322 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 intangible consumer, or does the field itself need to transform? Our journey explores what lies beyond the traditional customer, or more specifically, consumer, whom we have tentatively conceptualised as the “post-consumer.” En route, we selectively examine pathways taken, and pathways not taken, with a view to informing options facing contemporary marketing. In odd ways, this specific 21st century quest resembles the medieval Ultima Thule as a place beyond the borders of the known world – a place from which there is no return, only further journey into the transformation (Leonard 1972). Before that quest, however, we benchmark using two recent books involving of one of marketing’s most influential figures, Philip Kotler, who has undertaken a similar mapping of pathways to the present and routes to the future. The first of Kotler’s contributions focuses more on the instability of the present. Indeed, Kotler and Caslione’s (2009) Chaotics: The Business of Managing and Marketing in the Age of Turbulence goes so far as to coin the term “chaotics” to convey how the innovative and disordered nature of the age interweaves with business as a whole: “Turbulence is the new normality, punctuated by periodic and intermittent spurts of prosperity and downturn – including extended downturns amounting to recession or even depression” [italics in original] (p. xii). The second of his contributions, Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawan’s (2010) book entitled Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit, implies an utterly intangible destination. In effect, their subtitle’s reference to the Human Spirit dematerialises the post-customer, or post-consumer, in a way that signals the possible disappearance of the embodied consumer. So how did the author of the seminal Marketing Management (Kotler, 1st Edition published 1967, 13th Edition published 2008, with a China adaptation in 2008, and a Europe adaptation in 2009) arrive at such a conclusion? Kotler et al.’s (2010) recent intervention conceptualises the present as Marketing 3.0 and offers a table (p. 6), which sets out its distinctions from the two preceding historical stages. The other two stages are categorised as Marketing 1.0 and Marketing 2.0, and all three are distinguished along the following lines: Marketing 1.0 is founded on products and called ‘Product-centric Marketing’, Marketing 2.0 is founded on customers and called ‘Consumer-oriented Marketing’, and Marketing 3.0 is founded on the human spirit and called “Values-driven Marketing”. Each stage has different objectives, enabling forces, and value propositions so that 1.0’s aim is to ‘Sell products’ and is enabled by the ‘Industrial Revolution’ to be ‘Functional’ in value; 2.0’s aim is to ‘Satisfy and retain the consumers’ and is enabled by ‘Information Technology’ to be ‘Functional and emotional’ in value; and 3.0’s aim is to ‘Make the world a better place’ and is enabled by ‘New wave technology’ to be ‘Functional, emotional, and spiritual’ (adapted from Kotler et al. 2010, p. 6). Space prevents a more elaborate description of Kotler et al.’s (2010) justification of these stages but, like most historical stage arguments, its force is directed towards influencing the present. Bearing this in mind, and in order to have points of reference for our different staging of consciousness, we present the three major factors that they identify as shaping the crucial third stage of 3.0. Two of their factors are relatively commonplace across the management and marketing literature: firstly, “new wave technology [which] becomes the major driver for the birth of Marketing 3.0” (Kotler et al. 2010, p. 5) and has them characterise the time as “The Age of Participation and Collaborative Marketing” (p. 5); and secondly, globalisation, which has them also characterise the time as “The Age of Globalization Paradox and Cultural Marketing” (p. 12).
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 323 Less common is their wholesale adoption, which draws heavily from the work ofRichard Florida (2002, 2005), of “the rise of creative society” (Kotler et al. 2010, p. 17)and their associated third characterisation of the time as “The Age of Creative Societyand Human Spirit Marketing” (p. 17). From this third factor, the matching Marketing3.0 becomes “Collaborative, Cultural, and Spiritual” (p. 21) as a “more advancedcollaboration takes place when consumers themselves play the key role in creatingvalue through the cocreation of products and services” (p. 10). To accommodate thethird stage and develop “culturally relevant” campaigns, “marketers must understandsomething about anthropology and sociology” (Kotler et al. 2010, p. 15). They arealso recommended to market the mission to consumers through storytelling andmetaphors (pp. 60-63). Kotler et al. (2010) practice what they preach in usingmetaphors and stories to “sell” their view of the evolution of marketing 3.0, and wefollow them in seeking to present our alternative stages of consciousness through adifferent historical narrative and a different set of metaphors clustered around ideasof travel (i.e. moving from one place to another).NAVIGATING BOUNDARIES BY OTHER POST-CONSUMERGUIDEBOOKS: TRAINS AND BOATS AND PLANESWe start by borrowing a Burt Bacharach-Hal David song title referring to threemodes of transport: Trains and Boats and Planes. Each of them enables the crossingof boundaries, literally and metaphorically, in the physical (mental) limits and theassociated discursive options of movement: by following existing tracks; by chartingwaterways; and by flying over indeterminable tracts of land and sea – see alsoMcLuhan (1964) and Vickers (1983) on the use of mental tools and extensions.In our convergence of social movements (challenging established modes of businessand government behaviours) and consciousness movements (changing lives andcultures), in which each is part of a larger whole, we also align our brief history witha transformational change process. However, through the metaphor of moving acrossmental boundaries in our metaphorical plane and boat and train, we reference threedefining books: in the first, a “Turning Point” (Capra 1983) is reached in a planewhen it stalls as increased air resistance and decreased lift coincide; in the second,in a riding of The Third Wave (Toffler 1980) into a fully marketised society, a post-industrial value set comes to dominate; and in the third, The Cluetrain Manifesto,self-styled revolutionaries show how self-organising networked conversations makesociety smarter, fragment the single mass-market, and hail the return to diversity. The first of these three books, Capra’s (1983) The Turning Point, speaks at length ofa nearing cultural transformation – a profound shift in our social institutions, values,and ideas. Capra sees this shifting as essential to the development of civilisations,and suggests that social indicators for this shift are visible “symptoms of our currentcrisis” (p. 7), such as a sense of alienation, an increase in mental illness, violent crime,social disruption, and an increased interest in religious cultism. All were observablein the decades leading up to the 1980s. Capra (1983) perceives social structures andbehaviour patterns as being so rigid that society can no longer adapt to changingsituations. This will, in turn, lead to social disintegration because society will nolonger be able to carry on the creative process of cultural evolution. Such a loss offlexibility in a disintegrating society is accompanied by a general loss of harmony
324 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 among its elements, which inevitably leads to the outbreak of social discord and disruption (p. 9). Capra (1983) suggestively points to experiencing the early stages of a transition, a turning point, to a new order, comprising both resonance and dissonance among alternative value systems. We follow Capra in locating the crisis of “post-industrialism” in our cultural premises and values. The concepts of the entrenched ‘modernist’ mechanistic world view do not explain the harmonious interrelatedness and interdependence of the biological, psychological, social, and environmental world. An ecological perspective that recognises this dynamically balanced system is necessary (see also Capra and Pauli 1995; Goldsmith 1992). This will require a fundamentally holistic conception of reality, in terms of thoughts, perceptions, and values. It also provides an explanation for the shift to revaluing tangible aspects (downwards) and intangible aspects (upwards) in financial terms that Leadbeater’s (2000) Living on Thin Air: The New Economy captures so graphically: most of us “make our money from thin air: we produce nothing that can be weighed, touched or easily measured” (p. xi). Leadbeater (2000) further observes that contemporary outputs are no longer “stockpiled at harbours, stored in warehouses or shipped in railway cars” (p. ix) and that livings are earned “providing service, judgement, information and analysis, [so that] . . . . “We are all in the thin air business” (p. ix). Capra’s consciousness perspective has been further elaborated by others. Wilber (1996), for example, makes the crucial point that a worldview is not a perspective on a single, pre-given world. Instead, each worldview constructs the “known” world – the world of each different worldview looks different because it is different. Different worldviews enact different worlds – not the same world seen differently. Multiple worlds are seen from differing worldviews. Wilber suggests this is the fullest meaning of “cultures.” Leonard (1972) too points out the difficulty of explaining the future in the language of today that is faced by social observers as they attempt to articulate their vision of an emergent alternative way of organising society (see, e.g., Fuller 1963, 1969; Kahn and Wiener 1969; Thompson 1971, 1989; Bell 1973; Boulding 1978; Roszak 1978; Henderson 1978; McLuhan and Powers 1989; Goldsmith, 1992). Goldsmith (1992) expresses this well: “ ... there is no rational discourse between the proponents of different paradigms. They speak different languages, see things in a fundamentally different way and therefore cannot really communicate” (p. 92). Nor is the question of consciousness just a struggle for ideas. The “culture shift” is manifest not only in the less material economy, but in the rise and convergence of social movements. These movements (e.g., ecology and feminism) progress towards, and come together for, a profound cultural transformation bringing about changes in social and political structures that overcome the limits of the Cartesian world view and its associated reality distortions whereby reality is constructed on the physics model as comprising only empirically observable matter, even when it is almost two decades since scientific summaries declared that, from the standpoint of physics, this Matter Myth (Davies and Gribbin 1992) is scientifically outmoded. Capra (1983) identified similar components in the decline and fall of cultures and theorised transition points: In the regular pattern of rise, culmination, decline, and disintegration, which seems to be characteristic of cultural evolution, the decline occurs when a culture has become too rigid – in its technologies, ideas, or social organization – to the meet the challenge of changing conditions .... During the process of decline and disintegration
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 325 the dominant social institutions are still imposing their outdated views but are gradually disintegrating, while new creative minorities face the new challenges with ingenuity and rising conﬁdence. (pp. 465-466)Both historian Arnold Toynbee (1972), and culture scholar Raymond Williams (1965,1977), could discern a pattern in the evolution of culture, in which, at any point intime, the then dominant worldview sits alongside both a residual outmoded viewand an emergent alternative view. In the early 21st century, the currently-dominantparadigm puts forward belief in the scientific method as the only valid way toknowledge. It is wedded to a vision of the universe as a mechanical system composedof elementary material building blocks, a view of life in society as a competitivestruggle for existence, and faith in unlimited material progress through economic andtechnological growth (Capra 1983). The values shift in Capra’s work, which is increasingly being taken up, entails thedecline of sensate culture, the decline of patriarchy (from authority and representationto participation), and the decline of fossil fuel dependency. It also involves anevolutionary step, or “great transition,” or “transformation,” out of patterns ofunhealthy and wasteful production and consumption (Capra 1983, p. 445) andresource-consuming life styles (p. 452) (Leonard 1972; Gallopin and Raskin 2002;Raskin et al. 2002; Raskin et al. 2010). This idea of societal evolution towards morecomplex social organisation has significant cultural turning points between phases,and “between-epoch” transitions as unsettled social organisation (Toynbee 1976).Toynbee’s equivalent turning-point is in the history of the biosphere. Mankind isthe first living species to acquire, in pursuing mastery (material power) over thebiosphere (nature), the power to wreck the habitat, and thus to make itself extinct.Goldsmith (1992) sees this as provoking a “cultural mega-mutation, and ecologically-based revitalization movement” (p. 220). This is not a linear progression of worldviews and complicates the clear cut natureof periodic change in Kotler et al. (2010). Rather, the character of the movement fromone social form to another has been, since the mid 20th Century, emergence from theindustrialisation that began in the 16th century, through globalisation, to planetisation(Thompson 1989). The changes involve considerable interpenetration of ideas andbehaviours that are better seen as a shifting intersection of three simultaneous aspects:the dominant, the residual, and the emergent (Williams 1977). So, for example, theresidual, which in the 1960s looked on its way out, returned to emergent status laterin the century with the rise of Islam and the growth of fundamentalist movementsin most major faiths. Previous entities are not eliminated, but reconstituted in a newintegration, or set of interlocking tensions, which bear the imprints of the past and inwhich the future is an aspect of the present (Leonard 1972).BOOK TWO: FROM TURNING POINT TO THIRD WAVEAs Capra was assembling his “cultural system” turning point logic in conversation witha multi-disciplinary and extra-disciplinary range of advisors, others were engaged inaligned activities. Toffler was crafting his best-seller-to-be on the new civilisation.What he termed the third revolution followed the earlier agricultural and industrialupheavals in social, economic and political structures, which also brought forth newattitudes, life-styles, and roles. In Future Shock (Toffler 1971), he recognised theseminal social effects of the “superindustrial,” and continued in The Third Wave
326 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 (1980), our second key book in examining stages of consciousness, to outline the global effects of the transformation. What Toffler could see in his “large-scale synthesis” was that new methods of production led to the healing of the producer versus consumer cleavage in the citizenry, bringing with it the prospect of a future of truly humane social organisation. Since the industrial revolution, an invisible wedge between production for self-use and production for exchange-in-commerce had become the commonplace experience of citizens. This served as the basis for the principles of marketing. Yet, in pre- industrial times, the latter was a tiny part of all work done – only a tiny fraction, or perhaps faction, of the population was market-dependent. So the now commonplace “pecuniary transactions” were fringe experiences. Industrialism almost eradicated self-sufficiency as the “natural economy” became a “marketised profit economy,” which switched the purpose of most product-of-labour, and labour itself, from use to exchange. The dominant mode of production became produce for others as the means to profit through exchange and organised marketing served to bridge the gap. The notion of “market” is that of an exchange network, although this is not inherently profit/private property based, since this is only one form of market. The market reconnects producer and consumer – only the capitalist form is profit-based/ money-based. Markets have been, are, and can also be, for example, barter-based. Toffler identified the gap in the industrial mindset. As producer, the citizen is called to comply with rules such as deferred gratification, discipline, control, restraint, obedience, and team play. But as consumer the game is instant gratification. Because hedonism is not calculation, discipline can be abandoned in pursuit of individualistic pleasure. An economy tends towards schizophrenia as a result of industrialism’s obsessive concern with money, goods, things, and commercial self-interest, as well as the inevitable market dependence with its inherent standardisation, specialisation, synchronisation, and centralisation. The notion of the “market intensity” of a society indicates the time spent buying, selling, exchanging goods and services, and in labour to earn “spending power.” By the 1970s, one of the hallmarks of so-called advanced civilisations was consumerism, with the accompanying warfare, competition, endless expansion, and lifelong grabbing for material accumulation (Leonard 1972). Strikingly, Toffler’s meta-review saw that we could also already, even by the 1970s and 1980s, see the rise, or return, of the “prosumer” (producer-consumer) who predominantly produces for his or her own use rather than for exchange. Whereas the industrial revolution shifted most economic activity out of prosumption into apparently open (“free”) markets, this movement brought with it the re-emergence of production for self rather than for the market, along with new assumptions about nature, progress, evolution, time, space, matter, causation. Echoing Capra’s findings, Toffler observed that the long-standing dominance of the machine analogy was being substituted with process, feedback, and disequilibrium. Moreover, in the market economy, customised goods made in holistic continuous-flow processes were increasingly controlled directly by the consumer. In preference to buying goods and services from others, the prosumers prefer to produce for themselves, and they may choose to seek support from others in the process. The Third Wave civilisation resembles sustainable society in embryonic form. It features decentralised production, appropriate scale, renewable energy, de- urbanisation, work in the home, and high levels of prosumption. Following Hegel’s notion of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis, in simultaneously overcoming and preserving, Toffler saw this as a dialectical return. It resembled the (pre-industrial) First Wave, in that society might attain a high material standard of living without focusing all
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 327energies on producing for exchange (materialism). In the combination of a vastlyreduced market sector, a different ethic (i.e., from passive consumer to active self-help prosumer) will dominate. In addition, the rise of the computer network enablesdis-intermediation with impersonal, and sometimes distant, specialists, experts, andprofessionals, because producers are not needed. This reverses the sprawl of themarket into the life sphere. Toffler himself could envisage the end of marketisation and a rebalancing of the“visible” and “invisible” sectors of the economy (de-marketisation). These wouldreverse the internalisation of labour costs within firms. Firms then, as the consumerreplaces the producer to become a prosumer, become enablers/supporters/partners,rather than producers, in co-creative acts (see also Zuboff and Maxmin 2002, on“distributed capitalism” and “individuated consumption”). Prosumption has becomeincreasingly prominent since the mid 20th century, yet prosumers have always beenevident. However, it made sense to emphasise first the producer in the IndustrialRevolution, and then the consumer in post-world-war society (Ritzer 2009). Insystems, the apparent character comes from the emphasis of the time, and thedevelopment of social theory was producerist before it became consumerist in itsbias. Indeed, this very switch in attention is an early indication of a shift in culture(sometimes debated in terms of late modern, or postmodern, feature). The market is a psychosocial structure – a way of organising, an ethos, a shared setof expectations, and, in marketised society, life is understood, and accepted by many,as a succession of contractual transactions. The industrial revolution not only broughtforth great strides in mechanical extensions of our affordances (see McLuhan 1964),it also involved an era of market expansion (broader, further, bigger, and faster). Atpresent, as the marketisation of the world nears completion by incorporating moreof the vast Bottom of Pyramid populations, society now needs to maintain, renovate,and update (Cunningham 2008). This conversion to a trans-market civilisation (theThird Wave) is the essence of Toffler’s vision. This civilisation is dependent on theestablished exchange network, with a new agenda beyond market-building. Part of it isa re-visioning of the role of the market in our lives so that commerce markets becomeless important, and society tends towards demarketisation and demassification.The key major absence in both Kotler et al. and Toffler is democratisation and re-distribution on a global scale. Kotler et al. (2010), for example, hail the expansionof the market in Bottom of the Pyramid regions as an unambiguous success withoutquestioning the human costs or the need for an egalitarian dimension. Wilkinson andPickett’s (2009) research findings in this area are summed up in their book title TheSpirit Level: Why Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. If consumers do not haveenough dollars in their wallets to be worth targeting for sales, what then happens tothe human spirit of those impoverished, although numerically significant (especiallyin regions of Africa and Asia), populations?BOOK THREE: RIDING THE CLUETRAIN AND RETURNING TOMARKETING 3.0There are democratic tendencies – although still more focussed on the developedworld in terms of the haves, and not the have-nots in the digital divide – and a kindredshift away from conventional markets in our third key book. The idea so clearlyexpressed in The Cluetrain Manifesto (Levine, Locke, Searls and Weinberger 2000)
328 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 is that business is fundamentally human, and natural conversation among ordinary people is the true language of commerce, and the Internet can remove unnecessary marketing middlepeople. For Levine et al. (2000), one dynamo of this change is that corporations work best when the people on the inside have the fullest contact possible with the people on the outside. They argue that corporations lost the human voice for a while, and now these ancient, timeless, and true principles are resurfacing in business. The triggering event is the advent of a global communication system that puts everyone in touch with everyone. Indeed, the book itself was the product of an extended conversation, which, literally, was conducted electronically among four Internet dwellers. While it was initially presented as content on a web site, it was then published in paper-based print, which was, subsequently, posted online. The text has been adopted by many as a user’s guide to the online economy because it describes business as it really is and as it is really becoming. The reality of the networked marketplace is a culture of participation in the “great conversation.” The Internet connects people to each other and provides a space for hearing the human voice. The online marketplace is not necessarily a market at all. To its inhabitants, it is primarily a place in which all participants are audience to each other as market conversations interact with the conversations of the corporate workforce and others just socialising. This convergence promises a vibrant renewal in which commercial markets become far more naturally integrated into the life of individuals and communities, or even become unnecessary. Levine et al. (2000) make it clear that companies need consumers more than consumers need companies and that while “Companies can now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance . . . . [and that they] need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.” (p. xiii) Interestingly, although The Cluetrain Manifesto prefigures much in Kotler et al.’s (2010) “Collaborative Social Media” (p. 9), the later book does not cite the earlier one. At this point we want to suggest some reasons why, and also some reasons why it, and the Capra and Toffler books, do not fit with marketing 3.0. Indeed, we will argue that all three of our selected books are symptomatic of many others that both augment the marketing 3.0 conceptualisation and question its limitations (see Sheth and Sisodia 2006, for example). Levine et al. (2000), for example, challenge Kotler et al. (2010) in the serious playfulness of their levity. What The Cluetrain Manifesto says of Companies – that they “need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. . . . [and] get a sense of humor” (Levine et al. 2000, p.xiii) applies equally to Kotler et al. (2010). A sense of humour would assist in a sense of perspective. At the moment, such grandiose and seemingly altruistic statements as “Marketing will need to evolve to a third stage where it addresses the spirit of the consumers” (Kotler et. al. 2010, p. 35) co-exist with the mundane functionalism and economic self-interest of claims that the economic downturn means customers “may want to save more for another day. . . . [which] means that marketers will have to work harder than ever to separate consumers from their dollars” (p. 29). This is not to assert that this is pure hypocrisy – particularly since Kotler et al. (2010) clearly leave functionalism in Marketing 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Nevertheless, it is an unacknowledged contradiction. As a result, statements that the “point is not to overlook the spirit” (p. 35) could mean that not overlooking the spirit is more concerned with not reducing profitability then supporting a revolution in consciousness. This is confirmed by the absence of significant literature on consciousness. Capra’s account of expanded consciousness has been further developed by Wilber (1977;
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 3291997; 2001) and many others (e.g., Fuller 1963, 1969; Leonard 1972; Thompson1971, 1990; Roszak 1978; Satin 1978; Henderson 1981; Ferguson 1982). Howevermarketing 3.0 only extends the field (from Kotler’s 1967 textbook synthesis ofideas from economics, behavioural science, organisational science and mathematics)towards anthropology and sociology, rather than spirituality, despite the prominenceof the notion of human spirit in the text and in the subtitle.BACK TO BASE: A NEGLECTED WAY FORWARD FOR MARKETINGMarketing 3.0 also neglects relevant movements within marketing, in particularService-Dominant (S-D) Logic. This potentially transcendent perspective on marketingemerged at the end of the 20th century. It took several years to navigate throughacademic peer review before culminating in publication among the “conventional‘wisdom’” of marketing, and a subsequent outpouring of critique, application, andextension. Vargo and Lusch, the originating authors, skilfully brought togetherseveral previously disparate marketing concepts, ideas, and perspectives in a waythat is challenging the presumptions of mainstream theory and practice (see Vargoand Lusch 2004, 2006). Service Dominant Logic is a holistic movement beyond thepre-occupation with matter, energy, and profitability. Orthodox marketing focusesalmost entirely on goods as the value-embedded unit of exchange, and non-materialservices are weakly treated as “non-goods.” In this still uncommon sense, service is the appropriate logic for marketing(Ballantyne and Varey 2008). For Vargo and Lusch (2004) service is an interactiveprocess of “doing something for someone” that is valued. More radically, goods takethe role of rendering service and are valued in use. In this context, service becomesthe unifying purpose of any business relationship. This marketing worldview involvesbroadening and reframing what, by convention, counts as service. In so doing, S-DLogic stands in opposition to 200 years of mainstream economic logic in explainingproductive capacity. Vargo and Lusch have succeeded in applying their scholarlythinking to old themes with synergistic results. Their thesis challenges marketingorthodoxy, and will support much future innovation in both theoretical and practicalterms. Although their growing body of work refers to neither Capra nor Toffler, Vargoand Lusch’s perspectives not only align well with them, but could be enriched bythem. Nevertheless, in drawing on a historical review of economic thinking, Vargoand Lusch position the service-dominant logic as a fundamental, and congruent, shiftof worldview. Their S-D Logic is a mindset for a unified understanding of the purposeand nature of firms, markets, and society. The change in perspective places goods asa special case within the general context of service-exchanged-for-service and shiftsthe view from the manufacturer to that of the producer-consumer nexus (i.e. theco-production of value for and by people with skills, knowledge, and experienceinteracting purposefully to creatively integrate resources). In the S-D Logic worldview,instead of service marketing “breaking free” from goods marketing, all of marketingbreaks free from the goods and manufacturing – and deeply-material – mindset. Inessence marketing becomes not the “taking to market” of manufactured goods, butcontribution to value co-creating activity. As a consequence, value-in-exchange, product management, and communicationmanagement become much less significant than interaction management. Moreover,partners are understood as not tied – unrealistically – to a producer-consumer
330 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 distinction. Material goods are service appliances, means not ends, and the focus shifts to the total consumption process, including value-in-use and beyond. People can be customers or self-servers – the marketplace may be unnecessary and some exchange will not involve the corporate-as-producer at all, or only marginally, as a facilitator. Corporate marketing will take on a more humanistic relational character, derived from a social/societal mindset rather than the manufacturing economics of the 19th century. That offers a more credible post-consumerism, where people opt to take the role of consumers when they feel it appropriate, or necessary, and not when pushed or pulled by functional marketing. In this way the consumer is neither dead, nor obsolete, but becomes more of an appropriate option for more and more people at different times. UPGRADES AND OPERATING SYSTEMS So what of Marketing 3.0? This seems little more than an upgrade proposition, whilst many are still struggling with Marketing 1.0, or Marketing 1.0+, and others are trying to install Marketing 2.0. Perhaps, in taking a longer-term view, we can recognise the Marketing 2.21 Beta revision that has developed in the face of user feedback. Meanwhile, there is mounting demand for an alternative operating system for the person-society-nature relationship: Kotler et al. (2010) advocate integrating aspects of the open-source movement into a kind of open-source marketing, which is already evident in the explosive growth in adopting social media. More radically, Varey (2010a) has proposed Welfare Marketing as: an extension of the [Quality-of-Life] conception of marketing that requires an alternate set of ‘postindustrial’ values, recognizing that the generation of wealth through proﬁtable growth is only one contribution to QoL, health, and happiness. Marketing’s primary contribution to society is thus the proactive and essential creation of valued beneﬁts that does not create unsustainable costs and harmful consequences. (p. 121). Welfare marketing would help green consumption by ensuring that goods and services produced do none of the following: endanger health; damage the environment in production, use, or disposal; create unnecessary waste; destroy endangered species and environments; or injure or exploit third parties (including wildlife). Such a commitment would severely tax the judgment faculty of policy makers and decision makers. It would make judgment far more significant in marketing competence (Varey 2010b), and draw on advances in economics (Akerlof and Shiller 2009) and leadership (Tichy and Bennis 2007), and the sociology and psychology of happiness, political science, and ecology (e.g., Svendsen and Svendsen 2009; Capra and Pauli 1995), as well as epidemiology-influenced studies of equality as in Wilkinson and Pickett’s (2009) research findings that future human fulfillment “lies in improving the quality of social environment in our societies” (p. 265) with “a historic shift in the sources of human satisfaction from economic growth to a more sociable society” (p. 226). However it does it, the discipline of marketing needs to commit to a higher purpose beyond the Promethean enterprise of modern society, or, to adapt Porritt’s (2006) Capitalism As If The World Matters, marketing as if social development mattered. At the same time, the field has to recognise presumptions and assumptions about citizens as consumers and about markets, choice, well-being, and so on. This requires
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 331applying moral, or normative, constraints on the market and abandoning amoralconceptions of productivity/efficiency as good in themselves (Kassiola 1990); and,the general adoption of the precautionary principle in policy and practice (O’Riordanand Cameron 1994; Raffensperger and Tickner 1999). It also means taking the viewthat if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public orto the environment, the burden of proof, in the absence of a scientific consensusthat harm would not ensue, falls on those who would advocate taking the action.Only then should the focus move to matters of practice, scope of application, andefficiency. The social process of marketing can contribute to transformative socialchange. Learning ‘‘our way out together’’ (Milbrath 1989) from corrosive aspectsof the dominant social paradigm (Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997) is amatter of appropriateness and of expression of ideas and values. It will involve ademocratised and holistic form of marketing that is more deeply infused with spiritedaltruism rather than self-interested targeting of consumer wallets. It will also createthe scope to journey beyond marketing 3.0 and, informed by a wider range ofdisciplines than anthropology and sociology, to discover a more post-consumeristand planet-friendly way of being in the world.REFERENCESAkerlof, G. A. and Shiller, R. J. (2009), Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R. J. (2008), “The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 11-14.Bell, Daniel (1973/1976), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. London: Heinemann/Penguin.Boulding, Kenneth E. (1978), Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution, Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.Capra, F. (1983), The Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture, London: Flamingo.Capra, F. and Pauli, G. (Eds.). (1995). Steering business toward sustainability. Tokyo: The United Nations University.Cunningham, S. (2008), ReWealth!, New York: McGraw-Hill.Davies, P and Gribbin, J. (2007), The matter myth: Dramatic discoveries that challenge our . understanding of physical reality, London: Simon & Schuster.Florida, R. (2002), The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York: Basic Books.Ferguson, M. (1982), The Aquarian conspiracy: Personal and social transformation in the 1980s, London: Paladin Books.Florida, R. (2005), The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent, New York: Harper Collins.Fuller, R. B. (1963), Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, New York: E P Dutton.Fuller, R. B. (1969), Utopia or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity, New York: Bantam Books.Gallopin, G. and Raskin, P (2002). Global sustainability: Bending the curve, London: . Routledge.Goldsmith, E. (1992), The way: An ecological world view, London: Rider/Random Century.Henderson, Hazel (1978), Creating Alternative Futures: The End of Economics - The Collected Writings of Hazel Henderson, New York: G P Putnam’s Sons/Perigree.Henderson, H. (1981), The politics of the solar age: Alternatives to economics, New York: Anchor/Doubleday.
332 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 Kahn, Herman and Wiener, Anthony J. (1969), The Next 200 Years. New York: Morrow. Kassiola, J. J. (1990), The death of industrial civilization: The limits to economic growth and the repoliticization of advanced industrial society, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kilbourne, W E., McDonagh, P and Prothero, A. (1997), “Sustainable consumption and the . . quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm”, Journal of MacroMarketing, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 4-21. Kotler, P (1967), Marketing management: Analysis, planning, and control , Englewood Cliffs, . NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kotler, P and Caslione, J. A. (2009), Chaotics: The business of managing and marketing in the . age of turbulence, New York: AMACOM. Kotler, P and Keller, K. L. (2008), Marketing management (13th. ed.), New York: Prentice . Hall. Leonard, G. B. (1972), The transformation: A guide to the inevitable changes in humankind, New York: Delacorte. Kotler, P Kartajaya, H. and Setiawan, I. (2010), Marketing 3.0: From products to customers to ., the human spirit, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D. and Weinberger, D. (2000), The cluetrain manifesto: The end of business as usual, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. McLuhan, H. M. (1964), Understanding media: The extensions of man, New York: Signet Books. McLuhan, H M. and Powers, B. R. (1989), The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century, New York: Oxford University Press. Milbrath, L. W (1989), Envisioning a sustainable society: Learning our way out, Albany, NY: . State University of New York Press. O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1994), Interpreting the precautionary principle, London: Earthscan. Porritt, J. (2006), Capitalism as if the world matters, London, UK: Earthscan. Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds.) (1999), Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Washington, DC: Island Press. Raskin, P Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P Hammond, A., Kates, R. and Swart, R. (2002), ., ., The great transition: The promise and the lure of the times ahead, Boston, MA: Tellus Institute/Stockholm Environment Institute. Raskin, P Christi Electris, D., and Rosen, R. A. (2010), “The century ahead: Searching for ., sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 1, forthcoming. Ritzer, G. (2009), “Focusing on the prosumer: On correcting an error in the history of social theory”. Paper presented at Conference on the Prosumer, Frankfurt: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main FB Gesellschaftswissenschaften Institut fur Gesellschafts- und Politikanalyse. Roszak, T. (1978), Person/planet: The creative disintegration of industrial society, London: Gollancz. Satin, M. (1978), New age politics, New York: Delta Books. Sheth, J. N. and R. S. Sisodia (eds.) (2006), Does marketing need reform?: Fresh perspectives on the future, New York: M E Sharpe. Svendsen, G. T. and Svendsen, G. L. H. (eds.). (2009), Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Thompson, W I. (1971), At the Edge of History: Speculations on the Transformation of Culture, . New York: Harper & Row. Thompson, W I. (1989), Imaginary landscape: Making worlds of myth and science, New York: . St Martin’s Press. Tichy, N. M. and Bennis, W (2007), Judgement: How winning leaders make great calls, New . York: Portfolio. Toffler, A. (1971), Future Shock, London: Pan Books. Toffler, Alvin (1980), The Third Wave: The Revolution That Will Change Our Lives, London: Collins/Pan Books.
Varey and McKie Staging consciousness: marketing 3.0, post-consumerism and future pathways 333Toynbee, Arnold (1972), A Study of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Varey, R. J. (2010a), “Marketing means and ends for a sustainable society: A welfare agenda for transformative change”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 112-126.Varey, R. J. (2010b), “Relational decision making: an appreciation of appreciative systems”. Paper presented at APABIS Annual Conference Decision-Making in a Time of Crisis: Private and Public Perspectives, Tokyo, Japan.Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 1-17.Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, NY: M E Sharpe.Vickers, G. (1983), Human systems are different, London: Harper & Row.Wilber, K. (1977), The spectrum of consciousness, Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.Wilber, K. (1996), A brief history of everything, Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.Wilber, K. (1997), The eye of spirit: an integral vision for a world gone slightly mad, Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.Wilber, K. (2001), A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality, Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009), The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, London: Penguin Books.Williams, R. (1965), The long revolution, London: Pelican Books.Williams, R. (1977), Marxism and literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zuboff, Shoshana and Maxmin, James (2002), The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism, New York: Viking Books/Penguin Books.ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCERichard Varey is Professor of Marketing, and a specialist in inquiring on the futureof marketing, human interaction in commercial situations, and “marketing forsustainable prosperous society”. He is Associate Editor (Asia-Pacific) for the Journalof Customer Behaviour, and a former editor of the Australasian Marketing Journal.He is a member of a range editorial boards, including Marketing Theory, the EuropeanJournal of Marketing, the Journal of Communication Management, the Journal ofMarketing Communications, the Australasian Marketing Journal, the CorporateReputation Review, and the Journal of Business Ethics (sustainability panel). He is agraduate of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK (BSc 1980) and ManchesterSchool of Management, UMIST, UK (MSc 1990, PhD 1996). He has written bookson internal marketing, relationship marketing, and marketing communication. Corresponding author: Dr Richard J. Varey, Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, The Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand T +64 7 838 4617 F +64 7 838 4352 E email@example.comDavid McKie is Professor of Management Communication at The Waikato ManagementSchool in Hamilton, New Zealand. He has authored or coauthored more than 50articles, 22 book chapters, and 4 books. His latest book (co-written with AssociateProfessor Vikram Murthy) on 21st-century leadership was published in 2009, andhe also co-wrote (with Associate Professor Debashish Munshi) Reconfiguring Public
334 JCB Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 9 Relations: Ecology, Equity, and Enterprise, which won the 2007 NCA PRIDE award. As CEO of RAM (Results by Action Management) International Consulting, he also works as a change, leadership, and strategic communication consultant. He has run leadership development programs as well as workshops for individuals and organizations in the private and public sectors in China, Europe, Korea, India, the Middle East, and the United States. He currently has one book proposal under review and is co-writing two more books: one on action research and another on complexity. Dr David McKie, Professor of Management Communication, Department of Management Communication, The Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand T +64 7 838 4917 F +64 7 838 4358 E firstname.lastname@example.org