SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, CONSUMERISM, AND
THE MARKETING CONCEPT
Robert D. Winsor, Loyola Marymount University
This paper compares the often-criticized "selling orientation" or "selling concept" with the commonly-praised "societal marketing concept "from the perspectives of consumer rationality and persuasibility. It is suggested that both orientations view consumers as relatively irrational and as easily prone to manipulation by marketers. The implications of this similarity are explored from the perspectives of consumerism and social responsibility.
Critics of marketing have consistently attacked the discipline for discounting consumers' intelligence and capacity for rational choice and for deliberately confounding consumers in their efforts to make rational, informed, unbiased, and free economic choices. At the same time, societal trends have pushed U.S. businesses in the direction of increasing concern for social issues and attention to long-run consumer welfare. The aforementioned criticisms and pressures for increasing social responsibility are largely driven by the same social paradigms and constituents. Yet, it is noteworthy that the ultimate result of an expanded social responsibility of business is the concomitant diminishment of free consumer choice. Moreover, this obstruction of consumer discretion is the inevitable consequence of presumptions of consumer irrationality.
Thus, while groups such as consumerists have often criticized marketers explicitly for rejecting notions of consumer rationality, these same groups and sentiments have forcefully promoted the social responsibility of business and the societal marketing concept as advancements in business thought and practice. As a result, contradictions can be seen to exist within the consumerist agenda, and are apparent (but unacknowledged) in the "societal marketing concept" and calls for increasing the responsibility of business toward social issues and concerns. The goal of this paper is to expose these contradictions and to elaborate upon their implications for business and society in general. THE EVOLUTION OF THE MARKETING CONCEPT
In January of 1960, the marketing discipline entered a new age. In this year, we were presented with no ground-breaking theory, no pioneering methodology, no brilliant adaptation of another discipline's construct, and no monumental grant. We were, however, given something we would come to treasure much more highly than any of these. We were provided a raison d'être and a philosophical foundation.
It was on this date that the Journal of Marketing published an article by Robert Keith (1960) entitled "The Marketing Revolution." And, since its publication, marketers have been able to feel justified in believing that their efforts were not only indispensable, but that they have been instrumental in bringing about sweeping improvements in the evolution of business practice.
Although the revolution described by Keith has been tamed to become the "evolution" of the marketing concept, and the generalizablity of the evolution it described has been questioned by some (e.g. Fullerton, 1988), the transformation in American business described by Keith's model has nonetheless served as a source of explanation and justification for marketing academicians. The "post-evolution" marketers have been lent a degree of dignity and a sense of purpose which was conspicuously lacking before. Prior to this date, marketers were perceived to be at best superfluous, and at worst dishonest or unscrupulous. Not that the average citizen considers marketing in any different light today, but the belief in an evolution of the marketing concept has allowed the academic marketing community a certain degree of self-respect.
In his article, Keith described four "eras" or periods of thought and practice through which his organization, The Pillsbury Company, progressed. Keith believed that these eras were characteristic of most businesses...
References: Abernathy, W., Clark, and Kantrow (1983), Industrial Renaissance; Producing a
Competitive Future for America, New York: Basic Books.
Bauer, R. and S. Greyser (1967), "The Dialogue That Never Happens," Harvard Business
Review, (November-December), 186-190.
Barksdale, Hiram C. and Bill Darden (1971), "Marketers ' Attitudes Toward the
Marketing Concept," Journal of Marketing, 35 (October), 28-36.
Bell, M. and W. Emory (1971), "The Faltering Marketing Concept," Journal of
Marketing 35, (October), (37-42).
Business Week (1969), "Business Responds to Consumerism," September 6, 95.
Business Week (1988), "What Led Beech-Nut Down the Road to Disgrace," February 2,
Buszka, Sharlene (1997), "A Case of Greewashing: The Body Shop," in Proceedings of
the Association of Management and the International Association of Management l5th
Dodge, Lowell (1972), Small--On Safety: The Designed-In Dangers of the Volkswagen,
New York: Grossman.
Drucker, P. (1958), "Marketing and Economic Development," Journal of Marketing,
"Consumerism: The Opportunity of Marketing," address before the
National Association of Manufacturers, New York, April 10, later printed as "The Shame
of Marketing," Marketing Communications, August, 1969, 60.
Entine, Jon (1994), "Shattered Image: Is the Body Shop Too Good to Be True?" Business
Friedman, Milton (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago
Fullerton, Ronald A. (1988), "How Modern is Modern Marketing? Marketing 's Evolution
and the Myth of the 'Production Era, '" Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 108-125.
Halberstam, David (1986), The Reckoning, New York: Avon Books.
Keith, R. (1960), "The Marketing Revolution," Journal of Marketing, 24(January), 35-3
Klein, T. (1979), "Contemporary Problems, Marketing Theory, and Futures Research," in
Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing: AMA Proceedings, 258-263.
Kimery, Kathryn M. and Shelley M. Rinehart (1998), "Markets and Constituencies: An
Alternative View of the Marketing Concept," Journal of Business Research, 43, 117-124.
Kotler, P. (1977a), "From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness," Harvard
Business Review (November-December), 67-75.
________(1972), "What Consumerism Means for Marketers," Harvard Business Review,
________(1977b), "Considerations In a Theory of Humanistic Marketing," Working
Paper, Graduate School Of Management, Northwestern University.
________(1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, eighth
edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
________, and S. Levy, (1969), "Broadening the Concept of Marketing," Journal of
Marketing, (January), 10-15.
Langworth, Richard M. and Graham Robson (1987), The Complete Book of Collectible
Cars, 1930-1980, New York: Beekman House.
Levitt, T. (1958), "The Dangers of Social Responsibility," Harvard Business Review, 36,
_______(1960), "Marketing Myopia," Harvard Business Review, (July-August).
_______(1977), "Marketing When Things Change," Journal of Marketing,
McGregor, D. (1957), "The Human Side of Enterprise," Management Review
McGregor, D. (1985), The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKitterick, J. (1958), "What is the Marketing Management Concept?" in The Frontiers
of Marketing Thought and Science, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 71-82.
Nader, Ralph (1965), Unsafe At Any Speed: The Designed In Dangers of the American
Automobile, New York: Grossman.
Samli, A., K. Palda, and A. Barker (1987), "Toward a Mature Marketing Concept," Sloan
Management Review (Winter), 45-5 1.
Zinn, Laura (1991), "Whales, Human Rights, Rain Forests --- And the Heady Smell of
Profits," Business Week, July 15, 114-115.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document