What if Maslow was wrong?
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 10:57 am
To a greater or lesser extent, all of us who work in the world of marketing have used Maslow's pyramid of needs as an argument. A theory of needs satisfaction that is widely used to try to understand why individuals buy and consume.
According to Maslow, individuals have needs and these needs are present in all individuals, and they are also present in a hierarchical manner, that is, some are more important than others, which he represents in a pyramid.
He argues that as the most basic needs are satisfied (bottom of the pyramid), human beings develop higher needs and desires (top of the pyramid).
Generally, it is said that need is the physiological, psychological or social lack or ambition, the tendency to satisfy which provokes the desire for one product or another.
Up to this point I more or less agree.
In principle, needs are neither created nor destroyed (like matter), they are only transformed; and they become desires. These desires appear when the individual becomes aware of that lack or ambition (the need). Finally, desire, when the individual tends to satisfy it, becomes a purchasing motive.
I am not a specialist in psychology, far from it. But I do like to analyse behaviour from a consumer perspective. And since I studied at ETEA (now Loyola), I learned to question everything that is taken for granted, so here I am questioning Maslow's own theory.
According to Maslow, we all consume to satisfy a need, whether physiological, psychological or social. But this really only serves as a basis for us, and as a basis for certain products or services, because it does not work for everyone.
Perhaps Maslow was mistaken when he established his hierarchy all phone number in cambodia and presented it as a pyramid. Or perhaps we, the "specialists" in marketing, are the ones who are wrong when we propose Maslow's theory as the basis for purchasing and consumption behaviour, and we tend to base ourselves on his famous pyramid. But the reality is that in the totality of any purchase or consumption, there is more than one need, there will always be needs of any order (basic or higher), and what determines consumption is not the need itself, but the composition of the structure of needs that covers a purchasing behaviour.
For example, the difference between buying a soft drink in a supermarket, from a vending machine, or drinking it in a cafeteria. It is not the need itself, but how basic needs are related to other psychological or social needs. And if this is so, the hierarchy of needs cannot be represented with a pyramid, but is like a gazpacho in which it is impossible to differentiate one ingredient from another (or one need from another).
I know it's a controversial topic, but there it is; I'll put it forward. Maybe Maslow was wrong, or maybe we are the ones who are wrong when we use his theory to explain consumer purchasing behavior; behavior that, on the other hand, is often inexplicable.
According to Maslow, individuals have needs and these needs are present in all individuals, and they are also present in a hierarchical manner, that is, some are more important than others, which he represents in a pyramid.
He argues that as the most basic needs are satisfied (bottom of the pyramid), human beings develop higher needs and desires (top of the pyramid).
Generally, it is said that need is the physiological, psychological or social lack or ambition, the tendency to satisfy which provokes the desire for one product or another.
Up to this point I more or less agree.
In principle, needs are neither created nor destroyed (like matter), they are only transformed; and they become desires. These desires appear when the individual becomes aware of that lack or ambition (the need). Finally, desire, when the individual tends to satisfy it, becomes a purchasing motive.
I am not a specialist in psychology, far from it. But I do like to analyse behaviour from a consumer perspective. And since I studied at ETEA (now Loyola), I learned to question everything that is taken for granted, so here I am questioning Maslow's own theory.
According to Maslow, we all consume to satisfy a need, whether physiological, psychological or social. But this really only serves as a basis for us, and as a basis for certain products or services, because it does not work for everyone.
Perhaps Maslow was mistaken when he established his hierarchy all phone number in cambodia and presented it as a pyramid. Or perhaps we, the "specialists" in marketing, are the ones who are wrong when we propose Maslow's theory as the basis for purchasing and consumption behaviour, and we tend to base ourselves on his famous pyramid. But the reality is that in the totality of any purchase or consumption, there is more than one need, there will always be needs of any order (basic or higher), and what determines consumption is not the need itself, but the composition of the structure of needs that covers a purchasing behaviour.
For example, the difference between buying a soft drink in a supermarket, from a vending machine, or drinking it in a cafeteria. It is not the need itself, but how basic needs are related to other psychological or social needs. And if this is so, the hierarchy of needs cannot be represented with a pyramid, but is like a gazpacho in which it is impossible to differentiate one ingredient from another (or one need from another).
I know it's a controversial topic, but there it is; I'll put it forward. Maybe Maslow was wrong, or maybe we are the ones who are wrong when we use his theory to explain consumer purchasing behavior; behavior that, on the other hand, is often inexplicable.