GREATER

GOOD
How Good Marketing
Makes for Better Democracy

John A. Quelch
Katherine E. Jocz
INDEX
 INTRODUCTION

Marketing and Democracy

ANYONE ATTUNED to the words democracy, democratic, or democratization will find daily mentions
in the mainstream media in a broad range of contexts. Predictably, many of the references concern
domestic politics, foreign policy, and the state of democratic institutions around the world. Perhaps less
expected is the rising number of casual references to democracy appearing in the nonpolitical contexts of
popular culture, consumption, and art criticism.

As applied to everyday life and culture, democracy often implies a nonelitist appeal to popular tastes, or a
mix of choices to suit a diversity of tastes. It often connotes freedom of choice, freedom of speech, access
to information, and participation open to everyone.More often than not, democracy is couched in terms of
individuals’ enjoyment of rights to lead their lives as they choose. It seldom expresses the notion of
individual responsibilities or the idea of a greater good.

The worddemocracy comes from the Greek demos,or “people,”and kratein, “to rule,” and means “rule by
the people.”The term democratic is thus an apt descriptor of the consumer marketplace in the United
States and other developed countries. In the developed countries where the citizen can affort to spend
money inorder to fulfill their desires, the marketers also end up serving them with more improved
products hence we cannot blame the westerners for feeling more powerfulll as customers than as citizens.

For at least the past fifty years, the marketing field has advocated that companies should embrace the
marketing concept of putting customers’ interests first. It is a philosophy now expressed in many
corporate mission statements. For instance, Johnson & Johnson’s credo, formulated in 1943, outlines the
company’s responsibilities—in descending order of priority— to customers, employees, the community,
and shareholders: “We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers
and fathers and all others who use our products and services.” This credo guided the company’s actions
during the Tylenol tampering crisis of 1982, when CEO James E.Burke quickly withdrew all Tylenol
capsules from stores at a cost of $100 million. By assuming a moral obligation to protect consumers,
recalling the product, and then later relaunching it in tamperproof bottles, the company restored consumer
confidence —and thereby its market share.

Unlike other books which offer marketing boosting skills or state the disadvantages of present marketing
strategies, this book concentrates on the fundermental of marketing and the effect it has on society. The
thesis is twofold: first, marketing performs an essential societal function and does so democratically; and
second, people would benefit if the political and public realms were guided by the best of marketing, and
vice versa. Our portrayal of marketing is nuanced; it acknowledges a dark side along with the positive
contributions. However, the message to citizen consumers is that they have influence over marketers
and politicians and can use this power to press for greater benefits for individuals and society. We aim to
speak to citizen consumers about what the public, individually and collectively, receives from and
contributes to both the marketing system and the political system.
 Roles of Marketing

If one were to ask a few people picked at random what they think marketing is, chances are the answers
would include “selling products” or “advertising”or “persuading people to buy things.” But consult
instead the trade organization for marketing professionals and the answer is, “the process of
planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services
to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.” 6 The two definitions hardly
sound like the same thing.In truth, marketing encompasses a wide range of business activities, of
which consumers see only a fraction. Like any complex phenomenon, marketing can be looked at on a
number of levels.Here we consider three overlapping perspectives: marketing as an economic function,
marketing as a business practice, and marketing as a societal force.

Marketing as an Economic Function

To look at marketing as an economic function is to focus on the role marketing plays in the general
economy and specifically on the distribution and sale of goods—that is, getting goods and services from
producers to consumers, and market exchanges between buyers and sellers. In other words, marketing is
the interface between supply and demand. Participants include brokers and distributors, wholesalers,
retailers, the marketing departments of manufacturing companies, advertising agencies, and online
intermediaries like eBay, among others.At least 17 million people in the United States are employed in
the marketing sector,with nearly 14 million of them in sales. 7 Marketing, in this sense, dates back to
ancient traders, merchants, and shopkeepers, markets and bazaars, and the truly global networks of
trading, markets, and merchants established by the fifteenth century. 8 Participants in these marketing
systems transported goods and stored them safe from theft or damage. In doing so, they assumed
substantial risks and also the risk that they might misjudge market demand for their wares. Historically,
distribution capabilities were an important accelerator of economic growth, especially following the
Industrial Revolution. In the words of Converse and Huegy, marketing “makes goods and services more
valuable by getting them where they are wanted,when they are wanted, and transferred to the people who
want them.”9 Consider the United States, with its large and scattered population. During the late
nineteenth century, retailers such as Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck & Co. leveraged the new
railroad service to rural communities and free delivery of mail to farms, developing a huge national retail
business in general merchandise sold through mail-order catalogs.Consumers anywhere could order
nearly anything— even houses—by mail. More recently, Dell introduced efficient distribution practices—
selling computers via direct mail, then via telephone sales, then via the Internet— and the practice of
assembling computers to order, to lower prices of home computers and give consumers new flexibility in
choosing options. Wal-Mart’s skill in driving down procurement and warehousing costs via largescale
buying allows the company to offer consumers a wide assortment of goods at “everyday low prices.”
Note that this economic function perspective does not restrict marketing to a particular type of
economy.For example, one author concluded that the marketing structure of the Soviet Union in the
centrally planned economy of the 1950s was similar to that of the United States. Goods moved through
the same distribution channels. The difference was that the Soviet government owned every stage of the
channel along the way to the consumer

Marketing as a Business Practice

To approach marketing from the business practice perspective is to focus on how a firm manages demand
and shapes consumer behavior to achieve its objectives. This is closer to the typical consumer view of
marketing as an effort to persuade consumers to buy products. Put simply, for a business, marketing is
mainly about how to put the right product in front of the right customer at the right time and place at the
right price in order to reap profits. Marketing’s prominence as a business practice is closely tied to the
emergence of modern corporations and the opening of mass markets. Although the groundwork was being
laid, until the late nineteenth century there were few major changes in the way industry was organized.
The vertically or horizontally integrated firm of later years was virtually unknown. Advertising and
branding had grown in importance, but manufacturers as well as distributors were specialized and small;
they exerted little control over other channel members or over consumers. In the United States,with its
vast territory, there were few national marketers.Tedlow calls this phase of marketing in the United States
the “era of market fragmentation” and characterizes the dominant business strategy as making profits by
charging high prices on relatively low sales volumes.
In the 1880s, though, the distinctive U.S. environment—distinctive in laissez-faire policies, rate of
growth, and sheer size—gave rise both to the large, vertically integrated corporation and to the mass
consumer market. This was a time when corporations achieved significant efficiencies through
economies of scale in supply, production, and distribution, and also through vertical integration and
national selling, advertising, and branding. In contrast to the high-price, low-volume strategy of
businesses operating in fragmented markets, the strategy of aggressive businesses operating in mass
markets was to charge low prices but make high profits through high sales volume of a standard
product.12 A testimony to the power of this approach is the host of company and brand names originating
in the 1880s that are still well known, including Johnson & Johnson, Kodak, H.J. Heinz, Ivory
soap, and Coca-Cola.
As the mass market grew, consumer choice increased, and increased choice stimulated consumption.
High levels of consumption generated profits that marketers plowed back into R&D to sustain a flow of
superior new products. Manufacturers aiming at a mass market had at least two pressing needs. First,
if marketers wanted to persuade masses of consumers to buy their product and not a closely competing
product carried by the same or a nearby store, they needed to give consumers convincing evidence of
product superiority. Second, to accelerate adoption of new and unfamiliar products on a large
scale, they could not afford to rely on slow, informal word of mouth to communicat product benefits.
Rather, they needed to educate consumers and retailers directly. The answer to these needs was to employ
mass advertising and personal communications by salespeople on a much greater scale than ever before.
Mass marketers also faced the problem of sustaining a large volume of sales over time. For businesses
that depended on the efficiencies of mass production, creating a profitable and stable—or, better yet,
growing—customer base was a key marketing objective. Finding new customers at home or abroad
would help but would not be sufficient.Marketers had to learn more about how to keep existing customers
satisfied and motivated to repeat their purchases, how to supply the products and services they wanted,
and how to price for value. Although meeting distribution requirements (i.e., having products in stock)
was still a prerequisite to making a sale, paying greater attention to the drivers of consumer demand
separated the more successful from the less successful marketer. Information for consumers and insight
about them, based on market research, became the defining characteristics of modern marketing. A
further shift in marketing occurred in the latter part of the twentieth century, when mass markets
increasingly splintered into segmented markets. Marketers sought to optimize profits by serving different
niches of consumers with different value propositions. Given the extent of available choices, marketers
today usually do not expect all consumers to buy their products. They select and target only those who are
most likely to need and want particular benefits, and they produce differentiated products and services
for those segments. Southwest Airlines, for example, targets a segment of cost-conscious customers, so it
strips out those features that are not important to its customers and that would increase costs beyond what
they are willing to pay. The consumer marketplace is dynamic. As consumers gain product experience
and talk to each other, their purchase behavior and expectations change. Competitors always try to offer
superior benefits. This means that whatever meets a consumer’s expectations today may not meet them
next time. So marketing can’t stand still. At the least, marketers constantly must reinforce—and live up to
—the promises they make regarding their products’ functional and emotional benefits. To live up to the
claim of being the “ultimate driving machine,” BMW must engineer automobiles at the leading edge of
high performance and must create an aura around the brand comparable to that of belonging to an exciting
and exclusive club. If marketers can change the basis of competition and delight consumers (i.e., exceed
their expectations), they can do well. Starbucks transformed a place to get a cup of coffee into an
experience defined by aroma,music, special flavors, ambience, and comfortable seating. For this,
consumers were willing to pay a price premium.Moreover, Starbucks needed very little advertising to
attract new customers; satisfied customers spread the word, and the stores, located in high-traffic sites,
served as brand billboards. Given that marketing is a business practice instrumental in driving corporate
growth, its proponents began, in the 1950s, to claim a much greater role for marketing in the management
of firms. Following Peter Drucker’s lead, the marketing concept asserted that, above all, firms must create
value for customers and must see the business from the customer’s point of view. This customer
orientation vied with alternatives such as a manufacturing orientation, an R&D orientation, a sales
orientation, and a finance orientation. Proponents tended to view the acceptance and implementation of
the marketing concept as the final and highest stage in a firm’s evolution. Although the concept was
seldom fully adopted, it received a great deal of attention; at the least, the marketing concept elevated the
topic of customers’ interests within management thinking. Among firm managers, marketing experts
remain the strongest advocates for consumer interests. To use an analogy from democratic politics,within
a corporation one important role of marketers is to advocate for consumers in the same way politicians are
supposed to advocate for the citizens they represent. From the business practice perspective, customers
are the means to an end. But beyond that lies the supposition of two equally important and inextricably
linked objectives for marketing—on the one hand, consumer satisfaction and, on the other hand, profit (or
other organizational objectives). To maximize long-term profits, marketers must be guided by the best
interests of consumers.(Of course, not everyone is convinced that consumers’ interests neatly coincide
with those of businesses.)

Marketing as a Social Force

To adopt the societal force perspective is to examine these and other cumulative impacts of marketing on
society. Breyer wrote in 1934 that “marketing is not primarily a means for garnering profits for
individuals. It is, in the larger, more vital sense, an economic instrument used to accomplish indispensable
social ends.” What is the indispensable social end served by marketing? The consensus is that it is
society’s consumption needs. Marketing leads to a better standard of living, an efficient flow of goods to
consumers, perhaps a socially beneficial distribution of goods—or even transmission of culture. The
societal perspective of marketing thus emphasizes consumer welfare.Marketing is the beneficial process
of exchange that allows consumers to satisfy their needs and promote their greater well-being. Beyond
this function, marketing has been credited with contributing to improved standards of living and national
economic development. Proponents argue that it has provided consumers with more choices, created
economic efficiencies, and spurred the spread of radical innovations. Trade along the ancient Silk Route
connecting the Far East and the West enabled a European to buy silk fabric from China, which held the
secret to its production; eventually the technology spread to the West; now a European canpurchase
Chinese-made clothing at a fraction of the price a domestic manufacturer would charge. From the societal
perspective, business profits are secondary. There is no suggestion that firms should not earn profits, but
profits are a means to the end. This perspective also holds that businesses operate in a society that is
entitled to constrain their actions, most often through laws and government policies. Governments can
regulate product standards, decide which products can be exported or imported or sold to consumers,
prevent companies from colluding on prices, establish rules for competition, and so on. Like the
economic perspective of marketing, the societal perspective can be applied to a broad range of societies.
Consider the Moscow consumer of the 1960s who bought a costly Georgian orange from a state-owned
store, supplied by state-owned distributors, and grown in a state-owned citrus grove as directed by a
central government plan. This flow of goods can be analyzed in terms of, and possibly benefit from,work
on such concepts and principles as distribution efficiency, exchange, and socially beneficial consumption.
 Contemporary Marketing

For the remainder of this book,we employ these varied perspectives in examining marketing as it exists in
the twenty-first century in advanced industrialized countries with market economies. Crucially, in this
context consumers have considerable power: the worldwide overcapacity of production in many
industries and the free flow of goods enabled by trade agreements and low shipping costs favors
consumers compared with producers.Thus, when marketing, as a business practice, seeks to create value
for businesses, it does so by competing to create superior value for consumers. This sought-after
advantage invariably stems from gaining insights into explicit and latent customer needs; from launching
products and services that leverage these insights; from branding, communicating, and distributing these
products to customers; or from managing customer relationships.

Problems with Marketing

Throughout history, recurring criticisms have been leveled at marketing.Accusations of dishonest trade
practices, unfair profiteering by middlemen, incitement of consumer desires for unnecessary goods,
displacement of locally produced goods by imported versions made by cheaper labor, and the unwelcome
spread of foreign values and culture—all these go back to ancient times. For example, the charge that
retail trade is not productive, or that intermediaries do not deserve to profit from exchange, was leveled by
Aristotle.19 A century ago, people worried about information overload, overexploitation of natural
resources, and the rise of materialism. There are some marketers who deliberately deceive and cheat
consumers particularly if they have information about their products that consumers cannot access. In
some cases marketers knowingly sell harmful products or ignore or conceal evidence indicating that
products previously thought to be beneficial turn out to have detrimental effects. After information about
the danger of tobacco made the U.S. market less attractive, manufacturers hastened to market cigarettes to
developing countries. Marketers of subprime mortgages promised home ownership to people who could
not qualify for conventional loans, but overaggressive lending practices resulted in many borrowers
defaulting on their loans and losing their houses. However, it is now generally accepted that most
intermediaries perform useful facilitation functions, and the overwhelming majority of marketing
transactions are fair.Marketers value their good reputation and profit from repeat business; it is not in
their long-term interest to treat consumers badly. Informed consumers, ethical competitors, and the media
rein in some misbehaviors. Laws and government regulations prevent and correct others.Realistically
there will always be bad actors trying to compete unfairly and trying to take advantage of consumers. For
this there is no excuse, but neither is it a problem peculiar to marketing. Many current complaints about
marketing concern “too much”marketing and marketers that are “too big.” Large chain stores and national
brands seem to dominate the marketplace. In industrialized nations, the retail landscape in one town or
city appears nearly identical to its counterparts across the country or across national borders.Views differ
as to whether this consolidation is a natural outcome of healthy competition or a result of predatory
behavior. Views also differ as to whether consumers benefit (e.g., in having access to the same goods as
everyone else) or lose (e.g., when fastfood outlets displace local alternatives).
Concerns that marketing can alter society have a basis in reality. Undoubtedly, marketing directed at
satisfying personal needs, wants, and preferences reinforces a trend toward greater materialism and
individualism. The more efficient and effective marketing becomes, the more incentive there
is for businesses to allocate more resources to it, as well as for people—at least those with disposable
income—to consume things they may not strictly need. Marketers and consumers tend to look at the small
picture—a consumer’s personal consumption or a marketer’s advertising campaign.
 CHAPTER 1

EXCHANGE

Marketing has a greater purpose, and marketers, a higher calling, than simply selling more widgets,
according to John Quelch and Katherine Jocz. In "Greater Good", the authors contend that marketing
performs an essential societal function--and does so democratically. They maintain that people would
benefit if the realms of politics and marketing were informed by one another's best principles and
practices. Quelch and Jocz lay out the six fundamental characteristics that marketing and democracy
share: (1) exchange of value, such as goods, services, and promises, (2) consumption of goods and
services, (3) choice in all decisions, (4) free flow of information, (5) active engagement of a majority of
individuals, and (6) inclusion of as many people as possible. Without these six traits, both marketing and
democracy would fail, and with them, society. Drawing on current and historical examples from
economies around the world, this landmark work illuminates marketing's critical role in the
development, growth, and governance of societies. It reveals how good marketing practices improve the
political process and--in turn--the practice of democracy itself.

MUTUAL FAIRNESS
Living Democracy is a dynamic culture grounded in the values of inclusion, fairness, and
mutual accountability. As voters, workers, students, employers, parents, community members
and clients, we all shape its norms and expectations. Living Democracy is never finished.
The market can remain open and fair only in a democracy where wealth is kept widely
dispersed. To establish such democratic governance, the power of money cannot influence
political decisions. In Living Democracies, citizens work to remove the influence of wealth
from public decision making. They view the market as a tool, not an automatic device beyond
human reach. They use their polities to decide what should be a market commodity (and what
is too precious to be allocated by the market) and to create “values boundaries” (from
environmental protections to anti-trust laws) around the market’s functioning
All citizens have public lives. As consumers, savers, investors, voters, advocates, clients,
students, employers, workers, and members of social-benefit organizations, our actions
(conscious or not) shape our communities and nation. Citizens enjoy the rewards of getting
involved as we learn the “arts of democracy” -- active listening, the creative use of conflict,
negotiation, mediation, mentoring, and other relational skills.
Human beings are social by nature, so our individual well-being depends on creating healthy
communities. Getting involved develops distinctly human capacities and meets deep needs: to
connect with others in common purpose, to make a difference, to express our values, and to
fully respect ourselves.

Today we are caught in a global economic crash and depression, a calamity affecting every
nation connected to the global economy, especially poor nations lacking economic reserves. But
this crisis also puts into play new possibilities for a democratic surge, perhaps toward economic
democracy.

From the perspective of Economics 101, every bubble mania is basically alike, but from the
beginning, this one has been harder to swallow, because it started with people who were just
trying to buy a house of their own, who usually had no concept of predatory lending, and who
had no say in the securitization boondoggle that spliced up various components of risk to trade
them separately. It seemed a blessing to get a low-rate mortgage. It was a mystery how the banks
did it, but this was their business; we trusted they knew what they were doing. Our banks resold
the mortgages to aggregators who bunched them up with thousands of other subprime mortgages,
chopped the package into pieces and sold them as corporate bonds to parties looking for extra
yield. Our mortgage payments paid for the interest on the bonds.

For twenty years securitizations and derivatives were great at concocting extra yield and
allowing the banks to hide their debt. Broadly speaking, a derivative is any contract that derives
its value from another underlying asset. More narrowly and pertinently, it's an instrument that
allows investors to speculate on the future price of something without having to buy it. The
words that are used for this business-securitization, insurance, diversifying risk-sound reassuring,
but they mask that the business is pure high-leveraged speculation and gambling. Credit-default
swaps are private contracts in a completely unregulated market that allow investors to bet on
whether a borrower will default. Ten years ago that market was $150 billion; today it's $62
trillion, and it's at the heart of the meltdown. Credit default sellers are not required to set aside
reserves to pay off claims, and in 2000 Congress exempted them from state gaming laws. AIG's
derivatives unit was a huge casino, selling phantom insurance with hardly any backing, for which
we now have to pay. The tally for the past six months: four bailouts, $160 billion, some very
hard-to-take bonus payments, and no bottom in sight for a sinkhole of toxic debt exceeding $1
trillion.

Derivatives created dangerous incentives for false accounting and made it extremely difficult to
ascertain a firm's true exposure. They generated huge amounts of leverage and were developed
with virtually no consideration of their broad economic consequences.

So many plugged-in players rode this financial lunacy for all it was worth, caught in the terribly
real pressure of the market to produce constant short-term gains. Speculators gamed the system
and regulators looked the other way. Mortgage brokers sold bad mortgages; bond bundlers
packaged the loans into securities; rating agencies gave inflated bond ratings to the loans;
corporate executives put the bonds on their balance sheets; and all made fortunes off toxic
products they had no business creating or passing off. The chief rating agencies, Moody's and
Standard & Poor's, were supposed to expose financial risk. Instead, paid by the very issuers of
the bonds they rated, they hung triple-A ratings on rubbish. There was so much money to be
made that firms couldn't bear to leave it aside for competitors to grab. The banks got leveraged
up to 50-to-1 (that's where Bear Stearns was at the end) and kept piling on debt. The mania for
extra yield fed on itself, blowing away business ethics and common sense.

Today we are staring into an economic abyss, a global deflationary spiral. Deflation, once
started, has a terrible tendency to feed on itself. Income falls in a recession, which makes debt
harder to bear, which discourages investment, which depresses the economy further, which leads
to more deflation. To have any chance of breaking the deflationary spiral, the Obama
administration has to solve the bank problem and dispose of the toxic debt.

One option is Henry Paulson's original plan, "cash for trash," this time with more public
accountability. Another is to ramp up the insurance approach, "ring-fencing" bad assets by
providing federal guarantees against losses. But these are more-of-the-same options that coddle
the banks and don't solve the valuation problem-that no one trusts anyone else's balance sheet.
The banks are holding at least $2 trillion of toxic debt. For the past six months, the banking
system has been paralyzed because the big private equity firms and hedge funds are refusing to
pay more than thirty cents on the dollar for the mortgage bundles and the banks can't stay in
business if they book such huge losses on their holdings. In the meantime the banks are holding
out for at least sixty cents and pleading for more relief.

TRUST AND THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL

CONTEXT OF MARKETING EXCHANGE
Trust man and they will be true to you;
Treat them greatly, and they will
Show themselves great, though they make
An exception in your favour to all your rules
Of trade
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Accreditation

Exchange become more effective when the larger markets and the social systems work together
to create a trust. Early examples of such systems were the medieval crafts guilds, which
regulated their training and obtained output. These groups also assumed responsibility for
maintain morality and standard of conduct. Guilds were very much connected to political
institution like the monarch or other state authority granted guild and all its members supply
exclusivity in certain markets. Advertising agencies believe crowd sourcing can be a valid way
for a company to discover marketing ideas but warn there is a lot more effort involved in
developing a fully integrated campaign with consistency and longevity.

Advertising agencies believe crowd sourcing can be a valid way for a company to discover
marketing ideas but warn there is a lot more effort involved in developing a fully integrated
campaign with consistency and longevity.

Prompted by Unilever awarding $150 to the two winners of its crowd sourcing initiative for
Peperami, Dye Holloway Murray creative director Dave Dye says: “It’s a perfectly valid route to
go and people should be able to source however they want from wherever they want.”

Wieden & Kennedy managing director Neil Christie says: “Great ideas can come from
anywhere. Crowd sourcing provides an opportunity to reconsider the way we work and to shake
things up. That’s generally a good thing for creativity.

However, Dye points out that the key to crowd sourcing working is the skill of the judge in
picking the right idea. He adds that while people can come up with one-off ideas they cannot
necessarily deliver them to a client “to order”.

Christie says: “What do clients risk losing? I guess it might be that they go for a one-off idea, for
example a Superbowl spot rather than building cumulative equity over a longer period.”
Industry commentators also say that while Peperami might have generated plenty of PR with its
competition, it can only really use crowdsourcing as a PR stunt once.

Social Obligation

Corporate social responsibility (CSR), also known as corporate responsibility, corporate

citizenship, responsible business, sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate
social performance,[1] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model.
Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business
would monitor and ensure its support to law, ethical standards, and international norms.
Consequently, business would embrace responsibility for the impact of its activities on the
environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the
public sphere. Furthermore, CSR-focused businesses would proactively promote the public
interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating
practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate
inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honoring of a triple bottom
line: people, planet, profit.

The practice of CSR is much debated and criticized. Proponents argue that there is a strong
business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a
perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that
CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing
more than superficial window-dressing; others yet argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role
of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. Corporate Social
Responsibility has been redefined throughout the years. However, it essentially is titled to aid to
an organization's mission as well as a guide to what the company stands for and will uphold to its
consumers.

Development business ethics is one of the forms of applied ethics that examines ethical
principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment.

In the increasingly conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century, the demand for more
ethical business processes and actions (known as ethicism) is increasing. Simultaneously,
pressure is applied on industry to improve business ethics through new public initiatives and
laws (e.g. higher UK road tax for higher-emission vehicles).

Business ethics can be both a normative and a descriptive discipline. As a corporate practice and
a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. In academia, descriptive approaches are
also taken. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the degree to which business
is perceived to be at odds with non-economic social values. Historically, interest in business
ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and
within academia. For example, today most major corporate websites lay emphasis on
commitment to promoting non-economic social values under a variety of headings (e.g. ethics
codes, social responsibility ). In some cases, corporations have re-branded their core values in
the light of business ethical considerations (e.g. BP's "beyond petroleum" environmental tilt).
The term "CSR" came in to common use in the early 1970s, after many multinational
corporations formed, although it was seldom abbreviated. The term stakeholder, meaning those
on whom an organization's activities have an impact, was used to describe corporate owners
beyond shareholders as a result of an influential book by R Freeman in 1984.[2]

ISO 26000 is the recognized international standard for CSR (currently a Draft International
Standard). Public sector organizations (the United Nations for example) adhere to the triple
bottom line (TBL). It is widely accepted that CSR adheres to similar principles but with no
formal act of legislation. The UN has developed the Principles for Responsible Investment as
guidelines for investing entities.

Political Exchange

The true forms of government, therefore, are those

In which the one, or the few, or the many govern with view
To the common interest; but the governments which rule with
A view of private interest, whether of the one or of the few or
Of the many, are perversions
-Aristotle

Some commentators have identified a difference between the Continental European and the
Anglo-Saxon approaches to CSR.[3] And even within Europe the discussion about CSR is very
heterogeneous.[4]

An approach for CSR that is becoming more widely accepted is community-based development
approach. In this approach, corporations work with local communities to better themselves. For
example, the Shell Foundation's involvement in the Flower Valley, South Africa. In Flower
Valley they set up an Early Learning Centre to help educate the community's children as well as
develop new skills for the adults. Marks and Spencer is also active in this community through the
building of a trade network with the community - guaranteeing regular fair trade purchases.
Often activities companies participate in are establishing education facilities for adults and
HIV/AIDS education programmes. The majority of these CSR projects are established in Africa.
JIDF For You, is an attempt to promote these activities in India.

A more common approach of CSR is philanthropy. This includes monetary donations and aid
given to local organizations and impoverished communities in developing countries. Some
organizations[who?] do not like this approach as it does not help build on the skills of the local
people, whereas community-based development generally leads to more sustainable
development.[clarification needed Difference between local org& community-dev? Cite]
Another approach to CSR is to incorporate the CSR strategy directly into the business strategy of
an organization. For instance, procurement of Fair Trade tea and coffee has been adopted by
various businesses including KPMG. Its CSR manager commented, "Fairtrade fits very strongly
into our commitment to our communities."[5]

Another approach is garnering increasing corporate responsibility interest. This is called Creating
Shared Value, or CSV. The shared value model is based on the idea that corporate success and
social welfare are interdependent. A business needs a healthy, educated workforce, sustainable
resources and adept government to compete effectively. For society to thrive, profitable and
competitive businesses must be developed and supported to create income, wealth, tax revenues,
and opportunities for philanthropy. CSV received global attention in the Harvard Business
Review article Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate
Social Responsibility [1] by Michael E. Porter, a leading authority on competitive strategy and
head of the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School; and Mark R.
Kramer, Senior Fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard University and co-founder of FSG
Social Impact Advisors. The article provides insights and relevant examples of companies that
have developed deep linkages between their business strategies and corporate social
responsibility. Many approaches to CSR pit businesses against society, emphasizing the costs
and limitations of compliance with externally imposed social and environmental standards. CSV
acknowledges trade-offs between short-term profitability and social or environmental goals, but
focuses more on the opportunities for competitive advantage from building a social value
proposition into corporate strategy.

Milton Friedman and others have argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its
shareholders, and that since only people can have social responsibilities, corporations are only
responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole. Although they accept that
corporations should obey the laws of the countries within which they work, they assert that
corporations have no other obligation to society. Some people perceive CSR as incongruent with
the very nature and purpose of business, and indeed a hindrance to free trade. Those who assert
that CSR is contrasting with capitalism and are in favor of neoliberalism argue that
improvements in health, longevity and/or infant mortality have been created by economic growth
attributed to free enterprise.[16]

Critics of this argument perceive neoliberalism as opposed to the well-being of society and a
hindrance to human freedom. They claim that the type of capitalism practiced in many
developing countries is a form of economic and cultural imperialism, noting that these countries
usually have fewer labour protections, and thus their citizens are at a higher risk of exploitation
by multinational corporations.[17]

A wide variety of individuals and organizations operate in between these poles. For example, the
REALeadership Alliance asserts that the business of leadership (be it corporate or otherwise) is
to change the world for the better.[18] Many religious and cultural traditions hold that the
economy exists to serve human beings, so all economic entities have an obligation to society
(e.g., cf. Economic Justice for All). Moreover, as discussed above, many CSR proponents point
out that CSR can significantly improve long-term corporate profitability because it reduces risks
and inefficiencies while offering a host of potential benefits such as enhanced brand reputation
and employee engagement

Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American
Tobacco (BAT),[19] the petroleum giant BP (well-known for its high-profile advertising
campaigns on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract
the public from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some
corporations start CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their
reputation with the public or with government. They suggest that corporations which exist solely
to maximize profits are unable to advance the interests of society as a whole.[20]

Another concern is that sometimes companies claim to promote CSR and be committed to
sustainable development but simultaneously engaging in harmful business practices. For
example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald
House has been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become
mainstream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental and
other practices[21] All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill,
May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do
badly in terms of pay and conditions'[22] and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's
diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'[23]

Royal Dutch Shell has a much-publicized CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line
reporting, but this did not prevent the 2004 scandal concerning its misreporting of oil reserves,
which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy. Since then, the Shell
Foundation has become involved in many projects across the world, including a partnership with
Marks and Spencer (UK) in three flower and fruit growing communities across Africa.

Critics concerned with corporate hypocrisy and insincerity generally suggest that better
governmental and international regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are
necessary to ensure that companies behave in a socially responsible manner. Others, such as
Patricia Werhane, argue that CSR should be considered more as a corporate moral responsibility,
and limit the reach of CSR by focusing more on direct impacts of the organization as viewed
through a systems perspective to identify stakeholders.

Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American
Tobacco (BAT),[19] the petroleum giant BP (well-known for its high-profile advertising
campaigns on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract
the public from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some
corporations start CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their
reputation with the public or with government. They suggest that corporations which exist solely
to maximize profits are unable to advance the interests of society as a whole.[20]

Another concern is that sometimes companies claim to promote CSR and be committed to
sustainable development but simultaneously engaging in harmful business practices. For
example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald
House has been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become
mainstream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental and
other practices[21] All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill,
May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do
badly in terms of pay and conditions'[22] and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's
diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'[23]

Royal Dutch Shell has a much-publicized CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line
reporting, but this did not prevent the 2004 scandal concerning its misreporting of oil reserves,
which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy. Since then, the Shell
Foundation has become involved in many projects across the world, including a partnership with
Marks and Spencer (UK) in three flower and fruit growing communities across Africa.

Critics concerned with corporate hypocrisy and insincerity generally suggest that better
governmental and international regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are
necessary to ensure that companies behave in a socially responsible manner. Others, such as
Patricia Werhane, argue that CSR should be considered more as a corporate moral responsibility,
and limit the reach of CSR by focusing more on direct impacts of the organization as viewed
through a systems perspective to identify stakeholders.
 Consumption
The Happiness of pursuit

A dynamic consumption function, where consumption in the long run is determined by households’
disposable income and wealth, has been superior to the Euler equation in explaining the development
of Norwegian aggregate consumption over several decades. This period covers the years of financial
deregulation in the mid 1980s, the banking crisis around 1990 following the deregulation and the
current international financial crisis. In the current version, long run consumption is homogeneous in
income and wealth and there is also a significant effect from after-tax real interest rates. A change in the
correlation pattern between real interest rates and wealth, which is related to a change in the monetary
policy regime, is the reason why both variables need to be included in the long run relationship in order
to explain the development over the past four years.
The present international financial crisis has given rise to considerable changes in the value of
financial assets as well as in real estate prices in all developed economies. This has revitalized the
debate about how – and by how much – revaluations of financial and tangible wealth affect the real
economy. In particular, it is of interest to examine how the real value of household wealth affects
aggregate consumer demand. The magnitude of this effect may shed light on the extent that changes in
wealth lead to financial consolidation, i.e. increased household savings. The experience from the
Norwegian banking crisis in 1990-92 is that a drastic fall in household wealth can lead to a significant
rise in the savings rate.
The consumption function has been debated by economists for more than 70 years. The idea of such
an empirical relationship goes back to Keynes (1936), who held that increased household income
would cause consumption to rise. The work of Keynes was published at a time of mass unemployment
which the reigning economic paradigm, classical economics, could not account for. The degree of
acceptance of the concept reached a high in the 1950s and 1960s, as Keynesian models and policies
then dominated.
There is more than a formal difference between Keynes and the classics: Clower (1965) showed that
the Keynesian consumption function cannot arise in a Walrasian general equilibrium model. The
reason for this is that incomes are defined in terms of quantities as well as prices, and quantity
variables never appear explicitly in the market excess demand functions of Walras. It follows that an
agent’s spending decision is not conditioned on income, see Hoover (2009, p.22) for details. In the
classical model world the consumers rule the day. They own the production sector and their supply of
labor are fully employed at real wages provided by the market’s invisible hand. Hence, the households
get the economic activity level (as well as the consumption and the incomes) they want according to
their own preferences. As Trygve Haavelmo has pointed out there is no lack of logical consistency in
the classical model. What is lacking is relevance, modern macroeconomics – with its emphasis on
microfoundations that entail rational
intertemporal-optimizing consumers – has inherited many of these stylized properties from classical
economics. For example DSGE models, which have been the dominating modeling tool in academia
and in central banks for a decade1, build on a set of Euler equations which implies that the economy is
always near equilibrium. Moreover, if exposed to shocks, such a model economy rapidly returns to
equilibrium. The recent financial crisis – with falling production and rising unemployment across the
world – shows that this is not a good model of the actual economy out there.
Also, the DSGE models play down the role of fiscal policy. Still, the models have important
implications for economic policy. In the context of inflation targeting, the demand effects –via real
income and wealth – of lowering the interest rate in order to bringing a low inflation up towards the
target, are absent in models based on Euler equations. An assessment of the recent massive expansive
policies in industrial economies – which have entailed fiscal as well as monetary stimuli – cannot be
done within DSGE-type models, nor can they be rationalized within such models. This and many other
shortcomings of DSGE models are examined by Muellbauer (2009), who also remarks that:
Since private consumption constitutes about half of the domestic absorption in modern economies, it is
imperative for policy makers to have a firm grip on the driving forces behind aggregate consumption.
Accordingly, to decide on policy actions to counteract the current crisis and to make sensible forecasts
for the short and medium run, it is helpful to have access to a well-specified empirical
macroeconometric model, see Bårdsen and Nymoen (2009) and Bårdsen et al. (2005). Such a model
should capture the main driving forces behind the development of both the supply side and the main
demand components in the economy.

Can wealth bring happiness?

Perhaps an age old question: Does more wealth bring you happiness? However, there have been
studies going on to examine whether or not money can make you happy and if so at what level.

When economists were asked to find an answer they concluded that if you have more money
then you will have more choice and more choice should mean greater happiness as you can
afford more of the finer things in life.

However, Daniel Gilbert a Harvard University psychologist wrote in his book 'Stumbling on
Happiness' that "Psychologists have spent decades studying the relation between wealth and
happiness and they have generally concluded that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts
people out of abject poverty and into the middle class but that it does little to increase happiness
thereafter."

In a global survey, people were asked to describe their level of happiness on a scale of 1 to 7. 1
was "not at all satisfied with my life" and 7 meant "completely satisfied." The average score for
the American multimillionaires who filled in the questionnaire was 5.8. The average for the
homeless in Calcutta, India was 2.9. However, those who were just above the 'homeless' band,
the slum dwellers in Calcutta scored 4.6. Additionally the Greenland natives, the Inuit and from
Kenya the Masai who herd cattle, scored around 5.8.

These results confirmed what the psychologists had thought, that happiness increases
significantly only when a person is raised out of abject poverty to a reasonable level but does not
increase further from there

Social side of consumption.

Standard economic theory states that any voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial to both
parties involved in the trade. This is because either the buyer or the seller would refuse the trade,
if it won't benefit both. However, an exchange can cause additional effects on third parties. From
the perspective of those affected, these effects may be negative (pollution from a factory), or
positive (honey bees that pollinate the garden). Welfare economics has shown that the existence
of externalities results in outcomes that are not socially optimal. Those who suffer from external
costs do so involuntarily, while those who enjoy external benefits do so at no cost.
A voluntary exchange may reduce societal welfare if external costs exist. The person who is
affected by the negative externality in the case of air pollution will see it as lowered utility: either
subjective displeasure or potentially explicit costs, such as higher medical expenses. The
externality may even be seen as a trespass on their lungs, violating their property rights. Thus, an
external cost may pose an ethical or political problem. Alternatively, it might be seen as a case of
poorly defined property rights, as with, for example, pollution of bodies of water that may belong
to no-one (either figuratively, in the case of publicly-owned, or literally, in some countries and/or
legal traditions).

On the other hand, a positive externality would increase the utility of third parties at no cost to
them. Since collective societal welfare is improved, but the providers have no way of monetizing
the benefit, less of the good will be produced than would be optimal for society as a whole.
Goods with positive externalities include education (believed to increase societal productivity
and well-being; but controversial, as these benefits may be internalized), public health initiatives
(which may reduce the health risks and costs for third parties for such things as transmittable
diseases) and law enforcement. Positive externalities are often associated with the free rider
problem. For example, individuals who are vaccinated reduce the risk of contracting the relevant
disease for all others around them, and at high levels of vaccination, society may receive large
health and welfare benefits; but any one individual can refuse vaccination, still avoiding the
disease by "free riding" on the costs borne by others.

There are a number of potential means of improving overall social utility when externalities are
involved. The market-driven approach to correcting externalities is to "internalize" third party
costs and benefits, for example, by requiring a polluter to repair any damage caused. But, in
many cases internalizing costs or benefits is not feasible, especially if the true monetary values
cannot be determined.

The monetary values of externalities are difficult to quantify, as they may reflect the ethical
views and preferences of the entire population. It may not be clear whose preferences are most
important, interests may conflict, the value of externalities may be difficult to determine, and all
parties involved may try to influence the policy responses to their own benefit. An example is the
externalities of the smoking of tobacco, which can cost or benefit society depending on the
situation. Because it may not be feasible to monetize the costs and benefits, another method is
needed to either impose solutions or aggregate the choices of society, when externalities are
significant. This may be through some form of representative democracy or other means.
Political economy is, in broad terms, the study of the means and results of aggregating those
choices and benefits that are not limited to purely private transactions.

Laissez-faire economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman sometimes refer to
externalities as "neighborhood effects" or "spillovers", although externalities are not necessarily
minor or localized.

Private and social costs: Social costs are the spillover costs to society (society pays off the costs),
while private costs are the costs given to the individual firms or producer.
 Societal problems of too much, or

Too little consumption

Our houses are such unwieldly property

That we are often imprisioned than housed

In them

-Henry David Thoreau

A negative externality is an action of a product on consumers that imposes a negative side effect
on a third party; (aka- Social Cost). Many negative externalities (also called "external costs" or
"external diseconomies") are related to the environmental consequences of production and use.
The article on environmental economics also addresses externalities and how they may be
addressed in the context of environmental issues.

Systemic risk describes the risks to the overall economy arising from the risks which the banking
system takes. That the private costs of banking failure may be smaller than the social costs
justifies banking regulations, although regulations could create a moral hazard.[4]

Anthropogenic climate change is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil, gas,
and coal. The Stern Review on the Economics Of Climate Change says "Climate change presents
a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.[

Water pollution by industries that adds poisons to the water, which harm plants, animals, and
humans.

Industrial farm animal production, on the rise in the 20th century, resulted in farms that were
easier to run, with fewer and often less-highly-skilled employees, and a greater output of uniform
animal products. However, the externalities with these farms include "contributing to the
increase in the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because of the overuse of antibiotics; air
quality problems; the contamination of rivers, streams, and coastal waters with concentrated
animal waste; animal welfare problems, mainly as a result of the extremely close quarters in
which the animals are housed." [6][7]

The harvesting by one fishing company in the ocean depletes the stock of available fish for the
other companies and overfishing may be the result. This is an example of a common property
resource, sometimes referred to as the Tragedy of the commons.

When car owners use roads, they impose congestion costs on all other users.

A business may purposely underfund one part of their business, such as their pension funds, in
order to push the costs onto someone else, creating an externality. Here, the "cost" is that of
providing minimum social welfare or retirement income; economists more frequently attribute
this problem to the category of moral hazards.

Consumption by one consumer causes prices to rise and therefore makes other consumers worse
off, perhaps by reducing their consumption. These effects are sometimes called "pecuniary
externalities" and are distinguished from "real externalities" or "technological externalities".
Pecuniary externalities appear to be externalities, but occur within the market mechanism and are
not a source of market failure or inefficiency.

The consumption of alcohol by bar-goers in some cases leads to drinking and driving accidents
which injure or kill pedestrians and other drivers.

Commonized costs of declining health and vitality caused by smoking and/or alcohol abuse.
Here, the "cost" is that of providing minimum social welfare. Economists more frequently
attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards, the prospect that a party insulated from
risk may behave differently from the way they would if they were fully exposed to the risk. For
example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about
locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by
the insurance company.

The cost of storing nuclear waste from nuclear plants for more than 1,000 years (over 100,000
for some types of nuclear waste) is included in the cost of the electricity the plant produces, in
the form of a fee paid to the government and held in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Conversely, the
costs of managing the long term risks of disposal of chemicals, which may remain permanently
hazardous, is not commonly internalized in prices. The USEPA regulates chemicals for periods
ranging from 100 years to a maximum of 10,000 years, without respect to potential long-term
hazard.
 CHAPTER 3

CHOICES

UBU(YOU BE YOU)
 CHAPTER 4

INFORMATION

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

There is a common misconception that market research initiatives are reserved only for
marketing departments or product development teams. Many business professionals incorrectly
assume that research is too cost-prohibitive or that they lack the expertise to conduct an effective
survey effort on their own.

In actuality, there are many ways to gather feedback and information to make your business or
organization more successful. Perhaps the easiest, yet most powerful way, is using online
surveys. Online surveys are easy to design and implement with minimal resources. When you
utilize a full featured online survey application, you can conduct exhaustive research efforts
without the expense and hassle of a third party. Using online surveys to gather business
intelligence is a proven and cost efficient way to help your organization thrive.

Online surveys get to the heart of your customer and illustrate how to better serve them.
Understanding what your customers want and responding to their needs increases customer
satisfaction, loyalty and attracts new customers. Improve the product user experience for your
customers by consistently collecting their feedback. Use online surveys to ask customers about
their experience with your customer service department. Ask specific questions to learn which
customer service representatives are performing well and adding value to your organization
Since your customer service representatives are ambassadors for your organization so it is
important to make sure that you are well represented. With online surveys, the feedback is
instantaneous which allows you to make decisions quickly and effectively.

Satisfied employees are more productive and deliver better results, products and services for
your organization. Satisfied employees are loyal to your organization and make for a positive
company culture. Employees who are on the front lines want to share insight and information
with management to make processes more efficient, and ultimately make the organization more
successful. Online surveys are the tool to help you obtain valuable feedback from your
employees. The feedback can be anonymous - so you are guaranteed honest answers when you
ask sensitive questions. Find out how to improve their working environment, what benefits
would be most valuable or even when to have the next company happy hour. Online feedback
gives human resource managers the information to increase employee morale, reduce employee
turnover and maintain a positive work environment.

Let your customers express their needs and give you their wish list. Allow them to them help you
innovate. Let them tell you what pain points need to be addressed. An online survey gives
customers the opportunity to voice their ideas and enables organizations to turn suggestions into
revenue generators. Customers will appreciate your organization's desire to deliver what they
want. Your outreach efforts for new products will also pave the way for an easy upsell
opportunity. Think of your customer as an extension of your product development team and ask
them what they need.

Surveying the attendees, exhibitors, sponsors, speakers, and volunteers is an essential tool event
planners use to gauge event success. Their feedback provides a clear roadmap to improve future
events. Through these surveys, you can find out what would encourage attendees and exhibitors
to attend future events, what they didn't like about past events, and what they expect at future
events. Why guess at what your attendees want and need when you can simply ask them before
the event even starts?

Most organizations get feedback from their audience by distributing evaluation forms and pens.
Evaluation forms typically ask the audience member if they thought the presenter was effective,
if the training topic was valuable or if the material was challenging. Unfortunately, completed
paper surveys are often given to an already time-starved administrative assistant, who then must
manually enter all the responses into a spreadsheet and calculate the data. Processing these paper
surveys is a painful process and many times the qualitative feedback is illegible due to the
participant's handwriting style. With online surveys, the feedback is automated and the results
are instantaneous. The data can be accurately analyzed in a variety of ways. Online survey tools
can even store results so they can be compared to past and future evaluations. With this visibility,
organizations can design and improve on training and education programs to consistently
challenge participants.

Online surveys are powerful tools used to gather information on industry trends, market
segments, and used to analyze market developments. Through online surveys, you can determine
who your real competitors and prospective customers are while obtaining supporting data for
your next strategic move. Survey results are central to the development of company goals and
business models. A solid business plan should always include extensive market research.

An online survey is an innovative way for your organization to cultivate more sales leads. When
surveying prospects, make the survey perform as a research and marketing tool. At the end of the
survey, capitalize on the marketing opportunity by asking your respondents if they would like to
receive more information about a product or simply redirect them to your web site. Capture as
much contact information as possible while you have the attention of prospective clients and
guide them into your sales funnel. You can use surveys to qualify prospects to ensure you and go
after the best prospects first.

For both qualitative and quantitative research, online surveys are the best way to handle a large
group of respondents. It is no secret that telephone, mail, and focus group research methods are
very expensive to launch. In addition, it takes most organizations over two months with
dedicated resources to implement, input, and read results from a typical telephone or a mail
research initiative. By the time the results are consolidated and processed from traditional
research methods, you missed a marketing opportunity. Online surveys are easy to design and
quick to execute - and results are immediate. Organizations can rapidly test marketing campaigns
to see how they resonate with customers and eliminate the risk of rolling out an unsuccessful
campaign.
For a multitude of reasons, successful organizations leverage online surveys to develop their
business and gather employee feedback. When you select the right online survey solution,
conducting surveys is quick, easy and economical. There is no need to hire a research company
to conduct an online survey. You can do it yourself even if you don't have a research
background. As you shop for online survey software, make sure the system is capable of
handling the range of survey needs for your organization, including customer satisfaction
surveys, new product development research, employee feedback, and message testing.

Cost and benefits

“Cooperative marketing” can mean many things to many people depending upon your background. I like to
ask people if they are using the word “cooperative” as a noun or an adjective. In the context of this fact sheet,
we will be exploring “cooperative” as both a noun referring to a legal business structure and as an adjective to
describe the agreement of people to cooperate with each other related to marketing efforts.
Let’s deal with the legal business structure of a cooperative. Cooperative businesses are a type of
corporation but have a few qualities that make them an attractive option for many small groups that want
to maintain member ownership of the business. Cooperatives have three distinct characteristics that
separate them from other businesses. Cooperatives are member-owned, member-controlled, and generate
member-benefit. Member-owned is a function that guarantees that the members of the cooperative are the
ones that provide the initial capital for the start-up of the business and are the current owners of the coop-
erative. Member-controlled continues down the same thought process because the members are the ones
that elect the board who is responsible for making long-term decisions for the cooperative. The members
are electing other members to serve on the board and make these decisions for the total membership of
the cooperative. Member-benefit is the end result that ensures the profits made by the cooperative are
being returned to the members, sometimes referred to as patronage refunds. These profits are not being
returned based on the investment the members made in the cooperative, but rather the amount of business
that
the cooperative, but do not use any services or purchase any products from the cooperative during the
year, you have no member-benefit or patronage refunds coming your way at the end of the year.

Market Place consumption and Self-regulation

Economist have always known the extend of the accuracy of knowledge
Of the economic actor had influence, and a often decisive influence,on his
Behavior and therefore on his behavior on the market.
-George J Stigler

If you and your neighbor agree to sell your products in one roadside stand, you are practicing cooperative
marketing. When you use cooperative as an adjective it describes the behavior or agreement of two or
more parties in relation to marketing. These cooperative marketing arrangements are usually informal and
have no legal binding between or among the parties involved. These cooperative marketing agreements
can last years and never have problems; however, sometimes group dynamics make these agreements
unpleasant and useless for the parties involved. There are many reasons why parties join a cooperative
business or participate in a cooperative marketing arrangement

There are economies of scale that can be obtained from the collective effort of joining forces and
marketing as a group. It would be cheaper for beef producers to come together and assemble a semi-load
of feeder calves for shipping to Kansas than it would be for each individual to get their calves to Kansas.
When you are buying supplies, a consolidated order that contains pallets or bulk orders is cheaper than
individually buying a small amount of supplies.

Retail markets require some consistency in flow of product to their establishments. As an individual with
12 doe goats, you can in no way guarantee more than 2 kid goats per month for the year. Retailers are
looking for a business that can provide them a set amount of product on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
If you get together with 20 other producers and as a group you have 240 doe goats, you could guarantee
up to 40 kid goats per month to the retailer. You will now have their attention and be able to negotiate a
price that the group needs for the kid goats.

Many markets are looking to reduce the costs of obtaining products or services. These markets are
looking at buying their products or services but dealing with less people and having the same amount of
product to sell through their establishments. If you are trying to market your 10 finished hogs to a
processor and the cooperative down the road has members with 120 hogs ready for slaughter, the buyer
will stop at the cooperative to make his purchase. He can obtain 120 hogs in one contact versus the
contact with 12 producers your size to end up with the same end result. A cooperative marketing
arrangement will preserve many of the markets you use for the future as businesses move to cutting costs
associated with procuring products and services.

Many markets are looking to reduce the costs of obtaining products or services. These markets are
looking at buying their products or services but dealing with less people and having the same amount of
product to sell through their establishments. If you are trying to market your 10 finished hogs to a
processor and the cooperative down the road has members with 120 hogs ready for slaughter, the buyer
will stop at the cooperative to make his purchase. He can obtain 120 hogs in one contact versus the
contact with 12 producers your size to end up with the same end result. A cooperative marketing
arrangement will preserve many of the markets you use for the future as businesses move to cutting costs
associated with procuring products and services.

Many producers can benefit from professional services in marketing and sales of their products. If you are
an apple producer, you are probably in the business because you are good at producing apples, but you
have to sell them to make any profit. If marketing and sales are not your “cup of tea,” you are a member
of the majority of today’s agricultural producers. If you join a cooperative market ing group that hired a
marketing manager and all you had to do was raise a top quality apple for the person to market, your life
would be much easier. You individually could not afford to hire that marketing manager, but as a group
of 15 orchard owners you can consolidate your product and finances to increase the price you will receive
for your product.

We have explored the definitions of “cooperative marketing” and compared the benefits and challenges of
cooperative marketing efforts. So is a cooperative marketing effort a fit for you? Only you can determine
the right choice for your operation, but hopefully I have given you some topics to address and think about
before participating. There are several benefits to joining a cooperative marketing venture: obtaining
economies of scale, entering new market(s), accessing professional services, maintaining more of the
retail dollar, increasing bargaining power, and preserving existing markets. These can benefit your
operation by increased profits and efficiency, but you need to consider the challenges before you make
the final decision. The challenges are not to discourage you from joining a cooperative marketing
organization, but rather to make you aware that with benefits come challenges for the organization. These
are all related to the human dynamics, commitment, and trust of the members who operate and own the
organization. When it comes to generating income, many of us choose the option that will bring us the
highest reward in the near future. With cooperative marketing organizations, you have to look at the
reward you receive throughout the year from the organization. Is the average as a member of the effort
better than the average you would have achieved as an individual? This requires you to look at the “whole
picture” and determine the best option for the future success of your operation.

Members can become disloyal members in the blink of an eye. This behavior exhibits why it is important
that members “buy into” the vision for the group, have a developed trust for all members, and understand
the need for sharing information and managing the group dynamics in the cooperative marketing
organization. This issue is sometimes addressed by signing a marketing agreement or contract with the
organization that outlines the repercussions that will occur should you, as a member, breach your
contract/agreement with the organization. If you are not agreeable to signing the agreement, then I
contend that one of the three above challenges has not been resolved for you as a member. Take a step
back, readdress the situation, and let members know what your hesitations are before signing an
agreement to market through the organization. This is necessary for the success of the organization.
Human nature tells us that a member will sell outside the organization if he or she can make a dollar
more. A large majority of producers would choose to market only with the organization when it can
benefit the member.
 CHAPTER 5

Engagement
Ties That Bind

Engagement marketing, sometimes called "experiential marketing," "event marketing", "live

marketing" or "participation marketing," is a marketing strategy that directly engages consumers
and invites and encourages consumers to participate in the evolution of a brand. Rather than
looking at consumers as passive receivers of messages, engagement marketers believe that
consumers should be actively involved in the production and co-creation of marketing programs.

Ultimately, engagement marketing attempts to connect more strongly consumers with brands by
"engaging" them in a dialogue and two-way, cooperative interaction.

For decades, consumers would simply watch a commercial or look at a print ad that advertisers
produced. That’s one-way communication and doesn't qualify as engagement, where consumers
participate, share, and actually interact with a brand. The brand and the "brand experience" are
directly taken to them through interactive channels of retail, digital and live events. Rather than
wait for the consumer to find it, the brand takes itself directly to the consumer with campaigns
that resonate on a personal level.

This is closely related to the definition of transparent marketing. Transparent Marketing is a

strategy used to personalize the content marketed to a customer by engaging them in Web 2.0
social media technologies such as blogs, live chat and product ratings. Through these web based
technologies, companies are able to provide true transparency to their company and products,
good or bad. In addition, they are able to build trusting and lasting relationships with their
customers.

In an interview with Henry Jenkins DeFlorz Professor of Humanities and Founder and Director
of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT, Alan Moore said...

Engagement Marketing is a very broad term, and purposefully so. At its heart, is the insight that
human beings are highly social animals, and have an innate need to communicate and interact.
Therefore, any engagement marketing initiative must allow for two-way flows of information
and communication. We believe, people embrace what they create. And why is this important?
Because in advanced economies the values of society and the individual change. At the heart of
this is the key issue around identity and belonging. We have always had community. Pre-
industrialization, we were tied to our communities by geography, tradition, the state and
birthright. External forces shaped our identity. However, in a post-modern world we can have
many selves, as we undertake a quest for self identity. This is described as Psychological Self-
Determination the ability to exert control over the most important aspects of ones life, especially
personal identity, which has become the source of meaning and purpose in a life no longer
dictated by geography or tradition.The Community Generation, shun traditional organizations in
favor of unmediated relationship to the things they care about. The Community Generation, seek
and expect direct participation and influence. They possess the skills to lead, confer and discuss.
These people are not watching television and have grown up in a world of search and two-way
flows of communication. Going further Engagement Marketing is premised upon: transparency -
interactivity - immediacy - facilitation - engagement - co-creation - collaboration - experience
and trust these words define the migration form mass media to social media. The explosion of:
Myspace, YouTube, Second Life and other MMORPG's, Citizen Journalism, Wicki's and
Swicki's, TV formats like Pop Idol, or Jamies School Dinners, Blogs, social search, The
Guinness Visitor Centre in Dublin or the Eden project in Cornwall UK, mobile games like
Superstable or Twins, or, new business platforms like Spreadshirt.com all demonstrate a new
socio-economic model, where engagement sits at the epicentre

Word of mouth

The power of the human voice and human contact are the most powerful communications
tools we have. In this day of intense media bombardment, the average person receives
over 1000 messages a day. No wonder things get lost along the way and we feel like our
heads are exploding with slogans and jingles. But there is something that can cut through
the clutter. We will listen to other people -- especially those we know and trust. We
respond to the human voice. Word-of-mouth.

We also believe information we hear from other people, faster than we'll believe what is written
in a brochure or seen on a TV ad. The stories we hear from each other. The hints and tips. We are
trusted human yellow pages for each other. Word-of-mouth.

In a multitude of focus groups conducted for a variety of clients by Full Circle Associates, we
have been struck by the level of fatigue and distrust the public has for slogans and campaigns.
They want and value information, but are asking for it straight up, not packaged and polished. If
we want them to do something in particular, they want us to just ask them to do it and then leave
it to them to decide. This points to the the importance of word-of-mouth as a critical component
of any communications effort.

If you want to get your message out, about and heard you must spend the time to that it takes to
recruit many messengers. Effective communications efforts MUST include a component that
strengthens the opportunity and execution of word-of-mouth (WOMM) activities. Other
traditional communications channels such as media and direct mail complement WOMM, but
they cannot take its' place. WOMM increases the response to other channels.

So What is WOMM and How Do We Do It?

WOMM is the tool that every single member of your organization can use to advance the
mission of the organization. It is not reserved for the "marketing and communications" folks. It is
not the sole domain of the customer service team. It is the one thing that crosses all
organizational lines because we all talk to other people -- co-workers, neighbors, friends and
family, customers and the general public. The key to using WOM as part of your
communications strategy is to help each person present a clear, integrity-filled message each
time they communicate with others.

Each time we greet a client or customer, serve them, listen to them, we have the chance to share
information and demonstrate the values of the organization. Do we treat them with respect and
dignity? Do we provide enough information so that they can get to know us and our
organizations better? Do we ask the questions and then listen to what they need? Do we ask them
for feedback on what is going well and what needs improvement? Do we share the latest news of
what our organization is doing with and for them? Do we ask for their help when appropriate?
These exchanges can produce three things:

 A relationship
 A chance to provide information to the customer
 A chance to learn from the customer

This serves as a starting point for Permission Marketing which is a key strategy especially when
using the Internet.

What We Say and How We Act Matters

WOMM is highly dependent on being believable and honest. If we promise something, we

deliver it. If we don't know the answer, we go find it instead of guessing. What is a "clear,
accurate message?" WOMM must be consistent across an organization so that, for example,
when a patient calls a clinic for an appointment, their experience from the first call through
billing will be much more positive and productive if they encounter clear, consistent treatment
and messages throughout the process. The telephone operator provides honest information about
length of waits. The receptionist smiles and welcomes the patient, updating contact information
at the desk, and advises the patient on a new service available at the clinic. The health care
provider gives the patient information, advises them on what to expect, and treats them with
respect. The billing matters are prompt and clear. Even when things don't go as planned, the
interactions are up-front and respectful. Even in conflict, the organization values input from the
customer and seeks to resolve differences.

How WOMM Can Give Us Information

Too often we don't know what we don't know. Has a client who missed an appointment ever
annoyed you? Would you act differently if you knew why? What if the key was evening hours
two days a week? Do we ask our clients to help us understand the barriers? Do we assume we
know? Simple questions can help us learn much about our customers, especially when deployed
throughout the organizations. Imagine what could be learned in a week if every member of a
staff who came in contact with a customer had the goal of finding out some particular kernel of
information.
How WOMM Can Build an Organization's Brand

We hear talk of building one's "brand." Well in the end, a brand is only as good as the number of
people who will come back a second time. "Brand loyalty" may be closer to what an organization
needs. But aren't people loyal to other people rather than to a name? For non profits and
community organizations this is an important distinction. Your "brand" extends to every person
in your organization and how they treat others. How they listen. How they talk and share
information.

One true test of a brand is if one person recommends it to another. Referrals. Do you ask your
clients and customers for referrals? Personally? How do you follow up on referrals? Do you ask
your clients for their success stories and compliments along with permission to share them?
These are far more believable than any slogan. What are you doing to capture this information?
These opportunities available each time you talk with a client.

How WOMM Can Provide Information to Customers

WOMM provides an organization the opportunity to share information in a setting of direct

attention. Did you tell your customer about your planned product changes? The special event on
their favorite topic? What do you think will make a stronger, longer-lasting health education
impression? A poster on the wall, or the impact of a personal message along with a brochure to
take home that has all the details. Imagine the increased impact of of the information coming
from someone you trust. It is powerful.

Sharing What We Learn Matters

Beyond the acts of human-to-human interaction, WOMM also provides organizations with a rich
source of information that can be used for quality improvement, new product development and
other activities. But if we don't capture and explore what we learn from our customers, it is a
wasted opportunity.

Finding ways for staff to share what they learn from customers and clients is essential. Keeping
notes, collecting success stories to use for marketing with the customers' permission, regular
debriefs on what the "talk" is telling the organization are just some of the ways the information
can be collected. Reviewing what is heard and drawing lessons learned to apply to other
situations leverages the information into organizational knowledge.

Human voice. Clear, honest and accurate communication. Word-of-mouth. Use it.
 CHAPTER 6

Inclusion
The More the Merrier

Cultural change

Cultural values and beliefs are not stagnant; these do evolve and change. However the pace of
change will differ depending on the level examined. At the broad cultural level changes often
evolves slowly. For instance, consider how people in the United States and Japan view the
importance of saving money. People in the United States are more inclined to spend their earned
income than they are to save resulting in a low personal savings rate for Americans. Those living
in Japan are more concerned with saving and thus show a high personal savings rate. The
difference in values toward savings has been consistent for many years and no one expects
consumers from either country to alter their values in the near future.

While broad cultures tend to shift values and beliefs slowly, changes within sub-cultures can
occur relatively quickly. For instance, the music industry often experiences rapid shifts as a sub-
culture of music enthusiasts discovers new artists. The key for marketers targeting sub-cultures is
to maintain close contact with these groups through regular marketing research. In this way
marketers can see how different sub-cultures behave and also spot trends, which the marketer
can capitalize on through new marketing tactics (e.g., new products, new sales channels, added
value, etc.)

Arguably the external force possessing the greatest potential for changing how marketers and
industries compete are those associated with innovation. When most people think of innovation
they immediately assume it has to do with computers and other high-tech equipment. While the
majority of innovative new products rely in some way on computer technology, it is not a
requirement for something to be considered innovative. Instead, an innovation is viewed as
anything new that solves needs by offering a significant advantage (e.g., more features, more
convenient, easier to use, lower cost, etc.) over existing ways (e.g., products, services). For
example, a designer of automobiles may develop a new layout for a car’s dashboard using
existing products (no new technologies). This new design reduces the amount of time a driver
must take his eyes off the road in order to select a new music station. If this new layout is viewed
positively by customers, governmental groups and the media it may gain widespread acceptance
by other vehicle manufacturers who will make similar designs available in their products.
As noted in the above example, for an innovation to be truly important it must be widely adopted
within a targeted group (e.g., within an industry, by a target market). Once adopted an innovation
becomes important if it leads to behavioral changes including changing how consumers and
business satisfy their needs. These changes present both opportunities and threats to marketers.
For instance, over the last few years several small companies have created productivity software
products (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet) that operate over the Internet. These products do
not require the software be downloaded to a user’s computer. While these innovative products
are not new in terms of the features they offer, they are new in terms of convenience in accessing
documents from anywhere and the ability to share with others. It remains to be seen whether
these products will alter behavior, though it appears that one leading maker of traditional
productivity software, Microsoft, has recognized this as a threat and is expected to respond with
its own version of web-based software.

Because of the potential innovation has in affecting products and industries it is no surprise that
many marketing organizations direct a significant amount of funds to researching this external
force. In fact, in many industries, such as pharmaceuticals and computers, spending on
technological research and development represents a significant portion of a company’s overall
budget.

For many marketers the final external force is the one most relevant to immediate day-to-day
decision making. While the other external forces we’ve discussed tend to be examined
periodically (or in some cases rarely), monitoring competitor activity is often a daily
undertaking.

Monitoring competitors can serve several goals:

 Competitors as Threats – The most obvious reason to monitor the competition is to see
how they are responding in the same markets in which the marketer operates. Many
larger companies recognize the importance of keeping tabs on their competition and
create specific positions or even departments that focus on gathering and analyzing
competitor data. These competitive intelligence programs mainly employ high-tech
methods, and principally the Internet, to locate information about competitors such as
news reports, government filings (e.g., patents, stock reports) and changes to competitors’
websites. Even small sized marketers can more easily track competitor actions. For
instance, there are several news and information services that will alert a marketer
(usually via email) when a competitor is mentioned in the news.
 Competitors as Partners – While many may consider competitors as representing the
enemy, there are situations where competitors can present opportunities. This happens
often to large companies that offer a broad product line serving many target markets. In
some markets a company may compete aggressively with another firm but in other
markets both firms may be lagging and it may make more sense for both to work
together. This can be seen in the computer industry where Apple Inc., which for many
years viewed computers built with Intel processors as competitors since these run
Microsoft operating systems, has now accepted Intel processors and is building
computers powered by this chip.
 Competitors of Tomorrow – In many industries and, in particular, those in technology-
focused industries where there is heavy emphasis on research and development, the most
dangerous competitors are the ones that have yet to emerge. Because technology-
dependent industries, such as computers, consumer electronic and pharmaceuticals, rely
heavily on innovative new products, serious competitors can emerge quickly from what
seems to be out of nowhere. For instance, the evolution of online video and its impact on
the news and entertainment industry grew very rapidly with the introduction of online
video services (e.g., YouTube) which was previously an unknown project developed in a
garage. However, in less than 18 months it came to dominate the online video industry

Cosmopolitianism
Extant marketing literature mainly focuses on explaining why consumers might prefer domestic
products and refrain from buying foreign products but, however, is weak in explaining why
consumers might intentionally opt for foreign products. Against this background, consumer
cosmopolitanism has gained increasing attention as a potentially relevant consumer
characteristic for explaining foreign product preference and choice. However, empirical
evidence on the impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on consumption behavior remains scarce.
This paper identifies the absence of an appropriate measurement instrument as a main reason
for this lack of empirical studies by providing (a) a review of cosmopolitanism scales used in
other research fields, and (b) a replication with extensions study of the CYMYC scale, the only
consumer cosmopolitanism scale currently available. The findings highlight a need for a new
scale to measure the consumer cosmopolitanism construct. To stimulate further research in this
direction, the paper proposes a conceptual definition of consumer cosmopolitanism along with a
nomological network to guide the scale development process.

Literally, the term cosmopolitanism means "world citizen." However, as we would expect,
research on the topic have given us a better understanding of what this might mean in practice.
Early research in the area of cosmopolitanism can be traced to two independent, but conceptually
related projects. First, Gouldner (1957) applied it to the way employees related to their
organizations and professions. Cosmopolitans tended to orient themselves to a profession rather
than the specific orientation in which they were employed. That is, they saw themselves first as
professionals -- lawyers, physicians, engineers, professors, or advertising specialists rather than
members of a particular firm, clinic, university or agency.

Second, Merton (1957) used cosmopolitanism in the context of geographic and political
community. Cosmopolitans tended to orient themselves beyond their local community. They
were people who saw themselves as citizens of the nation rather than the locality, and by
extension, the world rather than the nation.
Modern theorists have begun to think of cosmopolitanism as being more complex than either
Gouldner or Merton's work suggested. True to the original conception, it constitutes a type of
cultural transcendence. But cosmopolitans often wear the trappings of locals, and non-
cosmopolitans often appear in the guise of world travelers. For instance, Hannerz (1990)
distinguishes between cosmopolitans, locals, and tourists. Cosmopolitans are people who have
shed the biases of their home culture. Locals, by contrast, see and judge the world from the
perspective of the local culture. They see their attitudes, values, and lifestyle as "good," and
anything that goes against it is seen as a kind of evil contamination. Tourists have the trappings of
cosmopolitans, in that they love to travel and experience new places and ways of life. Their
cosmopolitan trappings are really just a kind of curiosity; they don't consider the diversity
experience they encounter as having cultural merit or personal relevance. They are, then, really
locals whose culture incorporates learning about other people as a social norm.
Hannerz' sees true cosmopolitans as actively seeking to identify and relinquish cultural
biases. If tourists are observers, cosmopolitans are participants who seek to actually experience
cultural diversity, making it personally relevant and a continual stimulus for personal growth and
change. This active view of cosmopolitanism is consistent with Gouldner (1957) and Merton's
(1957) earlier conceptions, but it is not inherent. It represents a new, and not necessarily universal
interpretation.
One way to explain Hannerz' (1990) culture-seeking conception of cosmopolitanism is that
cosmopolitans rarely exist in finished form (Thompson and Tambyah 1999). The argument is that
there are relatively few true cosmopolitans, but rather, they are generally in the process of
transition from a local to a cosmopolitan orientation. In support of this position, Thompson and
Tambyah challenge Hannerz' notion of the tourist as a curious local. Drawing on the work of
MacCannel (1989), they argue that tourists are really culture seekers who hope to find new
insights that have been lost in their contemporary societies. Their position is supported by studies
of tourism promotion narratives that promise travelers such things as adventure, personal
enrichment, and unique cultural experiences (Urry 1990; Shields 1992; Arnould and Price 1993;
Craik 1997). If these promotions are keyed to the needs of their target market, we can infer a
cosmopolitan motivation.
This discussion implies an underlying theory of why consumers would be motivated to become
more cosmopolitan (Thompson and Tambyah 1999): Consumers seek a kind of social status, or
"cultural capital," by acquiring cosmopolitan characteristics (Bourdieu 1987). Consumers with
high cultural capital -- cosmopolitans -- tend to eschew the parochial culture of their local
surroundings in favor of new and exciting experiences, such as exotic foods and music (Holt
1997, 1998). Naturally, consumers who aspire to high cultural-capital status will seek to cultivate
these tastes. Travel plays a key role in discussions of cosmopolitanism because it is seen as a way
of breaking free of parochial influences to achieve the sophistication and worldly outlook implied
by the exotic (Belk 1998; Morris 1998). Travel may take the form of tourism, or as in the case of
Thompson and Tambyah's actual subjects, it can be achieved by living and working abroad. The
fact that consumers tend to be cosmopolitans in transition explains why so many people exhibit
both cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan characeristics.
A More Democratic Democracy
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which
I do not at present approve, but I am not sure that I shall never approve them.
For having lived long, I have realized that many instances of being obliged by
Better information, or fuller consideration to change the opinion even on
Important subjects.
- Benjamin Franklin.
Upon reflection, Thompson and Tambyah's (1999) view of cosmopolitanism as a dynamic
construct makes sense. We would expect cosmopolitanism to develop by degrees. People moving
from one orientation to another would be in a state of transition -- a state in which they are
"Trying to Be Cosmopolitan" (the title of Thompson and Tambyah's paper).
Notwithstanding the profundity of Thompson and Tambyah's insight, their approach suffers from
the same bias as Hannerz' (1990). It assumes that cosmopolitans will be actively seeking cultural
diversity. However, it is just as reasonable that cosmopolitans -- some of them, anyway -- would
accept diversity as a fact of life. Of course, this would not be true of everyone. But for some
people, the transition from a non-cosmopolitan to a cosmopolitan perspective may not be
motivated by status at all, but rather, conditioned by the experiences of life. Even more important,
why should we accept cultural diversity as the sole index of a cosmopolitan orientation? Indeed,
if one becomes a "citizen of the world," wouldn't we expect a movement toward a common global
cultural orientation, as suggested by Levitt (1983)? This appears to be just the opposite of what
Thompson and Tambyah and other modern cosmopolitanism theorists (e.g. Lash and Urry 1993;
Friedman 1995; Robertson 1995; Urry 1995; Lury 1997) are suggesting.

In this paper, we will view cosmopolitanism as a set of acquired cultural orientations -- a kind of
"…'tool kit' of habits, skills, and styles from which people construct strategies of action" (Tse,
Belk and Nan Zhou 1989, p. 459). The paper will recognize the pattern of active culture-seeking
behavior posited by Hannerz (1990), but it will also account for apparently opposing expressions
of world