"Although the scope of marketing is to understand and fulfil consumer’s needs and wants, the influence exercised by various marketing activities is such that may create needs. This distortion may generate economic imbalances, but in particular, it raises important ethical questions. This literature review undertakes a journey in the world of the marketing practice to understand how and why marketing can lead to over-consumption.
Foreword
In 1979, on the eve of the American presidential election, Jimmy Carter, in his infamous “Crisis of Confidence” speech, warned that “too many of us worship self-indulgence and consumption”.
However, what followed this discourse was the victory of his opponent Ronald Reagan, the rise of Wall Street and ten years later the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
Today, in 2009, after having experienced the demise of the Communism ideology and enjoying thirty years of incredible global economic growth, the world is urging for all the possible measures to fix a system (the Capitalism) on the brink of collapse has never been seen since the 1929 Depression.
Hence, on the streets, in the media and in the parliaments, the warning words of Jimmy Carter are echoing again.
The present economic downturn has certainly questioned the validity of a model that despite guaranteeing the perfect functioning of a democratic society; today is blamed for having contributed to the rise of materialistic values and in particular to have cultivated a consumerist society.
Consumerism, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), is “the doctrine advocating a continual increase in the consumption of goods as a basis for a sound economy”; though nowadays consumerism is perceived as a culture or a social order characterised by disproportionate consumption and excessive attachment to material possessions (Abela, 2006).
Although, anti-consumerism has always been present in society, the most puzzling aspect of this criticism is that much of condemnation often takes aim at the most successful and lauded companies; Nike, McDonald’s, Microsoft and Starbucks, to cite some, are relentlessly singled out as the cause of the consumerist degeneration of society.
Indeed, the common denominator amid those big multinationals is that they are the same brands that today dictate trends, command a semi-religious following and interpret the needs of the population more than any politician or religion; but , most of all, they are the same brands that have taken the marketing concept to heart and industriously applied it (Holt, 2002).
Marketing is the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customers’ requirements profitably” (C.I.M cited in Adcock, Halborg and Ross, 2001 p.3).
It includes access to voluntary exchange processes, (the process of exchange in society is marketing; Kotler cited in Quelch and Jocz, 2008) and it facilitates this process with information and a distribution (of the product/service) that aims to reach as many consumers as possible (inclusion).
Still, despite these remarkable benefits, marketing does not do a good job in marketing itself (Quelch, 2009); in reality, the practice has always been at the centre of a criticism that has put in agreement religious, politicians, anti-global movement and academics as well.
Indeed, the critics argue that firms, through marketing, pursue only a single objective: to encourage consumption, thus generating over-consumption, waste and social disequilibrium.
Therefore, this accusation presumes the ability of marketing to influence consumers’ behaviour to an extent that it convinces consumers that Wiis and iPhones are necessary (Barber B. cited in The New York Times, 2007), thus creating needs.
The recent sophistication of marketing activities has certainly helped the practice to well understand and anticipate consumer requirements. Indeed, the commercial study of consumer behaviour and the web, presents nowadays the possibility to reach infinite consumers and the likelihood of getting to know a great deal about them.
Moreover, the persistent tentative of marketers to build a closer relationship with their customer has somehow raised the brand status (in the eyes of the latter) to a level where they can influence behaviour; definitely, a huge leap forward for marketing activity, though also an interesting ethical issue.
In fact, there is no doubt that nowadays brands command huge following; they have a great influence on the consumer’s preferences, attitudes, and purchasing decisions; the consumer buys not only into the product but also into the proposed lifestyle. A lifestyle that very often values wealth, success and power.
However, it is ‘In Brands We Trust’ and it is consumption, which defines meaning (Smith, 2007). Indeed, numerous are the examples of marketing activities that, making extensive use of the technique of persuasion to influence the consumer’s purchasing behaviour, imply that the consumption of particular goods can earn the acquisition of the social status represented.
Therefore assuming that marketing influences behaviour and that this influence promotes materialistic values, does the marketing practice promote consumerism?
Considering the various perspectives involved, the topic is very controversial; in reality, the search of an absolute truth that is a correlation between marketing and consumerism, so far has not produced relevant results.
Therefore, before attempting any answer to the question, it is particularly important to test the hypothesis made above, hence a Positivist philosophy.
Thus, the deductive approach to the vast narrative available allows the drawing of a conceptual framework, or rather of a theory that would imply the responsibilities of marketing in the rise of consumerism.
The structure of the literature review initially aims to analyse the marketing concepts and consumerism in the light of its socio-economic structure and consequently to focus on the perspectives regarding consumerist behaviour and ethics.
However, in order to avoid generalising this complex topic that regards people and behaviour, an Interpretivism approach is utilised to draw the conclusions.
Indeed, the research methodology follows an explorative and descriptive approach in order to test the hypothesis; in particular three areas are individuates as key to understand the causes for the inference (marketing and consumerism) to subsist.
Hence, the objectives of this study are:
- To explore the extent of the influence of marketing practices on consumer behaviour;
- To discuss the status of ethical standards in marketing;
- To investigate the validity of the marketing concept in the current economic environment.
Marketing and Market Economy
Marketing (and the market economy) is the perfect arrangement to ensure that the consumer exercises his freedom of choice and “choice stimulates consumption, economic growth and facilitates personal expression” (Quelch, 2009); as a result, a consumerist society would be a society that guarantees the basic human rights.
Indeed, as effectively illustrated by Quelch and Jocz (2008), marketing can be conceived as a consequence/precursor of democracy and therefore of the basic libertarian rights.
In fact “individual should be free to do what they want to do, provided that their actions are purely self –regarding and do no harm to others” as stated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873, cited in O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002) and precluding choices would be against the values of modern society.
Thus, it is difficult to sanction any other alternative to a market society since free-market rejectionists, such as Marx, have only idealised a system (Communism) that has resulted in scarcity and authoritarianism.
However, the marketing/democracy equivalence bases itself on the assumptions that the market is always right, self-correcting, self-policing and self-regulating. An assumption that presupposes the efficiency of the market, and thus, the effectiveness of marketing in determining the offering that matches the consumer’s wants and the decision on continuing basis what offering to add, subtract, modify and upgrade (O’Shaughnessy J. and O’Shaughnessy N.J., 2002)
Therefore, marketing only responds to a consumer‘s inclination and it is in the latter that the responsibilities of the process lie; a supposition that evokes Adam Smith’s theory (1723-1790; cited in Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) that production is justified by consumption; that needs of consumer dictate what the economy should provide.
However, if through consumption, consumers seek to improve their prosperity and welfare and exercise their freedom of choice (Quelch, 2008); what does over-consumption imply?
According to Csikszentmihalyi (2000), the reality is opposite, it is the imperative to produce that is dictating the need and the whole economic structure necessitates an increasing demand to function. Consuming has become a social act, an action needed in order to keep the whole community alive (Csikszentmihalyi M., 2000).
Hence, an economy that can sustains its profitability by only creating needs; thus, convincing the consumers that Wiis and iPhones are necessary (Barber B. cited in The New York Times, 2007). In reality, it stimulates a demand that is not sustainable unless the consumer pushes himself into debt.
Indeed, this uneconomic process (Hans Kjellberg, 2008) has been one of the factors that have contributed to the present financial crisis where unwarranted credit was offered solely in order to keep the demand artificially high.
Thus, Consumerism is detrimental for society and does not pose the basis for a sound economy as shown by the present economic crisis where although an evident distortion of the marketplace has not resulted in scarcity (but instead in abundance), has, in any case, presented a price to pay for it (recession, uncertainty and waste).
Hence, the creation of needs goes beyond the concept of satisfying consumers’ needs and much further than the notion of efficiency. An economy where wants are constructed is an economy destined to failure.
Marketing and Consumer behaviour
Consumerism is associated with reduced consumer well-being in terms of quality of human relationship and levels of happiness (Csikszentmihalyi and Kasser, cited in Abela, 2006); a condition according to Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002; cited in Abela, 2006) resulting from the conflict between an individualistic orientation of materialist values and collective-oriented values such as family and religion.
Although many researchers acknowledge the harms of consumerism, it is more difficult to find such a consensus when individuating the responsibilities of marketing in encouraging a consumerist society.
It may be obvious that “Materialism is a part of human conditions long before the first advertising executive” (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002). Still, it is also evident that an increased sophistication of the marketing practices in recent years has paralleled a notable rise of consumerism (though, according to Abela (2006), it is not clear if the former is a consequence of the latter or vice versa).
The assumption that marketing promotes consumerist behaviour implies that the practice does have an influence in shaping consumer behaviour; to this regard, there is huge narrative that portrays marketers as cultural engineers that organise how people think and feel through branded commercial products (Holt, 2002).
Moreover, there is no doubt that the logic of mass marketing leads to the least common denominator goods that produce conformity of style, marginalize risk taking, and close down interpretation (Horkheimer and Adorno,1996; cited in Holt D.B., 2002) and that market segmentation is about “classifying, organizing, and labelling consumers” (rather than providing product differences that are substantive).
Nevertheless, wants cannot be created, there must be an underlying appetite for products”, (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002) and consumers are NOT motivationally empty until injected by marketers with wants created by advertising as opposed by Campbell (1987, cited in O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy ,2002)); yet, both propositions are too simplistic since they focus solely on the marketing demand/offer process.
In reality, marketing is a neutral tool (Kjellberg, 2008) and therefore it acts as a mediator between consumers’ wants and available resources, (in terms of products/service); though, it is in its important role of creating the offer that matches consumers’ needs that marketing show a materialistic influence.
Marketing activities involves value creation (Quelch, 2008) and therefore the creation of a prosperous society able to satisfy its basic needs (survival, safety, love and belonging; Maslow cited in Kotler et al, 2008 p.269-73).
Superior needs (esteem and self-actualisation) instead, are less predictable wants (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and marketing met this demand fostering the idea that esteem can be achieved by consumption; though promoting and advertising goods with images of success, societal status, power, beauty, etc has therefore promoted the message that the meaning of life is to be discovered through acquisition (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002)
Therefore, Consumerism sets in motion a race to conform to persistent models offered by the marketing activity; a frustrating pursuit that causes reduced well being (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and may incite criminality (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002).
Marketing Ethics
The marketing conception depicted by Theodore Levitt (Harvard Business Review, 1960) highlighted a shift from mass-production to a customer-orientated approach; therefore a move from the selling concept to the marketing management philosophy which holds that achieving organisational goals depends on determining the needs and wants of target markets and delivering the desired satisfaction more effectively and efficiently than competitors do ( Kotler et al, 2008 p.16).
Hence, this notion of marketing does not motivate consumerism; on the contrary, it encourages an efficient allocation of the resource (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002; Quelch, 2008) and the alignment of the firms and consumers’ interests.
While the consumer seeks benefits in the consumption of the product or service offered, for most companies profits are the main priority; however, this equilibrium is regulated by a set of principles motivated by what it is morally right or wrong, that is ethics.
Practising ethics in marketing means deliberately applying standards of fairness to marketing decision-making (Swope, 2001); though, very often firms (and marketers) attend to their internal interests rather than seek to meet consumer wants and needs (Holt, 2002)
The promotion of conspicuous consumption and especially the targeting of vulnerable segments such as children, clearly would symbolise a denial of ethical morals , or rather that what the brand stands for is only motivated by the profits as put by Naomi Klein in “No Logo”(2001 p.167).
Moreover, profits are also for marketing the main source of anxiety because of the need to quantify its effort and its longing for recognition; for this reason, marketers are more concerned with the mechanism of selling (Morrell, and Jayawardhena, 2008) and therefore of increased profits.
Consequently, new exotic marketing techniques such as “Massclusivity” (the exclusivity for the masses; Trendwatching.com, 2009), and the “luxury democracy” are often no other, than a way to sell superfluous stuff with an attached brand value (Hamilton, 2006).
However, selling is not marketing (Levitt, 1960; cited in Morrell, and Jayawardhena, 2008), marketing is about the consumer too. The appeals to the masses, the segmentation and the data presuppose the construct of the consumer as passive, predictable, and perhaps manipulable (Morrell, and Jayawardhena, 2008); a perception of the consumer, that as put by Horkheimer and Adorno (1996; cited in Holt, 2002), leads to a channelling of culture that erases idiosyncrasies.
The true understanding and satisfying of consumer needs is not managerial relevant, as argued by Kjellberg (2008); more important is to identify the mechanisms that induces the consumers to purchase more than they need or can afford.
Nowadays, the major privately owned marketing agencies led by great creative talent have given way to publicly owned holding companies that are led by business people (Drumwright and Murphy, 2009), though shareholders’ interests and stakeholders’ ones not always combine.
Though shrugging off any responsibilities by arguing, that marketing should not interfere with consumer decision (Quelch, J. 2008) may be theoretically right, but it seems certainly to be very profitable; and above all, it definitely denotes a lack of moral judgment of the whole practice.
Conclusions
The goal of this research was to individuate any relationship between marketing and consumerism; hence, for this purpose three objectives were outlined.
- To explore the extent of the influence of marketing practices on consumer behaviour;
- To discuss the status of ethical standards in marketing;
- To investigate the validity of the marketing concept in the current economic environment
On the subject of the first objective (marketing’s influence), the data collected and the opinions obtained, suggest that marketing exercises a heavy pressure on consumers, though the influence is not such that it creates needs.
Indeed, the key assumption of this paper that marketing manipulates consumers’ behaviour tends to diminish the role of the individuals in the demand/offer process.
In fact, the principle of submission to the cultural authority of marketers dismiss the ability of the consumer to react to a sort of marketing dominance; a reaction that it is real, and that is demonstrable by the existence of the about narrative itself.
However, I believe that there is a strong materialistic influence in the marketing’s process of persuasion.
Marketing may not be directly responsible for an irreversible societal process that is materialism (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002); indeed, materialism and individualism are characteristics of the whole western civilisation (Huntington, 1996 p.131) and that a decreasing influence of religious principles or the failure of them has certainly facilitated the emersion of alternative values.
Even so, it is strongly perceived the marketing’s consideration of the consumer is of an individual to exploit rather than explore it; hence a persistent targeting of the person’s weakness (his tendency to sin) and the promotion of a “happiness” more easily attainable.
Moreover, shrugging off any responsibilities by arguing that marketing should not interfere with consumer decision (Quelch, J. 2008) denotes a lack of moral judgment of the whole practice; hence, the disregard of what it is ethically right and wrong.
Despite all the excuses, the distinctions and the numerous example of “good marketing”, it is apparent that, nowadays, marketing decision are made solely on profitability basis rather than ethical ones.
Indeed, Community Marketing, Eco-Marketing, Societal Marketing and Relationship Marketing, despite being hailed as ethical approaches to consumers, represent, in the eyes of the authors of this essay, a marketing of the ethics rather than ethical marketing.
To this regard and to the third objective of this research, the marketing concept is still very relevant and probably the best available option; however, and that marketing in its incessant pursuit of profits will inevitably fail to adjust to the current economic environment and therefore it will continue to promote consumerist behaviour even if the recent failure of this process would suggest otherwise.
However, the public perception is that there is a need for a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but also on better values (Layard, 2009). The new “Age of Responsibilities” as heralded by Robert Zoellick (Financial Times, 2009) is what it is hoped will emerge from the ruins of this economic collapse; it will require co-operation, engagement and especially social responsibilities from all the societal players, including marketing.
Ciro Scognamiglio
