Search results

The purpose of this paper is to respond to the criticism O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy made of service‐dominant logic in EJM, on behalf of both the paper and the worldwide community of scholars that have embraced S‐D logic as historically informed, integrative, transcending and rich in its potential to generate theoretical and practical contributions.

The paper is a critical, conceptual analysis of the fallacious arguments that O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy developed to argue against the emerging and rapidly developing service‐dominant logic.

The paper shows that, contrary to the claims of O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy, S‐D logic: is neither regressive nor intended to displace all other marketing perspectives; is not advocating technology at the expense of explanatory theory; and is pre‐theoretic and intended to be soundly grounded in a manner to assist theory construction.

Theory advancement is critical to marketing and S‐D logic puts special emphasis on the development of theory. It begins to do this by proposing ten foundational premises, which some may wish to refer to as axioms. From these axioms, considerable theoretical work and related empirical research can develop.

O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy wish to prevent marketing scholars from adopting, advocating, and supporting service‐dominant logic and, as they suggest, taking a backward step. They view the S‐D logic movement as primarily USA‐dominated (which it is not) and are firmly anti‐S‐D logic. The available evidence from around the world suggests that the S‐D logic movement has profound implications for the advancement of both marketing science and marketing practice.

It is critical that S‐D logic should not be viewed as being represented by a single paper but as a body of work that Lusch and Vargo have developed since their initial publication and also the work of a community of scholars working collaboratively to co‐create S‐D logic.

By its nature, the capitalistic economic system has produced numerous ethical conflicts. The professions, as well as business in general, have been impacted by the increased emphasis on ethical behaviour. In the past few years, there has been an increased interest in business ethics. One profession which has especially grown due to the increased awareness of ethical issues is internal auditing. This has been in part due to the need for more reliable accounting records, tighter administrative controls, and improved operational efficiency. In order to provide some guidance to its members regarding ethical behaviour, the Institute of Internal Auditors has constructed a code of ethics. Describes how, through the use of a questionnaire, the views of practising internal auditors regarding the currently used code of ethics were obtained and analysed. The responses revealed that a substantial number of internal auditors do consult the code of ethics for guidance in making ethical decisions. A majority of the auditors believe that the code of ethics could be more effective if better enforcement methods were put into effect. Most respondents also believe that the code is complete as it is currently written and does not need to be expanded.

The purpose of this paper is to reply to Andrew V. Abela's “Marketing and consumption: a response to O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy”: European Journal of Marketing. The article challenges a number of alleged claims in their paper “Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism”, and the authors' response seeks to present a systematic and, hopefully, intellectually coherent answer to Abela's critique.

The paper proceeds via discussion, argument and conceptual analysis. The three key areas of critique, which focus on the notion that these authors are somehow desensitized to the ethical significance of materialism and marketing's role in its causation, are examined in succession.

There can be no finality in this discussion, only further debate; nevertheless we believe we substantiate our claim that marketing alone does not “cause” materialism but that it is an inalienable fact of human nature. The first claim attributed to us was that the harms of materialism had not been demonstrated empirically. This misrepresents what we said and nowhere in the paper did we make such a claim. The second alleged claim is that we said it is unlikely that marketing causes materialism. Much here depends on how Abela is interpreting cause, since we do not deny marketing contributes by facilitating materialism but reject the idea that it is a necessary or sufficient condition for materialism. The third claim is that we see no alternatives to the current system that are consistent with human freedom. This paper acknowledges this charge, but questions whether strong consumer materialism is a major problem and maintains in any case that the alternative suggested by Abela is neither feasible nor viable.

This stands as part of the larger fields of marketing ethics, macromarketing and, more broadly, the “politics of consumption” (which would include such areas as globalisation); the merit/demerit of marketing as a transformative social force, and whether it is materialising peoples and cultures, is high on any future marketing research agenda. This article contributes to that debate.

If the ills of society are successfully attributed to the agency of marketing – and “materialism” is a convenient shorthand for these ills – then we invite legislative and other forms of retribution. It is important therefore that alternative perspectives get a hearing.

This topic is ultimately about the ethical status – and by extension social value – of marketing itself. By rigorous conceptual analysis and theoretic and literary support, these authors create a credible, though by no means uncritical, alibi for marketing.

This paper describes the personal history and intellectual development of Morris B. Holbrook (MBH), a participant in the field of marketing academics in general and consumer research in particular.

The paper pursues an approach characterized by historical autoethnographic subjective personal introspection or HASPI.

The paper reports the personal history of MBH and – via HASPI – interprets various aspects of key participants and major themes that emerged over the course of his career.

The main implication is that every scholar in the field of marketing pursues a different light, follows a unique path, plays by idiosyncratic rules, and deserves individual attention, consideration, and respect … like a cat that carries its own leash.

In the case of MBH, like (say) a jazz musician, whatever value he might have depends on his originality.

This paper is a rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's defense of their service‐dominant logic paper against criticism.

The paper responds to Lusch and Vargo's defense and criticism of the initial article primarily through examining the logic of their case.

The paper finds that both the charges and the arguments against the criticism have no merit.

The paper offers guidance as to the approach needed to advance the study of service marketing. This rejects the notion that viewing all businesses as service entities is a progressive approach but recommends a disjunctive definition of service, which would throw up service‐categories that needed to be studied in their own right if progress is to be made.

The paper suggests that Lusch and Vargo's S‐D‐dominant logic is unlikely to be practically fruitful while remaining theoretically limited.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the “service dominant” perspective advocated by Vargo and Lusch and applauded by so many marketing academics in the USA is neither logically sound nor a perspective to displace others in marketing.

The paper is a conceptual analysis of the Vargo and Lusch paper that takes account of the implications of the service perspective being adopted as the perspective to replace all others.

The paper finds that the definition of services, seeking as it does to embrace all types of marketing, is too broad to have much operational meaning, while the focusing on activities rather than functions misdirects marketing altogether. Vargo and Lusch revive the claim that marketing should be viewed as a technology, the aim being to discover the techniques and rules (principles) applying to marketing. However, indifference to theoretical considerations encourages crudeness and the cultivation of ad hoc solutions. The Vargo and Lusch paper suggests that there is a one best way: a single unitary perspective for marketing. Instead there is a need for multiple perspectives in marketing, together with the methodological pluralism that it implies.

The paper does not claim to have teased out all the implications of the service‐dominant approach to marketing and other marketing academics might take into account other considerations such as the feasibility of the approach.

The paper suggests the abandonment of any approach that disdains theory and believes that the development of marketing technology is the way to go.

The paper offers original criticisms of the service‐dominant perspective and its value lies in holding marketing back from taking a backward step.

Marketing is commonly assumed to be responsible for the consumer society with its hedonistic lifestyle and for undermining other cultures by its materialistic stance. This, for many critics, is the dark side of consumer marketing, undermining its ethical standing. This paper considers the connection between marketing, the consumer society, globalization and the hedonistic lifestyle, and whether marketing is guilty as charged. After all, anything that affects the image of marketing as a profession is important, as this influences both recruitment and social acceptance.

This paper presents a methodology based on rough set theory whereby certain and possible rules can be derived utilizing the experience of the reviewers. Adoption of this methodology will help the AICPA in closely monitoring the peer review and identifying inconsistencies in the process.

Discusses conceptual links between consuming and buying by indicating reasons for adopting a macro‐level perspective that focuses on products, rather than brands, as the units of analysis. Investigates, empirically, in a study, which collected data on want‐based purchasing reasons and used perceptions from independent samples from UK housewives. Posits that two salient reasons exist for studying such consumption (not purchasing) phenomena: first, experiential aspects of consumption; and second, consumption phenomena (or its anticipation) which are likely to exert a strong influence on buying decisions. Reports that the results herein reported must be viewed as exploratory in nature, with still undetermined potential for generalization to the UK population, or to other cultures. Suggests, finally, that reasons for usage differ markedly between product categories, but, within a product category, reasons for choosing brands tend to be similar.

Examines the marketing concept (MC) and its foundation of customer orientation. Proposes that the General Electric Company promulgated MC and that this followed the Second World War, before being accepted formally by academics. States that the two major concepts are: that consumers know what they want; and that consumer sovereignty prevails. Believes marketers cannot take consumers as a given nor take them for granted and neither can manufacturers or they will also suffer. Questions whether consumers are always informed about products and what exactly they require and whether firms see themselves as merely responding to the market flow. States, in conclusion, that marketing communications can help shape wants and beliefs and that marketers should aim their best efforts at this area to enable better contacts.