Search results

Changes in the financial services sector, brought about by new legislation and increased competition, have led to many institutions turning to marketing as a means of adjustment. Building societies, in particular, have been placed in a situation where the development of marketing is crucial to corporate performance. In this scenario, marketing information systems should serve to underpin and strengthen the marketing concept in its implementation phase. Suggests, via empirical evidence, that current strategies deployed by smaller building societies for the development of marketing information systems may actually fall short in terms of marketing intelligence.

This article appraises the current marketing policies of the building societies and suggests an alternative strategy based upon an assessment of the motivations of investors and the dynamics of the funds market. In particular a short review of the societies' growth over the previous decade shows their extremely successful performance (giving timely perspective to the recent and well‐publicised difficulties of the movement), but a detailed analysis of the marketing programmes and “products” offered by the societies does suggest that societies as a whole have been slow to adapt to the maturity and size of the market in which they now operate. It is argued that these delays have accentuated the recent difficulties of the movement, and clearly they hold serious longer‐term threats to growth. Finally a strategy of market segmentation is outlined which is based upon the heterogeneity of investors and the nature of competition for funds.

An assessment of Axel Honneth’s reception and appropriation of Hegel’s theory of normative reconstruction as presented in his Freedom’s Right (Columbia University Press, 2014).

A comparative assessment of Honneth’s and Hegel’s approach to normative reconstruction focusing on three basic issues: general methodology, understandings of the logic and program of the Philosophy of Right, and analyses and assessments of modern market societies as detailed in Hegel’s account of civil society (bürgerliche Gesellschaft).

For Honneth, normative reconstruction consists in reworking modes of social rationality already realized in modern institutions. By contrast, Hegel is shown to advance an approach to reconstruction in which an account of social rationality is properly fashioned only in the reconstruction process itself. In this way Hegel is also shown to proffer an approach to normative reconstruction that is at once more robustly reconstructive and more robustly normative than is the case with Honneth.

The paper demonstrates the ongoing value of Hegel’s thought for social and political theory. It illuminates Hegel’s uniquely dialectical approach to immanent social critique, dedicated not only to explicating existing tensions and “bifurcations” (Entzweiungen) but – with the help of a distinctive account of Bildung (cultivation or formation) – to engaging those tensions and bifurcations in order to delineate the conditions for their constructive supersession. It also elucidates different ways in which critical social theorists, committed to notions of “immanent transcendence,” draw on the resources of market societies to mount normative challenges to the aporias of those societies.

Presents the results of an empirical study that investigates comparatively the mortgage‐pricing determinants of national, regional and local building societies. Considers and discusses the importance of the three main generic strategies (focus, differentiation and cost leadership) and building societies′ main pricing objectives – profit margins, market share, and mutuality. The findings suggest that building societies′ mortgage pricing is influenced primarily by internal industry determinants – such as “costs” and “competitors′ prices” – and to a lesser extent by market‐related factors (customers′ perception of value and elasticity of demand). A large majority of building societies view profit margins, rather than market share, as their primary pricing objective. In order to facilitate this pricing objective, societies select strategies that match their size and market characteristics. Local building societies employ primarily a focus strategy, while national and regional building societies aim at achieving their profit margins mainly through differentiation and cost leadership strategies.

There is significant debate regarding the necessity for and existence of moral exemplars in business. We believe it is both necessary and beneficial for free market economic systems to be viewed as a moral exemplar by business students, educators, practitioners, and ethicists. Since much of the world operates under some type of free market economic paradigm, it is important that there be a moral base for these operations.

Free market economic systems are usually defended on utilitarian grounds, that they produce better results than other systems. In this chapter we take a micro approach and show that free market economic systems support individual rights and dignity. This is important because business persons need moral exemplars based in their own discipline’s theory to recognize the vocational aspects of business. That is, business persons must understand why free market systems serve the greater good.

Free market systems are not a complete or perfect moral exemplar. Business persons need to know the limits of the economic system and find other moral exemplars for their role as citizens. We illustrate this with the discussion of monopoly and Option for the Poor.

Catholic Social Teaching (CST), the moral exemplar of the Roman Catholic Church, has been developed over many centuries. The purpose of this chapter is to show how free market economic outcomes are compatible with CST goals. Illustrating the consistency between CST and free market systems provides compelling evidence that such systems are indeed a moral exemplar for business persons.

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.

The aim of this article is to explore how social engineering and social marketing are connected, and how social marketing is a tool used to achieve adherence to social engineering.

Through examination of contemporary and historical thinking around social marketing, we present a conceptual argument that social marketing is another tool of the social engineer, and that social engineering, through methods such as social marketing, is pervasive throughout all societies in positive ways.

We develop a conceptual model of social engineering and social marketing, which goes beyond behaviour change to incorporate the essentials of society and the influencers of those essentials. In doing so, we show that social marketing influenced behaviour lies within the social engineering influenced laws, codes and norms of society, which in turn lie within the morals, values and beliefs of society.

This article provides for the first time a conceptual grounding of social marketing within social engineering, enabling academics and practitioners to contextualise social marketing activities in a broader societal framework.

Looks at the savings market, its importance to building societies and the way it is changing, with specific reference to the competition from other sectors and the emergence of postal accounts. Five areas of focus are examined which may provide some ways forward for building societies in achieving competitive advantage. These are (1) customer retention, (2) service quality, (3) customer segmentation, (4) serving customer needs, and (5) a consideration of customer profitability. Now would seem to be the right time for building societies to consider carefully how they can provide a superior service to particular groups of customers.

This paper revisits old questions of the proper subject and bounds of economics: does economics study “provisioning”? or markets? or a method of reasoning, self‐interested rational optimization?

A variety of scholars and others in many fields make use of a taxonomy of society consisting of three “spheres”: markets, governments, and communities. It is argued here that this tripartite taxonomy of society is fundamental and exhaustive. A variety of ways of understanding this taxonomy are explored, especially Fiske's (1991, 2004) “Relational models theory.” Then – after communities and their products, social goods, are defined more thoroughly – a visual model of interactions among the three spheres is presented.

The model is first used briefly to understand the historical development of markets. The model is then applied to understanding how economic thinking and market ideology, including the notion of social capital, can be destructive of communities and their production of social goods (and their production of social capital as well).

It is not possible to measure these effects monetarily, so calculating precisely “how this affects results” in a standard economic model is impossible.

Nevertheless we could better prepare students for real‐world analysis, and better serve our clients, including the public, if – whenever relevant, such as in textbook introductions and in benefit/cost analyses – we made them aware of the limitations of economic analysis with respect to communities and social goods.

The three‐spheres model offered here, based on Fiske's “Relational models theory,” facilitates this awareness.

Democracy can be viewed as an end state (structure) or as a process. In the 20th century, theories of the democratic structure and process (and thus the end state to be achieved and the structures necessary to achieve it) were highly contested. Some argued that only by freeing markets from state control could democracy materialize. Others argued that getting policies right would promote democracy – and a free market. A third group argued that the state was the problem, and that only by relying on civil society could democracy emerge and be maintained. We can classify differing approaches to democracy under three ideal types that drove debate and practice, depending on the sector seen as critical to the process. Stemming from 19th century theorists, three sectoral approaches were in conflict: those that stressed the market (neoliberalism), those that stressed the state (statism), and those that stressed “the people” or civil society (the populist approach).