Consumer (People), Technology and Marketing in the 21st Century

MANG6262: Marketing in the 21^st Century has relayed key themes that sets the basis for critical and reflective thinking. While there were various themes that were discussed over the course of 6 weeks, the author has presented a critical discourse on Consumer and Technology to exemplify contemporary marketing issues. This final post serves to address these two themes and how it implicates Marketing in the 21^st Century. Upon addressing this, the author hopes to conclude the module by a critical reflection and how it will impact him as a marketing practitioner.

From the narrative of prosumption, the term coined by Toffler (1980 cited Ritzer et al., 2012) has seen itself rising from the discourse of the traditional dichotomy of production and consumption. While we reflect on the development of this narrative, it strikes a thought provoking question on its acceptance in the marketing discipline. Though it was believed to be a primordial term that has gained much scholarly attention today (Ritzer et al., 2012), the inertia on the acceptance of this terminology was still evident. As we strive to identify the reasons behind this inertia, Molesworth (2016) believes that this may validate academic research. He further reiterates that this may not entirely be a new theme that emerged as the critical discourse has always been within critical consumer research. Perhaps, there may be some validity in his idea of possibly dropping the term consumer altogether and focusing on people instead (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Facebook comment on post on Prosumption by Molesworth (2016)

Marketing being a multi-disciplinary subject allows Anthropology, “study of human societies and cultures and their development” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016) to find its way in marketing. From the development of this discipline, Ethnography eventually find its way in marketing research till the term “Netnography” was finally developed by Kozinets (2002). This may very well be the turning point in marketing research where the rise in the Web and social media permits the adoption of netnography in really understanding people (consumers). As Kozinets (2002, p.61) argue, recognizing the importance of online communities and the need to understand and identify “tastes, desires, relevant symbol systems, and decision making influences of particular consumers and consumer groups” are the two main reasons behind the development of this marketing research methodology. While this corroborates with the ideology behind prosumption, it seems that the inertia of dropping the term consumers all at once may be evident.

This extends the argument to technology, where Ritzer et al. (2012) believe that the development of technology as part of social change (technological determinism) has warrant scholarly attention to prosumption. As we have discussed, the risk of technological determinism is a double edged sword that may implicate Marketing in the 21^st Century. Belk’s (2014) argument on digital changes such as dematerialization and re-embodiment have shed light on how technology determines the dynamic of marketing (or is it?). While the need to understand how the extended self in the digital world is vital, it is as important to divulge ourselves in the very nature of technology. This begs the question of whether technology has transformed marketing or vice versa. For instance, when dematerialization occurs, does technology inform marketing of its implications? (see example on Bruce Willis’ attempt to allow inheritance of his Apple iTunes music collection) Or when multiple identities are being presented in the digital sphere, how does marketing extract the very nature of consumers? These rhetoric permits a deeper and critical discourse beyond contemporary marketing issues being presented as buzzwords of digital marketing, marketing analytics or big data etc.

Ultimately, the two themes being discussed here were just a snippet of MANG6262: Marketing in the 21^st Century. As we started out the journey by mapping the key themes involved, consumer and technology seem to strike the author the most as he believes that it’s central to the marketing discipline. The idea behind the assessment through blogging seem dubious to the author initially. However, as we immerse ourselves within the themes, it was a realization that blogging is merely a medium that allows critical and reflective narration of the knowledge we cultivate. In that, appreciation of the knowledge was beyond the assessment of this module. The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on Digital Marketing purports to instill an interaction between network of online learners from all over the world. Instead, the MOOC allowed us to appreciate face-to-face (F2F) interaction more in a lecture theatre setting as there are several drawbacks behind the technology. Despite this, the themes discussed were definitely relevant and did play a role in our thought processes in presenting our arguments in the blogs. This was also supplemented by the interaction on the Facebook group where the diversity of culture allowed us to have a more coherent view. With the delivery of this module, it develops confidence in stepping into the dynamics of marketing, how it is constantly evolving. Despite marketing theories being laid out for many years now, there are clearly more room for critical, innovative, creative and reflective narration behind those theories.

References:

Belk, R.W., 2014. Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), pp.477–500. Available at: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/477.abstract.

Kozinets, R. V, 2002. The field behind the screen : Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), pp.62–72. Available at: http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935.

Molesworth, M., 2016. Facebook Comment on post on Prosumption. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/347325115434584/permalink/655713244595768/?comment_id=655941111239648&notif_t=group_comment&notif_id=1478862380362982.

Oxford Dictionaries, 2016. Definition of Anthropology. Oxford Dictionaries. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anthropology.

Ritzer, G., Dean, P. & Jurgenson, N., 2012. The Coming of Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), pp.379–398. Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/4/379.short.

The Fall of Production-Consumption Dichotomy and the Rise of Prosumption

Figure 1: “Prosumption” typed in word processor; unrecognized

Toffler (1980 cited Ritzer et al., 2012, p.1) defines prosumption as “the combination of production and consumption”. While this term has existed for over three decades now, the body of knowledge surrounding what we know about production and consumption could arguably be a delusional divide that never really existed. Ritzer et al. (2012) argue that this term is primordial and have always existed. However, could we simply dismiss traditional dichotomies that surrounds production-consumption?

The rise of the Web and social media was cited as one of the social changes that granted the term prosumption much scholarly attention (Ritzer et al., 2012). Kotler (1986) built upon Toffler’s work and argues the implication for marketers which suggests the prominence of prosumption. While these scholars agree upon the prominence of prosumption, it begs the question of where we are in terms of marketing academic discipline and practice’s acceptance on the terminology. Why do business schools still deliver the idea of production and consumption as separate entities? Why do consumer research still exists in marketing departments? Shouldn’t it be called prosumer research instead? This brings the argument to where we are in Marketing in the 21^st Century. The whole notion behind production and consumption are in parallel to how Toffler (1980 cited Kotler, 1986) describes three waves in human history (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Toffler’s Paradigm adapted from Kotler’s (1986) The Prosumer’s Movement: a new challenge for Marketers

Ritzer et al. (2012) argue that the paradigm suggests that both Toffler and Kotler were way ahead of their times considering the context that they were describing in the 1980s. Three decades later, we are seeing the rise of the Web and social media that acts a catalyst to this “movement”. While the prominence of this is prevalent in our era, it seems that there is so much inertia in the acceptance of this terminology.

Grocery shopping could be used as a basis to understand prosumption. During the first wave, most households were reliant on growing their own crops or hunt for their own food for survival. In this case, they produce and consume their own groceries per se. During the second wave, very much impacted by the Industrial Revolution, people work in factories to produce goods that they do not consume. Instead, they use what they earn from working in factories to buy the groceries available in markets. Finally, in the third wave, is what we are almost seeing today. People engaging back in prosumption by growing their own crops again or even hunting (or fishing), both as a form of leisure due to the preference of using their time. However, could we simply argue that this is the same for every consumption activity other than grocery shopping? For instance, if we were to adopt the same concept and apply it to household furniture, it will very much be similar. It seems that it goes on as a cycle where traditionally, men were expected to be au fait with carpentry (first wave), buys furniture (second wave) and now we have the rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) furniture (i.e. IKEA) (third wave).

The emphasis for “almost seeing” what Toffler and Kotler describe the third wave may be questionable. Not every household will in fact grow their own crops or hunt for food or decides to buy IKEA furniture in this era. But social changes such as the rapid development of technology may very well act as a strong catalyst for the third wave (Kotler, 1986). For instance, consider 3D printing in the near future where the possibilities are endless. Marriott (2015) describes the possibility of fashion using 3D printing that may be inculcated in our daily lives. If technology permits such essentials, that will be the perfect epitome of prosumption. It may be for this reason that explains the inertia for acceptance of this terminology as we have not fully experience the existence of prosumption. While self-checkout tills and factory lines are closely similar to the notion of prosumption where there may not be any significant differences, how does this implicate Marketing in the 21^st Century? This extends the argument to how marketers are eager to understand and reduce every consumer to one dimension in a spreadsheet. As how Gabriel and Lang (2015) describes in their book The Unmanageable Consumer, the typology of consumers does not suggest that it could ever be reduced to one dimension. Relative to prosumption, it further corroborates the fragmentation of consumers.

It is evident that we cannot simply dismiss traditional dichotomies of production-consumption. There is enough evidence as to why “prosumption” is termed as unrecognized when typed on word processors. Till the day the wriggly red underline does not appear, it may very well be the day where we simply print our food, clothes and houses.

References:

Gabriel, Y. & Lang, T., 2015. The Unmanageable Consumer Third Edit., SAGE. Available at: https://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZBtiCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=unmanageable+consumer&ots=12oihfbr9k&sig=gX-uhY6A4oLMzgegPvibyvTXGkU#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Kotler, P., 1986. The Prosumer Movement : a New Challenge For Marketers. NA – Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13. Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6542/volumes/v13/NA-13 [Accessed November 9, 2016].

Marriott, H., 2015. Are we ready to 3D print our own clothes? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/jul/28/are-we-ready-to-print-our-own-3d-clothes.

Ritzer, G., Dean, P. & Jurgenson, N., 2012. The Coming of Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), pp.379–398. Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/4/379.short.