accomodation management

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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.

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

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.

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

DOI: 10.1002/cb

194 T. T. Mady

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