Critical Developments in Commerce - Assignment Example

Q1 Vargo and Lush propose that the service dominant logic (SD-Logic replaces the traditional goods dominant logic (GD-Logic) marketing approach . Define and compare the SD-Logic with the GD-Logic .Giving your reasons discuss which areas of marketing the SD-Logic makes a new contribution to marketing and what may be its limitations . Service dominant logic (SD-Logic) and goods dominant logic (GD-Logic) marketing approaches are the same in their belief that, in order to make profits, business entities should be able to deliver products that are valuable to customers. GD-Logic believes that business entities should not only be able to produce goods, but these goods must also have “utility and value” that are embedded “during the production and distribution processes” and must be more valuable compared to what competitors offer (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.5). These goods, in turn, impact the bottom line. SD-Logic agrees that business entities should offer products with value to consumers. These products must have “competitively compelling value propositions to meet specific needs” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.5). These two logics agree that products must be valuable and sellable to give profits to business entities. SD-Logic and GD-Logic have more differences, however, particularly in how they see the use of and interconnections between operand and operant resources. Vargo and Lusch (2004) explain the differences between these two marketing logics using operand and operant resources. Constantin and Lusch (1994) define these resources where, on the one hand, operand resources pertain to “physical, tangible assets” which receive actions that turn them to specific outcomes; while on the other hand, operant resources (i.e. human skills and knowledge) are applied to operand resources to generate said outcomes (cited in Gurău, 2009, p.187). Vargo and Lusch (2004, p.7) assert that SD-Logic and GD-Logic are different in terms of “primary unit of exchange,” “role of goods,” “role of customer,” “determination and meaning of value,” “firm-customer interaction,” and “source of economic growth.” For GD-Logic, the first variable refers to the primary unit of exchange where goods are the main exchange units, so they are seen as operand resources, while for SD-Logic, people conduct exchanges to have the advantages of specialised competences or services, so knowledge and skills are the operant resources that turn operand resources into something valuable to customers and business entities alike (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). The second variable is the role of goods where GD-Logic sees goods as end products because they are already valuable operand resources per se, while SD-Logic argues that goods merely relay operant resources of “embedded knowledge” and that they embody “intermediate products” that are ready for the consumption of other operant resources, such as customers, through “value-creation processes” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). The third variable is customers’ role. GD-Logic sees customers as receivers of goods and as operand resources, whereas SD-Logic views them as “coproducers of service” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). GD-Logic says that marketers do things on customers, such as segment and sell to them, while SD-Logic insists that marketers do their jobs properly when they do it with customers, which makes the latter operant resources more than operand ones (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). The fourth variable is determining value. GD-Logic states that producers determine value and that value is inside operand resources through exchange-value processes, while SD-Logic asserts that customers perceive and identify value through “value in use,” so companies can only offer “value propositions” and not “real value” automatically (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). The fifth variable is company-customer interaction. GD-Logic insists that customers are operand resources that receive actions and goods, while SD-Logic argues that customers are dominantly operant resources and they actively shape relational exchanges and production of goods and services (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). The sixth variable is source of economic development. GD-Logic is based on traditional economics that asserts that wealth comes from the surplus of tangible operand resources and the control and ownership of operand resources, while SD Logic states that wealth is only produced through applying and exchanging specialised knowledge and skills (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.7). SD-Logic provides new contributions to marketing because it is a more holistic approach to marketing that enriches marketing thought and practice. First, SD-Logic is more holistic than GD-Logic because the former does not fragment goods and services and other important elements in marketing, a perspective which improves marketing theories (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p.1). SD-Logic offers a comprehensive look at marketing that integrates goods and services, as well as engages customers and other stakeholders in improving marketing efforts (Paulin and Ferguson, 2010, p.386). This alone generates new concepts about customer interactions and value that point to new marketing theory directions. Relational value, in particular, is an SD-Logic concept that helps marketers further analyse perceptions of values through relational norms (Paulin and Ferguson, 2010, p.386). SD-Logic emphasises the role of relational norms and relationship practices in marketing goals development and marketing effectiveness. Second, SD-Logic improves marketing in practice through a holistic approach to marketing goals, components, and interactions. SD-Logic is more holistic than GD-Logic because it is customer-centric (centred in customer needs and preferences, including other customer characteristics that impact purchasing decision) and market-driven (which means that products and services are designed out of actual market demands, not because the company has operand resources to begin with and to dispose of). GD-Logic focuses on products, in the sense that marketing starts with it. SD-Logic begins with market needs and customer demands, which ensures that products and services have a real market once produced/served. Gummesson (2008) further notes how SD-Logic improves marketing’s sensitivity to all stakeholders, not just customers. His “concept of balanced centricity” means that all stakeholders have rights to have their needs and wants satisfied (Gummesson, 2008, p.17). “Balanced centricity” is an interesting marketing concept that is aligned with sustainable development principles that more and more marketers believe in and integrate in their practices. Furthermore, SD-Logic motivates innovations that GD-Logic cannot because it is too product and company-centred as a marketing perspective. Ordanini and Parasuraman (2009, p.141) show how SD-Logic improves marketing theory and practice through providing a new lens of perceiving service innovation. They argue for the impact of SD-Logic (SDL) on service innovation: “SDL...offers a conceptualization of services that is not derived from tangible goods, but comes from a novel and super-ordinate vision of service processes.” SD-Logic offers conceptual bases in creating new marketing tools or improving existing ones because of its novel approach on seeing the role of customers and the determination and provision of value. Word Count: 1,032 Reference List Gummesson, E., 2008. Extending the service-dominant logic: from customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.15-17. Gurău, C., 2009. Marketing flexibility in the context of the service-dominant logic. Marketing Review, 9(3), pp.185-197. Ordanini, A. and Parasuraman, A.P., 2009. Service innovation in the service-dominant logic: in search of a framework. AMA Winter Educators Conference Proceedings, 20, pp.140-153. Paulin, M. and Ferguson, R.J., 2010. Relational norms in interfirm exchanges: from transactional cost economics to the service-dominant logic. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 17(4), pp.365-405. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, pp.1-17. Q2 Explain why social media is a challenge to marketing managers operating in consumer markets .What advice would you give to an organization in the use social media to benefit their business and those areas where it may result in negative consumer reactions ? Social media (SM) is a challenge to marketing managers because of difficulties in determining metrics that can monetise the impact of SM on the bottom line and the differences between customers per se and communities of SM users that are composed of both customers and non-customers. Social media is a new marketing channel that customers use differently in terms of purpose, frequency, and motivations. Marketing managers cannot easily identify SM metrics because of these differences within users of one SM channel (i.e. Facebook) and across the SM landscape. Barger and Labrecque (2013, p.64) note the difficulties in measuring SM’s marketing potential and outcomes because of lack of standardisation in these metrics in theory and practice. Furthermore, measuring and monetising SM’s contributions to marketing goals are difficult because of problems in determining essential SM information and how to input them into customer relationship management (CRM) systems. Ang (2011, p.32) notes: “Indeed, one of the major challenges facing organisations experimenting with social networking is that of deciphering and integrating personal information from SM back into the CRM system.” This concern includes privacy issues and information verification issues (i.e. truthfulness of SM information and validity with respect to various marketing needs). Besides metrics issues, social media is a challenge to marketing managers because it is different from usual consumers in that people are part of online communities that they actively shape and which can actively shape them too depending. SM is a dynamic landscape because customers of different ages are using it for different goals and motivations. When they interact with SM users, they are interacting with them as part of a community, as if SM is part of a new social identity where they are active producers and recipients of content. Marketers are new to SM and how customers form their social identities through it (Bacile et al., 2014, p.33). They are still making sense of the landscape and how they can integrate it into their marketing communication goals and objectives. In addition, SM is open and dynamic that creates challenges for marketers in that negative information can spread like wildfire. Customers interact with others through blogs, social networking sites and even company websites, among others, in sharing negative experiences with companies and/or their employees/products/services (Bacile et al., 2014, p.33). The effect is the inability of marketers to mediate and manage the fast and immediate flow of information and opinions. Though marketing managers face challenges in managing SM, marketing scholars offer ways of effectively managing these issues. Ang (2011, p.42) recommends the use of “community relationship management” (CoRM) that has “4 Cs,” “connectivity, conversations, content creation and collaboration.” He argues that companies can only manage SM if it knows how SM helps users create value for its communities (Ang, 2011, p.34). Connectivity refers to the aspect of SM that allows the easy creation of social networks; conversations are instantaneous and done in real-time; content creation is a democratic practice where anyone can participate virtually any time (with restrictions though that people and communities place on those who can/cannot participate); and collaboration among users in attaining community goals/projects (Ang, 2011, pp.34-35). Ang (2011, pp.35-37) explains that companies can use these 4Cs in “marketing research and public relations,” influencing opinion leaders and company advocates, making or reinforcing advertisements, sources of ideas for product development, decreasing costs of serving customers, building brand loyalty and awareness, and increasing sales. Other scholars offer SM metrics that can be customised for different SM channels and tips in managing SM channels. Barger and Labrecque (2013, p.65) remind marketers to determine short-term and long-term SM marketing objectives first and to align them with existing marketing communication goals and strategies. They recommend seven metrics: “volume, share of voice, engagement, advocates, return on investment, leads generated and response time” (Barger and Labrecque, 2013, p.66). These metrics are important because they can quantitatively measure SM’s effects on marketing outcomes, but they cannot measure qualitative effects. Apart from these metrics, marketers should consider SM challenges that impact SM measurement. Woodcock et al. (2011, p.63) underscore that SM can have negative effects on marketing because of the following factors: “organisational readiness, over-hype and over-expectation and project management failings.” They recommend the improvement of organisational readiness in measuring SM and treating it as important to marketing strategies, creating realistic expectations for SM effects, determining commitment levels of consumers through SM use, and learning from project management failures (Woodcock et al., 2011, pp.56-57). They add that managing SM technically through CRM is not a technical matter, but a social matter where companies must view SM as composed of people and relationships, thereby determining qualitative metrics (Woodcock et al., 2011, p.64). As for managing complaints and negative experiences posted through SM, companies must have direct ways for handling them in the same channels and beyond. Bacile et al. (2014) explore the conceptual challenges of social media because of lack of empirical research on SM’s use and relevance to integrated marketing communications (IMC). They argue that companies should start studying these SM channels that customers are using when sending negative messages about their products/services or anything about the company, so that they can properly and timely respond to them using the same channels (Bacile et al., 2014, p.46). It must be added that companies should also reinforce these messages of handling and resolving these complains and negative images in traditional channels too because it helps in sending a unified commitment to managing negative brand experiences. Ramsay (2010) provides practical SM etiquette for companies. His dos and don’ts include handling customer complaints and concerns. On this part, he highlights that companies should handle them in the same channels that these experiences and complaints are conveyed because doing so avoids escalation of issues and feelings of lack of commitment to consumers (Ramsay, 2010, p.258). In addition, Ramsay (2010, p.259) gives basic dos and don’ts specifically: (1) having a communications strategy that is related to the overall marketing communications strategy; (2) using a communication style that humanises the company and engages customers; (3) not using social media for dominantly communicating corporate-centred activities and others; and (4) balancing real human conversations and sales objectives. These tips are integrated further in etiquettes for diverse SM channels, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Linkedin (Ramsay, 2010, pp.259-161). The main characteristics of ethics are engagement, sincerity, and observation of general explicit and implicit SM rules and guidelines. Word Count: 1,061 Reference List Ang, L., 2011. Community relationship management and social media. Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 18(1), pp.31–38. Bacile, T., Hoffacker, C. and White, A., 2014. Emerging challenges in social media. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 6(1), pp.34-51. Barger, V.A. and Labrecque, L.I., 2013. An integrated marketing communications perspective on social media metrics. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 5(1), pp. 64-76. Ramsay, M., 2010. Social media etiquette: a guide and checklist to the benefits and perils of social marketing. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4), pp.257-261. Woodcock, N., Green, A. and Starkey, M., 2011. Social CRM as a business strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 18(1), pp.50-64. Q 3 Explain and discuss the concept of a marketing system and why it is important for marketing managers to have knowledge of the system in which their organization operates. “Marketing system” as a concept is central to macromarketing that developed during the 1960s through studies on marketing systems that are viewed as aggregated systems. Layton (2007) defines marketing system through networks and economic exchanges. He says: A marketing system is a network of individuals, groups, and/or entities linked directly or indirectly through sequential or shared participation in economic exchange that creates, assembles, transforms, and makes available assortments of products, both tangible and intangible, provided in response to customer demand. (Layton, 2007, p.230). His idea of marketing system is embedded in a macromarketing perspective that understands how markets exist in their social, economic, political, and cultural conditions. In other words, marketing system is not confined to economic circumstances and outcomes, but in how social systems shape these economic exchanges and output. Aside from a macro-level approach to marketing, “marketing system” is connected to critical marketing perspectives because of its consideration of how social systems link in providing assortments and how business entities affect these social systems. Ellis et al. (2011, p.6) note how macromarketing concepts are aligned with critical marketing which emphasises social justice and sustainability in marketing goals. Lefebvre (2014) agrees that marketing system shows the need for corporate social responsibilities. Macromarketing studies how marketing systems impact society and how society shapes marketing systems (Lefebvre, 2014, p.25). The marketing system is not detached from social issues and goals, but rather, formed within these social contexts. Social systems and marketing systems are dynamic and interconnected systems that can impact marketing principles and aspirations, as well as marketing success. Marketing managers should have knowledge of the marketing system where their companies operate because it provides a fuller account of the social systems that impact marketing systems compared to studying microsystems only. Micromarketing is concerned of individuals and their interactions and exchanges with organisations, while macromarketing studies social interactions and exchanges that impact marketing systems (Lefebvre, 2014, p.25). Marketing systems are descriptions of how the real world works. Marketing managers do not exist in a vacuum where only companies and consumers exist. Instead, market systems are part of the macrosystem, which emphasises the importance of macromarketing (Diaz Ruiz, 2012, p.73). Market systems helps marketing managers understand how marketing works at the social scale. Layton (2007, p.233) points out the connections between economic and social systems: One important consequence of [the marketing system] view is that [it] points the way to a fresh approach to environment that...draws not only on macromarketing but also on work in economic sociology concerned with the idea of a field and on the continuing interest in the strategic management literature. He shows the reality of marketing systems that works in conjunction with other human systems. The marketing system concept provides holistic descriptive knowledge about marketing that improves marketing managers’ framework for marketing research and analysis. Another importance of knowing the marketing system of organisations is to attain economic organisational goals more efficiently and effectively by connecting them to actual and future social economic goals and exchanges. Organisational life is based on economic exchanges that produce assortments that communities need and want and that they are willing to pay or trade for (Layton, 2007, p.27). These assortments have tangible and intangible components because goods and services have value, not only because of physical benefits, but also because of social, emotional, cultural, and other forms of perceived benefits and effects. Layton (2007, p.237) states: “A concern with outcomes might lead to a study of market or trading efficiencies, access issues, relative pricing, distributional effects, potential criminality, and culture change.” If business entities want to remain valuable to their communities, they must know the marketing mechanisms that impact social and individual consumption decisions because this knowhow is essential to organisations’ long-term stability (Diaz Ruiz, 2012, p.73). Furthermore, marketing systems can enhance marketing efficiency because of maximisations of social systems and exchange mechanisms. Layton (2007, p.232) explains marketing system’s links: “A marketing system will often link many such markets in the creation, assembly, transformation, and dispersion of assortments in response to customer demand.” These linkages reduce costs if consumers and other entities provide or complement marketing functions, for instance. Marketing systems indicate what marketing managers should know and can use in attaining marketing goals. Besides social embeddedness, marketing systems help marketing managers in thinking about designing these systems for both corporate and social benefits. Marketing system designs need marketing system research and analysis. Layton (2007, p.235) states: “The need for a detailed understanding of the specific environmental factors affecting a marketing system is in a sense obvious and an essential precursor to the abstractions involved in a generic analysis.” He shows that marketing system uses elements that explain generic marketing realities. Layton (2007) also explores designing markets and market systems. He includes market design with concerns for profits and social benefits, as well as smoother information and ideas exchanges vertically (in organisations) and horizontally (across all stakeholders) (Layton, 2007, p.232). Designing globally and locally sustainable marketing systems are essential marketing research topics and aspirations. Marketing managers can have a large role in designing marketing systems that reduce negative social and environmental effects in the long run and in improving connections among organisations and other stakeholders because they all have a stake in a sustainable environment. Finally, marketing managers should know their marketing systems because it will help them be aware of and implement sustainability and social responsibility principles. Marketing managers do not only want short-term profits, but long-term economic exchanges. These economic exchanges cannot last without attendance to changing social markets, including changing individual and community needs and concerns (Diaz Ruiz, 2012, p.73). Marketing managers who incorporate sustainability measures into their marketing metrics and concerns are capable of determining and responding to sustainability principles. Moreover, marketing managers can use marketing systems to improve social responsibility. Marketing systems show that marketing has and can affect social norms that, in turn, impact both human and natural environment welfares (Lefebvre, 2014, p.25). Marketing systems help marketing managers reflect on corporate social responsibility, not only as a potential bottom-line enhancer or shaper, but also as part of core marketing principles. Macromarketing engages marketers in caring for stakeholders and the environment in ways that sensitise them to what matters in the long run and what matters to society in terms of social justice and the social responsibilities of firms. Word Count: 1,052 Reference List Diaz Ruiz, C.A., 2012. Theories of markets: insights from marketing and the sociology of markets. Marketing Review, 12(1), pp.61-77. Ellis, N., Fitchett, J., Higgins, M., Jack, G., Lim, M., Saren, M. and Tadajewski, M., 2011. Marketing: a critical textbook. London: SAGE. Lefebvre, R.C., 2014. Social marketing and social change: strategies and tools for improving health, well-being and the environment. California: Jossey Bass. Layton, R.A., 2007. Marketing systems—a core macromarketing concept. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(3), pp.227-242. Wymer, W., 2008. A macromarketing analysis of prescription drugs in the U.S. Journal of Research for Consumers, 2008(14), pp.1-19. Q4 What does the research tell us about why consumers and other stakeholders might be skeptical about CSR communications and what can organizations do to reduce this skepticism and improve CSR reputations? Consumers and other stakeholders might be sceptical of CSR communications because of lack of knowledge about companies’ CSR activities. CSR communication refers to “communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts” and how business entities express their reactions to the economic, social and environment effects of their operations and products/services (Morsing, 2006, p.171 cited in Perks et al., 2013, p.1882). Perks and Lauritsen (2013) studied CSR communications in UK supermarket settings. Their research reveals that respondents generally are sceptical of CSR because they do not even know if these supermarkets have CSR programs and activities. Lack of knowledge creates uncertainty that makes consumers unsure of what to think of organisational CSR efforts. In addition, these consumers may also lack knowledge of CSR itself. Perks and Lauritsen (2013) showed that some people can develop knowhow about CSR through the Internet and media and communication tools and technologies. Nevertheless, knowledge about CSR may be incomplete or unconvincing in relation to actual CSR activities. As a result, customers develop scepticism on what CSR is for and what it means for them as consumers and stakeholders of society. Another reason for scepticism is that companies lack effective CSR communications strategies in expressing CSR legitimacy. Perks et al. (2013) studied how companies use messages and images in their advertisements to send CSR propositions and if they employ diversion in communication practices and tactics. They used legitimacy theory and impression management to test their CSR hypotheses. Legitimacy theory assumes that organisations have a social contract with societies where they operate (Perks et al., 2013, p.1882). They cannot be legitimate in their CSR efforts if they do not report about them and do not follow CSR principles in their policies and actions. In addition, organisations practice impression management when they use CSR initiatives to express positive values that enhance corporate image (Perks et al., 2013, p.1883). The problem with CSR communications begins when companies do not provide substantial and relevant information about CSR that decreases CSR legitimacy. If they are also unconvincing in language and images used, CSR communications is comparable to other failed marketing efforts. CSR communications that do not have sincerity, relevance, substance or persuasiveness can lead to sceptic consumers. Besides poor CSR communications, some companies also have low brand familiarity that impact product evaluation. Brand familiarity pertains to product and service perceptions and experiences of consumers (Perera and Chaminda, 2013, p.248). Perera and Chaminda (2013) investigated the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and product evaluation and the moderating role of brand familiarity on the association between CSR and product evaluation. They learned that CSR activities have an impact on consumer’s decisions and positively connected with product evaluation (Perera and Chaminda, 2013, p.253). Brand familiarity, furthermore, moderates product evaluation. The more that people know the brand, the more that they can connect CSR with companies and these perceptions with product evaluation (Perera and Chaminda, 2013, p.253). Low brand familiarity, in effect, can reduce CSR’s impact on product evaluation. In connection, poor marketing strategies that lead to low brand familiarity can decrease the impact of CSR efforts. Finally, consumers are sceptical because they see the hypocrisy of CSR communications when they do not reflect in actual company actions/products/services. Wagner et al. (2009) examined the involving the “concept of corporate hypocrisy,” especially its causes and effects and the role of communications strategies in shaping and moderating consumer perceptions of corporate hypocrisy. They define corporate hypocrisy as the difference between what the company says it is and what it really is through what it does and says in public/private (Wagner et al., 2009, p.79). Wagner et al. (2009) note from their study that when people see hypocrisy in CSR behaviours, they are sceptical of CSR programs. In this case, companies are the ones creating illegitimacy on their CSR programs because they are not walking the talk or they are breaking their CSR talk with inconsistent un-CSR speech. These inconsistencies make consumers distrust companies and their CSR reports and efforts. Their distrust is based on hypocritical CSR policies and actions. Organisations can reduce scepticism by determining the right mix for proactive and reactive and abstract and specific CSR communications strategies and activities that meet company, industrial, consumer, and macroeconomic conditions. There are disagreements in literature, however, in the effectiveness of proactive or reactive CSR communications strategy. Wagner et al. (2009) learned from their study that proactive CSR is considered as hypocritical if actions do not match policies and communications. They note that, in these cases, reactive CSR is more important if it can result to believable future proactive communications (Wagner et al., 2009, p.82). Proactive CSR can also be seen as hypocritical if they do not match company, industrial, consumer, and macroeconomic conditions. Wagner et al. (2009) added that abstract CSR approaches can also help than specific ones because they can be tailored to fit changing legal and social circumstances and priorities. Macroeconomic approaches to CSR can help improve CSR perspectives. Perks et al. (2013), on the contrary, prefer proactive communications with substantial information. Using large multinational oil companies as the subjects of their studies, they stressed that proactive CSR communications that are backed up with real actions and substantive information are better than reactive communications (Perks et al., 2013, p.1887). They added the importance of third-party associations, which indicate the role of interactivity in sending strong CSR communications. These studies indicate that mixing proactive and reactive CSR communication strategies depend on various factors, including consumer perceptions of CSR and social conditions and issues. Furthermore, organisations can allay scepticism in CSR by involving consumers in their CSR efforts. Perks and Lauritsen (2013) showed from their study that consumers want more interaction with CSR initiatives to reduce distrust over the latter. An example is engaging customers in determining CSR weaknesses on the part of companies and encouraging them to make suggestions for improvements. The key to interactive CSR is interactivity among stakeholders, not just consumers too. Companies should also engage community leaders and other social institutions to improve the awareness for and effectiveness of CSR activities. In addition, Perks and Lauritsen (2013) learned that using interactive CSR communications improved consumer knowledge and memory of CSR actions. This study underlined how CSR participation enhances what people know about company CSR. Furthermore, the same study demonstrates that interactive CSR communications improve consumer control over CSR and enhance their attitudes and perceptions of CSR actions. Consumer participation in CSR decreases doubt in the real motives of CSR. Thus, organisations can decrease CSR scepticism through interactive communications that balance reactive and proactive approaches and abstract and detailed messages. Word Count: 1,101 Reference List Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S., 2004. Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), pp.9-24. Perera, L.C.R. and Chaminda, J.W.D., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and product evaluation: the moderating role of brand familiarity. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 20(4), pp.245-256. Perks, K.J., Farache, F., Shukla, P. and Berry, A., 2013. Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66 (2013), pp.1881–1888. Perks, K.J. and Lauritsen, D., 2013. Improving stakeholder dialogue and engagement in CSR strategies and activities through interactive communication: Recommendations for best practices from a supermarket setting. European Business Ethics Network (EBEN). EBEN 2013: Parallel Sessions Program. Wagner, T., Lutz, R.J. and Weitz, B.A., 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), pp.77-91. Q5 Achrol and Kotler (2012) write about how science and new technologies are being used by marketers in an emerging paradigm emphasizing consumer sensory experience and behavior: impact on consumption –production-distribution networks; and contribute towards sustainable marketing. Explain and discuss these scientific and technological developments, and the emerging paradigm .How and why are these developments impacting on marketing at different levels? Scientific and technological developments affect emerging marketing paradigms by studying the connections between scientific knowledge about the brain and improving consumer sensory experiences and behaviours. Achrol and Kotler (2012) describe how new scientific knowledge and technologies improve what marketers know about the human brain and consumer experiences and actions. They mention studies on neurology and even neuroeconomics that examine the connection among cognition, sensory experiences, and purchasing behaviours (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.38). An example of the connection between knowledge of human sensory experiences and product evaluation is that, nowadays, people can sample perfumes and food in magazines that was unthinkable before. These products are directly found in what consumers read, which help them get the taste/scents of these products and gain potentially favourable perceptions that can lead to future purchases. Another example is the evolution in gaming experiences. Nintendo’s Wii is a phenomenal illustration of how innovations in sensory experiences can drastically change how people see and consume gaming products. Instead of merely sitting and consuming games by sight, gamers can now consume games by actions and sensory experiences and emotions. These products reflect the paradigm of dominant technologies that are changing marketing concepts, research, and plans. They are changing the latter through introducing breaks in assumptions about what constitute customer experiences and customer satisfaction. Aside from sensory experiences, learning more about the brain and how it affects and is affected by marketing efforts improves marketing knowledge about what works and what does not. Achrol and Kotler (2012) depict existing brain technologies that study how people affect to advertisements and marketing promotions. What may not be visible to the human eye may now be visible to MRI, for instance. They state: The new science shows some interesting throwbacks to marketing quandaries of the past: (1) how large a role do Skinnerian stimulus-response processes play in consumption behavior, and (2) is there a subliminal learning process after all (due to the so called “priming” effect)? (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.39). These researchers demonstrate how science directly impacts marketing research, as well as marketing theories about human cognition, emotions and behaviours. Studying human reactions through brain imaging technologies can help understand pleasure mechanisms and how advertisements and products can impact the latter. The impact is marketing that is more targeted to specific brain effects and that can be more effective in affecting emotions and behaviours. Another study confirms the validity and usefulness of technology in measuring responses to advertisements. Ohme et al. (2009) used skin conductance (SC) analysis and electroencephalography (EEG) in determining consumer responses to two different ads. They learned that a subtle change in gesture of the female model is enough to change the effectiveness of the ad for tested participants. They concluded that EEG can offer empirical evidence on consumer cognition and emotion by tracking down differences in how people react to different ads (Ohme et al., 2009, p.28). EEG and related technologies can help improve the quality of analysing marketing effectiveness. They can indicate knowledge that self-reports may not cover or measure. In addition, this study shows promising new way of measuring advertisement effectiveness. Self-reports have the flaw of not being able to capture actual real-time experiences and reactions. Brain imaging tools can provide real-time information and feedback that can improve marketing activities. In addition, marketing science and technology fuels new marketing paradigms that become more based on networks, systems, and interrelationships, as well as inconsistencies and continuous changes. Berthon et al. (2003, p.56) talk about the paradigm funnel of marketing that has four levels, including “empirical observations,” “analytical methods,” specific theory,” and “deep assumptions.” Their main point is that there is a shift toward merging empiricism with social deconstruction analyses to further understand, not only consumer behaviours as they are, but also, why and how these consumer behaviours occur. They want to show that it is important for marketing managers to not always think as if their methodologies and assumptions are always right, valid, and relevant. They should also question their assumptions and biases and revolutionise their marketing ideas. Achrol and Kotler (2012), furthermore, underscore the emphasis on networks and systems, as well as various relationships. Their article demonstrates the move toward including communities and systems in marketing research and plans because it is a more realistic paradigm that includes inconsistencies, changes, and conflicts that appear in real life. These technologies, moreover, show the emergence of “distributed production-consumption networks” (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.41). Distribution relies on just-in-time approaches, while technology combines production and consumption (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.38). An example is how Kindle and similar formats cannibalise print media consumption (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.39). These new networks challenge traditional production, distribution, marketing, and consumption processes and practices. They generate new ways of seeing marketing that radically alters what marketing is and what it can be. In addition, production changes through new technologies. Nanotechnology affects future products. Nanotechnology is “the creation of materials, devices and systems through manipulation of matter at scales of 1–100 nanometers, essentially via manipulating atoms and molecules” (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.39). Self-assembling systems, for instance, can radically alter manufacturing systems (Achrol and Kotler, 2012, p.40). New technologies and systems can alter marketing systems too. Finally, the emergence of sustainable development promotes the rise of new marketing logics, such as SD-Logic and macromarketing, and how they shape green/CSR marketing and business paradigms. SD-Logic is related to sustainability because of how it can be connected to macroeconomic sensitivity to stakeholder issues and interests. Services should support the rights of all to life and development, instead of being barriers to the latter (Gummesson, 2008, p.17). Macromarketing is a helpful perspective that integrates marketing and social endeavours through considering tangible and intangible dimensions of products and services. Huang and Rust (2011), furthermore, talk about green technologies. Green programs and CST activities can improve the bottom line: “For example, it has been noted that the most socially responsible companies in the CRO 100 Best Corporate Citizens List (Corporate Responsibility Officer 2009) also enjoy 26% higher returns than competitors, even in economic downturns” (Huang and Rust, 2011, p.52). Marketing managers should think about greening corporate agglomerates that altogether achieve organisational success and sustainability (Huang and Rust, 2011, p.52). Hence, science and technological changes help marketers improve their description and deepen their analysis of marketing as a science and creation of marketing initiatives. Word Count: 1,058 Reference List Achrol, R.S. and Kotler, P., 2012. Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, pp.35–52. Berthon, P., Nairn, A. and Money, A., 2003. Through the paradigm funnel: a conceptual tool for literature analysis. Marketing Education Review, 13(2), pp.55-66. Gummesson, E., 2008. Extending the service-dominant logic: from customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.15-17. Huang, M. and Rust, R., 2011. Sustainability and consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), pp.40-54. Ohme, R., Wiener, D., Reykowska, D. and Choromanska, A., 2009. Analysis of Neurophysiological Reactions to Advertising Stimuli by Means of EEG and Galvanic Skin Response Measures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, & Economics, 2(1), pp.21-31. Read More