Simply showing that the company takes these groups and their concerns seriously enough to engage them frequently, soliciting and valuing their input and feedback, might go a long way toward toning down their anti-GM volume that poses an obstacle to winning over the European public confidence in GM products. To be sure, Monsanto certainly has some environmental points on its side that should resonate with the environmentalists and consumers if communicated properly. There are claims that GM crop cultivation "would lower pesticide use, increase crop yields and promote more efficient land use" (Skapinker 13). The company needs to clearly communicate that the science supporting the concerns about environmental risks is scant, and that these potential environmental benefits far outweigh them. Again, this all needs to be communicated in a consultative and cooperative, rather than adversarial, manner. The stereotype of the ugly Americans coming in like a bull-in-a-china-shop and imposing their will does not help Monsanto. Anti-Americanism in Europe is a major obstacle that needs to be overcome. Any communication strategy must account for this reality, and make a conspicuous effort to appear consultative and deferential toward the concerns of the local community. Much of the approach outlined above would also apply to the consumers. This is the most important aspect of the marketing communications plan, because this stakeholder group's confidence or lack of confidence in GM products will ultimately determine that fate of Monsanto's bid for the European market. The company should start by developing various media advertisements that vividly illustrate the consultative and cooperative relationship it has been able to forge with Europe's most powerful environmental interest groups such as Greenpeace. The power of a TV spot or billboard showing the director of Greenpeace touring GM crop fields with Monsanto executives, or sitting in on corporate discussions, would be extremely potent in affecting public opinion. Similar types of marketing communication aimed at conveying the high degree of concern Monsanto has for public and consumer product safety would also help. It is important for Monsanto executives to be willing to get out into the European media and be interviewed and challenged regarding GM technology. If they can be prepared to articulately answer concerns and convey the benefits of GM products, and to discuss the science behind them in a way that respects the ability of average European consumers to make informed decisions, they will likely win over a large amount of public sentiment. The task of winning support of government officials and regulators will become far easier once these marketing and communication efforts start turning the tide of public opinion in Monsanto's favor. Government representatives are not likely to go against public opinion on this issue unless there is a clear, scientifically substantiated danger to the public posed by GM products. Again, the primary interests of government officials in democratic systems are generally to hold onto power and to act in a manner that protects constituents. If Monsanto pulls the rug out from under the notion that officials are protecting anyone by standing in the way of GM technology, this will pave the final path of successful entry into the European market. Thus, successful marketing and communication efforts described above and focused on consumers and interest groups will do most of the work needed to win over European government. Perhaps a discrete lobbying campaign by Monsanto and its fellow GM companies within the halls of power would be all the additional focus needed on this stakeholder group. Finally, Monsanto's shareholders must be convinced that the company has a sound strategy for moving forward into new markets. This means marketing the marketing efforts. Even if Monsanto remains short of success, as long as it can show a strategy that is highly likely to lead to success within a specific, reasonable time frame, the shareholders should be satisfied that the company is on the right track for long term growth. Shareholder confidence depends on effective management and strategic focus of the company's long term business plan. Clearly, effective marketing and communications activities that are fully aligned with Monsanto's long term business growth objectives are the heart beat of that business plan. Informing shareholders and employees about these efforts grows confidence within the company and ensures that the investment capital will continue to be there to support the plan over the long haul. Ultimately, communication is absolutely key to effective marketing. Monsanto's need to communicate with the stakeholders who will embrace or reject its GM products depending on their interests cannot be shunned. From direct consultations with environmental groups, to media advertisements and interviews, Monsanto would be well served by demonstrating a genuine understanding of the interests driving the behavior of all of the stakeholders impacted in one way or another by the success or failure of the company's efforts to expand into the European market. Question 3 The chosen stakeholder for this presentation summary is the environmental groups: Monsanto shares the same environmental concerns as the environmental interest groups. The company has spared no effort or expense in making sure the process and results of GM product development are environmentally sound. Moreover, GM technology actually has the potential to improve the environment by minimizing pesticide use, maximizing crop yields and promoting efficient land use. Monsanto hopes that environmental groups would consider science as a potential means of furthering their objectives. The concerns about GM products have no concrete basis in science. Yet GM technology holds significant promise for addressing the world's food supply shortage in the face of ever increasing global population. Traditional agricultural production will not be adequate within a few years. Monsanto highly values the input and feedback of environmental groups. As such, the company extends an open invitation to the directors of these groups to participate in Monsanto's decision-making process in an advisory capacity, observe the product development process, and consult with the company's business and marketing planners on how to minimize any detrimental environmental impact about which these groups may be concerned. Monsanto would like to become an active contributor to environmental groups and devise ways of helping their causes that transcend the GM issue. While Monsanto and environmental groups might not see eye-to-eye 100% on the GM issue, the company hopes to foster positive relations with environmentalists through an active campaign to generally assist their mission both financially and logistically. Works Cited Minder, R. "EU Accused of Hypocrisy over GM Food." Financial Times (2006): 3. Skapinker, M. "How Monsanto Got Bruised in a Food Fight." Financial Times (2002): 13. Read More