Conversation with Peter

Wendy: 1). In "A New Dominant Logic" V&L say " As humans have become more specialized as a species, use of the market and goods to achieve higher-order benefits such as satisfaction, self-fulfillment and esteem, has increased."
I just don't see this happening in our society. In fact, it seems like quite the opposite trends are reality these days. I'm not sure people have ever been so disinfranchised, depressed, spiritually deprived, unfulfilled, unsatisfied and self-hating as they are now. Part of that aweful state of humanity is how consumerism has replaced so many longings for real human connection and community, for spiritual and cultural identity and self-knowledge. What people know today is if you ain't feeling so good: shop!

Considering your feeling that this new paradigm hasn't hit yet, it is possible that society could still change for the better if consumers were more co-creators about what they really need. But, that would take some educated and enlightened consumers and could totally change the face of business. What I love about the business world, is that even if this doesn't change for everyone, we have the power to change it in our own lives, by encouraging the businesses that sustain us and ignoring those who don't.

Pete: I'm not sure that even when this new paradigm "hits," society will change for the better. I think that change might well come from something else (faith? an overwhelming need of societal responsibility? Economic depression? War? Flood?). I think part of the challenge comes from accurately defining self-actualization right? It's different for each of us. I think V & L are highlighting a shift from people being satisfied because they have "stuff" to being satisfied because of what the stuff they have "means" about them. So for example.... I think shopping centers like Easton in Columbus or Levis Commons in Toledo are effectively executing V & L's suggestion that operant resources are the name of the game. Consumers can get the products they find at these shopping centers almost anywhere....Wal Mart, on-line, Good Will, etc....so it's not really products that these shopping centers are selling...it's the experience (intangible operant resource) of shopping that these centers are selling...the sensory overload and overwhelming orgy of consumerism that many folks use to satisfy themselves.

Wendy:2) I'm not sure what customers really give back to corporations besides money. Also, the idea of customers being co-creators (something I love to thing about on a small scale) seems to be unrealistic. It is a great thought, but what if companies aren't really acting on customer's needs and wants, but exploiting the natural bad habit of human greed, and need to have status through stuff. I can't believe that the fashion industry is democratic, for example. Surely they are telling us what to wear (and that Hannah "needs" new clothes every season) rather than us telling them what we want. Where is the line between companies listening to their consumers, and companies controling consumers?

This was a good discussion in class, which I feel addressed the question. I really liked Dawn's point about the responsibilities that go along with being co-creators. Again, if I think about small businesses, the co-creator idea is realistic and beautiful.

Pete: Very good.

3) Also, the idea that knowledge is power is embraced without limitations in these theories. I think they are right, but there should be some moral limit to avoid the "Big Brother" approach that you talked about. I know they are not trying to make a moral tretice about marketing, just saying what is effective. But there is still an element of corruption and potential evil (OK, read unethical-ness) here that is not aknowledged. Also, what about the new trend of employers needing to know "everything" about employees, such as their health issues, their personal situations, their tendancy toward unionization, etc. Sounds like Big Brother to me.

Pete: Fair enough. I would argue that (most) of the current marketing literature purposely fails to acknowledge the presence of power. Realistically, many companies (inside closed doors) would suggest that they would aggressively pursue the new dominant logic of marketing in a specific effort to increase power and gain "control" of their customers (although this would ironically again be treating customers as operand resources instead of operant resources). Having said this however, the schools of thought focused on interactive models of marketing specifically recognize power and even go so far as to suggest (in some) a needed balance of power between market participants...AND, if we really follow V & L, then we must make the customer a co-creator and an operant resource...thus setting ourselves up to lose power and control.

Wow....an entirely new or extended argument for my "come to marketing" sermon...can we argue that by executing the new dominate logic we are actually stepping away from the big-brother mentality of marketing (which would really fall into the buyer behavior school of thought....)? The counter argument from the buyer behavior folks is that they can't meet customer needs if they don't know everything about customers.... we would need to be sure to address this concern.

Ok - I don't know that I provided many answers....and now it's time for me to go lecture in corporate strategy...interestingly enough, today's lecture is on social responsibility....! Thanks for the great questions!

Wendy: Thanks, Pete. Actually I have found this to be one of the most difficult classes we have had so far! That's a great thing, and could be why the students are so much more engaged in it.