Download On the effects of the consumer/sovereign ideology Federico Brunetti

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
13th Toulon-Verona Conference “Organizational Excellence in Services”
University of Coimbra (Portugal) – September 2-4, 2010
pp. 663-678 – ISBN: 978-972-9344-04-6
On the effects of the consumer/sovereign ideology
Federico Brunetti, University of Verona
1. Introduction
Currently, the literature and managerial/marketing practices propose new models and approaches
aimed at describing or suggesting the ways by which the enterprises may succeed in winning customers.
With the changeover from the seller market to the buyer market, in fact, the problem for the
enterprises has shifted from obtaining a sufficient quantity of product able to meet the demand to the
search for ways to find an outlet for the increased production capacity at their disposal.
In this scenario, we have soon realized that the survival of an enterprise depends first of all on its
ability to meet the demands of consumers and consequently of being able to generate new stimuli that
elicit purchasing.
Therefore the belief has developed that the real “owner” of an enterprise is or should be the
consumer, who is no longer a subordinate or passive person, the thankful recipient of what the industrial
production had to offer, but is the only and whimsical arbitrator of the destinies of the companies.
The three major epoch-making moments in the evolution of the relationship between enterprises
and consumers are: customer-oriented approach, quality and customer satisfaction, and mass
customization of the products.
According to an almost obliged logic, as consumers become more difficult to catch, the “hunting
techniques” become in turn more numerous and sophisticated, as a result of an unrelenting fine-tuning
effort of the existing ones and of the “invention” of new techniques.
With special reference to the marketing field, this is reflected in the existence of more than seventy
“panaceas” found in literature (Cova, Giordano, Pallera, 2008). Irrespective of their actual uniqueness and
without evaluating the effectiveness of each one of these, the mere existence of such a huge amount of
resolving marketing forms reveals on one hand that the research and functions have forged ahead and on
the other hand that progress is made by incremental margins. These “panaceas” moreover reveal that
marketing belongs more to the world of techniques rather than science.
Incidentally, based on the observation that further improvements in the quantity, variety, quality
and update of products are hard to imagine, in another paper I claimed that the relationship between
enterprises and market had inevitably come to an end (Brunetti, 2008). To this regard, it is enough to look
at the vast array of products available today on the market for any kind of item (even for a “simple” fly reel)
to understand how production has apparently expressed the apex of its potential, especially if the analysis
criterion is the actual usefulness of many products. Hence, I inferred that it is necessary to think about
totally new configurations of the relationship between enterprise and customer.
However, irrespective of the recent proliferation of marketing species and a possible exhaustion of
the relationship between enterprise and market, as it has been conceived so far, a certainty in the
evolution examined here can be briefly described as the ascent of the consumer to the throne of the
kingdom of economy. In fact, we have seen the onset of the consumer/sovereign. It is obviously a
metaphor, which, in its simplicity, well highlights the extent of the role played by this subject (Brown,
2008).
Even though this expression cannot be totally meant in a literal sense, “sovereignty of the
customer” means placing this at the apex of the hierarchy of the company stakeholders and recognizing its
supremacy in the market relationships.
In most recent years, consumers are not only the most important players for an enterprise but they
have even become themselves partners in the productive process of the enterprise, almost substituting it
(Prahalad, Ramaswamy, 2000; Cova, Dalli, 2009; Dujarier, 2009). Apart from those firms that with their
products have “something to say,” the logics of co-production of value that today are popular redefine the
role of the enterprise also on a merely productive level.
And why do we talk about “ideology” with reference to the sovereignty of the consumer? Because
this concept has so strongly grown and has spread so much since, it is invariably the foundation of any
reasoning on the search of the competitive advantage, because it is so non-critically assumed that it has
become an object of total trust and therefore ideological, beyond a contingent, specific and objective
evaluation of its actual validity.
Therefore the consumer/sovereign has become a sort of assumption implicitly accepted, a neverquestioned principle, an obsessively repeated mantra by the enterprises in the business community, in the
communication campaigns, in the work of consulting companies irrespective of their caliber.
In the light of the briefly described scenario the purpose of this paper is therefore to critically
examine – even though on a conceptual level – the not always desirable effects that the
customer/sovereign ideology can generate.
It should be immediately noted that the analysis is carried out in an exclusively abstract
perspective. It is well known – and experienced by many – that in practice the principle of the sovereignty
of the consumer is oftentimes disregarded and that in the real world the consumer is forced to accept the
conditions of the offer and to lose his case in relation to any dispute with the enterprises.
Therefore the reasoning we are going to make here is basically theoretical, even though it includes
a few elements of interest for three basic kinds of reason.
The first one is connected to the possibility of shedding light on the risks that are however
concealed, of some given concepts. It is basically necessary to recognize the value imbedded in focusing on
the effects in a distant future that therefore tend to remain concealed or at least scarcely present in the
collective perception.
Furthermore, even though – as stated earlier – in the reality the consumer is not kept in such a high
consideration, the value of a critical approach and of the discussion on axiomatic conceptions are left
untouched. Actually it seems to be greater the more these concepts are dogmatic and incontrovertibly
assumed to be true.
Finally we shall not forget Thomas’ theorem – better known as the self-fulfilling prophecy –
according to which “if people define as real some given situations, these are real in their consequences.”
The effects of a given statement therefore are generated irrespective of the level of truth of the
initial assumption. Following this logic, it matters little that the consumer is not a sovereign in reality. What
it reveals is that the various players involved can be led to behave as if the consumer is actually a sovereign.
In this respect – as it will be shown – any negative consequence involves not even one of the
subjects in question and it rather concerns, in a game of mutual interdependencies, the enterprises as well
as the consumers and obviously the greater community.
Without underestimating the benefits and the positive contribution of marketing (Wilkie, Moore,
1999) and following approaches, this paper wishes therefore to make a speculative exploration on the
undesired implications to which the consumer/sovereign ideology may lead.
2. Theory
The theoretical frameworks underlying the concept of consumer/sovereign and to which we make
reference in this paper are basically Marketing, Total Quality Management and One-to-One Marketing.
It is undisputed that also other approaches have strengthened this concept. However, it seems that
the most valuable contributions have been generated within these three frameworks in question.
Marketing is the important discipline that has introduced the supremacy of the consumer over the
producer. The essence of marketing – the marketing concept – lies in ranking the consumer first, placing
him in a position of logical and chronological primacy with respect to production. In brief: the enterprise
does not strive to sell what it is able to produce but it produces what it has realized it can sell, through
appropriate surveys.
A consumer is the starting and end point of the action of a company. The commitment of the
enterprise is to understand first of all what a consumer needs, what he desires, more or less consciously.
Once in fact the technical/productive problems have been substantially overcome, on a quantitative and
qualitative level, the enterprise has the energy and resources to focus on the market.
In hindsight, the onset of Marketing seems to be the outcome of a logical process practically
inevitable since – when the output exceeds the absorption ability of the demand – it is reasonable to try to
understand in advance what can be placed on the market.
Nonetheless, the impact of Marketing is revolutionary, since it has subverted the logic of the
relationship between firm and customer. Production no longer precedes sale, the enterprise no longer
strives to place the products that it manages to create with industrial production methods,
technical/productive problems connected to the automation are no longer a priority.
Marketing has contributed to the concept of consumer/sovereign in the sense that it has affirmed
the need and opportunity to satisfy the consumer placing him first. As a result of the perspective
introduced by marketing, the consumer becomes more important, since it is from him that the activity of
an enterprise must start.
The consumer is no longer being fooled, allowing him to choose “any color, provided it is black” –
as the well known anecdote involving Henry Ford says. The consumer is now able to have needs as well as
desires and fancies and even to have these satisfied.
The foundations are laid therefore for a concept of consumer who is no longer subordinate, no
longer grateful for the benevolence of the firm that allows him to have access to products that before were
unthinkable, but a consumer that starts being endowed with a personality and that has it recognized.
The attention of the enterprise towards the consumer is in this phase still instrumental and
utilitarian. The enterprise in other words places the consumer first simply because it has no alternatives in a
context of ever-growing competition.
However, the first step in the direction of the supremacy of the consumer has been made, and an
epoch-making event has happened.
The second reference theoretical framework is the Total Quality Management (TQM). This is a
philosophy of enterprise management originated in Japan which goes beyond the marketing concept,
stressing the importance of and need for full customer satisfaction.
After all, when the consumer can have – in terms of quantity and variety – anything he desires, the
needs inevitably shift on a level of quality, pursuit of excellence, qualitative improvement.
The customer has no longer only the right to freely express his own desires, a merely quantitative
satisfaction is no longer sought. The consumer is attributed the role of judge of the ability of the enterprise
to create products that are up to the mark from a qualitative standpoint.
The goods and services offered by the company must at this point not merely be available at
affordable prices, but they must guarantee utmost satisfaction from the customer. Products must be
increasingly able to best perform their function, must really improve the quality of life of the customer,
must prove that they give to the customer something more than previous products and what the customer
himself expects, even aiming at reaching the level of dreamed quality, the one that the customer cannot
even imagine.
TQM is not only a managerial approach. It is also a productive model that outlines ways for a firm
to follow in order to improve the output quality without raising the costs, and even possibly cutting them.
To this regard, TQM has introduced in the managerial tool-box new important concepts and
instruments: waste reduction, internal customer, continuous improvement (Kaizen), quality circles, lean
production model, histogram, Pareto’s diagram, the cause/effect diagram and many more.
These concepts and tools – which maybe are at least in part already known, even though not
largely spread – should however be recognized as actually innovative from the standpoint of managerial
techniques, especially because they offer a thorough and systematic approach.
The contribution given by TQM in forging the concept of the consumer/sovereign can be
summarized as follows: the idea that the consumer should be the judge of the product quality, the concept
of continuous improvement and the concept of excellence.
Product quality is not given by conformity to company specifications but by its ability to satisfy the
consumer. Therefore it is no longer a matter of compliance with production standards, but of evaluation of
the appropriateness on the part of the recipient of the product. Continuous improvement means that the
company must combine the search of radical innovations with a constant fine-tuning of the product. This
reflects not only on the perception of the customer but also in terms of motivation of the employees
involved in an unrelenting process of improvement of the product performance. Finally, excellence is the
aspiration to generate products that really are of superior quality.
Finally, One-to-One Marketing takes to the final consequences the process of getting the
enterprise closer to the consumer, who – thanks to technology advancement – has today the power to
require a personalization regarding both the communication with the enterprise and the available offer.
One-to-One Marketing breaks – or rather overcomes – a further paradigm, whereby production
necessarily acts according to a standardization logic, even though of a high quality level thanks to TQM.
With One-to-One Marketing there is a comeback in some instances to the logic of custom-made
production of an artisan origin, even though it is intended for the totality of consumers or at least for the
most important category of consumers of the enterprise.
One of the basic principles of this approach states in fact the following: “To treat different
customers in different ways” (Peppers, Rogers, Dorf, 2000). It is essential to build a long-lasting relationship
with each customer instead of aiming at activating a high number of identical transactions with an
anonymous crowd of consumers.
The operational phases of a One-to-One Marketing project are identification of customers, their
differentiation based on the value for the enterprise and needs of the customer, interaction with the
customer, i.e., the construction of a dialogue with them and, finally, the customization of the good, service
and/or any other aspect that comes in the relationship with the buyer.
The contribution given by One-to-One Marketing to the concept of the consumer/sovereign lies in
the possibility of the consumer to have a say-so in a relationship that tends to become individual and
lasting in the long term, and in the further expansion of the possibility of choice, up to the limit of
personalization of the product.
In conclusion, in a nutshell, one might say that Marketing, TQM and One-to-One Marketing have
progressively dealt with and responded to issues related to the quantity/variety of the product, quality of
goods and services and self-determination (or empowerment) of the consumer.
With reference to the concept of the consumer/sovereign, as forged by the three approaches
described above, this can be briefly summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The customer has freedom of choice
The customer is entitled to ask for anything
The customer is free to act as he deems fit
The customer defines the quality of the product
The customer must always be satisfied
The customer must find utmost satisfaction
The customer may contribute to design and obtain the product according to his specifications.
The first three items have to do with the idea of freedom or sovereignty in the strictest sense, of an
economic and marketing origin. The other three are related instead to the idea of excellence taken from the
TQM approach, while the last one is attributable to the logic of customization typical of One-to-One
Marketing.
It is interesting to note that each single item can also be seen as the steps of a ladder that
emancipates the consumer and, attributing to this higher level of freedom, elevates him to a condition of
actual supremacy over the productive counterpart. Even though it is true that the consumer not always
climbs these steps and is actually at the highest level of the ladder, nonetheless this is exactly what should
happen according to theory and intentions.
We are well aware that these are fairly obvious, commonly accepted concepts, taken-for-granted
assumptions of any doctrinal or application contribution. Apparently they do not even deserve attention.
However, looking at them closely and thoroughly considering their implications they may reveal something
unsuspected. This is exactly what will we try to do after providing some information on the methodological
approach adopted.
3. Methodology
As stated earlier, this paper is conceptual and not empirical. The nature of the issue at hand in fact
requires that considerations are made and not that hypotheses are formulated and verified.
In essence, we have adopted a critical thinking approach, in an effort to discuss fundamental
aspects, considering assumptions that usually are never questioned.
Without discounting the value of quantitative research, we have privileged once more the
relevance over rigor (Raju, 2005; Lorsch, 2009), with the conviction that even speculative reasoning can
give a useful contribution to the progress of the comprehension of economic and business processes.
4. Findings
In this paragraph we will examine implications and consequences of the ideology of the
consumer/sovereign, highlighting the potential risks and/or negative effects for the company, for the
consumer and for society.
The analysis will therefore revolve around the three variations of the consumer/sovereign concept:
freedom, excellence and customization, which respectively are derived from Marketing, TQM and One-toOne Marketing.
Freedom means freedom of choice, i.e., the absence of obligations, limitations or conditioning, the
discretion of buying the preferred product; freedom to express one’s own needs, i.e., the ability to expand
the array of desires beyond the sphere of simple needs; freedom of behavior, i.e., the possibility for the
consumer to engage in the conduct he prefers with the firms, obviously within certain rather large
limitations. The consumer in fact is requested to comply with a few simple rules. Other than that, he can
refrain from buying, may change his mind and ask for a reimbursement, may spread a negative word and in
general is obliged to satisfy fewer restrictions than those that he demands of the enterprise.
The undesired effects of the statement of freedoms described above, strictly connected to the
marketing approach, can be summarized as follows:
a. Less innovation
b. Focus on short-term gratification of desires even if this puts in danger the health of the
consumer and/or society in the medium/long term
c. Acceptance of questionable behaviors of the consumer.
a. Less innovation
The Marketing logic may restrict the innovative capacity of the enterprise, because the customer
does not know what the enterprise can technically do. Furthermore, the customer usually has a difficult
time imagining products that fall outside the perimeter of his experience (Hamel, Prahalad, 1994). To turn
to the customer to get information on the new products to be placed on the market may basically translate
in a reduced level of innovation. This is basically a mismatch problem since, if it is true that on one hand it is
the consumer who has needs, on the other hand it is the enterprise that holds the necessary productive
competencies.
b. Focus on short-term gratification of desires even if this puts in danger the health of the consumer
and/or society in the medium/long term (Baccarani, Giaretta, 2000)
Individuals of the nineteenth and twentieth century, finally free from the fetters of need and
necessity, see a broad horizon of finally satiable desires opening in front of them. Thanks to the progress of
science and technology, it is now possible to make unrealizable utopias come true. In this way, the
customer ends up being unmindful of the consequences of his desires or requests. To indulge the customer
therefore may lead to undesired effects for the customer himself or for the society. To this regard, there is
room to wonder if the enterprises – as organizations theoretically endowed with higher rationality – have
or should have the duty to impose some limitations to the desires of the consumer.
These are two effects already known in the literature and that are usually framed as the so-called
paradoxes of the Marketing concept.
c. Acceptance of questionable behaviors of the consumer
Often the consumer – not on his own initiative but using the opportunities offered by the
enterprises – enjoys rather ample “money back guaranteed” clauses, can cancel a hotel reservation up to as
few as 24 hours prior to arrival, can receive information and consulting services at a given point of sale and
make the purchase at another. Apart from this, he retains the possibility to not finalize the purchase and in
this way determine – cumulatively with the behavior of other consumers – the destiny of the enterprise.
The freedom of the consumer may even become excessive and translate in behaviors inconsistent with
what he requests of the company. Sometimes these behaviors go beyond fairness or real illegality
(consumer misbehavior or dysfunctional consumer behavior), such as when a consumer treats rudely sales
reps, retains excess change, swaps in his favor price tags and seizes merchandise at the stores (Fullerton,
Punj, 1997).
Excellence means here the subjectivity of satisfaction, the obligation to satisfy the customer and
the need to procure the maximum possible satisfaction.
The undesired effects of the affirmation of such meaning of excellence, of a TQM origin, can be
summarized as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Inadequacy of the customer to evaluate what is fine with him
Non-acceptance of defects, errors and disservice
A culture whereby only the customer has all the rights
Loss of sense of responsibility by the customer
Internal effects in the organization
Loss of professional ethos by the staff.
a. Inadequacy of the customer to evaluate what is fine with him
For given products – especially intangible and fine products like health-care or education – the
customer does not have the necessary competences to evaluate the good quality of the service received.
To defer to the customer the evaluation of the appropriateness of a therapy or of an educational service
may not be the best solution. The logic of TQM and customer satisfaction seems in this way to have some
limitations.
b. Non-acceptance of defects, errors and disservice
A customer that must be satisfied is naturally inclined to not tolerate any product that is less than
perfect. The error is no longer an option, disservice is no longer tolerated, problems or contingencies are no
longer admitted. The pressure on the enterprises and, consequently, on their employees is therefore very
intense. Hence come further consequences: the insurance companies for example, in some instances no
longer cover medical liabilities, which results in turn in the physicians avoiding risky operations even if
these are potentially beneficial for the health of patients.
c. A culture whereby only the customer has all the rights
If a customer must always be satisfied to the maximum, the conditions are laid for him to only
demand, always be right and never be requested to take on any responsibility. The psychological stance of
the customer in a more or less perceivable way changes to the point that he feels legitimately authorized,
by virtue of the monetary consideration paid, to demand anything of the counterpart. It is logical at this
point that a culture develops whereby the customer is – or at least feels he is – the recipient of rights only
and can never be practically called to be responsible for anything.
d. Loss of sense of responsibility by the customer
In this way products must always be “dummy-proof” and the customer may abstain from paying
even the attention usually required. The enterprises increasingly take the place of the customer in the
performance of many little gratifying tasks and activities, not only providing increasingly more comfortable,
time-saving and user’s friendly products, but also taking away from them competences and abilities,
knowledge and contact with reality (Borgmann, 2000; Brunetti, 2004). To purchase the right ticket for a trip
by train, to appropriately use a given product or to comply with the minimum operating procedures are
tasks increasingly more difficult not only to perform but also accept. The mass of consumers (mainstream
consumers) ends up losing diligence, critical sense and autonomy. They thus become the target of criticism
from more sophisticated critical consumers, who are “resistant” or ethical, so to speak.
e. Internal effects in the organization
The imperative of always satisfying the customer to the maximum generates consequences also on
the staff of the companies. The level of performance required of them may become in some instances
intolerable. It is true that the customer has the right to adequate service, but it is also true that a culture of
demanding has come about – as stated above – which goes beyond what is legitimate.
We hear, for example, of Japanese railway companies whose employees must always smile. The
point is that the control of such conduct is carried out by a software that photographs key points of the
face which is obviously difficult for employees to escape. Also from Japan comes the news of “Monster
Parents.”. These parents of primary school children are requesting absurd services of the teachers, such as
calling the families in the morning to advise of the need to take an umbrella or clean the clothes of children
that might have gotten messy during school activities.
In this respect, it is fair to speak of the extension of the domain of manipulation (Marzano, 2009;
Fleetwood, 2006), i.e., of a mentality of firm origin which deeply controls the way of being and behavior of
the people. After all, it seems that the conditioning exerted on the people in their organizational acting has
reached excessive levels.
f.
Loss of professional ethos by the staff
Staff is requested to do their job well not for a moral imperative or to pursue a personal
satisfaction but because otherwise the customer is lost. Some see this as incorrect use of the professional
contribution of people (Sennett, 2008).
Also in this case it may be true that the enterprises are able to survive by indulging their customers,
although as a result of doing this – at least ideally – they somehow cause the staff to lose the deep sense of
their professional effort.
Customization means here the possibility of the customer to design and realize a custom-made
product according to his own specifications, obviously not thanks to an artisan execution but fully
industrial.
The undesired effects of the affirmation of the customization approach, linked to One-to-One
Marketing, can be so summarized:
a. Excess choice options / effort for the definition of the product
b. A personalization that is fictitious, affected, more apparent than real
c. Loss of the role of social recognition of the product.
a. Excess choice options / effort for the definition of the product
It is clear that when the task of “deciding” the product falls on the customer, there will be
inconveniences, apart from benefits, connected to this difficult task. The effort required to choose, to cope
among the numerous possible options or to eliminate undesired options may be excessive. In other words,
customers – or at least some of them – may find the activities necessary to personalize their product
burdensome from a cognitive standpoint. Suffice it to mention the purchase of a personal computer, for
which it is necessary to select a processor, a memory, audio and display adapters and many other technical
details, which are not always known to everyone. Also, the advantage of having a custom-made product, in
essence, entails a price to pay.
b. A personalization that is fictitious, affected, more apparent than real
In some instances, customization is made possible by the firms in relation to marginal aspects of
the product, without being really adjusted to the substantial needs of the customer and revolves around
irrelevant or almost irrelevant details. To change the color of a component or to offer the possibility to add
an accessory does not mean real personalization, but only the appeasement of a cosmetic detail. After all,
for the enterprises, it is often easier to offer to the customers the possibility to enjoy cosmetic touch-ups
rather than introduce relevant and meaningful changes to solve the problem of an individual customer.
c. Loss of the role of social recognition of the product
The products perform an identification and recognition function for the consumers. In theory, if
each single piece of a product were different from the others, such function would fall short, thus
producing an opposite effect from the intended one. Indeed, the brand name would still work as an
identification and recognition element, although it is logical that – at least in principle – customization
equals reduced capacity of the product to generate a sense of belonging.
5. Conclusions
The problems, inconveniences or negative effects produced by the consumer/sovereign ideology –
which in this paper are mostly considered from a theoretical standpoint – are the inevitable price to pay for
the competition between enterprises, which nonetheless has caused amazing advancement.
In fact, in order to win the preference of the customer it is inevitable that the enterprises perfect
more and more the tools available to them and strive to satisfy in any possible way the person that after all
makes the enterprise survive and thrive.
On the other hand, thanks to the enterprises, the material conditions of people have experienced
unthinkable improvement. Maybe, in the society of affluence and comeback to an often excessively
idealized past, it cannot be stressed enough that without the satisfaction of the material conditions there is
rarely space for the human and spiritual advancement of people.
These are the two sides of the same coin, the expression of the inevitably dialectic nature of the
reality that can in no way be reduced to an homogeneous whole.
In other words, the undeniable benefits and improvement of the human condition brought about
by marketing, TQM and One-to-One Marketing – like any other phenomenon – are accompanied by a few
disadvantages that cannot be eliminated.
The real problem, if anything, is that today attention, like never before, is focused on merchandise,
products and brands. Is this so because maybe in this way life difficulties and problems are better mediated
or eluded instead of putting in question one’s self and inner life? Is this so because maybe through
merchandise, products and brands people do not have to deal too much with real and genuine human
relationships?
On one hand, merchandise, products and brands become increasingly more companions or even
substitutes in the formation of the identity of people (Walker, 2008). However, according to the principle of
symmetry between reality and humanity (Borgmann, 2000), if the surrounding reality is dominated by
merchandise, products and brands, it is plausible that the human experience as a result is heavily
conditioned by this.
On the other hand, the industrial production is by nature anonymous and impersonal and the mass
market is the place of transactions between a private offer and demand of their humanity content.
Actually, according to some perspectives, impersonality is considered one of the advancements of modern
economy, which frees people of the need for a genuine, and often painful, relationship with the other
(Bruni, 2009). However, even these perspectives are no longer sustainable since impersonality has
surpassed – if not even expelled – the human element from economy.
In brief, the risk of an excessive emphasis on the purchase and possession of goods, services,
experiences and meanings, carried by more or less “shrewd” brands, does exist. Many of the most genuine
existential dimensions – unselfishness, sacrifice, expectation, relationship with the other – are not very
popular today. Even though the problem is certainly not new, we can say that currently the individual and
social space is increasingly more saturated by having, being compressed up to almost annihilation.
However, it should also be noted that despite the prevailing consumer/sovereign ideology, the trust
of consumers in the enterprise is at an all-time low (Zuboff, 2009). One might suppose therefore that the
emphasis on the sovereignty has not produced the expected results.
The point is that the consumer sovereignty, from logic of action and inspiring principle of the
companies, has somehow turned into rhetoric (Hackley, 2003). People therefore feel that they are being
fooled, and today this is little tolerated in a time when consumers demand recognition, respect, trust,
fairness and honesty.
There are even those who claim that this rhetoric on the part of the enterprises is conducive to
their advantage, since in this way they have an alibi to do exactly what befits most their interests (DenegriKnott, Zwick, Schroeder, 2006). In essence, in the name of the customer satisfaction taken as a dogma, the
enterprises feel legitimated to any practice (Korczynski, Ott, 2004).
Whether genuine or conducive to personal interests, rhetoric is harmful since it cuts loose and
disarticulates the level of reality from the subject level, in any case producing as an effect loss of credibility
and departure from the person turning to it.
At the end of this journey it is appropriate – or maybe because a better way has not been found –
to express the conclusions in the form of a question, which obviously will not be answered in this paper
although it may constitute a starting point – in our opinion, rather stimulating – for further considerations.
Is it therefore fair to say that a pattern is developing, learned in the relationship with merchandise
and the enterprises, whereby all is possible, any desire can be satisfied and the customers/people are
always right? Is it possible to also claim that, under the influence of such pattern, the character of our
society and even single individuals is changing, replicating the same behavioral pattern also in existential
spheres other than the commercial one? (Firat, Venkatesh, 1995)
Furthermore, if this is true, have Marketing, TQM and One-to-One Marketing not contributed to
the drifting of the post-modern, markedly narcissistic and hedonistic society, which shuns engagements,
accepts no personal responsibility, has lost the ability to hold on and the interest in pursuing long-term life
projects?
In this way, the hypothesis emerges that even the managerial logics and functions, a long way from
being mere technical tools for the competitiveness of the enterprises, shape the individual and collective
behaviors, the culture and society as a whole, thus lending to managerial disciplines an unsuspected civil,
social and psychological relevance.
Even management and especially marketing scholars – far from being detached observers of an
objective reality and/or neutral producers of scientific knowledge – spreading and supporting some
approaches rather than others, would have in this way a role of important individual and collective impact.
In conclusion, we can only quote the eloquent words of Sumantra Ghoshal: “The academic research
on business administration and management has had very significant and negative consequences on the
practice. These influences regard not so much the adoption of a particular theory but rather the
incorporation worldwide of a body of ideas and assumptions that have come to dominate managerial
research. More specifically, I suppose that spreading theories that are ideologically inspired by non-moral
theories, the business schools have directly liberated their students from any sense of moral responsibility”
(Ghoshal, 2005, p. 52).
It is not by chance therefore that the MBA Oath has recently emerged, a solemn commitment that
those who earn a master degree freely choose to underwrite, exactly to remedy some inconveniences
described in this paper and, in another sense, also by Ghoshal. Pessimistically, one might claim that the
need for this explicit and a little emphatic responsibility-taking emerges exactly when the individual moral
sense of the people has slackened. However, this is not the point.
Rather, just like growth, or rather, the myth of growth, is subject to criticism also within economics
(Rajan, Zingales, 2004; Latouche, 2008; Ruffolo, 2008; Fabris, 2010; Patel, 2010), even the sovereignty, or
better, the ideology of the customer sovereignty – which are its equivalent in terms of business
management – can be subject to criticism or at least to deep consideration.
My wish is, if anything, to have contributed to a step further in this direction.
References
Baccarani C., Giaretta E. (2000), “Evoluzione degli orientamenti d’impresa e scelte etiche di marketing”, nei
Proceedings del Convegno “Le tendenze del marketing in Europa”, Venezia, 24 novembre
Borgmann A. (2000), “The Moral Complexion of Consumption”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26,
No. 4, pp. 418-422
Brown S. (2008), “Are marketing’s metaphors good for it?”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 209221
Brunetti F. (2004), Pervasività d’impresa e relazioni di mercato: quale futuro?, Giappichelli, Torino
Brunetti F. (2008), “A historical perspective on the relationship between firm and the market – on the
threshold of a new paradigm?” in Proceedings 11th QMOD Conference “Attaining Sustainability – From
Organizational Excellence to Sustainable Excellence”, Lund University Campus Helsingborg, 20-22 August
Bruni L. (2009), L’impresa civile. Una via italiana all’economia di mercato, Università Bocconi, Milano
Cova B., Giordano A., Pallera M. (2008), Marketing non convenzionale. Viral, guerrilla, tribal e i 10
fondamenti del marketing postmoderno, Il Sole 24 Ore Libri, Milano
Cova B., Dalli D. (2009), “Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory?” Marketing Theory, 9,
315-339
Denegri-Knott J., Zwick D., Schroeder J.E. (2006), “Mapping consumer power: an integrative framework for
marketing and consumer research”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 9/10
Dujarier M.-A. (2009), Il lavoro del consumatore. Come coproduciamo ciò che compriamo, Egea, Milano
Fabris G. (2010), La società post-crescita. Consumi e stili di vita, Egea, Milano
Firat, A.F., Venkatesh A. (1995), “Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3): 239–67
Fleetwood S. (2006), “The moral and political economy of producers and consumers”, Lancaster University
Management School, Working paper 2006/040
Fromm E. (1999), Avere o essere?, Mondadori, Milano
Fullerton R.A., Punj G. (1997), “What is Consumer Misbehavior?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24
Ghoshal S. (2005), “Le cattive teorie manageriali distruggono le buone pratiche”, Sviluppo &
Organizzazione, n. 210 Luglio/Agosto
Hackley C. (2003), “’We Are All Customers Now…’ Rhetorical Strategy and Ideological Control in Marketing
Management Texts”, Journal of Management Studies, 40:5 July
Hamel G., Prahalad C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard University Press
Korczynski M., Ott U. (2004), “When Production and Consumption Meet: Cultural Contradictions and the
Enchanting Myth of Customer Sovereignty”, Journal of Management Studies, 41:4 June
Latouche S. (2008), Breve trattato sulla decrescita serena, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino
Lorsch J.W. (2009), “Regaining Lost Relevance”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 2, 108-117
Marzano M. (2009), Estensione del dominio della manipolazione. Dall’azienda alla vita privata, Mondadori,
Milano
Patel R. (2010), Il valore delle cose e le illusioni del capitalismo, Feltrinelli, Milano
Peppers D., Rogers M., Dorf B. (2000), Marketing One to One. Manuale operativo del marketing di
relazione, Il Sole, 24 Ore, Milano
Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy V. (2000), “Co-opting Customer Competence”, Harvard Business Review,
January-February
Rajan R.G., Zingales L. (2004), Salvare il capitalismo dai capitalisti, Einaudi, Torino
Raju J.S. (2005), “Revitalizing the Role of Marketing in Business Organizations: What Can Poor Academics
Do to Help?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, October, 1-25
Ruffolo G. (2008), Il capitalismo ha I secoli contati, Einaudi, Torino
Sennett R. (2008), L’uomo artigiano, Feltrinelli, Milano
Walker R. (2008), Buying in. The secret dialogue between what we buy and who we are, Random House,
New York
Wilkie W.L., Moore E.S. (1999), “Marketing’s Contributions to Society”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
(Special issue 1999), 198-218
Zuboff S. (2009), “The Old Solutions Have Become the New Problems”, Business Week, July, 2