'Social Responsibility, Consumerism, and the Marketing Concept\r'

'SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, CONSUMERISM, AND THE market plan Robert D. Winsor, Loyola Marymount University scrape This paper comp bes the often- strike hardd â€Å" sell druthers” or â€Å" sell construct” with the comm still-praised â€Å" affectionate merchandising imagination â€Å"from the perspectives of consumer grounds and persuasibility. It is suggested that both orientations view consumers as sex actly foolish and as slow pr unmatchable to manipulation by groceryers. The implications of this similarity argon explored from the perspectives of consumerism and amicable state. INTRODUCTIONCritics of merchandise mystify concordantly attacked the discipline for discounting consumers intelligence and capacity for clear-sighted choice and for deliberately con run agrounding consumers in their efforts to chance upon thinking(prenominal), informed, unbiased, and free economic choices. At the self alike(prenominal) epoch, kind trends clear pushe d U. S. championshipes in the dealion of increase link for fond issues and attention to long-run consumer welf atomic function 18. The aforementioned criticisms and pressures for increasing social righteousness argon largely compulsive by the same social paradigms and constituents.Yet, it is noteworthy that the net result of an expanded social responsibility of commercial enterprise organisation is the concomitant diminishment of free consumer choice. Moreoer, this obstruction of consumer discretion is the inf every(prenominal)ible consequence of presumptions of consumer irrationality. Thus, while groups such as consumerists stimulate often criticized marketers explicitly for rejecting notions of consumer rationality, these same groups and sentiments wee forcefully promoted the social responsibility of line of descent and the social merchandising supposition as advancements in demarcation eyeshot and practice.As a result, contradictions can be seen to break wit hlive at heart the consumerist agenda, and are apparent ( notwithstanding unac go to sleepledged) in the â€Å"societal merchandising sentiment” and calls for increasing the responsibility of avocation toward social issues and concerns. The goal of this paper is to expose these contradictions and to elaborate upon their implications for stemma and ordering in general. THE EVOLUTION OF THE MARKETING CONCEPT In January of 1960, the trade discipline entered a r maturationary age.In this year, we were presented with no ground-breaking theory, no pioneering methodology, no brilliant adjustment of an many other disciplines construct, and no monumental grant. We were, however, presumption some intimacy we would father to treasure much much than(prenominal) highly than whatsoever of these. We were pop the questiond a raison detre and a philosophical entry. It was on this ascertain that the daybook of merchandise published an article by Robert Keith (1960) aut horise â€Å"The trade R maturation. And, since its prevalentation, marketers lease been able to rec all over justified in believing that their efforts were not only indispensable, unless that they fuck off been instrumental in bringing to the highest degree sweeping improvements in the evolution of military control practice. Although the revolution draw by Keith has been tamed to pay off the â€Å"evolution” of the selling excogitation, and the generalizablity of the evolution it described has been questioned by some (e. g. Fullerton, 1988), the transformation in American condescension described by Keiths clay sculpture has nonetheless served as a source of explanation and justification for selling academicians.The â€Å"post-evolution” marketers possess been lent a degree of self-respect and a sense of purpose which was conspicuously lacking before. Prior to this date, marketers were perceived to be at trump out superfluous, and at worst dishon est or unscrupulous. non that the average citizen debates merchandising in any incompatible light today, provided the popular opinion in an evolution of the selling conceit has allowed the academic merchandise friendship a certain degree of self-respect. In his article, Keith described four â€Å"eras” or periods of thought and practice through and through which his organization, The Pillsbury Company, progressed.Keith believed that these eras were characteristic of just close businesses which were contemporaries of Pillsbury, and thus speculated that an boilersuit movement was in evidence. Since the publication of Keiths article, other writers postulate modified, refined, and extended the basic thesis advancing this evolutionary process: The virtually noteworthy and closely-know of these descriptions is that of Philip Kotler. Kotler describes quintet alternative archetypes or philosophies through which most businesses harbour evolved.Although any given busin ess can contain under any of the philosophies, the key precept of the evolution thesis is that these philosophies form a hierarchy, with later philosophies macrocosm superior to those of earlier eras (Keith, 1960; Kotler, 1994). The implication is that to move from a lower level (earlier) philosophy to that on a high level (later) is not only insightful, but similarly good business. The first eras or business philosophies are termed the â€Å" produce” and the â€Å" harvest-homeion” fancys.The product archetype emphasizes product quality and/or performance, and assumes that at least some consumers are knowledgeable enough to substantiate and respect superior attributes in these areas. The production apprehension foc manipulations upon systems for producing large volumes of products in an effort to drive great care for costs by exploiting economies of scale. This philosophy is tooshied upon the supposition that most consumers not only recognize, but prefe r high value (benefits †price) offerings and are knowledgeable and rational in selecting among alternative products.A later era is kn testify as the selling archetype, and is based upon the premise that consumers are relatively uninformed regarding product attributes, or base their selection upon fashion or other â€Å"non-rational” criteria. Moreover, this orientation assumes that consumers are easily influenced. As a result, organizations employing the selling concept ordinaryly resort to aggressive selling and promotional efforts, with the goal of seducing or coercing clients into purchasing the product. A well higher carpenters plane of enlightenment is represent by the merchandising concept era.The trade concept is considered to be a quantum leap up the evolutionary hierarchy, and continues to be embraced by a great happen up of marketing scholars and businesses. The marketing concept â€Å"holds that the key to achieving organizational goals consists in determining the deficiencys and wants of target markets and delivering the craved satis pointions more effectively and efficiently than competitors” (Kotler, 1994, p. 18; 1977a). The guide word of the marketing concept is â€Å"find a involve and converge it,” and its credo is â€Å"The Customer is King. Like the product and production concepts, but unlike the selling concept, the marketing concept is founded upon the assumption that consumers are knowledgeable, intelligent, and rational, and base their product purchases upon a careful consideration of the relationship amidst their own need and product attributes. As a result, the fundamental premise of the marketing concept becomes a focus on the consumer as the pivotal bear witness for all business activity (Barksdale and Darden, 1971).The thinking underlying the marketing concept was espoused as early as the 1940s and 1950s (Samli, Palda, and Barker, 1987; Bell and Emory, 1971). In 1958 the term â€Å"market ing concept” was coined to describe the philosophy behind this approach (see McKitterick, 1958), and â€Å"by 1965 practically all introductory marketing texts include some discussion of the ‘new marketing concept” (Bell & Emory, 197 1). The cogitate that the marketing concept was considered a major discovery in business philosophy is that it represented the antithesis of the product, production, and selling concepts.Rather than taking an existent product and endeavoring to modify postulate for it by adding features, minify price, or varying promotional technique, the marketing concept holds that businesses should first determine the existing needs in the marketplace and then endeavor and produce a product to satisfy this need. In this sense the marketing concept is driven by the needs of the marketplace, rather than the existing abilities of the firm.The fifth, and supposedly highest demo of evolution in marketing philosophies is what Kotler terms the societal marketing concept. In each of his writings referencing the marketing concept, Kotler (1972, 1977b, 1994) clearly states his belief that the societal marketing concept embodies a higher and more enlightened plane of marketing thought and practice, and suggests that this new concept represents an act to harmonize the goals of business to the occasionally conflicting goals of society.As such, it postulates that the â€Å"the organizations occupation is to determine the needs, wants, and disports of target markets and to deliver the desired satisfactions more effectively and efficiently than competitors in a federal agency that preserves or enhances the consumers and societys well-being (Kotler, 1994, p. 29). It should be famous that the societal marketing concept is founded upon one controlling and critical proposition.This is the assumption that â€Å"consumers wants do not everlastingly coincide with their long-run interests or societys long-run interests,” and that, given this, marketers should place the â€Å" wildness on ‘long-run consumer and societal well being” (Kotler, 1977b). As a result, the societal marketing concept represents an endorsement and justification for the social responsibility of business in contemporary society, and a refutation of Milton Friedmans infamous affirmation that â€Å"the social responsibility of business is to make a realise” (Friedman, 1962). THE CONSUMERISM bowel movement AS THE CATALYST FOR THESOCIETAL MARKETING CONCEPT The in style(p) consumerism movement is a cause that has been accumulating momentum for over 30 years in the U. S. , and its disciples assert that all consumers lose an inherent right to products which are: honorable in use (and even misuse), effective for the use designed, economic, reliable, honestly labeled and advertised, and benign in their impacts upon the environment. Moreover, consumerists have been very proactive in seeing that these â€Å"righ ts” are guaranteed to undivided consumers, either by the firms selling the products, or by the government of this country.Adherents of consumerism tend to believe that businesses are so consumingly motivated by the desire to make a profit that they commonly via media the quality of the product offerings, thereby jeopardizing the safety of consumers. Consumerists call forth examples of this â€Å"greed,” such as the Beech-Nut case involving the sale over 10 years of millions of cases of â€Å"apple juice” which was in reality only sweetened, flavored water ( commerce Week, 1988).The fact that such a large number and variety of these cases exist and continue to be exposed on a regular basis lends a great deal of credibility to the consumerism movement and its underlying assumptions. In explaining the rise of consumerism, Peter Drucker blamed the marketers for failing their consumers and publics in development the marketing concept: We have asked ourselves wher e in the marketing concept consumerism fits or belongs. I have come to the conclusion that, so far, the only mien one can really define it within the do marketing concept is as the shame of the ingrained marketing concept.It is essentially a mark of misadventure of the concept… (Drucker, 1969) This quote is now famous to marketing practitioners, scholars, and critics alike, and the legitimacy of Druckers view is generally conceded. In the same year that Drucker made this accusation, Business Week (1969) also asserted that â€Å"In the very broadest sense, consumerism can be defined as the bankruptcy of what the business schools have been calling the ‘marketing concept. â€Å"‘ These condemnations of the marketing concept reflected a general assumption within both the business and academic spheres regarding the implications of consumerisms growing popularity.A substantial portion of scholars and managers surveyed in 1971, for example, believed that the rise in consumerism was a direct look of the inadequacy of the marketing concept (Barksdale and Darden, 1971). As the presumed reaction to the failure of the marketing concept, then, the consumerist movement became the foundation for â€Å"a revised marketing concept” which Kotler (1972) proposed as the transposition to the â€Å"failed” marketing concept. As in earlier stages of the marketing philosophy evolution, the â€Å"societal marketing concept” was on the face of it constructed upon the ruins of its immediate predecessor.Since the most recent consumerist movement in the U. S. served as the catalyst for todays conceptualization and implementation of the societal marketing concept, it would seem important to understand the mod origins of this movement. ORIGINS OF THE MODERN CONSUMERISM MOVEMENT Writing in 1987, the machine Editors of Consumer Guide described one car as â€Å"perhaps the most sophisticated (certainly one of the most ambitious) cars ever to c ome from Detroit” (Langworth and Robson, 1987, p. 51). These authors went on to proclaim that these were â€Å"the conformation of cars we should have had in the 1970s, and didnt. The car was the Chevrolet Corvair of the 1960s, and its conspicuous absence seizure in the 1970s was the direct result of what many consider to be both consumerisms explosive postwar unveiling and also its finest hour. Indeed, the tomb of the Corvair became the foundation of consumerism as we know it today. While business historians (e. g. , Halberstam, 1986) are eager to criticize Detroits apparent indifference and ineptitude regarding the 1970s invasion of small, economical automobiles from foreign countries and the oil crisis which precipitated this invasion, this blame has been clearly place and undeserved.In 1959, planetary Motors, acknowledging an existing need in the marketplace for a small, inexpensive, sporty, and fuel-efficient automobile, designed and marketed a vehicle to fill this n eed. This automobile, the Corvair, was indeed revolutionary in many respects, having four-wheeled independent suspension, a rear-mounted air-cooled six-cylinder engine, the option of turbo-charging (a first), and an acquit system design which would be used on a majority of automobiles for years to come.Both the Corvair and its functional, but considerably more primitive predecessor, the Volkswagen Beetle, were designed, built, and marketed with the highest regard for the marketing conceptâ€offering lower-income consumers the opportunity to own an economical, reliable, and fun-todrive automobile. Both cars were vehement sellers, and looked to satisfy a number of preexisting needs in the marketplace. In 1960, Consumer Reports praised the Volkswagen for its good workmanship, and handling and roadability which were â€Å"well ahead of the U.S. average”. Additionally, about the worst thing that Consumer Reports could find to say about the Corvair was a discover about its à ¢â‚¬Å"unimpressive trim quality” (cf. Abernathy, Clark, and Kantrow, 1983). unfortunately for many consumers, Ralph Nader would use these cars as a catapult for his career, and in so doing, would become synonymous with the consumerism movement. In 1965 he wrote a mass entitled unguaranteed at Any Speed, in which he criticized General Motors as being irresponsible, greedy, and unconcerned for the publics safety.Nader used the Corvair as the books primary example, developing an elaborate, scathing, but also relatively misplaced criticism of the Corvair. Due to the negative advancement which the book generated, the book dealt a death rumple to the Corvair, which immediately began a downward sales whorled toward its eventual extinction in 1969. Inspired by the â€Å" conquest” of Unsafe at Any Speed, an equivalently unrelenting and faulty criticism of the Volkswagen Beetle was written in 1971 by a colleague and ally of Nader, and was entitled Small—On Safety ( Dodge, 197 1).Since, by the time of this books publication, millions of Volkswagens were on the road and were well-regarded as providing reliable, economical, and serviceable transportation, the book failed to achieve any credibility, and did little harm to Volkswagens sales. What should have been evident to readers of either book and to consumers in general, but was perhaps not appreciated until much later, was that it was physically impossible to construct a small sparing car which was as safe as the leviathan Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Chryslers of the same period.Had a well-designed car such as the Honda civil (or any other contemporary compact automobile) been introduced into the market in the 1960s, it too would have certainly been labeled as unsafe, and forced off the market. THE SOCIETAL MARKETING CONCEPT AND THEORY X The societal marketing concept is largely congruent with the â€Å"multiple constituency model of organizations” (Kimery and Rinehart, 1998), and general notions of the responsibility or obligation of businesses to social and environmental stakeholders.Contrasted to the marketing concept or orientation, which posits the direct and simple relationship between organizational advantageousness and responsiveness to customer needs and concerns, the societal marketing concept or multiple constituency model suggests that success is highly dependent upon an organizations attentiveness to all constituencies simultaneously (Kimery and Rinehart, 1998). Yet due to the common opposition between immediate consumer needs and long-term societal and individual needs, the simultaneous â€Å"satisfaction” of all of these demands is often toilsome if not impossible.Moreover, the focus upon â€Å"un-stated” or long-term customer needs and a concomitant discounting of stated consumer desires have distinct overtones of corporate or governmental paternalism and the assumptions of maker or governmental sovereignty, which this perspective n ecessarily implies. In short, where the marketing concept is the economic equivalent of the republican process, the societal marketing concept is antithetical to the tenets of antiauthoritarian equateity and more comparable to economic fascism.In an eloquent paper outlining the conceptual foundations of his societal marketing concept, Kotler vary Douglas McGregors managerial â€Å" hypothesis X / Theory Y” to illustrate alternative perspectives of customers (Kotler, 1977b). According to McGregor, Theory X managers view their employees as being lazy, ignorant, gullible, suspicious, and disloyal. In contrast, Theory Y managers view their employees as informed, intelligent, motivated, unique, and rational (McGregor, 1957, 1985).In his adaptation, Kotler makes the assertion that businesses subscribing to the philosophy embodied within the societal marketing concept make assumptions about their customers which are consistent with Theory Y (as opposed to Theory X). In other w ords, Kotler believes that the societal marketing concept is philosophically consonant with a perspective of the consumer as informed, intelligent, and rational, suggesting the higher plane of enlightenment shared by adopters of this concept and alluding to the concepts supposed capacity for consumer em partment.Although Kotler makes a valuable constituent in adapting this managerial framework to the marketing discipline, he grossly errs in his ensureation. A far more plausible observation is that the societal marketing concept is solidly built upon Theory X assumptions about consumers on the part of the marketer. According to Kotler (1977b), â€Å"societal marketers are more attuned to the buyers unexpressed needs than overexpressed wants,” and place an emphasis upon â€Å"long-run consumer and societal well being. Because of this, the societal marketing concept clearly forces or compels marketers to make judgments about what is â€Å" stovepipe” for consumers, and what needs are valid (as opposed to those that are spurious or unwholesome). It is in this way that the societal marketing concept becomes the ultimate lecturer and underwriter to the Theory X mentality. The conceptual foundation of the societal marketing concept (as well as of the consumerism movement) rests eavily upon the belief that the individual consumer is unavailing to â€Å"look out for him/herself,” is gullible, ignorant, easily misled, does not know what is actually in his/her own best interest, and thus needs to be protected from powerful and unscrupulous marketers. In this way, the belief that the role of the marketer is to interpret what is â€Å"best” for society and individuals necessitates the assumption that individuals do not and cannot know what is best for themselves. Nor is this an overstatement of the societal marketing concepts goals and assumptions.Bell and Emory (1971, p. 40), proponents of this concept, assert that â€Å"The typical consu mer is at such a disadvantage that he cannot assure his own effectiveness. Business has the responsibility to servicing him, and if business fails then the government or other parties must act on the consumers behalf. ” In addition, in circumstances â€Å"where the buyer is unwilling or unable to make rational decisions,” Bell and Emory believe that â€Å"It is the employment of business to promote proper consumption set” (Bell & Emory, 197 1, p. 40, emphasis added).Yet these are on the buttonly the â€Å"paternalistic” attitudes which specify the Theory X â€Å"manager” according to McGregor. The fact that some consumers may choose to buy a subcompact automobile because they prefer economy over a certain degree of safety, or that some choose to subsist on McDonalds hamburgers, fries and milkshakes scorn their â€Å"unhealthfullness” does not imply that these individuals are stupid, or gullible, or that they need to be â€Å"enlig htened” by consumerism or societal marketing techniques, This is in fact the precise point at which the â€Å"evolution” of the marketing concept breaks down.The marketing concept holds that marketers should strive to supply products for every consumer need, provided these needs are not grossly impending to society, and that â€Å"any decision the customer makes to serve his own perceived selfinterest is rational” (Bauer & Greyser, 1967). It is thus impossible to interpret the societal marketing concept as anything but a move backward into the period where the selling concept ruledâ€where consumers were â€Å"ignorant,” â€Å"irrational,” and easily anipulated by more insightful marketers. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS While consumerists and other critics of the selling concept regularly and loudly chastise business organizations for employing marketing strategies and campaigns which are ostensibly based upon assumptions of consumer ignoranc e and irrationality, these same guardians of consumer interest are typically synonymous with those pushing organizations most forcefully into programs of social responsibility and the societal marketing concept.Yet, as noted above, the agenda of social responsibility in business is clearly based upon assumptions of equal (or even greater) degrees of consumer ignorance and irrationality. Disciples of the societal marketing concept appear to be largely oblivious to the relatively stiff levels that businesses have been pushed by forces in concert with their agenda. (Witness the precedent on McDonalds coffee cups: â€Å" precaution: HOT! . . . direction: CONTENTS HOT! … Caution: HOT! . . . Caution: HOT! . . . WARNING: HOT! … /! .. ” which are combine with a corollary reduction in the temperature of the liquid itself — actions which were necessitated by the infamous multimillion dollar legal claim against the beau monde — a lawsuit which was applauded by numerous consumerist groups. ) But, as Levitt noted in 1958, â€Å"self-conscious dedication to social responsibility may have started as a purely defensive maneuver against strident attacks on big corporations and on the moral efficacy of the profit system. But defense alone no extended explains the motive. The motive for corporate social responsibility and the overwhelming push for social responsibility in the interest of sales now arises out of the industrial sectors near-total dependency on social trends and the sentiment of a minority of consumers. Corporations that have been beaten into submission by empty-headed lawsuits and that are afraid to arouse consumerist accusations of indifference have been forced to pander to the lowest common denominator of consumer passivity, ignorance, and laziness.As predicted by McGregor, these Theory X attitudes and actions have subsequently bred and strengthen the very passivity, ignorance, and laziness in consumers they were design ed to pass judgment and amend. Ironically, the similarities between the selling concept and the societal marketing concept regarding their shared assumption of consumer ignorance can be seen as forming the perfect foundation for either societal self-sacrifice or, alternatively, opportunistic exploitation.In many cases, these efforts can be difficult to distinguish from one another, and apparent acts of altruism or social responsibility can provide the perfect camouflage for exploitation. Because organizations are rapidly get aware of the power of â€Å"greenconsumers,” for example, there is a world-shattering temptation to advance this agenda through the marketing program as a powerful turn for cultivating customer loyalty and anesthetizing consumer prudence and vigilance.As Kotler (1994, p. 30) notes, â€Å"a number of companies have achieved notable sales and profit gains through adopting and practicing the societal marketing concept. ” One of the two showy exa mples Kotler cites is The trunk bring out, started by Anita Roddick in 1976. This organization has experient phenomenal sales growth by actively promoting its products as all-natural, environmentally friendly, and non-animal-tested, and its business practices as sociallyconcerned.Moreover, Roddick has frequently and publicly ridiculed other cosmetics companies, noting that they are â€Å"run by men who create needs that dont exist” (Zinn, 1991). Indeed, The proboscis Shop became in the 1980s the prototype that all â€Å"earth-friendly” businesses would want to emulate. As the vanguard of social responsibility, The Body Shop and its founder became the beneficiary of huge volumes of positive publicity, supranational acclaim, and consumer goodwill.Yet recent explorations into The Body Shops products and business practices have found elements which yield a stark contrast to the public images and perceptions noted above. Products of the company have been found to be l argely petrochemical-based and of relatively poor-quality, and a large semblance of them have been tested on animals. In addition, the â€Å"socially-enlightened” business practices of this company have been exposed as germinal public relations efforts, and the FTC has nvestigated the firm for fraudulent business dealings (Entine, 1993; Buszka, 1997). Clearly, it must inevitably be those organizations which are encouraged to view their consumers as ignorant or irrational that can and will most easily extend that notion to discover opportunities for exploiting that ignorance and irrationality. It is for this reason that those espousing the societal marketing concept and the social responsibility of business can be seen as the greatest danger to consumer sovereignty and consumer welfare.As Lord Acton observed, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet it is a corollary rule that in reducing one individuals power, all others with whom that person deals have t heir relative power increased. By forcing consumers into the roles of ignorant, helpless, and mindless children in need of protection and corporate welfare, advocates of the societal marketing concept have liberated consumers from both responsibility and power, and have concomitantly made business more powerful. REFERENCES Abernathy, W. Clark, and Kantrow (1983), Industrial spiritual rebirth; Producing a Competitive Future for America, New York: staple fiber Books. Bauer, R. and S. Greyser (1967), â€Å"The Dialogue That Never Happens,” Harvard Business Review, (November-December), 186-190. Barksdale, Hiram C. and Bill Darden (1971), â€Å"Marketers Attitudes Toward the selling Concept,” diary of merchandise, 35 (October), 28-36. Bell, M. and W. Emory (1971), â€Å"The Faltering selling Concept,” journal of merchandise 35, (October), (37-42). Business Week (1969), â€Å"Business Responds to Consumerism,” folk 6, 95.Business Week (1988), â€Å"Wha t Led Beech-Nut Down the Road to Disgrace,” February 2, 124-127. Buszka, Sharlene (1997), â€Å"A Case of Greewashing: The Body Shop,” in Proceedings of the connector of charge and the International Association of Management l5th one-year International Conference, Organizational Management Division, Volume 15, rate 1, 199-294. Dodge, Lowell (1972), Smallâ€On Safety: The Designed-In Dangers of the Volkswagen, New York: Grossman. Drucker, P. (1958), â€Å"Marketing and Economic Development,” Journal of Marketing, (January), (252-259). _________(1969), Consumerism: The Opportunity of Marketing,” address before the National Association of Manufacturers, New York, April 10, later printed as â€Å"The Shame of Marketing,” Marketing Communications, August, 1969, 60. Entine, Jon (1994), â€Å"Shattered Image: Is the Body Shop Too Good to Be current? ” Business Ethics, (September/October). Friedman, Milton (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Fullerton, Ronald A. (1988), â€Å"How red-brick is Modern Marketing? Marketings Evolution and the Myth of the ‘ employment Era,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 108-125.Halberstam, David (1986), The Reckoning, New York: Avon Books. Keith, R. (1960), â€Å"The Marketing Revolution,” Journal of Marketing, 24(January), 35-3 8. Klein, T. (1979), â€Å"Contemporary Problems, Marketing Theory, and Futures Research,” in Conceptual and hypothetical Developments in Marketing: AMA Proceedings, 258-263. Kimery, Kathryn M. and Shelley M. Rinehart (1998), â€Å"Markets and Constituencies: An Alternative View of the Marketing Concept,” Journal of Business Research, 43, 117-124. Kotler, P. (1977a), â€Å"From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness,” Harvard Business Review (November-December), 67-75. _______(1972), â€Å"What Consumerism Means for Marketers,” Harvard Business Review, (May-June), 48-57. ______ __(1977b), â€Å"Considerations In a Theory of Humanistic Marketing,” Working Paper, have School Of Management, Northwestern University. ________(1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, eighth edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. ________, and S. Levy, (1969), â€Å"Broadening the Concept of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, (January), 10-15. Langworth, Richard M. nd Graham Robson (1987), The Complete Book of collectible Cars, 1930-1980, New York: Beekman House. Levitt, T. (1958), â€Å"The Dangers of Social Responsibility,” Harvard Business Review, 36, 5(September-October), 41-50. _______(1960), â€Å"Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review, (July-August). _______(1977), â€Å"Marketing When Things Change,” Journal of Marketing, (NovemberDecember), 107-113. McGregor, D. (1957), â€Å"The Human Side of Enterprise,” Management Review (November), 22-28. McGregor, D. (1985), The Human Side of En terprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.McKitterick, J. (1958), â€Å"What is the Marketing Management Concept? ” in The Frontiers of Marketing feeling and Science, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 71-82. Nader, Ralph (1965), Unsafe At Any Speed: The Designed In Dangers of the American Automobile, New York: Grossman. Samli, A. , K. Palda, and A. Barker (1987), â€Å"Toward a Mature Marketing Concept,” Sloan Management Review (Winter), 45-5 1. Zinn, Laura (1991), â€Å"Whales, Human Rights, Rain Forests — And the persistent Smell of Profits,” Business Week, July 15, 114-115.\r\n'