Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Hamilton
New Zealand
The Social Value of a!"etin#$
%!id#in# &!actice and Theo!' (' Inte#!atin# the )i*ci+line*
Richard J Varey
University of Waikato
)e+a!tment of a!"etin#
Wo!"in# &a+e! in a!"etin# ,-./0
June 1996
Richa!d 1 Va!e'
Department oI Marketing
University oI Waikato
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton
New Zealand, 3240.
Email: rvarey@waikato.ac.nz
Abstract
An attempt is made to deal with a number oI issues concerning the social context oI and social
construction oI 'marketing' as a management technology and a social process and institution.
Just as consumer behaviour has become a legitimate part oI marketing theory, and marketing
education so should consideration oI the social role oI the marketer and the social value oI
marketing. An eclectic range oI literature sources is combined with the experience oI the
researcher, in the hope oI sparking some new dialogue and research directions.
The author attempts to overcome the partisan view presented in many marketing texts by
revisiting other Iields oI thinking which have contributed ideas to the marketing discipline.
Thus evidence oI the need to develop a convergence oI marketing, social sciences, human
resource management and ethics will be presented Irom eIIorts to get close to the reality oI the
Iield, through a Iorm oI 'Delphi' research involving a range oI specialist perspectives.
It is argued that marketing thinking is still too narrow and that micromarketing and
macromarketing ideas go hand in hand to give the theorist and practitioner a more balanced
perspective on their craIt.
Ke' Wo!d*
marketing institution
managerial technology
social process
marketing ideology
1E2 3la**ification
M31
2
1. An A++lication4Theo!' 5a+ 4 What i* a!"etin#6
Like Total Quality Management, the marketing concept is easily understood intellectually and
engenders enthusiastic exhortations amongst the initiated, but the accepted model oI
'marketing orientation' is not universally applied and eIIorts to do so oIten Iail. Comparison oI
abstract marketing theory and the reality oI what marketers do in practice reveals a
considerable 'application gap'. The 'pragmatists' and 'purists' in the realm oI marketing remain
divided, and there is little constructive dialogue. It has been suggested that the tools and
techniques oI marketing are advancing at a rate which outstrips the ability oI marketing
specialists, and especially generalists, to use them (Ferber in Fisk 1971). There are just too
many ideas to deal with within any Iormal education programme. In addition, the inIormation-
centred educational philosophy which has prevailed has largely Iailed to present the technology
and social nature oI marketing in its broader social context, that is, beyond a business setting
(Boddewyn in Fisk 1986).
The accepted model oI the economic process oI marketing is well understood. Needs oI
individuals cause them to want products and services which provide value and satisIaction and
demand is created. This leads to exchange, transactions and relationships between two parties.
On a macro level markets are deIined and in order to eIIect the distribution oI production
output marketing and marketers are needed (Kotler 1991:4; Kotler and Armstrong 1991:5).
This rationality oI consumption is a well-established view which is taken Ior granted in most
texts and courses in marketing and marketing management. This is illustrated by a recent
deIinition:
Marketing consists oI individual and organisational activities that Iacilitate and expedite
satisIying exchange relationships in a dynamic environment through the creation,
distribution, promotion and pricing oI goods, services and ideas` (Dibb et al 1994:4)
The traditional 'marketing rationality' is apparently based on continued assumptions about
the validity and appropriateness oI economic values and models. Marketing theory is supposed
to provide explanation and prediction oI want-gratiIying economic activity, in which
consumption is assumed and consumer choice, demand, and producer competition are
assumed to be good` things in society. But to what extent does marketing theory show the
relationship oI these economic distribution activities to other aspects oI human behaviour and
social organisation? Traditional` marketing, as currently taught, largely concentrates on
products and proIits and deals with the social humanistic dimension only to the extent that
people are caste as consumers or marketers. Only recently have 'socio-economic' imperatives
entered the mainstream texts in the Iorm oI discussion oI quality and ethics.
Kotler, amongst others, has looked beyond the realm oI business to the wider social
context:
3
Marketing is a social and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain
what they need and want through creating, oIIering, and exchanging products oI value
with others` (Kotler 1991:4)
But even such enlightened writers as Kotler and Armstrong, who have described the
marketing concept as a philosophy oI service and mutual gain (1991:627) have not gone as Iar
as Lazer and Kelly's (1958) social conception oI marketing.
Marketing is easily recognised by most students as a business activity but Iewer would
recognise marketing as a social theory (Watt and Mathews 1991). This alternative paradigm
was discussed in the 1960s and 1970s and may be about to reassert itselI in the sense that
marketing is:
a pattern oI the way oI liIe which society has adopted. It is a social institution, an
economic Iunction, a business undertaking, a consumer oriented service` (Bartels 1970).
It is important Ior students oI the marketing discipline to recognise that the marketing
concept is a normative proposition that can be derived Irom the theory oI competitive
rationality (Dickson 1994:16). This is not based on an ethic or moral value system that is
Ireely chosen. The Iirm has no choice but to adopt it, iI it wishes to succeed in a market
economy. But the dominance oI economic thinking has obscured what Fisk (1971:2) has
described as the organic quality oI all human behaviour, including that oI marketing`. The
marketing discipline is clearly dependent upon the ideology oI the competitive model oI
capitalism and consumer sovereignty (Smith 1987:508).
Much oI what is taught and researched, as distinct Irom what is done by businesses, is
based on, Irom its economic origin, the capitalist model oI competition, and teachers, writers,
and consultants may not be aware oI alternative models. According to the competitive model
the individual's pursuit oI selI-interest results in the welIare oI the community. However, selI-
interest tends towards short-term 'satisIactions' which may have long-term (and possibly
irreversible) costs in terms oI losses such as ecological damage and psychological
disturbances, and may cause unethical decisions.
Marketing theory and practice are distinct and separate and upon inspection are not part
oI each other. Marketing Iocuses in practice on the interests oI the producer when in theory it
should address the interests oI both parties in markets. Smith (1987:502) Ieels that marketing
and consumer sovereignty are contradictory. He suggests that the latent Iunction oI marketing
is to make the activities and power oI business acceptable to society by proclaiming that
control rests with consumers. Thus Iavourable attitudes to private capitalism, which distributes
power, wealth and prestige, are achieved (Smith 1987:502). Thus the ideology oI marketing
seems to mask sources oI guilt over dubious practices in presenting a structure oI ideas and in
legitimating some people's interests. Smith questions whether the widely held belieI that
4
consumer sovereignty is the basis Ior marketing thought and action is supported by evidence
(op cit. p.503).
78 The Economic and Social Value of a!"etin#
Most marketing literature describes marketing as a social process, and then treats it as a
management technology (Fisk 1986:ix). There is a dichotomy in marketing between the
supposed satisIier oI consumer needs and a Iorm oI consumer exploitation through the
invention oI unreal needs and wants. On the one hand marketing provides value to the
individual as a consumer and thereIore to society, whilst on the other it persuades and
manipulates Ior the beneIit oI the producer.
According to Bartels (in Fisk 1986:41):
The issue is whether marketing is an economic technology responsible to
markets Ior distribution oI goods and services, or an institution responsible to
society Ior meeting those consumption needs in the context oI society's ethical
and spiritual expectations`
Much oI economic theory has concerned the resource allocation behaviour oI Iirms in the
19th century and sought to apply a doctrine oI competition and an ideology oI social
improvement through the pursuit oI individual selI-interest, although material enrichment may
not be the raison d'tre oI human existence (Kempner et al 1976). Economic values centre on
perIormance measured by monetary proIit, saleability, return on investment, growth, and
expansion though competition. Economic concerns Iocus on whether something yields a
monetary proIit. This is a Iragmentary judgement which seems to ignore all other aspects oI
liIe, is short-term, and ignores man's dependence on the natural world.
Much oI our decision-making assumes the need Ior continued economic growth and a
management belieI in the need Ior growth in consumption has become embedded in the ethos
oI our civilisation` (Kempner et al. 1976:204). Mishan (1969:111) has identiIied in managers
a propensity to keep their eyes glued to the speedometer without regard Ior the direction
taken`.
Marketing writers have sought to promote an explicit connection between competition,
customer service and selI-interest so that competition is seen as Iorcing a seller to serve the
interests oI consumers. But direct beneIits to some may impose social costs on others.
Thinking on competition in markets is largely restricted to product attributes and price. No
consideration is then given to the social impacts oI the organisation's activities. The consumer
is not sovereign over these 'external' costs (Smith 1987:506). Competition encourages
consideration oI direct beneIits to the selI and organisation, and there are increasing calls to
consider the wider interdependence between parties in a social system and to consider whose
goals are being served (see, Ior example, Doyle 1994). II we are indeed now dependent on
5
markets Ior the sustenance oI modern liIe are we trapped in a 'vicious cycle' in which
economic values alone must prevail?
98 3on*ume! Need*: Want*: Value and Sati*faction
Do marketers satisIy real needs or manuIacture desire? Do the capitalist imperatives oI
expansion, proIit and competition necessarily lead to a shaping oI what consumers think they
want and need in order to Iit what is produced? Have marketers an overriding vested interest
in creating and increasing consumption, including non-essential consumption (i.e. excessive
consumption)?
Is the economist's view oI 'added value' a demand-led short-term reactive view geared to
current needs rather than a Iuture and investment orientation (a supply model). Who gains
Irom excess product beneIits, Ieatures and perIormance beyond pure use value (utility)? II
Iinite resources are wasted in producing under-utilised products, Ior example some Iorms oI
packaging, is there mutual gain or a selI-serving attitude? Are consumers exploited? Providing
customer satisIaction is a means to achieving a company proIit objective and thus does not
imply protection oI the consumer's welIare` (Bell and Emory 1971).
Buttle (1989) has suggested that a need is an internalised state which serves to motivate
behaviour when aroused to a critical point` and that they are the requirements oI living a social
liIe. Leiss et al (in Buttle 1989:20) suggests that modern liIe is shaped partly by the actions oI
marketers:
... marketing and advertising... teaches us how to live any given sort oI western liIe`
Kempner has suggested that in the developed world 'needs', when deIined in conventional
terms, are now largely imaginary (Kempner et al 1976:200). Needs are perhaps no longer
individually but socially determined when people compare themselves with others (Kempner et
al 1976).
It has been suggested that the market has limited scope Ior dealing with collective needs
(Ward and Dubos in Kempner et al 1976:214) and better serves the individual's selI-interest.
Further Kempner believes that economic thinking Iails society because:
the deliberate stimulation oI dissatisIaction with one's existing standard oI living is an
integral Ieature oI modern consumer capitalism (Kempner et al. 1976:79).
Marketers may not have a clear view oI their role in deIining and satisIying wants as
distinct Irom needs when they pressure partially ignorant consumers through their propaganda
(Carter in Kempner 1976:237).
;8 The 3o*t of <5ood< a!"etin#6
6
Since the satisIaction oI consumers' wants is the economic and social justiIication oI a
company's existence (Stanton 1964) then measures oI marketing success have emphasised
demand stimulation and producer proIits. But is want satisIaction through the generation and
nurture oI material consumption a social welIare gain or just an economic gain by the
producer? EIIectiveness measures have gauged perIormance according to the degree oI goal
attainment and have not included the costs oI securing the goals, which must be related to the
costs incurred by others.
Nason (in Fisk 1986) has discussed the notion oI a 'social cost-beneIit' which requires
businesses to consider the consequences oI market actions. Whilst micromarketing Iocuses
attention on the perIormance oI the Iirm, macromarketing requires a wider view oI market
transactions which may have Ioreseen and unIoreseen eIIects. These eIIects may be direct to
the parties to the transactions or indirect to all other parties (who are then unwitting
stakeholders). These <e=te!nalitie*' can have positive or negative eIIects.
Consumption-based culture is dysIunctional and marketing has encouraged and
conditioned us with the desire Ior new and convenience goods. Some practices have
detrimental social eIIects on individuals and society (negative externalities), and an increasing
recognition oI the costs oI technological advances will throw into question the balance
between the social value and beneIits oI marketing technology and systems (Cox 1962) and
the resulting social costs, such as Iinancial losses, dissatisIaction, health and saIety problems,
resource depletion, or discrimination. The marketing literature has Iocused largely on
environmental eIIects on the marketing exchange rather than the eIIects oI the exchange on the
environment (Robin and Reidenbach 1987:47). Future economic and political decisions will be
controlled partly by concerns Ior our physical environment and, in turn, these will aIIect what
we think we need in our daily lives (Stanton et al 1994:xxiii).
Economic growth does not necessarily translate into better quality oI liIe and selI-interest
may be incompatible with broader social objectives because it largely ignores long-term
interests. Economic eIIiciency, consumer sovereignty, and business Ireedom oI enterprise are
implicitly assumed to be more important than public welIare and are based on material
aIIluence goals. The Iuture environmental goals will (have to) transcend economic goals and
severely constrain them as resource allocation by the market mechanism continues to decline
relative to the total oI Iinite resources used (Fisk 1971:447).
>8 %alanced Value* fo! a!"ete!*
The student oI marketing technology may not deliberately behave anti-socially since:
personal and organisational value premises that underlie a manager's decisions typically
have not required him to consider systematically the overall social consequences oI
business actions` (Gelb and Brien 1971).
7
Parties to a transaction tend to serve their own interests with imperIect knowledge oI
possible or likely eIIects on themselves or others. However, some consequences are known
and Ioreseeable by the transacting parties prior to a transaction.
The traditional business ideology or cultural assumptions based on economic values oI
proIit, eIIiciency and growth may not be ethical and can be contrasted with a managerial
ideology oI social responsibility which recognises the importance oI social values. Moral
worth is determined by the consequences oI an act, such as a net increase in well-being or
welIare within society and eIIicient use oI the means Ior enterprise and society. There is a
growing need Ior 'social accounting' which requires macromarketing thinking beyond the
short-term proIit goals oI a single organisation.
Society expects business to provide economic goods and services eIIiciently but
traditional marketing rationality based on economic values can mis-allocate resources and
distribute beneIits unIairly. There is a need Ior the convergence oI societal values and systems
with those oI privately owned and conducted enterprise by considering the social
consequences oI marketing policies, decisions, and actions, and by considering markets and
marketing activities within a total social system.
Cox (1962) was concerned that:
the social problem oIten becomes one oI seeing how individual people with their
selI-centred interests tied into narrowly circumscribed units can be induced to seek
social objectives broader than their own immediate wants`.
This has remained an oIten not discussed central issue.
In a humanistic perspective the decision Iramework oI marketing explicitly incorporates
the subjective assessment oI relationships and other criteria oI a social and an environmental
nature. Thus marketers' thinking would include value judgements on the social beneIit oI their
intended actions, multiple perspectives, aesthetics, and recognition oI their own attitudes on
long-run sustained social behaviour and ecological balance. The manager would be 'mindIul'
(Langer 1989). The practice oI moral deliberation, which requires careIul reasoning in which
the consequences oI decisions are outlined and given appropriate consideration would be more
prevalent. Marketers would decide on their own 'social contract' Ior which:
marketing planners have to decide whether they live in a society where they are expected
to care about the welIare oI others' (Dickson 1994:209).
Marketers have to consciously decide whether their social responsibilities are to be
IulIilled in the pursuit oI traditional objectives oI proIit and growth or by a more socially
conscious approach to business practise (Kempner et al 1976:11). The latter requires the
intentional design oI marketing activity to gain the desired ends, and marketing and
consumption are means and not ends. Cox (1962) recognised that the 'economic entity' (the
8
Iirm) is a means to society's ends, but individual managers may not have considered this. For
this to work we need perIormance criteria, rather than market directed resource allocation,
which recognise a combination oI group interests.
II the well-being oI society is not only determined in economic terms, the means to human
ends should not be allowed to Iocus only on economic criteria` (Nason in Fisk 1986:290).
Added social value in marketing activity must be seen as the net result oI total stakeholder
value less total social cost. Kotler reIers to this as societal delivered value (1994:38) and
requires that short-run and long-run value and costs to all parties are included in assessments
oI social value.
Much education and training in business management concentrates on only one
perspective, that oI the manager and the business, and largely ignores the society in which the
enterprise operates. The manager may not develop a deep personal integrated understanding
oI the enterprise and its impact on society as they are encouraged to concentrate on how to
do it right`. Means and ends are not clearly deIined, delineated, and understood.
Individual marketers must practice a 'social conscience' in their dealings with customers
and other stakeholders to their enterprise. This requires recognition oI their views oI
themselves, oI others, oI organisations, society, nature, and the universe! (Kotler 1994:167-
90). Both micromarketing technology and macromarketing social issues must be understood
and integrated in a personal philosophy oI 'good' business practice. A balance is required
between consumer want satisIaction, company proIits and other economic perIormance
objectives, and the public interest in improvement oI society's well-being. This requires
decision-making which includes society's interests and marketers will have to consciously
increase the breadth and time dimensions oI their marketing goals.
Whilst we should seek the application oI a concept oI enlightened marketing (Kotler and
Armstrong 1991:637) which sees marketing as consumer-oriented, innovative, value-building,
and societal with a sense oI mission, it is essential that we realise that we cannot simply
abandon our commitment to economic values. What is needed is a balance between social and
economic values. This is a role Ior ethics and morals in marketing and requires a greater
awareness oI assumptions oI marketing based on competitive capitalism model and
alternatives. Marketers will have to be enlightened and mindIul. A business ethic is perhaps
nothing more than a socially conscious way oI conducting business. This will be aided by a
shiIt Irom the me` society to a we` society.
OI course, as scholars oI the early marketing literature can point out, normative
judgements oI a 'social marketing' concept are not new. A concern Ior the societal impact oI
marketing actions and systems has been discussed and early writers were oIten accused oI
being insuIIiciently managerial (Hollander in Fisk 1986:20).
9
08 Unde!*tandin# the Social 3on*t!uction of <a!"etin#<
II marketing is indeed a social process then the personal constructs and meanings oI the actors
need to be understood beIore any measurements oI patterns oI behaviour are worthwhile. The
'reality' oI the process and its participants must be observed with an 'insider's account' rather
than Irom the perspective oI an 'objective' researcher who tests pre-knowledge. The crucial
role oI employees, many oI whom do not recognise themselves in a marketing role, must be
understood Irom their perspective. This requires a particular research data generation and
interpretation approach.
Needs, wants, Iashion, status, value and other marketing concepts are social constructions
as is the exchange process upon which marketing theory is Iundamentally (some would argue
Ialsely) based. The question remains, whose construction rules? The positivist approach oI
measuring given patterns assumes too much about the nature oI the phenomena and cannot
get beyond a superIicial level oI understanding and Iails to take the view oI the actors.
We need a view which encompasses the totality oI a situation Irom multiple perspectives
in which the observer interacts and concepts and theory are built Irom generated data. This is a
much more reIlexive approach which at least stands some chance oI Iinding out something
new about the 'application gap' in the Iield oI marketing. This can be achieved by mapping the
domain oI marketing as a social phenomenon.
?8 a!"etin# @ A Value42aden 2an#ua#e6
Interpretative study is needed Ior the study oI marketing as a human and social 'science' which
is driven by human interests. We cannot continue to ignore the role oI personal values and
belieIs in the application oI theory. We teach supposedly objective (i.e. value-Iree) marketing
technology, but Iail to deal with the values oI the individual theorist and practitioner. It is not
always clear to what extent the implicit economic values and assumptions oI marketing texts
and courses are discussed with students oI the discipline. We cannot continue to see theory as
a determiner oI practice, when its true role is in explaining and predicting situations as a
management guide. Perhaps this helps to explain why many still see marketing as a means oI
exploitative management rather than as a satisIier oI societal needs. II many practitioners and
their teachers lack the appropriate values and thinking necessary to apply the marketing
concept as a social value-builder which enhances the quality oI liIe, how will the increasingly
undesirable 'application gap' be closed? The need to deal with the increasingly egocentric
liIestyles oI modern society has major implications Ior recruitment, selection, training and
education in marketing principles.
In recent years some attempt has been made to attribute social respectability to marketing
through the rise in literature on societal and social marketing. Much oI this is actually about
10
ethics and the acceptability oI, or tolerance towards, organisational objectives which appear to
display social responsibility. Given that much oI social marketing seeks to modiIy behaviour,
should we not more careIully consider the underlying values which drive the objectives and
programmes?
A8 The Inte#!ation of ulti+le &e!*+ectiBe*
Future research in the marketing Iield must be involved with the situation under study and
consider the possibility that marketing does not exist as a discrete Iield oI thinking. To date,
the integration oI psychology has been limited to measuring consumer behaviour patterns. A
new area oI study which examines the psychology oI marketing management needs to consider
how marketing concepts and roles are constructed at individual and group level in the minds
oI practitioners. It seems that there is a gap between theory and practice rather than a problem
oI poor application oI accepted theory. What is needed is newly constructed theory grounded
in the 'reality' oI practice.
A holistic marketing Iramework which places the individual within a realistic social
context can be derived Irom an integration oI marketing, sociology and psychology and
demands collaborative research Ior its achievement. Just as market research oIten looks at the
socio-cultural Iactors amongst consumers, it is time researchers were seriously considering the
same approach amongst marketing practitioners and academics. Perhaps then a marketing
ideology which stands a chance oI truly adding value, in its many Iorms, to society as a whole,
rather than mainly to producers in the Iorm oI proIits, will be possible.
/8 A ulti4)i*ci+lina!' Inte!+!etation
Although many marketing specialists may claim that marketing is a science
Irom a negative point oI view ..... marketing is just a hotch-potch oI ideas 'borrowed' Irom
other disciplines` (Baker 1974:21-22)
Marketing is perhaps best thought oI as a social institution and as part oI a human science
(Trusted 1987). As such, marketing research should be concerned with understanding human
actions rather than just description Irom Iact Iinding in some detached 'objective' manner. We
need to understand the patterns oI thought which lead to belieIs which in turn guide our
actions. Do we understand marketing rationality oI selI-interest or are managers actions based
on individual attitudes and Ieelings in tension with group norms? In what ways do marketing
practitioners' behaviours diIIer Irom espoused intentions and why? How does the marketing
practitioner construct marketing (as a philosophy, activity, tool, technology, or institution?).
What are the individual's constructs oI the 'what?' and 'why?' oI modern marketing? This is
especially pertinent when there is evidence that marketers do not understand their contribution
to society (Matthews 1989). Since marketing theory is based on economic rationality, it would
11
be interesting to see what questions specialists Irom social psychology, sociology, business
policy, economics, critical theory, and marketing would ask about the 'dismal science'
(Kempner et al 1974:2).
The normative nature oI marketing theory is directed towards establishing norms Ior
behaviour and belieI. Developments might include how social relations might operate in a
more egalitarian or more 'open' way, and to provide prescriptions Ior how people should
behave. However, standard, idealised, and context-Iree theory has limited value to society. A
more interpretative research philosophy is needed which seeks understanding oI what meaning
and what signiIicance the social world has Ior the people who live in it, rather than
explanations and predictions oI social events.
A behavioural approach is interested more in what marketers actually do and think. By
widening the Iield oI inquiry we can perhaps enhance the scope oI advancement and
application oI a body oI knowledge which has to date been rather partisan. Then we can aim
Ior a consistent body oI principles Ior practical business action in a social world.
Refe!ence*
Baker, M J. (1974) Marketing: An Introductory Text, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
Baker, M J., et al (1983) Marketing under attack`, in Baker, M J. et al, Marketing: Theory and
Practice, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
Baker, M J., Hart, S., Black, C. and Abdel-Mohsen, T M. (1986) The Contribution oI Marketing to
Competitive Success: A Literature Review`, Journal oI Marketing Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
39-61
Bartels, R. (1970) Marketing Theory and Metatheory, Homewood, IL.: Richard D Irwin
Bell, M L. and Emory, C W. (1971) The Faltering Marketing Concept`, Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 35,
pp. 37-42
Bonoma, T V. (85) Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems, and a Process`, Journal oI
Marketing Research, Vol. 22, May, pp. 199-208
Buttle, F. (1989) Needs: A Social Constructionist View`, Proceedings oI the Annual Marketing
Education Group ConIerence, pp. 1-30
Campbell, A. and Tawaday, K. (1990) Mission and Business Philosophy: Winning Employee
Commitment, OxIord: Heinemann ProIessional
Capra, F. (1982) The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, London: HarperCollins
Chaston, I. (1990) Managing Ior Marketing Excellence, London: McGraw-Hill
Cox, R. (1962) Changing Social Objectives in Marketing, in Decker, W S. (ed.) Proceedings oI the
Winter ConIerence oI the American Marketing Association, pp. 16-25
Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W M. and Ferrell, O C. (1994) Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 2nd
European Edition, Boston, MA.: Houghton MiIIlin
Dickson, P R. (1994) Marketing Management, International Edition, Fort Worth, TX.: Dryden Press
12
du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992) 'The Cult|ure| oI the Customer', Journal oI Management Studies,
Vol. 29, No 5, pp. 615-633
Embley, L L. (1993) Doing Well While Doing Good, Englewood CliIIs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall
Engel, J F., Blackwell, R D. and Miniard, P W. (1993) Consumer Behaviour, 7th Edition, Fort Worth,
TX.: Dryden Press
Fisk, G. (1971) The Role oI Marketing Theory, in Fisk, G. (ed.) New Essays in Marketing Theory,
Boston, MA.: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 1-5
Fisk, G. (1971) New Criteria Ior Evaluating the Social PerIormance oI Marketing, in Fisk, G. (ed.)
New Essays in Marketing Theory, Boston, MA.: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 439-448
Fisk, G. (ed.) (1986) Marketing Management Technology as a Social Process, New York: Praeger
Gelb, B D. and Brien, R H. (1971) Survival and Social Responsibility: Themes Ior Marketing
Education and Management, Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 35, April, pp. 3-9
Imai, M. (1986) Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success, New York: McGraw-Hill
Kempner, T., Macmillan, K. and Hawkins, K. (1976) Business and Society, Harmondsworth, UK:
Pelican Books
Kotler, P. (1991) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 7th
Edition, London: Prentice-Hall International
Kotler, P. (1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 8th
Edition, London: Prentice-Hall International
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1991) Principles oI Marketing, 5th Edition, London: Prentice-Hall
International
Langer, E J. (1989) MindIulness: Choice and Control in Everyday LiIe, London: HarperCollins
Lazer, W. and Kelly, E J. (1958) Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, Homewood, IL.:
Richard D Irwin
Madsen, A. (1980) Private Power: Multinational Corporations and their Role in the Survival oI our
Planet, London: Abacus/Sphere
Matthews, V. (1989) When the research addicts surveyed their own intimate secrets`, The Daily
Telegraph, 3 May
Mishan, E J. (1969) The Costs oI Economic Growth, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books
Mueller-Heumann, G. (1985) Toward a ProIessional Concept Ior Marketing`, Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 31 - 45
Packard, V. (1957) The Hidden Persuaders, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books
Robin, D P. and Reidenbach, R E. (1987) Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy:
Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application, Journal oI Marketing, January, pp. 44-58
Schumacher, E F. (1973) Small is BeautiIul: A Study oI Economics as iI People Really Mattered,
London: Abacus/Sphere
Smith, N C. (1987) The Ideology oI Marketing, Proceedings oI the Annual Marketing Education Group
ConIerence, University oI Warwick, pp. 497-513
Solomon, R C. and Hanson, K. (1985) It's Good Business, New York: Harper and Row
Stanton, W J. (1964) Fundamentals oI Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill
13
Stanton, W J., Etzel, M J. and Walker, B J. (1994) Fundamentals oI Marketing, New York: McGraw-
Hill
Trusted, J. (1987) Inquiry and Understanding: An Introduction to Explanation in the Physical and
Human Sciences, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan
Watt, A W. and Mathews, B P. (1991) Kuhn, Paradigms and Marketing`, Proceedings oI the Annual
Marketing Education Group ConIerence, CardiII Business School, pp. 1266-1280
Webb, D R. and Shawver, D L. (1985) Macromarketing: Observations on the EIIectiveness oI Social
Marketing in the 21st Century`, Proceedings oI the Annual Marketing Education Group
Conference, University oI Stirling, pp. 785-794
Wood, V R. and Vitell, S J. (1985) Marketing's Contribution to Economic Development: A Look at the
Past Thirty Years, Proceedings oI the World Marketing Congress, Academy oI Marketing Science,
Melbourne, pp. 153-164
14