The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms: The Influence of Personal Perspective

Abstract

Marketing is no stranger to "big new ideas" which purport to be new paradigms for the study of the discipline. Relationship marketing, one-to-one

A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries

“…The building of such a brand image is often 'artificial', in the sense that it relies more on the perception of consumers than reality itself. In a developed world dominated by media and other communication channels, perception often becomes a more critical parameter than reality itself (Palmer and Ponsonby, 2002;Naumann et al, 2001). Businesses realize this fact and on average spend a large percentage of their income in efforts to shape perception (and therefore preferences) through advertising and other means of communication with the consumer.…”

Conceptualising and measuring defensive marketing orientation (DMO): some inaugural thoughts on assessing marketing's place in ‘society's doghouse’

“…As explained in earlier sections of this paper, DMO is a personally derived and directed perspective on marketing imperatives, and the nature of its development acknowledges Palmer and Ponsonby"s (2002) view that both research endeavour and theory are largely socially constructed. There is, in reality, no "best" way to pursue the broad agendas explored in this paper, and other, non-DMO, perspectives -focusing on which marketer/market characteristics might be of most empirical interest -would be equally valuable.…”

“…Or are they, as Woodall (2004) hypothesises, still essentially "hard-wired to the hard-sell"? Palmer and Ponsonby (2002) suggested that despite a plethora of new marketing manifestos, marketing on the ground is pretty much still the way it has always been, whilst much of the recent output from Ulster"s Stephen Brown (from Brown, S. 1999, through to Brown, S. 2005) essentially reassertsrightly or wrongly -stereotypical marketing characteristics and behaviours.…”

“…Domain content, therefore, is considered to be neither entirely "out there" (Rorty, 1989), nor fixed within a coherent linguistic realm (Teas and Palan, 1997). Rather, it is an internalized construct derived from a revised perspective on the semantic domain (Pole and Lampard, 2002) and from the researchers" own socially constructed view (Palmer and Ponsonby, 2002) on what marketing should, or could, be. This phenomenon has a prima facie association with the orientations considered earlier in this paper, but any verifiable relationship is neither claimed nor sought.…”

Perceived Value of Fast-food Restaurant Franchises in the USA

“…The composition of perceived value has been extended to include mixed dimensions, for example; intrinsic and extrinsic value by Babin, Darden, & Griffin (1994) and Novak, Donna, & Duhachek (2003); the six-facet value of "PERVAL" by Sweeney and Soutar (2001); and the five consumption dimensions by Sheth et al, (1991 Table 1 summarizes the authors who have chosen the multidimensional approach and the dimensions of the construct for perceived value. All the researchers have the two common fundamental dimensions of perceived value: functional and affective (Anderson & Narus, 1990;Gassenheimer, Houston, & Davis, 1998;Lapierre, 2000;Sweeney & Soutar, 2001;Palmer & Ponsonby, 2002). The functional dimension indicates the reasonable and economic assessments generated by individuals.…”