Richard J. Varey

Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: the exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing

This article elaborates and extends the Vargo and Lusch (2004a) service-dominant (S-D) logic thesis. Three linked exchange-enablers and their potential for improving value-in-use are discussed: first, relationships to give structural support for the creation and application of knowledge resources (relating); second, communicative interaction to develop these relationships (communicating); and third, the knowledge needed to improve the customers service experience (knowing). These activities are integrated within an augmented S-D exchange model, and the implications for co-creating value are discussed. Finally, the argument is put that a customers value-in-use begins with the enactment of value propositions, and the development of reciprocal value propositions is discussed in the context of the notion of sustainable betterment.

Theorizing about resource integration through service-dominant logic

Resource integration, as it relates to value creation, has recently been a key aspect of the discussions about service-dominant (S-D) logic. However, the majority of research pays relatively little explicit attention to the process of theorizing and the epistomological and ontological assumptions upon which the theorizing process is based. This article addresses these issues. The processes that relate to theorizing and developing strong theory are discussed. We then examine how to conceptualize ‘resources’ and ‘resource integration’ following differing ontological and epistemological assumptions that guide the theorizing process. Research recommendations to help navigate through the finer details underlying the theorizing process and to advance a general theory of resource integration are developed.

Relationship Marketing and the Challenge of Dialogical Interaction

SUMMARY Our aim in this article is to challenge relationship marketings hidden monological assumptions, and as a redress, position dialogical interaction at its core. First, we reflect on the common sense of ‘marketing communication’. Next, we clarify the concept of ‘dialogue’. We then comment on the concept of dialogue in markets, building on Karl Poppers idea of an open society, followed by scrutiny of general marketing practice to show that such dialogue is absent. We then consider the potential for marketing to be dialogical in nature. To do this we will make a necessary distinction between informational interaction, communicational interaction, and dialogical interaction. Finally, we draw the conclusion that dialogue is not so much a method of communication but an orientation to it, and consider some implications for marketing theory and practice.

Symbolism in Marketing Systems

The article explores the different aspects of the symbolism of marketing systems. The authors argue that marketing systems maintain distinctive symbolic structures in addition to their functional/operational structures; the environment is an inherent part of the system rather than being outside the system; and symbolic unfolding, that is, the process through which emerging systems address the symbolic controversies of existing systems, underlies the formation of new marketing subsystems. Two implications for macromarketing research are drawn (1) improving the standards of living via making product assortments (that are also symbolic) available to consumers in fact is an unending quest of addressing acute societal problems and contradictions and (2) the design of marketing systems is likely to fail if the symbolic character of a system under development is not taken into account.

Marketing in the Flourishing Society Megatrend

“New science” has profound implications for business. Industrial capitalism can no longer power prosperity. The mass society worldview is giving way to individualisation. The “standard enterprise logic” is challenged. Marketing has operated as an attention technology for sellers competing to capture customers. However, in an intention economy buyers are a scarce commodity, and it is intentions that drive production for specific needs. Change in marketing is overdue. Despite increased social disharmony and the mounting evidence of looming environmental disasters, progress is stagnant, often negative, as marketing exacerbates the problem by misallocating negative value goods. The commonality in the contemporary crises of financial meltdown, human-made climate change, economic inequality, distrust of government, and the social corrosion of consumerism is the moral limits of markets in civic society. Sustainable living provides the higher purpose of marketing: well-being and human flourishing. Sustainability is a socio-cultural, inherently ethical, respectful, intellectual construct for a life of careful and equitable resource use within limits and inter-dependencies. It is not the antithesis of competitive business, indeed business can flourish by competing on, and being rewarded for, the accomplishment of enduringly valuable outcomes. Sustainability is a transcendent societal “mega”-megatrend.

Relationality in the service logic of value creation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a framework – the Relationality Framework – for elaborating relational behaviour, in response to calls to address the ontological weaknesses identified in the extant value and value creation literature. Design/methodology/approach – The social philosophical understanding of interaction as an organic mode of social organisation, upon which the Relationality Framework is based, supersedes the economistic (mechanistic) understanding of interaction as a means of connecting otherwise independent actors. In foregrounding the relationality of interaction, the authors are inspired by Gronroos and Voima’s (2013) conceptualisation of spheres of value generation to conceptualise the intersubjective dynamics and domains invoked in direct interaction. Findings – The Relationality Framework identifies distinct relational concepts that build on service logic’s specificity and conceptualisation at the level of direct interactions between service providers and customers. I...

Marketing as an Interaction System

Abstract Marketing thinkers identify concepts of relationship, interaction, and network as useful. Edgar Crane (1972) saw interaction as essential to buyer-seller decision-making. David Ford, Kristian Moller, and Hakan Hakansson followed with explanations of how marketing operates. Christian Gronroos expanded the horizon with ‘interactive marketing’. Evert Gummesson saw interaction as “active contact” and all marketing as relationships and interaction in networks. The Relationship Marketing field flourished – at least for a time. Whilst many proponents of “interactive communication” and “social interaction” do not see the interaction concept as problematic, they focus attention on practices. I choose to re-examine both ‘interaction’ and ‘communication’, and to relate these concepts to the concepts of society and the social process we call “marketing”. The discussion proceeds from the general perspective of humans living among others, to the specific situation of marketing in society. I examine the concept of ‘interaction’, and consider social interaction as exchange –a dialogical view of human communication. The patterning of social interaction in markets as distinct from bureaucracies, solidarity groupings, and co-operative collectives is examined. An alternative sociological analysis of the social is compared with that of the social psychology tradition. Communication is discussed as a mode of interaction, to reveal monologic (technical) and dialogic (humanitarian) conceptions of communication prevalent in the marketing field. Within the context of an ‘Interaction Society’, marketing is explained as a complex dynamic adaptive interaction system, revealing a conversational nature. It is proposed that interaction directs and co-ordinates, but also co-creates – ‘interactional work’ has innovative capacity.

Neo-structuralist analysis of green-marketing discourse: interpreting hybrid car manufacturers and consumers

To explain inconsistent behaviour that is well documented in green-marketing and consumption, the authors develop the (neo)structuralist model of meaning co-creation that is based on the signifying practices of hybrid car manufacturers and consumers. The model reveals that market agents are recruited into a symbolic order that requires the perpetual reinforcement of self-opposing meanings as a condition for signification. The main problem of green practice is not the issue of market agents authenticity/hypocrisy. Rather it represents a more interactive phenomenon – the common structure of meaning-creation – which silences important transformative action choices and thus defeats its own purpose.

The Marketing Future beyond the Limits of Growth

This review constructs a broad and deep appreciation of what marketing scholars need to understand about economic growth, consumption, and quality of life, not as a problem of how to enhance marketing effectiveness and extend its reach, but rather one of how to focus (or limit) within the specific context of a better-not-more life goal and finite resource budget. The essay synthesizes concise reviews of recent books and finds implications for revisions to marketing and macromarketing principles and practices.

Authenticity: A macromarketing perspective

This investigation argues that authenticity is inherently a macromarketing concept that is linked to how marketers and consumers view themselves and their own status in society. We show that authenticity refers to the marketer’s marketplace condition (mindset) that can be best described as sincere concern for another. We argue that micromarketing as a general phenomenon is rooted in inauthenticity due to the fact that micromarketing practices represent (distressed, decomposed) overreaction to the marketers’ self-embraced narrow view of their own social status (as maximiser of self-interest, profit, growth) that is largely irrelevant – even contradictory – to the crucial goals of society.This investigation argues that authenticity is inherently a macromarketing concept that is linked to how marketers and consumers view themselves and their own status in society. We show that authenticity refers to the marketer’s marketplace condition (mindset) that can be best described as sincere concern for another. We argue that micromarketing as a general phenomenon is rooted in inauthenticity due to the fact that micromarketing practices represent (distressed, decomposed) overreaction to the marketers’ self-embraced narrow view of their own social status (as maximiser of self-interest, profit, growth) that is largely irrelevant – even contradictory – to the crucial goals of society.