Consumer Experiences of Marketing: Pervasive, Problematic, and in Need of a Caring Perspective

Abstract

The “corporate mantra” (Liedtka 1996, p. 179) of marketing calls for the care of customers. Indeed, meeting or serving the needs of customers has long been regarded as a core aspect of the discipline. However, such customer-centrality is at odds with public views. Amongst other criticisms, marketing has been accused of using manipulative, misleading, and outright dishonest techniques (Heath and Heath 2008) and of lacking ethics (Sheth and Sisodia 2005). Such views may have a negative impact on marketing’s credibility and effectiveness (see Smith 2006). Despite their importance, little effort has been made to explore the origins of these attitudes in depth or to advance insights to address them. This study offers an attempt to address this void by looking at consumers’ criticisms of marketing in the light of the school of moral philosophy known as the ethics of care (Held 2006). Data were collected from consumers in the UK. This comprised 21 in-depth interviews followed by 71 interviews, in which we used a critical incident technique to explore consumers’ lived experiences that have contributed to their perceptions of marketing. Less than one-fifth of our participants were “mostly positive” (16.7 %) about marketing and nearly half were “mostly negative” (46.3 %) while 37 % reported mixed attitudes. Those who held positive views focused on the role of marketing communications as well as technological developments which assist companies to target their offerings in a relevant way to consumers. On the other hand, participants’ discontentment arises, to a great extent, from a perception of a collective “onslaught” of powerful and faceless marketing institutions. While this does not necessarily mean that individual marketers are excessive in their marketing efforts, the cumulative impact of marketing’s actions on consumers builds their perception of marketing being overly pervasive, invasive, and imposing to the extent of “violence.” The use of technology by contemporary marketers, while seen as a positive development by some, is simultaneously viewed as the reason for an increase in unsolicited and intrusive appeals. Such perceptions are worsened by incidents of marketing being manipulative, deceptive, or exploitative of consumers’ vulnerabilities. While participants are generally accepting that this is just the way marketing is, results indicate that they yearn for a less domineering and more caring approach. Drawing on the ethics of care, we propose ways to address consumers’ concerns and inform marketing practice. The relational focus of these ethics and their concern for “the needs of particular others for whom we take responsibility” (Held 2006, p. 10) should encourage marketers to move away from a context-independent and instrumental view of customers as “abstract others” who can easily be replaced (Thompson 1995; Liedtka 1996, p. 186). A shift in this direction was a large part of what our participants called for. Equally we claim that these ethics’ focus on empathy (Noddings 2002) and its respect for the other’s autonomy (e.g. Gilligan 1982) provide useful guidance for augmenting consumers’ autonomy and addressing criticisms of manipulation, especially targeted at vulnerable consumers. We argue how, by “humanizing” their customers, companies may become more empathetic and wary of any negative effect they might have on them and more likely to be responsive to their interests (see also Thompson 1995). This, as our participants suggest, would also be in the companies’ own interests, as consumers would be less resistant to marketing.References available upon request.