Search results

This study aims to uncover in-depth examples of how emergent media affects parents’ views and socialization efforts. The study examines these views and efforts in the context of violent commercials.

The authors collected data for this paper using two studies. In Study 1, they collected data from the internet. Comments related to “violent ads” or “violent commercials” were collated and analyzed. For Study 2, they conducted in-depth interviews with mothers on their views on parental mediation and impact of media on their children.

The internet data helped develop a parental definition of violent ads and identify that parents lie on a continuum regarding their concerns about violent commercials. Further in-depth questioning of parents on the above finding led to the identification of four clusters of parents. “Media managers” attempt to control and restrict their child’s media environment while educating their child about the effects of violent commercials. “Enablers” spend abundant time co-viewing primetime TV while engaging their child in conversations on violence, but not on violent ads. To maintain harmony in the household, “Harmonizers” merely restrict viewing of violent commercials without educating their child about its effects. Finally, “Agent evaluators” are likely to co-view violent commercials, without discussing them with their child.

First, several of the parental segments (media managers, enablers and harmonizers) tend to note some concerns with violence in advertising. Importantly, this concern for violence appears to be limited to gore and use of physical weapon. Second, while parents do not have homogenous views on violent ads, those who are concerned also have differing roots of concern. This influences their mediation efforts. Third, socialization is bi-directional at times.

Many parents do not approve are the use of physical violence, use of weapons and depiction of blood/gore even in ads for movies or videogames. Advertisers might be wise to avoid such content in ads directed to children. Second, if media and marketing managers could plan to sponsor TV shows (vs placing violent ads) that offer ad-free program time, parents might respond positively. Third, as socialization is bi-directional, advertisers could consider using ad scenarios where parents and children engage with the pros and cons of a certain product or content, thus enabling parent-child conversations to make an informed decision.

Many parents notice violence in ads; policymakers could consider developing ratings for ads that consider the amount and type of violence while rating an ad. Second, a focus on increasing parental awareness on the harms of constantly exposing children to violent commercials might change the views of some parents who currently believe that a few or no violent commercials are being aired during children’s programs. Finally, parents envisage a greater role for media in their lives, and policymakers will have to suggest ways to effectively integrate media content in one’s lives rather than just suggest bans or restrictions.

The contributions of this paper include viewers’ (vs researchers’) definition of violent commercials, showcasing that parents are likely to manage media using new media options such as Netflix, and some parents are likely to co-create rules with their children.

Emami is facing the heat from activist-consumers as well as its competitors. Competitors have renamed their cosmetic products by dropping the controversial word ‘fair.’ This was in response to the Black Lives Movement that erupted in the United States in May 2020. However, the movement against fairness is somewhat muted in India and is mostly occurring amongst urban, highly educated, younger cohort who are unlikely to be the users of the product anyway. The significant consumer base yearns for fairness and is willing to spend money on products which help them achieve the same. In such a scenario, how should Emami respond to competitor actions and consumer-activist pressure?

The case provides an opportunity to discuss the significance of the brand name, role of advertising and gender stereotypes.

This paper aims to elucidate and extend the concept of power and fairness in the context of franchisor–franchisee relationship.

On the basis of Dul and Hak’s (2007) recommendations, the conceptual model is developed from closely related domains (e.g. channel relationship) using pertinent theories. On the basis of this comprehensive analysis, new propositions about fairness in a franchisee–franchisor context are drawn. The primary purpose of this research is to conceptually and theoretically further the understanding of antecedents and consequences of fairness in a franchisor–franchisee relationship context by proffering a framework. Finally, this study examines the concept of fairness of its antecedents and moderators that have received scant attention in the context of franchising research.

This study contends that non-coercive power is perceived fairly. Also, coercive power that is legitimate is perceived fairly. However, coercive power that is illegitimate can be detrimental to relationships between franchisee and franchisor. Furthermore, a franchisee who perceives the relationship to be fair is likely to place more trust in relationship, is more satisfied with relationship and is less likely to be opportunistic. Finally, the study contends that these relationship outcomes are dependent on the franchisee’s personality traits.

One major limitation of this study is that the propositions have not been empirically tested. However, this paper cites several business cases that have been used to support the propositions proffered in the study. Our conceptual model supported by previous theoretical findings and industry cases suggests that it is important to focus on social dimensions along with economic costs of a franchisor–franchisee relationship. Future researchers may empirically examine the relationships posited in this study by using the primary industry data.

This paper takes a comprehensive view of various social constructs affecting a franchisor–franchisee relationship. It also highlights the role of individual personality factors in a franchisor–franchisee relationship, extends prior work on relational dimensions from channels to the franchising context and provides managerial conclusions.