accomodation management

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 9
subject Words 9482
subject School hospitality and tourism
subject Course 110029

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Sentiment toward marketing: Should we care about consumer alienation and
readiness to use technology?
TAREK T. MADY*
Department of Marketing and Marketing Communications, American University in Dubai, P.O. Box 28282, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates
ABSTRACT
Consumer sentiment toward marketing has been extensively addressed in the marketing literature. However, while most existing studies
provide contributions regarding the levels of consumer perceptions of the marketing function, most fall short of providing significant
insights into the antecedents of these sentiment levels. That is to say, little is offered to help marketers understand why consumers perceive
the marketing function the way they do. In this study, a conceptual framework is developed in an attempt to explore consumer sentiment
toward marketing in light of the increasing technological tendencies of today’s marketplace. Alienation from the marketplace is assumed to
be an exogenous variable that affects the degree to which individuals are ready to embrace new technologies in everyday life. The model is
empirically tested using structural equation modeling. Alienation from the marketplace is found to be negatively associated with sentiment
toward marketing and the drivers of technology readiness, but positively associated with the inhibitors of technology readiness. More
significantly, readiness to embrace technology is found to exhibit a strong and consistent relationship with sentiment toward marketing.
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Both the academic and professional marketing communities,
as the major proponents of the marketing function, are often
required to justify their existence. In fact, the notion of market-
ing as a separate and sovereign entity which contributes to
society as a whole is often in question (Wilkie and Moore,
1999). Therefore, any effort to counter potential criticism of
the marketing function rests on the ability to address how the
very entity toward which we gear most of our research believes
we are doing. An assessment of marketing is thus an
assessment of the firm by the stakeholder that often holds the
key to its success or failure. In other words, if the core of the
marketing concept is to satisfy needs and wants, we must
constantly gauge how the function as a whole is doing in the
eyes of our major target, namely the consumer.
As a construct, Consumer Sentiment toward Marketing
(CSM) refers to the general feelings that consumers have for
marketing and the marketplace (Lawson et al., 2001). More
specifically, the construct measures consumer global opinions
of the marketing function based on the combined marketing-
mix components (product, price, promotion, and retail/
distribution) traditionally attributed to marketing’s impact on
consumers and individuals-at-large (Gaski and Etzel, 1986).
According to Gaski and Etzel (2005), consumer attitudes
toward, and satisfaction with, the marketing function is one
of the most fundamental aspects that defines the relationship
between consumers and the marketing system. Such a
measurement not only provides a general (societal) gauge of
marketing managers with regards to their own customers but
may also give policymakers insights into analyzing macro-
marketing problems and future market performance (Lawson
et al., 2001; Chan and Cui, 2004). For example, consumer
attitudes toward the marketing function have been found to
affect several key macroeconomic variables such as personal
disposable income and interest rates (Chopin and Darrat,
2000), inflation (Gaski and Etzel, 2005), and have been
found useful for economic forecasting (Huth et al., 1994). As
such, the importance of determining consumer sentiment
levels cannot be overlooked from either a theoretical or
managerial standpoint. However, measuring consumer
sentiment toward marketing should not be an end in itself.
Efforts to measure consumer sentiment levels are
extensive (e.g., Didow et al., 1983; Gaski and Etzel,
1986). What is surprising is that very few attempts have been
made to address what affects these levels. Previous studies
have relied on simple demographic interpretations of
sentiment scores or replication of the measures within a
particular, often international, perspective or location (e.g.,
Barksdale et al., 1982; Wee and Chan, 1989; Chan et al.,
1990; Varadarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Uray and
Menguc, 1996; Lysonski et al., 2003; Chan and Cui, 2004).
Furthermore, most of these demographic explanations of
sentiment levels have been generally weak and inconsistent.
While these studies provide significant contributions
regarding the levels of consumer perceptions of the
marketing function at a given time or in a given context,
most fall short of providing insights into the antecedents of
these sentiment levels. Despite extensive research, little is
offered to help marketers understand why consumers
perceive the marketing function the way they do.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
A growing dissatisfaction with marketing?
One often overlooked area of research which may shed light
on why sentiment toward marketing figures are at certain
levels may lie in consumers’ perceptions of their roles within
the expanded business environment they navigate on a
Journal of Consumer Behaviour,J. Consumer Behav. 10: 192–204 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.329
* Correspondence to: Tarek T. Mady, Department of Marketing and Market-
ing Communications, American University in Dubai, P.O. Box 28282,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail: tmady@aud.edu
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
day-to-day basis. Previous research has noted that an individual’s
attitude toward the overall marketplace plays a major role in
whether or not he or she is inclined to participate and engage
in typical consumption activities (e.g., Pruden et al., 1974;
Shuptrine et al., 1977; Allison, 1978; Johnson, 1996). This
notion of general alienation is certainly not a new concept
and its effects on consumption habits have been extensively
addressed in the past. However, there is a renewed relevance
of alienation given the growing evidence suggesting the
emergence of an alternative culture resistant to the traditional
consumerism culture where the marketing function dom-
inates, permeates every aspect of society, and materialism or
the notion of ‘‘more is better’’ is accepted by individuals
(Handelman and Arnold, 1999). This alternative culture is
growing and becoming more vocal (Iyer and Muncy, 2009).
Traditionally, the counter consumer culture is viewed within
the context of the degree to which individuals believe they
can impact the current state of materialism.
Voluntary simplicity is a conscious effort on the part of
individuals to limit materialistic consumption habits in an
attempt to free their monetary and time resources (Etzioni,
1998). In essence, voluntary simplicity constitutes a belief
system and practice designed to allow individuals to seek
satisfaction from nonmaterial aspects of life. Its aim is to
maximize individual control over daily life and minimize
dependence on institutions (Leonard-Barton, 1981). The
notion of voluntary simplicity itself can be characterized
based on various, often overlapping, contrasts such as
commercial simplicity, compassionate simplicity, frugal
simplicity, and ecological simplicity (Elgin, 2000). None-
theless, all types of voluntary simplicity shun materialism
but do not actively attempt to alter the current consumer
environment. On the other hand, anti-consumption move-
ments are actively involved in attempts to alter current
business practices and consumer behavior. Such movements
can be viewed on a continuum with ends ranging from
promoting ethical consumption/marketing practices (Cher-
rier, 2007) to more extreme and active consumer movements
such as ‘‘cultural jamming’ (e.g., Adbusters, Buy Nothing
Day, Reverend Billy’s Church of Stop Shopping), which are
designed to break down the current cycle of materialism and
overbearing control of businesses on individual lives
(Sandlin and Milam, 2008). There is no doubt that both
voluntary simplicity and anti-consumerism are on the rise
and can no longer be ignored (Kozinets and Handelman,
2004; Huneke, 2005). Both researchers and practitioners
need to acknowledge that such negative feelings are mostly
targeted at the marketing function.
A growing reliance on technology
Any level of consumer participation in today’s marketplace
will certainly be governed, at least in part, by a seemingly
never-ending reliance of firms on technology-facilitated
transactions or processes (e.g., ATMs, airport check-in
kiosks, computer-based call centers, internet-based pur-
chases, RFID technology). Rapid advances in information
technology along with decreasing costs of implementation
have presented firms with opportunities to become more
efficient and effective at reaching their goals (Curran and
Meuter, 2005). New technologies are being used extensively
in marketing today as part of market orientation strategies
and customer relationship management (CRM) processes
(Meuter et al., 2000; Pikkarainen et al., 2004; Lin and Hsieh,
2006; Weijters et al., 2007). Firms traditionally operate
under the assumption that increasing these technology-based
(often service-related) encounters will improve customer
satisfaction via standardization of the consumption process.
While there is general merit to this argument and significant
findings in previous research have illustrated such a
relationship does exist (Bitner et al., 2000), there is, in fact,
evidence to the contrary. Consumers have often expressed
increasing frustration with technology and/or process failure
(Meuter et al., 2000; Parasuraman, 2000). For example, a
typical consumer may express dissatisfaction with a
particular service provider when he or she must now
navigate a host of self-service technology-based activities
that, while originally erected to improve service consistency
and quality, may be the very reason for the dissatisfaction. Of
significant concern though is the fact that most consumers
(satisfied or not) will attribute the existence of these new
innovations to the marketing function (Pruden and Leonardi,
1976).
Therefore, the focus of research should be shifted from
the potential benefits arising from using technology, as
perceived by the marketer, to whether or not the consumer
wants to use the technology in the first place. Understanding
the antecedents of technology acceptance is essential in order
to understand whether or not added technology-based
interactions will be successful (Fisk et al., 1993). If, as
Lambert (1981) suggested, alienated consumers believe they
have no control over any aspect they face in dealing with the
situations presented to them in the marketplace, the argument
can be made (Figure 1) that they will be less likely to
embrace consumption activities involving new technology
processes and subsequently exhibit negative sentiment
toward the main reason for this now mandatory technology,
the marketing function.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Consumer sentiment toward marketing
Early manifestations of the consumer sentiment toward
marketing construct revolved around the concept of
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 192–204 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Sentiment toward marketing, alienation from the marketplace, technology readiness 193
consumer confidence and focused on determining consumer
propensities toward future spending (e.g., Katona, 1963).
However, such measures were inherently limited due to their
focus on only one aspect of marketing, namely the price
element and how it relates to perceptions of future economic
outlooks. It was the prevailing marketing practices in the
1950s and 1960s such as misleading advertisements,
predatory pricing, general disregard for consumer safety,
and the subsequent rise of public criticism of these practices
which led to a need to monitor social perceptions of
marketing.
Most of the literature regarding consumer attitudes toward
the marketing function is based on the early work of
Barksdale and Darden (1972) and later Barksdale et al.
(1976). These researchers measured consumer attitudes
toward consumerism, government regulations, consumer
responsibility, and marketing activities. They found that US
consumers had fairly negative attitudes toward marketing
practices. This was consistent with the work of Hustad and
Pessemier (1973) and Lundstrom and Lamont (1976), who
also found generally negative perceptions of the marketing
field. Gaski and Etzel (1986) later modified Barksdale and
Darden’s measures and developed an index designed to
measure composite opinions regarding marketing. Their
construct corresponded to the four typical elements of the
marketing mix: (1) products/quality, (2) prices, (3) advertis-
ing, and (4) retailing/selling. They labeled their measure the
Index of Consumer Sentiment toward Marketing. According
to the authors, the scale provides a continuing ‘‘barometer of
how marketing is doing in the eyes of the consumer public’
(Gaski and Etzel, 1986: p. 72). They argued that the
measurement of consumer sentiment toward marketing (1)
sensitizes marketers to consumers’ perceptions, (2) serves to
identify the nature of public relations tasks facing marketing,
(3) assists in gauging whatever progress is or is not being
made, and (4) demonstrates marketer concerns for public
opinion. As with previous research, they again found
relatively negative views toward marketing but also found
some improvement in consumer perceptions. Gaski and Etzel
specifically found female consumers’ perceptions of market-
ing to be slightly more positive than male consumers. More
recently, several researchers have attempted to shed light on
variations in consumer sentiment levels based on a range of
demographic variables. For example, Webster (1991) found
consumer differences in consumer attitudes toward market-
ing based on social class and income levels while Lawson
et al. (2001) found a strong positive relationship between
standards of living, measured in material terms, and
sentiment levels.
Consumer alienation from the marketplace
Extensive research has addressed the construct of consumer
alienation from the marketplace (e.g., Pruden et al., 1974;
Pruden and Leonardi, 1976; Shuptrine et al., 1977; Allison,
1978; Balasubramanian and Kamakura, 1989; Johnson,
1996). In essence, the construct is defined as consumer
feelings of separation from the norms and values that
characterize the typical marketplace. The marketplace is
conceptualized as the entire spectrum of institutions involved
in the offering of goods and/or services and the practices or
activities conducted by these institutions (Johnson, 1996).
The consensus from previous research is that alienated
individuals tend to lack any acceptance of or identification
with the existing market institutions, practices, and outputs
they must deal with as they assume their roles as consumers
(Pruden et al., 1974; Shuptrine et al., 1977). Specifically,
such individuals do not embrace the roles expected of them
as they engage in the exchange process and navigate the
marketplace. As a result, they become more and more
isolated socially. As a construct, alienation from the
marketplace has been found to be a conceptual aggregate
of more detailed dimensions (rather than discrete measurable
sub-scales). Seeman (1959) systematically identified five
variants or ways in which alienation has been conceptualized
in the literature: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normless-
ness, social isolation, and self-estrangement.
Powerlessness is the expectancy held by individuals that
their own behavior cannot determine the outcome or
reinforcement that they seek (Seeman, 1959). Johnson
(1996) identified this notion as a state in which consumers
feel that they cannot influence business behavior in an effort
to make those behaviors more consistent with their own
needs. As such, an alienated consumer believes he or she has
no control over any aspect faced in the marketplace.
Meaninglessness is a state in which the individual is unclear
as to what should be believed. This situation includes a lack
of clarity regarding standards set and used during individual
buyer behavior. That is, consumers do not feel that new
products or the whole process of consumerism is worth the
effort (Pruden et al., 1974). Consumer normlessness is a
situation in which social norms regulating behavior are no
longer effective rules for individual behavior. Johnson (1996)
defined it as a state in which consumers believe that
marketers will behave in ways that are unethical, unjust, or
undesirable in order to meet selfish goals (i.e., marketers
cannot be trusted). Social Isolation is a sense of isolation or
estrangement from the general marketing-based society
including its institutions, practices, and outputs (Seeman,
1959; Middleton, 1963). Self-Estrangement, a notion very
similar to social isolation, is when a person views him/herself
as an alien and can relate more easily to others than to him/
herself. Allison (1978) argued that self-estrangement is
dominated by a general lack of ability for an individual to
identify with behavior traditionally associated with his/her
role as a consumer. That is, consumption patterns are
associated with satisfying other peoples’ expectations rather
than one’s own.
Readiness to embrace new technology
Rogers (1995: p. 5) defines the innovation-adoption process
as the ‘‘process through which an individual (or other
decision-making unit such as a group, society, economy, or
country) passes through the innovation-decision process.
Accordingly, five stages make up the process: (1) knowledge
of innovation, (2) forming an attitude toward the innovation,
(3) deciding to adopt or reject the innovation, (4)
implementation of the innovation, and (5) confirmation of
the decision. This decision-making process, however, views
Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 192–204 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
194 T. T. Mady
page-pf4
innovation–adoption as a series of phases but does little to
address the speed of adoption. The propensity or readiness of
a consumer to adopt a certain technology or technological
process is a matter rooted in that consumer’s perception of
technology and innovation. It is not an end in itself, but rather
as a means or tool necessary to perform as a consumer.
Ultimately, encouraging consumers to use new technologies,
especially in the case of service encounters, is not an easy
task (Curran and Meuter, 2005).
As mentioned previously, the use of technology by
marketers to shape consumer exchange processes is
particularly evident in the service sector. Increases in
labor-based costs and significant innovations in technology,
along with the constant need for standardization of service
quality have fueled this growing reliance on technologies in
the service delivery process (Dabholkar, 1996). Self-service
technologies (SSTs) are exchange processes based in
technological interfaces that enable the consumer to take
advantage of a service without any service employee
involvement (Meuter et al., 2000). There is little doubt that
the trend for self-service technologies will continue as more
and more firms seek competitive advantages and consumers
become more technology-savvy (Meuter et al., 2000; Lin and
Hsieh, 2006). However, despite consumers becoming
generally more comfortable and sophisticated in their
technology interactions, some might avoid certain SSTs,
even when the benefits of such interactions, such as increased
flexibility and/or efficiency, are obvious (Meuter et al.,
2003). There is a growing body of literature in the field,
which has shifted the discussion from investigating the
characteristics and importance of SSTs in service delivery
(e.g., Bitner et al., 2000; Meuter et al., 2000) to whether or
not consumers are willing to embrace new technologies in
service exchanges in the first place (e.g., Parasuraman, 2000;
Ho and Ko, 2008). Consumers are seen to have a general
‘state of mind’’ that determines their predisposition toward
technology.
Technology Readiness, therefore, can be defined as
stem from two distinct dimensions: (1) Optimism, defined as
a positive view of technology and a belief that it offers people
increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in their lives and
(2) Innovativeness, defined as an individual’s tendency to be
a technology pioneer and thought leader. On the other hand,
negative feelings toward technology stem from (1) Dis-
comfort, defined as a perceived lack of control over
technology and a feeling of being overwhelmed by it and,
(2) Insecurity, defined as a genuine distrust of technology
and skepticism about its ability to work properly.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The basic premise of the proposed framework is the belief
that an individual’s propensity to accept new technology is a
function of his/her previous attitudes or beliefs already
entrenched in their mind regarding the institutions and
practices of the typical marketplace itself. That is, as
individuals develop an overall perception toward the
marketplace, the degree to which they do or do not accept
anything new, including technology-based exchange from
that marketplace, differs. Consumers will be less intent on
trying a new technology as part of their consumption
activities if they do not believe that the original forms of
consumption are acceptable. For this reason, it is proposed
that consumer alienation has a direct impact on readiness to
embrace new technologies. In turn, as the degree of readiness
to embrace new technologies (as a whole) increases, it can be
expected that there will be a positive impact on how that
individual views the marketing function, which is the entity
believed to be responsible for these new technology
processes. Moreover, if the assumption that alienation from
the marketplace has some effect on readiness to embrace new
technology holds, it can then be asserted that the nature of the
relationship will differ depending on which facet of
technology readiness is in question. As mentioned Parasura-
man (2000) argued that technology readiness is made up of
Sentiment toward marketing, alienation from the marketplace, technology readiness 195
page-pf5
page-pf6
page-pf7
page-pf8
page-pf9
page-pfa
page-pfb
page-pfc
page-pfd

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.