Brickbats and bouquets for marketing

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider the development and application of marketing theory and practice over time and its current status. The terms “brickbats” and “bouquets” are used as metaphors to extend praise or criticism for marketing. In doing so, the authors draw upon the views of leading theorists over time and apply these in the current environmental context. Design/methodology/approach The approach adopted is discursive, critical and conceptual. Findings Following literature review, and drawing upon current examples, marketing as a discipline is subject to both kudos and criticisms. Nonetheless, it is concluded optimistically in that marketing can be an even greater source for societal good. That “goodness” is partly based upon the added impetus of social media adoption and use by consumers, the need for growth and accelerative innovation in the digital age coupled with the democratisation of consumption. Nonetheless, the authors offer the caveat that free competitive markets lead to market failures, and the need for market regulation by governments is becoming more evident. Research limitations/implications The implications of the paper are profound. Academics should be concerned in and involved with marketing theory. Questions need to be raised concerning non-robust definitions of marketing and its application. The authors wait for a consumer-led approach to marketing to add depth to the marketing theory. Practical implications Marketers need to be made more accountable for their actions. Consumers need to become part of the marketing process. Marketing claims need to be verified by delivered benefits. Companies need to take steps to ensure that the marketing process does not end at purchase. Satisfaction needs to be made manifest. Likewise, dissatisfactions need to be managed well as part of the marketing process. Social implications Too much marketing currently is relatively unregulated in the sense that there are so few opportunities to evade its myriad reach and – despite social media – little chance of changing marketing practice for the good of societies. Many criticisms of marketing practice are not being addressed in the literature. Originality/value Marketing is a vibrant force in all nations and markets. It is deeply rooted in business practice. It is contemporaneous and relevant. It is global and national. But, it is not entirely all good news. There are caveats and criticisms as well as kudos and praise. While both are addressed here, the topic needs to be considered for marketing and its accompanying theory and practice to change.

Ego-depletion is in the way: the challenges of controlled communication and the role of the regulatory focus theory in sustainable goals pursuit

“…This tension between the content of controlled communication and its dismissal by the very authorities producing them causes further confusion and ego depletion experienced by the public.‬‬‬ The description of current communication landscape that is in line with our argument can be seen in Kitchen and Sheth (2016):Given the accelerative trend of globalisation, instantaneous communication via the internet, and the turning of governments to market-driven policies, many consumers consider marketing and advertising (the latter is a proxy for all forms of consumer-focused communication or promotion) as being inextricably intertwined and indicates that persuasive communication has become more of an intrusive nuisance than anything else (p. 1914).…”

“…‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬Another example is food-producing companies, as they create nutritionally poor products, augment environmental waste and rubbish and stimulate obesity. The resultant tensions between conflicting agendas could and does lead to increased distrust and subsequently ego depletion and disengagement in further initiatives related to a given issue, for example, energy conservation or pollution.‬ This implies that controlled communication has been losing efficiency and effectiveness over time and as a direct consequence, the resultant erosion of consumer and voter confidence (see Kitchen and Sheth, 2016). ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬…”

Ethical limits to the intrusiveness of online advertising formats: A critical review of Better Ads Standards

“…The marketing legitimacy and relevance in the online market place, such as business models based on advertising, should not be questioned (Kitchen and Sheth 2016). In an unregulated digital world where the user is allegedly free to navigate, it seems that suffering advertising should be considered a quid pro quo exchange (Goldstein et al 2014).…”

“…Like in offline marketing, online markets should be more regulated and governments should play a more relevant role on these communication processes (Kitchen and Sheth 2016). Nevertheless, in the absence of a global government regulating the online advertising environment, somebody else needs to lead the process to put order on this chaos and to establish the limits of highly annoying advertising.…”

“…This kind of communication management could be described as irresponsible, and may damage the interrelation between consumers, publishers and advertisers (Ha and McCann 2008). Because an irresponsible use of communication sometimes results in dissatisfying experiences (Kitchen and Sheth 2016;Lim, Chock, and Golan 2018), consumers try to avoid intrusive ads by all means (Kelly, Kerr, Drennan 2010;Belanche, Flavián, and Pérez-Rueda 2017b). Despite such kind of catastrophic communication interaction, little has been done in the last decades to enhance the online advertising experience or at least mitigate the problems derived of a highly dissatisfying or annoying experience.…”