Citation:

Ekiru Francis Anno, Christine Faith Khavetsa, Larry Etabo. "Evaluating Myopia in Livestock Marketing Initiatives in Turkana, Kenya: A Transformative Approach to Livestock Commercialization, Value Co-Creation, Sustainability, and Entrepreneurship Orientations" International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 49-60, 2023.

Abstract:

The majority of communities in sub-Saharan African countries, the Horn of Africa (HoA), and Kenya in particular, where 80 percent of the landmass is arid or semi-arid (ASAL), rely on livestock farming for food and income. In the majority of livestock-keeping regions, culture, and traditional values influence how livestock, human, and environmental resources are utilized within varying livestock farming and marketing objectives. The marketing myopia problem of focusing on short-term goals over long-term sector growth is evident in Turkana. Coupled with subsistence farming, the inward-looking approach sustains the intention of accessing markets with less value-added livestock resources for the sole purpose of making sales but not to use consumer needs and market opportunities as avenues for improving livestock production and linking it to various market segments. As a result, a study was conducted in six livestock markets in Turkana, namely Kakuma, Lokichoggio, Lokichar, Kainuk, Lorugum, and Kerio, to investigate: (i) the general characterization of marketing myopia in the Turkana context; (ii) market-based factors causing marketing myopia in Turkana; (iii) the impact of marketing myopia on the livestock economy in Turkana; and (iv) strategies to limit marketing myopia in the Turkana marketing system. Participants (n = 100) included livestock traders, government officials, and livestock policy experts from civil society. According to the findings and conclusions of the study, Turkana is a retarded region due to marketing myopia factors that have slowed livestock output and market access. Significant marketing myopia exists in livestock markets and marketing activity. This is why many livestock markets in Turkana are inoperable, and those that are functioning operate below capacity. Elements of market-based myopia further degrade relationships between supply and demand market forces and stakeholder relationships, reducing connections between livestock production and market systems. The effect of marketing myopia spans crucial sectors of humanity and the market economy of Turkana, i.e., social, economic, and environmental pillars that are essential for fostering livestock programs and constructing effective trade frameworks. The study suggests capacity building among livestock production and marketing stakeholders, commercialization of livestock, the functionality of markets based on systems, value co-creation, sustainability, and entrepreneurial orientations. Building awareness around marketing myopia, restricting nearsightedness, and increasing investments in livestock development would make livestock farming extremely advantageous for Turkana, and livestock-keeping populations would experience the desired socioeconomic shift. With myopia elimination, Turkana herders and entrepreneurs will no longer remain poor while owning large numbers of livestock with huge economic value.

References:

[1] Ali, A., Mancha, R., & Pachamanova, D. (2018). Correcting analytics maturity myopia. Business Horizons, 16 (2): 211-219.
[2] Badot, O., & Cova, B. (2008). The myopia of new marketing panaceas: the case for rebuilding our discipline. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1-2), 205-219. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1362/026725708x274000
[3] Balmer, J. M., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image, and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 730-741. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284443042_Urde_Greyser_Balmer_2007_Corporate_Brands_with_a_Heritage
[4] Balmer, J. M. (2011). Corporate marketing myopia and the inexorable rise of a corporate marketing logic: Perspectives from identity-based views of the firm. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1329-1352.
[5] Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2007). Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue, California Management Review, 49, 132-157.
[6] De Keyser, A., Schepers, J., & Konus, U. (2015). Multichannel customer segmentation: Does the after-sales channel matter? A replication and extension. International Journal of Research in Marketing 32 (4): 453-456.
[7] Edelman, D. C. (2010). Banding in the digital age: You’re spending your money in the wrong places. Harvard Business Review 88 (12); 16-23.
[8] Faulds, D. J., Mangold, W. G., Raju, P. S., & Valsalan, S. (2018). The mobile shopping revolution: Redefining the consumer decision process. Business Horizons 61 (2): 323-338.
[9] Hollebeek, L. D., & Macky, K. (2019). Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer engagement, trust and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing 45: 27-41.
[10] Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engagement through online social influencers: An empirical investigation on sponsored blogging campaigns. Journal of Marketing 83 (5): 78-96.
[11] Iacobucci, D., Petrescu, M., Krishen, A., & Bendixen, M. (2019). The state of marketing analytics in research and practice. Journal of Marketing Analytics 7 (3): 152-181.
[12] Jocz, K. E. & Quelch, J. A. (2008). An exploration of Marketing on Society: A perspective Linked to Democracy, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 27(2): 202-206.
[13] Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing 80 (6): 69-96.
[14] Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard business review, 38(4), 24-47. Retrieved from http://www.eniopadilha.com.br/documentos/levit_1960_marketing%20myopia.pdf
[15] Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., Kim, S. J., & Vandenbosch, M. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management 32 (5-6): 427-444.
[16] Malthouse, E. C., Wang, W. L., Calder, B. J., & Collinger, T. (2019). Process control for monitoring customer engagements. Journal of Marketing Analytics 7 (2): 54-63.
[17] Micheaux, A. L., & Bosio, B. (2019). Customer journey mapping is a new way to teach data-driven marketing as a service. Journal of Marketing Education 41: 127-140.
[18] Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and Society: The link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review 84, 78-92.
[19] Smith, N. C., Drumwright, M. E., & Gentile, M. C. (2010). The new marketing myopia. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 4-11. Retrieved from https://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/inseadwp2009/2009-08.pdf
[20] Tabesh, P., Mousavidin, E., & Hasani, S. (2019). Implementing big data strategies: A managerial perspective. Business Horizons 62 (3): 347-358.
[21] Vakulenko, Y., Shams, P., Hellstrom, D., & Hjort, K. (2019). Service innovation in e-commerce last mile delivery: Mapping the e-commerce journey. Journal of Business Research 101: 461-468.
[22] Villarino, J., & Font, X. (2015). Sustainability marketing myopia: The lack of persuasiveness in sustainability communication. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(4), 326-335.
[23] Wedel, M., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. Journal of Marketing 80 (6): 97-121.

Keywords:

Capacity development. Entrepreneurship orientation. Livestock commercialization. Marketing myopia. Sustainability orientation. Value co-creation.