Search results

With the view of obtaining reliable first‐hand information as to the nature and efficacy of the food laws in Great Britain, France, and Germany, Mr. ROBERT ALLEN, the Secretary of the Pure Food Commission of Kentucky, has recently visited London, Paris, and Berlin. He has now published a report, containing a number of facts and conclusions of very considerable interest and importance, which, we presume, will be laid before the great Congress of Food Experts to be held on the occasion of the forthcoming exposition at St. Louis. Mr. ALLEN severely criticises the British system, and calls particular attention to the evils attending our feeble legislation, and still more feeble administrative methods. The criticisms are severe, but they are just. Great Britain, says Mr. ALLEN, is par excellence the dumping‐ground for adulterated, sophisticated, and impoverished foods of all kinds. France, Germany, and America, he observes, have added a superstructure to their Tariff walls in the shape of standards of purity for imported food‐products, while through Great Britain's open door are thrust the greater part of the bad goods which would be now rejected in the three countries above referred to. Whatever views may be held as to the imposition of Tariffs no sane person will deny the importance of instituting some kind of effective control over the quality of imported food products, and, while it may be admitted that an attempt—all too restricted in its nature—has been made in the Food Act of 1899 to deal with the matter, it certainly cannot be said that any really effective official control of the kind indicated is at present in existence in the British Isles. We agree with Mr. ALLEN'S statement that our food laws are inadequate and that, such as they are, those laws are poorly enforced, or not enforced at all. It is also true that there are no “standards” or “limits” in regard to the composition and quality of food products “except loose and low standards for butter and milk,” and we are compelled to admit that with the exception of the British Analytical Control there exists no organisation—either official or voluntary —which can be said to concern itself in a comprehensive and effective manner with the all‐important subject of the nature and quality of the food supply of the people. In the United States, and in some of those European countries which are entitled to call themselves civilised, the pure food question has been studied carefully and seriously in recent years—with the result that legislation and administrative machinery of far superior types to ours are rapidly being introduced. With us adulteration, sophistication, and the supply of inferior goods are still commonly regarded as matters to be treated in a sort of joking spirit, even by persons whose education and position are such as to make their adoption of so foolish an attitude most astonishing to those who have given even but slight attention to the subject. Lethargy, carelessness, and a species of feeble frivolity appear to be growing among us to such an extent as to threaten to become dangerous in a national sense. We should be thankful for outspoken criticism—if only for the bracing effect it ought to produce.

Marketers frequently lament the lack of representation of marketing in the boardroom and the short tenure of CMOs. The most common explanations offered are that marketing is not perceived as a strategic discipline and that marketers do not demonstrate a strong enough understanding of how the business makes money.

Financial accounting is how “score is kept” in terms of business performance. It is, therefore, in the self-interest of marketers to become familiar with financial reporting. Doing so will allow them to understand how marketing activities are recorded. In addition, academic researchers need to understand the meaning of the financial measures that they often use as the metrics of success when researching marketing strategy questions.

This is especially important since financial reporting generally does not recognize assets created by marketing investments. In order to substantiate a claim that “brands are assets”, marketers must be able to explain how the financial accounting rules misrepresent economic reality and why managers might use a different set of principles for management reporting.

We argue that the misrepresentation of market-based assets has two forms of negative impact for marketers: external and internal. The external problems are that financial statements are not especially informative about the value of marketing for the providers of capital and do not provide a true portrait of the economic resource base of the company. The internal problems are that marketers cannot point to valuable assets that they are creating, nor can they be effectively held accountable for the way that these assets are managed given that the assets are not recorded.

We do not expect immediate radical changes in financial reporting because financial accounting rules are designed with the specific interests of the suppliers of capital (debt and equity) in mind. To influence financial accounting developments, such as encouraging greater disclosure of marketing activity in the notes to the published accounts, marketers must be able to communicate in language understood by accountants and the current users of financial accounts. To aid this we provide guidance for marketers on the purpose and practices of accounting. We also discuss how academic marketing researchers might wish to adjust financial accounting data to capitalize a proportion of marketing expenses for companies where marketing is a primary driver of business performance.

This paper explores route‐choice patterns among motorists on a scenic road in south‐western Norway. Factor analysis is used to identify the characteristics of the types of motorists who seek particular benefits when they choose to travel along this specific route. Five factors were found: 1) experiencing landscapes and attractions; 2) outdoor recreation; 3) off the beaten track; 4) a suitable road; and 5) a variation of travel experiences. In conclusion, the paper offers an alternative framework of road choice structures.

Although unproven, many researchers have assumed that firm strategies remain constant over time, but such conclusions have resulted in conflicting generalizations. This study further extends the use of interpoint distance methodology to compare factor structures of marketing strategies of entrepreneurial technology firms at two points‐in‐time – 1989 and 1998.

In order to understand why consumers choose certain products over others, marketers study consumer behavior. This concept of involvement is significant in understanding and explaining consumer behavior (Bloch 1981; Bloch, 1982; Zaichkowsky, 1985; Celsi and Olson, 1988; Engel, et al., 1990; Assael, 1995). The term became popular in marketing circles through Krugman's research in television advertising and low‐involvement learning in 1965 (Krugman, 1965).