- Email: [email protected]
Is it time to revise the marketing concept?
Industrial Marketing Management 2(1913) 211-224 @ Elsevicr Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam
~ Printed
in the Netherlands
IS IT TIME TO REVISE THE MARKETING CONCEPT
?
Leonard Groeneveld
INTRODUCTION
This paper from Dr. L. Groeneveld, Chairman of Industrial Distribution and Professor of Marketing at Clarkson College of Technology, contains refreshing philosophy about the role of marketing in our society and the relationship between marketing and social goals. Professor Groeneveld’s subject is of current interest to Europeans because they have only recently, through the medium of international seminars, organised by OECD and NATO in January and September 1972, been subjected to the concept of new legislation for “Technology Assessment” during the product cycle. However, this article does not spring directly from new American legislation to set up an
The marketing concept is revered by marketing men and many businessmen as an ideal which provides a high standard for the guidance of business activities. Consideration of its possible obsolescence may be regarded by many to be sacrilegious. It may seem even more incredible to suggest that the changing social climate is the basis for the change. Advocates of the concept have been considerably more concerned with gaining a more universal manifestation of the concept in the marketplace. That effort, insofar as it
Office of Technology Assessment as an aid to the information-gathering arm of the U.S. Congress. The impetus for the article derives from a marketeer’s concern with the ethics of his subject. Professor Groeneveld does not believe that the classical marketing concept is dead. He argues that it is simply time to make alterations to the concept which will allow more emphasis to be placed upon the “consumer’s best interests” rather than the satisfaction of the consumer. The Editorial Board acknowledge that the plea in this paper, for a slight modification of the marketing concept, is a worthy one and more appropriate to our profession than a call to arms against the intransigence of some environmentalists.
represents a growing concern for the consumer, is very worthwhile and an alteration of the concept should not be permitted to detract from these worthwhile efforts. The marketing concept, however, is more than an operating policy. It is first and foremost an expression of an ideal and, as such, it must convey the highest aspiration possible. In recent months and years marketing efforts have been subjected to severe criticism concerning business activities which have not always been in the consumer’s best interest. Al-
217
though practice in contrast to concept has revealed the greatest gap, it is becoming obvious that the concept itself needs to be expressed in a more enlightened manner. Subtle alterations are necessary to assure that this guiding light of business activity conveys the highest ideals that one can recognize.
THE MARKETING
CONCEPT
The concept has been stated in many ways, but in each expression the centrality of the consumer to all marketing activities is paramount. The satisfaction of the consumer is deemed to be the desired objective of marketing efforts and only occasionally is the litany qualified to insure that the company objectives are met in the process. Viewed in its broadest sense the marketing concept is an entire business philosophy which implies that all the objectives of the firm will be met if the consumer is satisfied with the product of the firm. The marketing concept attributes importance and power to the consumer. Those of us in marketing have proclaimed “the consumer to be king,” and books have been written on the powerful consumer (Katona, 1960). That power on the other side of the exchange transaction is easily recognized by marketing men as being capricious. Students of marketing have consequently recognized that no product will be successful unless it satisfies the needs and desires of the consumer. This truth (and the overwhelming focus it places upon the consumer) has pressed marketing men to great lengths in studying consumer characteristics and has led to emphasis upon the related behavioral sciences. It is reasoned that if “marketing research is wisely used, those firms who follow the marketing concept should experience little difficulty in satisfying desires of the market; and they will quite likely be rewarded by having the market, trustfully, turn to them for guidance” (Drake, et al., 1969).
218
CONSUMER SATlSFACTiON SUMER WELFARE
VS.
CON-
Despite the idealistic nature of the concept and the loyalty which many firms declare for it, some firms continue to have problems in today’s society because the consumer may be satisfied with products which, when viewed by others, are not necessarily in the consumer’s best interest. A question arises as to whether the marketing concept should continue to stress consumer satisfaction or be altered to encompass consumer well-being as its goal. The issue has both operational and ethical dimensions which may have considerable influence upon the posture assumed by the firm in today’s society.
Leonard Groeneveld is Professor of Marketing and Industrial Distribution at Clarkson College of Technology in Potsdam, New York. He is also Chairman of the Department of Industrial Distribution. He holds a B.S. degree from the University of Rhode Island, an M.B.A. from Northeastern University and a Ph.D. from the University of Florida. He has been recognized scholastically with membership in such honoraries as Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Beta Gamma Sigma. His industrial experience includes two years in management with the Western Auto Supply Company and several years with the Browne and Sharpe Manufacturing Company. He has authored several articles in such periodicals as Economic Leaflets and the Journal of Marketing.
The goal of consumer satisfaction and the goal of consumer interest are not necessarily in conflict and, where no conflict occurs, the marketing man has the rewarding experience of providing a truly beneficial contribution to both parties of the exchange. Occasionally, however, a real conflict does occur and the number of such conflicts appears to be increasing. For example, it is difficult to conceive of the marketing of cigarettes as being in the best interests of the consumer. When in comparable circumstances, firms are challenged on this account, their executives frequently express their responsibility as “giving the consumer what he wants.” This may achieve a result which is in contradiction to the best interest of the consumer. The firm’s initial rationalization is frequently compounded by familiar expressions such as “if we didn’t sell it to him, someone else would.” The readiness to rationalize in this manner makes it quite evident that consumer interest is not the first priority of such businessmen. Indeed, this reasoning has permeated many of the current definitions of marketing via stress of the consumer.” upon the “satisfaction When the consumer is satisfied by the creation and stimulation of desires which are highly questionable, a real issue exists as to whether such actions are in the best interests of the consumer. The distinction between giving the consume1 what he wants and showing concern for the consumer’s best interest is very significant.
THE MARKETING CRITICS’ CONCERN FOR CONSUMER VULNERABILITY The critics of marketing activity are not impressed by the consumer’s purchase and his apparent satisfaction with a firm’s products. Consumer sovereignty is viewed as a myth by critics who maintain that the consumer has little power in the marketplace (Mishan, 1970). Their major arguments are that the consumer is not acting independently and that he lacks meaningful knowledge of the alternatives.
Those who claim that the consumer lacks independence stress the extent to which the desires of the consumer are created. These same critics use words such as “artificially created” to identify the desires and needs which are an outgrowth of extensive campaigns. Galbraith (1958) issues his sharpest challenge in the context of assessing the urgency of wants in our society: . . . The fact that wants can be synthesized by advertising, catalyzed by salesmanship, and shaped by the discrete manipulations of the persuaders shows that they are not very urgent. A man who is hungry need never be told of his need for food. If he is inspired by his appetite, he is immune to the influence of Messrs. Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn. The latter are effective only with those who are so far re: moved from physical want that they do not already know what they want. In this state alone men are open to persuasion.
In this type of argument the consumer (and his childrenj are viewed as being bombarded by advertisements which virtually coerce the consumer to buy a product. The resultant “satisfaction” is viewed as unreal in relationship to the genuine needs of the consumer, The consumer’s system of values is regarded as distorted by advertising with the result that he buys products which do not actually improve his well-being. He may be satisfied with the product in terms of what the product is intended to do but the purchase is held to be the unwise result of artificial coercion. A second type of challenge to the marketing concept concerns the issue of consumer knowledge. It asks the question “Is the consumer choice among four (or any number) poor alternatives really significant, if the consumer is never acquainted with other alternatives? ” Consumer choice from among four poor alternatives is not regarded as impressive tu a critic who sees many alternatives which have not been offered the consumer because they are deemed to be less profitable by the marketing firm. 219
THE
RESPONSE
OF
CONSERVATIVE
BUSINESS
Most businessmen would probably equate consumer satisfaction with consumer wellbeing. When pressed concerning the distinction regarding products like cigarettes, the businessman would emphasize that he has no responsibility or capability for judging the value which an individual places on a product or service. The individual is regarded as voting in the marketplace and the businessman contends that he would no more cast a citizen’s ballot in polls than dictate his tastes in the marketplace. The major responsibility for being informed about the negative features of a product is viewed by him as lying with the consumer. Advocates of this position say that this is the very essence of the free enterprise system in that it places heavy reliance on the individual to make decisions which he feels are best for him, not decisions which others feel are best for him. In addition, this thesis carries with it the basic premise that the firm has a fundamental responsibility to its stockholders to maximize profits. All firms are viewed as being in the same situation. All vie for the consumer’s attention in advocating their products.
LIMITATIONS RESPONSE
OF
THE
BUSINESSMAN’S
The above type of response concerning the current challenge to the marketing concept no longer permits the businessman to presume that he is operating in the consumer’s best interest. In some respects the existing marketing concept has lulled concerned practitioners into believing that their position is ethically sound because they were looking out for the satisfaction of the consumer. The application of marketing research may even be viewed as a means of fortifying the marketer with the basis for making the ethical decision which satisfies the consumer.
220
A truly ethical position relative to product offerings, however, requires that the marketer recognizes that the consumer often cannot meaningfully assess the intrinsic qualities of a product. The firm offering the product is in the best position for assessing these qualities and an ethical posture on its part dictates that such assessment be accomplished on an objective basis. One author, Clasen (1966), addresses himself to the ethical dimension when pointing out that marketing men have “ . . the responsibility to bring to the marketplace an expert point of view. Our decisions must, in fact, constitute what the consumer would do or choose if she had the best technical education available, if she had the most modern tools for testing and evaluating. We must apply, for the consumer, the kinds of tests and standards she cannot apply for herself.” The position frequently assumed by business is also vulnerable in terms of the real influence of promotional techniques, such as TV commercials, upon the consumer. Galbraith (1968) overstates that case when he suggests that consumers’ demand is managed by large corporations. Although that economist’s position is highly strained, the businessman must concede that the voice of positive product promotion is much louder and more constant than that of opposition to individual products. Little focus exists in our society for the so-called other side of the story.” The business position is further weakened by the manner in which competition has developed in this country. Our capacity for gentlemanly competition has had some very positive effects and, from a strictly business point of view, has been a sound m.eans of avoiding competitive retaliation. The assurance of competition in the marketplace is theoretically the first line of defence for the individual consumer, but this protection vanishes when competition does not provide the consumer with relative knowledge of competing products. It leaves the consumer with only one side of every story.
READINESS TO SPONSIBILITY
ASSUME
SOCIAL
RE-
The philosophical gap between many critics of marketing and those businessmen who are willing to assume social responsibility is virtually nonexistent. Such businessmen would be well advised to broaden their interpretation of the marketing concept by replacing the current emphasis on consumer satisfaction with a clear recognition of a desire to protect the consumer interest. This alternation of the ideal would assure that goals being set cannot in any sense be regarded as being in conflict with the firm’s social responsibility. The assumption of social responsibility does not imply that the adopting firms accept all the criticisms that have been leveled against marketing and marketing activity. This posture is primarily one of establishing ideals and goals which are consistent and defensible in the society in which the firm operates. Adoption of this philosophy need not necessarily dictate that an individual firm takes, in one stroke, action to abolish products or operations which may be deemed harmful to the public interest. Consistency with the revised marketing concept does imply, however, that the managers set their sights and conduct their planning on the premise that such product lines and activities will be phased out. The incorporation of this emphasis into the marketing concept will have its greatest influence in the forward thrust of a firm’s new products. Such a philosophy dictates that firms embrace this thinking in their procedures for the adoption of new products. This suggests that before a product is offered on the market, it meets an unqualified positive response to the fundamental question, “Is it in the best interest of the public and society to have this product on the market? ” This question is not easy to answer. At best it is subjective and judgmental. The significant point, however, is that the question be asked and that time be allowed for some soul
searching on the subject before the product is offered on the market. The suggestion that this issue be faced does not imply that it is subsequent to the technical development which has produced a physically available finished product. On the contrary, the question might better be posed much earlier in the process, preferably before any significant investment is made. A sunk investment may well have an overpowering influence on the response to the question. Greater objectivity will be brought to the question if it is posed at the time when the new product is at the idea or early-planning stage. MORE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
EXPRESSION
OF THE
The marketing concept has been primarily a philosophy or attitude. It is usually not defined but is described. The consequence of this is that some vagueness attaches to the version perceived by the individual practitioner. Such an umbrella may allow some to presume compliance by the process of rationalization. In addition to specific wordage which should highlight the thought that marketing activities be directed to the consumer’s best interests, it may be desirable to delineate some specific dimensions for the concept. President Kennedy’s message (1962) concerning consumer protection may be of help here. In that context he was speaking about the federal government’s responsibility to the consumer. In doing so he listed rights of the consumer which may well be recognized by the individual firm. He indicated that these rights include the right to saf&y, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard. Recognition of these rights by government should be accompanied by a dedication on the part of business to respect these rights. The marketing concept might well take on more specific language so that little doubt exists as to the dimensions of the idea.
221
OPPOSITION TO THE REVISED MARKETING
PROPOSAL CONCEPT
FOR
A
Those firms which are not prepared to assume social responsibility will no doubt object to revamping the marketing concept. This is so despite the fact that the concept of social responsibility is much broader than the product-consumer oriented proposal to revise the marketing concept. The former is concerned with the firm’s response to ail the social issues of the day whereas the latter is limited to the interaction of the consumer, the product, and the promotional activities by which the firm communicates with the consumer concerning the firm’s products. Despite the more limited dimension of the proposal, much of the opposition will revolve around a possible conflict between social responsibility and the maximization of profits. These two need not be viewed as being in conflict if it is made clear that it is the longYZMmaximization of profits that is of concern to business. Indeed only the continued assumption of the social responsibility and the practice of a genuine marketing concept will assure business of the long-run maximization of profits. The long-run goal should guide the actions of the firm in its day-to-day operations. This way much of the short-run maximization may have to occasionally be sacrificed in favor of the long-run parameters which are dictated by the social climate. If that climate is not respected, the business firm can expect that the demands of society will express themselves in a changing environment for business operations. In effect, that changing environment is likely to demand that principles espoused in a genuine marketing concept be practiced as part of the legal framework of business activity. The readiness of business to assume that higher plateau of its own volition would add to general respect for its position in all of society. Those who clamor for a faster revamping of social sensitivities of business will probably
222
regard these proposals as shallow and superficial. They might stress that a mere language change in the marketing concept is meaningless when it is the decisions and actions of business which should more immediately be transformed to reflect more social responsibility. These more militant critics of marketing practice underestimate the importance of ideas and ideals in moving men to action. Conclusions
The current social climate strongly suggests that it is time for a change in the existing philosophical expression of the marketing concept. Does this mean that the marketing concept is dead? By no means. It does meal: that it may be time to modify the concept to reflect the changing climate of our society. This alteration can be made very simply and could be accomplished before the issue is provided with greater focus - a focus which could very well be harmful to the best interests of the business world. The modification in language merely calls for the abandonment of the philosophical “satisfaction of the consumer” and its replacement with emphasis on the “consumer’s best interests.” Although this constitutes a slight language change, the implications could be considerable. Further amplification of the concept may also be desirable and this can be accomplished by specific recognition of the consumer’s right to safety, information, choice, and voice in the marketplace. The firm which decides upon a course which calls for social responsibility on the part of business will have no difficulty adapting to the modified concept. In’ effect, such a change would provide the entire marketing profession with a spirit which is nobler and more consistent with the thrust of society. Such a change may not materially affect individual decisions in the immediate days ahead but it may constitute a basis for higher aspirations toward the future.
REFERENCES Clasen, Earl A. (1966). “Controlling Marketing Behavior in the Large Firm.” Ethics and Marketing-Lectures from a symposium sponsored by the Merrill Cohen Fund and the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Minnesota, April. Drake, Jerry E.; Millar, Frank I.; & Sartain, A.Q. (1969).
Marketing and Research: Intelligence and Management. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, p. 21. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1958). The &fluent Society. Boston, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin Co., p. 158. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1968). The New Industrial State.
FAUT-IL
See Chapter XVIII, “The Management of Specific Demand.” New York: New American Library, A Signet Book, pp. 208-220. Katona, George (1960). The Powerful Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Kennedy, John F. (1962). “Message from the President of the United States Relative to Consumers’ Protection and Interest Program.” Document No. 364, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, March 15. Mishan, E.T. (1970). Technology and Growth, The Price we Pay Chapter 12, “The Myth of Consumer’s Sovereignty. New York - Washington: Praeger Publishers, pp. 89-96.
REVOIR LE CONCEPT DE MARKETING?
L. Groeneveld, President de Distribution Industrielle et professeur de marketing au Clarkson College of Technology, expose dans son article une interessante philosophie sur le role du marketing dans notre societe et les relations entre le marketing et les buts sociaux. Le sujet que traite L. Groeneveld presente un inter-et tres actuel pour les Europeens car ce n’est que tres recemment et grace aux seminaires internationaux organises par 1’OCDE et 1’OTAN en janvier et septembre 1972 qu’ils ont pris conscience d’un concept de legislation nouvelle concernant “l’evaluation de la technologie” durant la vie d’un produit. Cet article cependant ne conseille pas de passer directement de la nouvelle legislation americaine a un Bureau d’evaluation de la
Technologie vu comme le bras inquisiteur du Congres Americain. La force de l’article vient du fait qu’il traite de l’ethique du sujet d’uri point de vue d’homme de march& L. Groeneveld ne croit pas a la mort du concept classique du marketing. Ii insiste simplement sur le fait qu’il est temps de revoir le concept, ce qui permettrait de mettre mieux l’accent sur “l’interbt du consommateur” et non plus seulement sur la satisfaction du consommateur. Le Comite de Redaction tient h souligner que la demande de revision du concept du marketing telle qu’elle est exprimte dans le present article est plus valable et plus appropriee a la profession qu’un appel aux armes contre l’intransigeance de certains environementalistes.
IST ES AN DER ZEIT, DAS MARKETINGKONZEPT Diese Abhandlung von Dr. L. Groeneveld, dem Vorsitzenden der Industriewirtschaft und Professor fur Marketing an dem Clarkson College fur Technologie, enthalt interessante Perspektiven zur Rolle des Marketing in
ZU REVIDIEREN?
unserer Gesellschaft und zur Beziehung zwischen sozialen Zielen und denen des Marketing. Professor Groenevelds Thema ist fur Europier von besonderem Interesse, da sie erst
223
kiirzlich mittels internationaler Seminare, die von der OECD und der NATO im Januar und September 1972 organisiert wurden, mit dem Konzept einer neuen Gesetzgebung fur die Technologieveranlagung wahrend des Produktenzyklus konfrontiert worden sind. Diese Abhandlung basiert jedoch nicht direkt auf der neuen amerikanischen Gesetzgebung, ein Amt fur Technologieveranlagung als Informationshilfe fur den US-Kongress einzurichten. Vielmehr gab die Beziehung eines Marktforschers zu der Ethik seines Faches Anstoss zu diesem Artikel.
224
Professor Groeneveld ist nicht der Meinung, dass das klassische Marketing-konzept tot ist. Er weist nach, dab es einfach an der Zeit ist, Anderungen an dem Konzept vorzunehmen, die ermogliche, dass ein grosserer Nachdruck auf die ‘besten Interessen des Verbrauchers’ als auf dessen blosse Zufriedenstellung gelegt wird. Auch die Redaktion ist der Meinung, dass die Forderung nach einer leichten Anderung des Marketingkonzeptes unserem Beruf angemessener ist als der Ruf nach den Waffen gegen die Unversohnlichkeit einiger Umweltschiitzer.
~ Printed
in the Netherlands
IS IT TIME TO REVISE THE MARKETING CONCEPT
?
Leonard Groeneveld
INTRODUCTION
This paper from Dr. L. Groeneveld, Chairman of Industrial Distribution and Professor of Marketing at Clarkson College of Technology, contains refreshing philosophy about the role of marketing in our society and the relationship between marketing and social goals. Professor Groeneveld’s subject is of current interest to Europeans because they have only recently, through the medium of international seminars, organised by OECD and NATO in January and September 1972, been subjected to the concept of new legislation for “Technology Assessment” during the product cycle. However, this article does not spring directly from new American legislation to set up an
The marketing concept is revered by marketing men and many businessmen as an ideal which provides a high standard for the guidance of business activities. Consideration of its possible obsolescence may be regarded by many to be sacrilegious. It may seem even more incredible to suggest that the changing social climate is the basis for the change. Advocates of the concept have been considerably more concerned with gaining a more universal manifestation of the concept in the marketplace. That effort, insofar as it
Office of Technology Assessment as an aid to the information-gathering arm of the U.S. Congress. The impetus for the article derives from a marketeer’s concern with the ethics of his subject. Professor Groeneveld does not believe that the classical marketing concept is dead. He argues that it is simply time to make alterations to the concept which will allow more emphasis to be placed upon the “consumer’s best interests” rather than the satisfaction of the consumer. The Editorial Board acknowledge that the plea in this paper, for a slight modification of the marketing concept, is a worthy one and more appropriate to our profession than a call to arms against the intransigence of some environmentalists.
represents a growing concern for the consumer, is very worthwhile and an alteration of the concept should not be permitted to detract from these worthwhile efforts. The marketing concept, however, is more than an operating policy. It is first and foremost an expression of an ideal and, as such, it must convey the highest aspiration possible. In recent months and years marketing efforts have been subjected to severe criticism concerning business activities which have not always been in the consumer’s best interest. Al-
217
though practice in contrast to concept has revealed the greatest gap, it is becoming obvious that the concept itself needs to be expressed in a more enlightened manner. Subtle alterations are necessary to assure that this guiding light of business activity conveys the highest ideals that one can recognize.
THE MARKETING
CONCEPT
The concept has been stated in many ways, but in each expression the centrality of the consumer to all marketing activities is paramount. The satisfaction of the consumer is deemed to be the desired objective of marketing efforts and only occasionally is the litany qualified to insure that the company objectives are met in the process. Viewed in its broadest sense the marketing concept is an entire business philosophy which implies that all the objectives of the firm will be met if the consumer is satisfied with the product of the firm. The marketing concept attributes importance and power to the consumer. Those of us in marketing have proclaimed “the consumer to be king,” and books have been written on the powerful consumer (Katona, 1960). That power on the other side of the exchange transaction is easily recognized by marketing men as being capricious. Students of marketing have consequently recognized that no product will be successful unless it satisfies the needs and desires of the consumer. This truth (and the overwhelming focus it places upon the consumer) has pressed marketing men to great lengths in studying consumer characteristics and has led to emphasis upon the related behavioral sciences. It is reasoned that if “marketing research is wisely used, those firms who follow the marketing concept should experience little difficulty in satisfying desires of the market; and they will quite likely be rewarded by having the market, trustfully, turn to them for guidance” (Drake, et al., 1969).
218
CONSUMER SATlSFACTiON SUMER WELFARE
VS.
CON-
Despite the idealistic nature of the concept and the loyalty which many firms declare for it, some firms continue to have problems in today’s society because the consumer may be satisfied with products which, when viewed by others, are not necessarily in the consumer’s best interest. A question arises as to whether the marketing concept should continue to stress consumer satisfaction or be altered to encompass consumer well-being as its goal. The issue has both operational and ethical dimensions which may have considerable influence upon the posture assumed by the firm in today’s society.
Leonard Groeneveld is Professor of Marketing and Industrial Distribution at Clarkson College of Technology in Potsdam, New York. He is also Chairman of the Department of Industrial Distribution. He holds a B.S. degree from the University of Rhode Island, an M.B.A. from Northeastern University and a Ph.D. from the University of Florida. He has been recognized scholastically with membership in such honoraries as Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Beta Gamma Sigma. His industrial experience includes two years in management with the Western Auto Supply Company and several years with the Browne and Sharpe Manufacturing Company. He has authored several articles in such periodicals as Economic Leaflets and the Journal of Marketing.
The goal of consumer satisfaction and the goal of consumer interest are not necessarily in conflict and, where no conflict occurs, the marketing man has the rewarding experience of providing a truly beneficial contribution to both parties of the exchange. Occasionally, however, a real conflict does occur and the number of such conflicts appears to be increasing. For example, it is difficult to conceive of the marketing of cigarettes as being in the best interests of the consumer. When in comparable circumstances, firms are challenged on this account, their executives frequently express their responsibility as “giving the consumer what he wants.” This may achieve a result which is in contradiction to the best interest of the consumer. The firm’s initial rationalization is frequently compounded by familiar expressions such as “if we didn’t sell it to him, someone else would.” The readiness to rationalize in this manner makes it quite evident that consumer interest is not the first priority of such businessmen. Indeed, this reasoning has permeated many of the current definitions of marketing via stress of the consumer.” upon the “satisfaction When the consumer is satisfied by the creation and stimulation of desires which are highly questionable, a real issue exists as to whether such actions are in the best interests of the consumer. The distinction between giving the consume1 what he wants and showing concern for the consumer’s best interest is very significant.
THE MARKETING CRITICS’ CONCERN FOR CONSUMER VULNERABILITY The critics of marketing activity are not impressed by the consumer’s purchase and his apparent satisfaction with a firm’s products. Consumer sovereignty is viewed as a myth by critics who maintain that the consumer has little power in the marketplace (Mishan, 1970). Their major arguments are that the consumer is not acting independently and that he lacks meaningful knowledge of the alternatives.
Those who claim that the consumer lacks independence stress the extent to which the desires of the consumer are created. These same critics use words such as “artificially created” to identify the desires and needs which are an outgrowth of extensive campaigns. Galbraith (1958) issues his sharpest challenge in the context of assessing the urgency of wants in our society: . . . The fact that wants can be synthesized by advertising, catalyzed by salesmanship, and shaped by the discrete manipulations of the persuaders shows that they are not very urgent. A man who is hungry need never be told of his need for food. If he is inspired by his appetite, he is immune to the influence of Messrs. Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn. The latter are effective only with those who are so far re: moved from physical want that they do not already know what they want. In this state alone men are open to persuasion.
In this type of argument the consumer (and his childrenj are viewed as being bombarded by advertisements which virtually coerce the consumer to buy a product. The resultant “satisfaction” is viewed as unreal in relationship to the genuine needs of the consumer, The consumer’s system of values is regarded as distorted by advertising with the result that he buys products which do not actually improve his well-being. He may be satisfied with the product in terms of what the product is intended to do but the purchase is held to be the unwise result of artificial coercion. A second type of challenge to the marketing concept concerns the issue of consumer knowledge. It asks the question “Is the consumer choice among four (or any number) poor alternatives really significant, if the consumer is never acquainted with other alternatives? ” Consumer choice from among four poor alternatives is not regarded as impressive tu a critic who sees many alternatives which have not been offered the consumer because they are deemed to be less profitable by the marketing firm. 219
THE
RESPONSE
OF
CONSERVATIVE
BUSINESS
Most businessmen would probably equate consumer satisfaction with consumer wellbeing. When pressed concerning the distinction regarding products like cigarettes, the businessman would emphasize that he has no responsibility or capability for judging the value which an individual places on a product or service. The individual is regarded as voting in the marketplace and the businessman contends that he would no more cast a citizen’s ballot in polls than dictate his tastes in the marketplace. The major responsibility for being informed about the negative features of a product is viewed by him as lying with the consumer. Advocates of this position say that this is the very essence of the free enterprise system in that it places heavy reliance on the individual to make decisions which he feels are best for him, not decisions which others feel are best for him. In addition, this thesis carries with it the basic premise that the firm has a fundamental responsibility to its stockholders to maximize profits. All firms are viewed as being in the same situation. All vie for the consumer’s attention in advocating their products.
LIMITATIONS RESPONSE
OF
THE
BUSINESSMAN’S
The above type of response concerning the current challenge to the marketing concept no longer permits the businessman to presume that he is operating in the consumer’s best interest. In some respects the existing marketing concept has lulled concerned practitioners into believing that their position is ethically sound because they were looking out for the satisfaction of the consumer. The application of marketing research may even be viewed as a means of fortifying the marketer with the basis for making the ethical decision which satisfies the consumer.
220
A truly ethical position relative to product offerings, however, requires that the marketer recognizes that the consumer often cannot meaningfully assess the intrinsic qualities of a product. The firm offering the product is in the best position for assessing these qualities and an ethical posture on its part dictates that such assessment be accomplished on an objective basis. One author, Clasen (1966), addresses himself to the ethical dimension when pointing out that marketing men have “ . . the responsibility to bring to the marketplace an expert point of view. Our decisions must, in fact, constitute what the consumer would do or choose if she had the best technical education available, if she had the most modern tools for testing and evaluating. We must apply, for the consumer, the kinds of tests and standards she cannot apply for herself.” The position frequently assumed by business is also vulnerable in terms of the real influence of promotional techniques, such as TV commercials, upon the consumer. Galbraith (1968) overstates that case when he suggests that consumers’ demand is managed by large corporations. Although that economist’s position is highly strained, the businessman must concede that the voice of positive product promotion is much louder and more constant than that of opposition to individual products. Little focus exists in our society for the so-called other side of the story.” The business position is further weakened by the manner in which competition has developed in this country. Our capacity for gentlemanly competition has had some very positive effects and, from a strictly business point of view, has been a sound m.eans of avoiding competitive retaliation. The assurance of competition in the marketplace is theoretically the first line of defence for the individual consumer, but this protection vanishes when competition does not provide the consumer with relative knowledge of competing products. It leaves the consumer with only one side of every story.
READINESS TO SPONSIBILITY
ASSUME
SOCIAL
RE-
The philosophical gap between many critics of marketing and those businessmen who are willing to assume social responsibility is virtually nonexistent. Such businessmen would be well advised to broaden their interpretation of the marketing concept by replacing the current emphasis on consumer satisfaction with a clear recognition of a desire to protect the consumer interest. This alternation of the ideal would assure that goals being set cannot in any sense be regarded as being in conflict with the firm’s social responsibility. The assumption of social responsibility does not imply that the adopting firms accept all the criticisms that have been leveled against marketing and marketing activity. This posture is primarily one of establishing ideals and goals which are consistent and defensible in the society in which the firm operates. Adoption of this philosophy need not necessarily dictate that an individual firm takes, in one stroke, action to abolish products or operations which may be deemed harmful to the public interest. Consistency with the revised marketing concept does imply, however, that the managers set their sights and conduct their planning on the premise that such product lines and activities will be phased out. The incorporation of this emphasis into the marketing concept will have its greatest influence in the forward thrust of a firm’s new products. Such a philosophy dictates that firms embrace this thinking in their procedures for the adoption of new products. This suggests that before a product is offered on the market, it meets an unqualified positive response to the fundamental question, “Is it in the best interest of the public and society to have this product on the market? ” This question is not easy to answer. At best it is subjective and judgmental. The significant point, however, is that the question be asked and that time be allowed for some soul
searching on the subject before the product is offered on the market. The suggestion that this issue be faced does not imply that it is subsequent to the technical development which has produced a physically available finished product. On the contrary, the question might better be posed much earlier in the process, preferably before any significant investment is made. A sunk investment may well have an overpowering influence on the response to the question. Greater objectivity will be brought to the question if it is posed at the time when the new product is at the idea or early-planning stage. MORE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
EXPRESSION
OF THE
The marketing concept has been primarily a philosophy or attitude. It is usually not defined but is described. The consequence of this is that some vagueness attaches to the version perceived by the individual practitioner. Such an umbrella may allow some to presume compliance by the process of rationalization. In addition to specific wordage which should highlight the thought that marketing activities be directed to the consumer’s best interests, it may be desirable to delineate some specific dimensions for the concept. President Kennedy’s message (1962) concerning consumer protection may be of help here. In that context he was speaking about the federal government’s responsibility to the consumer. In doing so he listed rights of the consumer which may well be recognized by the individual firm. He indicated that these rights include the right to saf&y, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard. Recognition of these rights by government should be accompanied by a dedication on the part of business to respect these rights. The marketing concept might well take on more specific language so that little doubt exists as to the dimensions of the idea.
221
OPPOSITION TO THE REVISED MARKETING
PROPOSAL CONCEPT
FOR
A
Those firms which are not prepared to assume social responsibility will no doubt object to revamping the marketing concept. This is so despite the fact that the concept of social responsibility is much broader than the product-consumer oriented proposal to revise the marketing concept. The former is concerned with the firm’s response to ail the social issues of the day whereas the latter is limited to the interaction of the consumer, the product, and the promotional activities by which the firm communicates with the consumer concerning the firm’s products. Despite the more limited dimension of the proposal, much of the opposition will revolve around a possible conflict between social responsibility and the maximization of profits. These two need not be viewed as being in conflict if it is made clear that it is the longYZMmaximization of profits that is of concern to business. Indeed only the continued assumption of the social responsibility and the practice of a genuine marketing concept will assure business of the long-run maximization of profits. The long-run goal should guide the actions of the firm in its day-to-day operations. This way much of the short-run maximization may have to occasionally be sacrificed in favor of the long-run parameters which are dictated by the social climate. If that climate is not respected, the business firm can expect that the demands of society will express themselves in a changing environment for business operations. In effect, that changing environment is likely to demand that principles espoused in a genuine marketing concept be practiced as part of the legal framework of business activity. The readiness of business to assume that higher plateau of its own volition would add to general respect for its position in all of society. Those who clamor for a faster revamping of social sensitivities of business will probably
222
regard these proposals as shallow and superficial. They might stress that a mere language change in the marketing concept is meaningless when it is the decisions and actions of business which should more immediately be transformed to reflect more social responsibility. These more militant critics of marketing practice underestimate the importance of ideas and ideals in moving men to action. Conclusions
The current social climate strongly suggests that it is time for a change in the existing philosophical expression of the marketing concept. Does this mean that the marketing concept is dead? By no means. It does meal: that it may be time to modify the concept to reflect the changing climate of our society. This alteration can be made very simply and could be accomplished before the issue is provided with greater focus - a focus which could very well be harmful to the best interests of the business world. The modification in language merely calls for the abandonment of the philosophical “satisfaction of the consumer” and its replacement with emphasis on the “consumer’s best interests.” Although this constitutes a slight language change, the implications could be considerable. Further amplification of the concept may also be desirable and this can be accomplished by specific recognition of the consumer’s right to safety, information, choice, and voice in the marketplace. The firm which decides upon a course which calls for social responsibility on the part of business will have no difficulty adapting to the modified concept. In’ effect, such a change would provide the entire marketing profession with a spirit which is nobler and more consistent with the thrust of society. Such a change may not materially affect individual decisions in the immediate days ahead but it may constitute a basis for higher aspirations toward the future.
REFERENCES Clasen, Earl A. (1966). “Controlling Marketing Behavior in the Large Firm.” Ethics and Marketing-Lectures from a symposium sponsored by the Merrill Cohen Fund and the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Minnesota, April. Drake, Jerry E.; Millar, Frank I.; & Sartain, A.Q. (1969).
Marketing and Research: Intelligence and Management. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, p. 21. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1958). The &fluent Society. Boston, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin Co., p. 158. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1968). The New Industrial State.
FAUT-IL
See Chapter XVIII, “The Management of Specific Demand.” New York: New American Library, A Signet Book, pp. 208-220. Katona, George (1960). The Powerful Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Kennedy, John F. (1962). “Message from the President of the United States Relative to Consumers’ Protection and Interest Program.” Document No. 364, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, March 15. Mishan, E.T. (1970). Technology and Growth, The Price we Pay Chapter 12, “The Myth of Consumer’s Sovereignty. New York - Washington: Praeger Publishers, pp. 89-96.
REVOIR LE CONCEPT DE MARKETING?
L. Groeneveld, President de Distribution Industrielle et professeur de marketing au Clarkson College of Technology, expose dans son article une interessante philosophie sur le role du marketing dans notre societe et les relations entre le marketing et les buts sociaux. Le sujet que traite L. Groeneveld presente un inter-et tres actuel pour les Europeens car ce n’est que tres recemment et grace aux seminaires internationaux organises par 1’OCDE et 1’OTAN en janvier et septembre 1972 qu’ils ont pris conscience d’un concept de legislation nouvelle concernant “l’evaluation de la technologie” durant la vie d’un produit. Cet article cependant ne conseille pas de passer directement de la nouvelle legislation americaine a un Bureau d’evaluation de la
Technologie vu comme le bras inquisiteur du Congres Americain. La force de l’article vient du fait qu’il traite de l’ethique du sujet d’uri point de vue d’homme de march& L. Groeneveld ne croit pas a la mort du concept classique du marketing. Ii insiste simplement sur le fait qu’il est temps de revoir le concept, ce qui permettrait de mettre mieux l’accent sur “l’interbt du consommateur” et non plus seulement sur la satisfaction du consommateur. Le Comite de Redaction tient h souligner que la demande de revision du concept du marketing telle qu’elle est exprimte dans le present article est plus valable et plus appropriee a la profession qu’un appel aux armes contre l’intransigeance de certains environementalistes.
IST ES AN DER ZEIT, DAS MARKETINGKONZEPT Diese Abhandlung von Dr. L. Groeneveld, dem Vorsitzenden der Industriewirtschaft und Professor fur Marketing an dem Clarkson College fur Technologie, enthalt interessante Perspektiven zur Rolle des Marketing in
ZU REVIDIEREN?
unserer Gesellschaft und zur Beziehung zwischen sozialen Zielen und denen des Marketing. Professor Groenevelds Thema ist fur Europier von besonderem Interesse, da sie erst
223
kiirzlich mittels internationaler Seminare, die von der OECD und der NATO im Januar und September 1972 organisiert wurden, mit dem Konzept einer neuen Gesetzgebung fur die Technologieveranlagung wahrend des Produktenzyklus konfrontiert worden sind. Diese Abhandlung basiert jedoch nicht direkt auf der neuen amerikanischen Gesetzgebung, ein Amt fur Technologieveranlagung als Informationshilfe fur den US-Kongress einzurichten. Vielmehr gab die Beziehung eines Marktforschers zu der Ethik seines Faches Anstoss zu diesem Artikel.
224
Professor Groeneveld ist nicht der Meinung, dass das klassische Marketing-konzept tot ist. Er weist nach, dab es einfach an der Zeit ist, Anderungen an dem Konzept vorzunehmen, die ermogliche, dass ein grosserer Nachdruck auf die ‘besten Interessen des Verbrauchers’ als auf dessen blosse Zufriedenstellung gelegt wird. Auch die Redaktion ist der Meinung, dass die Forderung nach einer leichten Anderung des Marketingkonzeptes unserem Beruf angemessener ist als der Ruf nach den Waffen gegen die Unversohnlichkeit einiger Umweltschiitzer.