Marketing As Constructive Engagement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons School of Business: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications Fall 2007 Marketing as Constructive Engagement Clifford J. Shultz Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/business_facpubs Part of the Business Commons Recommended Citation Shultz, CJ. "Marketing as constructive engagement" in Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 26(2), 2007. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Business: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. © American Marketing Association, 2007. Marketing as Constructive Engagement CliffordJ. ShultzII Thepurpose of this essayis to provokea morecomprehensive, historically accurate, and meaningful definitionof marketing.Toward that outcome, the authorintroduces a frameworkfor marketing that arguesfor constructive engagement with a complex,conflicted, and increasinglyinterdependent world in whichmarketing can andshould play an importantrole. The framework offers a newsynthesis commensuratewith ideals generally espoused in macromarketing.An illustrationbased on longitudinal studyof Vietnamis shared,with implications for current global affairs and withnew directions for meaningfulmarketing research and practice. The two mostrecent definitions of marketing,as posited involvementin Vietnam.I concludewith some discussion by thoughtfulmembers of the AmericanMarketing of broaderimplications. Association(AMA) in 2004 and2007, havegenerated If thepremise is acceptedthat the current definition is too considerablediscussion about the nature,scope, and foci of microscopic,it mustalso be concludedthat it is not suffi- marketing.1The 2004 definitionis neitherfully embraced ciently macroscopic.What exactly does it meanto orient by AMA membersnor uniformly adopted by othermarket- toward(macro)marketing? At the requestof Greg Gund- ing organizationsand associations around the world,where lach, LaurenBlock, and Bill Wilkie,I spenta substantial some of the most compelling marketingactivity now amountof timetrying to answerthat question, as I prepared unfolds.Thus, in 2007,the AMAproposed a reviseddefini- to write a chapteron macromarketingfor theirnew book tion.My own takeon bothdefinitions, though I believethat Explorations of Marketing in Society (2007). It soon they are useful to the practiceof marketingmanagement, became apparentthat the long history of marketsand mar- with someorientation to societalissues, is thatthey aretoo ketinghas been a largelymacromarketing narrative; only microscopic,do not coincideparticularly well withhistori- recentlyhas marketingbecome more micro and perhaps cal interpretationsof marketing,and ultimately (tragically?) even atomistic(see, e.g., Wilkie and Moore 1999, 2003, limitthe potentialimpact of marketingon someof the most 2006).2 This observationleads to other questions:For pressing challenges. In this essay, therefore,I briefly example,why does (macro)marketinginclude the prefix remindreaders of somehistorical roots and foci of market- "macro"?Why does the currentdefinition shared by the ing andintroduce a conceivablealternative definition and a AMAnot include"micro"? Given marketing's roots and its (macro)marketingsynthesis for constructiveengagement. I long history,shouldn't macromarketing be viewed simply also providea briefapplication of this synthesis,using his- as marketing;at the very least, shouldn'tany definitionof torical and evolving U.S.-Vietnamrelations and Nike's marketingmore clearly delineate a macroagenda? In light of possibleanswers to thesequestions, and with considera- 1The2004 definitionis as follows: "Marketingis an organizational tion for the systemicallycomplex and global challenges, a functionand a set of processesfor creating, communicating, and delivering plausibleand usefuldefinition of marketingmight read as valueto customersand for managingcustomer relationships in waysthat follows: benefit the organizationand its stakeholders."The 2007 workingdefinition is as follows: "Marketingis the activity, conducted by organizationsand Marketingis a form of constructiveengagement-a societal individuals, that operates through a set of institutions and processes for functionand a systemicset of processesfor creating, communi- creating, communicating,delivering, and exchanging marketofferings that cating,and delivering value to customersand for managing cus- have value for customers, clients, marketers,and society at large." This tomerand societalrelationships in ways thatbenefit local and article was written before the wide dissemination of this most largely globalstakeholders of theseprocesses. recently proposedworking definition, and thoughthis definition is more in line with ideas expressed here, I still believe that it limits marketing's Next, I detail my rationalefor this alternativedefinition, or potential impact and falls short of other potentially more macro and some definition. societal-centricdefinitions, for reasons articulatedin the text. similarly expansive CliffordJ. ShultzII is a professorand Marley Foundation Chair, ASU 2Manyscholars have struggledand still struggle to define macromarket- In the cited I shared several definitions MorrisonSchool of Managementand Agribusiness,Arizona State ing. previously chapter, popular Bartels and Jenkins 1977; Dixon 1979; Fisk 1981; Hunt 1981; Meade and is editor of the of (e.g., University, Journal Macromarketing(e-mail: and Nason 1991; Shawver and Nickels 1979) and perspectives on histori- [email protected]).The authorthanks RogerDickinson, Sanford Gross- cal development of the field and its formative conceptualizations(e.g., bart, GregGundlach, Morris Holbrook, Tony Pecotich, Stan Shapiro, Alderson 1957; Bartels 1965; Breyer 1934; Fisk 1967; Gretherand Hol- and Hancock Jones and Moniesen Bill Wilkie,and the anonymousJPP&M reviewers for thoughtfulcom- loway 1967; Holloway 1964; 1990; Shaw Sheth and Gardner Slater ments on iterationsof this The author the Schumpeter 1934; 1916; 1982; 1968; prior essay. acknowledges Vaile, Grether, and Cox 1952; Wilkie and Moore 1999, 2003). I also supportof the MarleyFoundation. Readers may contact the author included some interpretations and literature beyond marketing (e.g., for an unabridgediteration of this essay. Danziger and Gillingham 2005; McMillan 2002; Polo 1958; Thucydides 1972 [circa 431-424 BC]). c 2007, AmericanMarketing Association ISSN:0743-9156 (print),1547-7207 (electronic) 293 Vol.26 (2) Fall2007, 293-301 This content downloaded from 147.126.10.37 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:55:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 294 Marketingas ConstructiveEngagement (Macro)marketing of stakeholdersin a marketingsystem not only now but also for futuregenerations. As I suggested, the ideas of the (macro)marketingdisci- Distillation of the broad and varied literature reveals if not the name, have existed for millen- pline, necessarily (macro)marketingas an amalgam of markets, marketing nia. Indeed, of essen- prior conceptualizations marketing practices, and marketingsystems; aggregationsin the forms seem to be what scholars would now tially many largely of units, consumers, firms, governments or other organiza- view as At this it be macromarketing. juncture, might help- tions, societies, regions, countries, and global alliances; ful to address the micro and macro briefly alleged social traps and commons dilemmas; and, now, subspecial- I do not believe that a dichotomy. dichotomy actually izations that address competition and markets, develop- because all activities exists-precisely micromarketing ment, ethics or distributivejustice, global policy, the envi- occur within and thus derive from some meaning larger ronment, history, quality of life, and relevant ideas from Hunt 1981; 2007; marketing system (see, e.g., Layton myriad other disciplines. On reflection, the term "macro" Lusch the extent of 2006)--though broadly meaningful may understatethe orientation;perhaps "iibermarketing" is from could be rea- impact any particularmarketing activity more fitting. Nevertheless, comprehensive, eclectic, and debated. Therefore, I have chosen to sonably deliberately inclusive conceptualizations,methods, practices, and defin- use the word ratherthan in "marketing" "macromarketing" itions are useful in the complex world of dilemmas in which the title of this essay and to reinforce some shortcomingsof Homo marketusnow dominates. the current note that I use the definition; occasionally par- Consider a brief list of public policy topics relevant to enthetical attachment before "(macro)" "marketing." globalization; environmentalism;energy; traf- is a recent acade- marketing: So, althoughmacromarketing relatively ficking of weapons, people, drugs, and nuclear materials; mic and remains a somewhat nebulous construct, discipline cartels and malevolent alliances; religious and cultural the essence of markets and and their on marketing impact intolerance;intellectual property rights; economic transition societal welfare are old as Indeed, our humanity. species and/or development; public health crises (e.g., poverty, be described as Homo marketus perhaps should (Shultz malnutrition, contaminated water, homelessness, malaria, We are the animal. From the moment