AUTHOR DETAILS
Dr S M Riad Shams
Doctoral Graduate and Alumni of
The Central Queensland University
4/116 Rossmore Avenue
Punchbowl, NSW-2196, Australia
Email: shamsriad@gmail.com
Phone: +61 401 059 176
Modernism to Postmodernism: The Transdisciplinary Mode-2 Knowledge Production
of Relationship Marketing
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study is to realise the rationality of the evolvement of RM as a fundamental
marketing principle, and how RM responds to the postmodern marketing management issues
to meet and exceed contemporary market needs. A literature review has been conducted to
accomplish the aim of the study. Underlying the 4Ps marketing principle, and with the
Transdisciplinary input, RM has evolved in the postmodern market in order to deliver,
maintain and enhance value in a way that the postmodern market expects and accepts a
particular value. The learning from the literature review facilitates to realise the
Transdisciplinary Mode-2 Knowledge production (value proposition) approach of RM in
order to exceed contemporary market needs.
KEYWORDS
Modernism; Postmodernism; Transdisciplinary; Mode-2 knowledge production, Relationship
Marketing.
INTRODUCTION
From time to time, various factors have included in the traditional 4Ps marketing, which
advances the marketing principles and practices. The dynamic of marketing management has
been evolving since its beginning to cope up with the contemporary challenges. The
transition from modernism to postmodernism era noticeably changes the value perception of
the consumers. More specifically, less brand loyalty, focus on facts, appearance and
experience, fragmented, unstable and unpredictable markets, complex buying decision
process of postmodern marketers and so forth propel postmodern marketers to deliver,
maintain and enhance value, based on the value perception of the target markets. As the
postmodern market is a consumer controlled market, consumers move to substitute brand, as
soon as they feel their value perception contradicts with a particular brand’s value
proposition. Therefore, the 4Ps marketing management appeared as increasingly unable to
compete with the postmodern value centred marketing issues, as the 4Ps marketing was
initially originated in the modern market in order to bridging the market needs only.
Therefore, underlying the 4Ps marketing principle, and in association with the
Transdisciplinary input, Relationship Marketing (RM) has evolved in the postmodern market
in order to deliver, maintain and enhance value in a way that the postmodern market expects
and accepts (Mode-2 knowledge production) a particular value. As a result, RM has
established itself as a fundamental concept of postmodern marketing management through its
Transdisciplinary Mode-2 value proposition (knowledge production) approach.
AIM AND METHODOLOGY
Literature review, as an inclusive research method (Friedman 2006) has been undertaken here
to:
□ realise the postmodern marketing management issues;
□ realise the rationality of the evolvement of RM as a fundamental marketing
principle and
□ realise how RM responds to the postmodern marketing management issues to
meet and exceed contemporary market needs.
THE TREND OF MARKETING THINKING
It is, however, generally agreed that marketing as it is known today-the marketing mix
(Product, Price, Promotion, Place-the 4Ps) approach-began to take shape during the 1950s
and 1960s in the mass consumer goods markets of the USA (Little and Marandi 2003). The
architects of marketing theory helped to create the marketing mix or marketing management
approach to marketing as an alternative to the production and sales concepts, stressing that
business success depends on identifying and satisfying consumer needs. In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, a number of writers began to criticize the use of only 4Ps marketing mix in total
marketing management (Little and Marandi 2003). Nevertheless, the advances in technology
combined with further academic research have revealed a number of shortcomings in the
traditional 4Ps marketing mix approach. As a consequence, the 4Ps marketing mix approach
has been extended to several Ps marketing thinking and practice to cope up with transforming
market. The evolution has been illustrated in Table 1.
(insert table 1)
The marketing thinking and practice has been evolving since its beginning to cope up with
the changing contemporary market needs. As a result the extended marketing mix has
evolved. But nobody eliminates the preliminary 4Ps (Product, Price, Promotion and Place), as
these are the core of marketing thinking and practice. In the extended mix, marketers get
some additional features such as people, political power/politics, public opinion-formation,
participants, physical evidence, public relations and so forth. The rationale of such so many
individual or group oriented extended features and subsequent relationship influences in
marketing mix could be comprehensible through Little and Marandi’s (2003) findings.
Even when the products offered are satisfactory, consumers still exercise their right to
go from one seller to another in order to purchase the products they need at a better
price, or merely to experience change and variety. Consequently, marketers are having
to think of different ways of keeping consumers loyal in order to survive and prosper.
While some marketers are turning to such tactical devices as loyalty cards, others
adopt a more strategic and philosophical approach to gaining consumer loyalty
through designing genuine Relationship Marketing programmes (Little and Marandi
2003, p.15).
As a result customisation, individualisation, RM, Customer Relationship Management, Direct
Marketing, one to one marketing and other relational marketing tools have taken the place of
traditional production and sells oriented transactional marketing to keep consumers loyal.
Since, the cost of losing consumers is more than the failing of grasping new consumers.
Marketers now try to accomplish individual consumer’s share along with market share.
Therefore the lifetime value management, lifetime consumer’s share, importance on
customisation, value addition and others have come into interest, underpinning the
strategically profound RM principles, as:
Relationship Marketing is to identify, establish, maintain, and enhance value with
consumers and other stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties
involved are met; and this is done by mutual exchange and the fulfilment of promises
(Gronroos 2004, p. 101).
Again, as Murphy et al. described as:
Stakeholder relationship marketing involves creating, maintaining, and enhancing
strong relationship with consumer, employee, supplier, community, and other
stakeholders with the goal of delivering long-term economic, social and environmental
value in order to enhance sustainable business financial performance (Murphy et al.
2005, p. 150).
Therefore, marketing practice turns to emphasizing on collective interests of all associated
stakeholders by creating mutual prolific value instead of only concerning individual goals.
Gummesson (2002) described, RM does not exclude transaction marketing or anonymous
mass marketing when those are justified. RM does not throw the 4Ps overboard, just changes
their position. RM is built on a synthesis between traditional marketing management,
marketing mix and the 4Ps; services marketing; the network approach to B-to-B; quality
management; network organisation; new accounting principles; IT; and the experience of the
reflective practitioner. Gummesson (2002) elaborated the theme as RM represents marketingoriented management- an aspects of the total management of the firm-and are not limited to
marketing or sales departments; the marketing plan becomes part of the business plan. By
focusing on relationships, networks and interaction, RM offers a more realistic approach to
the marketing management in the new economy than is currently prevailing in marketing
education. In practice, marketing works through a network of relationships. RM can be
applied to all types of organisations and offerings, but the relationship portfolio and the
application are always specific to a given situation.
TRANSITION FROM MODERNISM TO POSTMODERNISM: THE MARKETING
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The formalisation of marketing as a field of practice and study (in the early 1900s in the
USA) preceded the phenomenological explanation of and the intellectual discussion about the
transition from modernism to postmodernism market in the 1970s (Firat and Dholakia 1995).
Modernism is linked to changes experienced in social and economic institutions and social
and economic changes. Berner and Tonder (2003) summarised from several authors’ views as the
era of modernism was characterised as a progressive and revolutionary movement unfolding at
the end of the 18thcentury (Burke 2000), and which took shape in Europe during the 1920s more
as an artistic movement (Hassard 1993). It emphasised the technical rather than the humanistic or
social-psychological. Modernist society believed among other that progress could only be built on
the principles of scientific research, mass production, and processes of industrialisation (Thomas
1997).
On the other hand, postmodernism coincides with the era of information revolution at the end
of 1960s or at the beginning of 1970s. In the 1960s, young professionals began using the term
postmodernism in reaction to modernism (Featherstone 1991), especially in terms of expressing
visual or performing arts. Graham (2003) provided an idea that the postmodern society relies on
global knowledge democracy, emergence management, transdisciplinarity, optimisation and
knowledge creativity instead of the modernism concepts of knowledge control, control
management, disciplinarity, maximisation and so forth. Rather than individual scientific findings,
postmodern society focuses on meaning beyond scientific fact and truth, this is embedded in a
broader context-a strong focus on the totality of a situation. Absolute truth is
rejected in the postmodernism, as meaning is constantly changing and social meaning is
substantially influenced by form and style (Berner and Tonder 2003). Therefore, the postmodern
society moves to customised production from modern society’s mass production concept, as the
postmodern consumer has a strong sense of immediacy and expects services/tasks to be done
immediately (Berner and Tonder 2003). Since, the postmodern consumer lives in a world filled
with ‘doubt, ambiguity and uncertainty’ (Thomas 1997, p. 58), postmodern marketers niche to
delight individual consumer rather than only satisfying their needs by utilising information
intelligence rather than only utilising industrialisation power of modernism concept.
In this ever competitive postmodern market, brand loyalty is losing its sustainability so frequently,
as consumers have overwhelming of information and available alternative brands in the market
along with competitive value proposition. As a result, the postmodern consumers avoid brand
commitment so easily and exercise the right of moving to the available alternative substitute
brand (Gould and Lerman 1998). Therefore, along with branding strategy, the postmodern
marketers try to introduce more sophisticated and strategically profound RM factor focused
rebranding and anti-branding principle and practice to keep the consumers loyal (Gide and
Shams 2011a). From this perspective, the transformation from modernism to postmodernism
society introduces some key issues in the marketplace, which emerge as confronting issues for
marketers. The modern consumer valued the functionality and utility value of a specific product or
service, and the ability of this product or service to solve their need, while the postmodern
consumer is less concerned with the content value rather than symbolic or cultural value of a
product or service (Berner and Tonder 2003). The postmodern consumer is focused on a more
intangible problem or need, that of building a sense of self or identity in a highly dynamic,
complex and fragmented society, and is consequently more interested in the symbolic or cultural
value that a specific product or service projects, and the image it holds, rather than its content
value. Loyalty to a brand (as with modern consumers) will not be a base for competing in the
postmodern marketplace. As a result, the following issues are emerged as the key concerns of
postmodern marketplace (Berner and Tonder 2003):
□ Consumer controlled markets;
□ Mass customisation of products and services;
□ Targeted micro and niche markets;
□ Expanded range of product offerings and product categories;
□ Mass consumption through consumer controlled customised production process;
□ Overwhelming of information about substitute brands;
□ Hyper-reality: influence of market space;
□ Complex buying decision making process because of overwhelming of information
and the tendency of being influenced by imagery and symbolic representation of
value;
□ Focus on facts, appearance, experience;
□ Fragmented, unstable and unpredictable markets;
□ Diversified markets from multicultural perspective;
□ Less brand loyalty.
The identified issues of the postmodern market have been influencing consumers’ value
perception and marketeers’ value proposition intensely. Moreover, the issues are
transforming to their new and modified state rapidly and continuously. Simultaneously,
only the traditional 4Ps marketing thinking and practice are not able to cope up with the
changing trend of the postmodern market. From time to time, several market issues have
added additional Ps on top of the core 4Ps to deal prolifically the changing market trend. The
addition of several Ps are not devaluating the core concept of the 4Ps, instead the several Ps just
adding additional relationship values to the market, which are concerned with people, public
opinion, public relation, participation, political power and so forth. As a result, the RM
becomes the core concept of the postmodern marketing thinking and practice, as the RM
carrying out the values of traditional 4Ps, as well as it extends the marketing thinking and
practice from production concept to value proposition concept of stakeholder relationship
marketing.
EVOLUTION OF RM TO RESPOND THE POSTMODERN MARKETING
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Less brand loyalty, diversified volatile market, mass consumption, overwhelming of
information, influence of hyper-reality, complex buying decision process, importance on
facts, appearance and experience and so forth construct a distinct set of market concern for
the postmodern market from the transition of modern market. The market is completely value
oriented, where the whole process of production to delivery and consumption value
proposition is centred on consumers’ value perception. Again, consumers frequently practice
their right to move from brand to brand, as soon as their value perception differs from the
value proposition of a specific brand. Therefore, marketers of the postmodern market devoted
to RM, as RM is concerned with stakeholder value proposition.
RM is certainly about building a longer-term relationship with customers/audiences, driven
by a holistic perspective of relationships as potentially lasting a lifetime (Rentschler 2003). In
RM, the parties will work together to design and realign processes to support each other.
Fundamentally there is a continuous and collaborative effort between the parties to the
relationship and an understanding of long-term commitment (Tomer 1998). This long-term
commitment creates bonds that will subsequently become increasingly tight. It is indicated
there is the creation of a chain of relationships (Gordon 1998). Essentially RM attempts to
create value for customers and share that value with the key stakeholders in a venture
(Gordon 1998). RM helps marketers to delight the target market, instead of only satisfying
them. Kotler (2003) describes how customers estimate which offer will deliver the most
value. Customers are value-optimisers, within the bounds of search costs and limited
knowledge, mobility, and income. They form an expectation of value and act on it. Whether
or not the offer lives up to the value expectation affects both satisfaction and repurchases
probability. So customer’s value perception must be analysed thoroughly during the value
creation for customers, and marketers should be considered that what ultimate image value,
personal value, services value, product value are being provided to customer against their
psychic cost, energy cost, time cost, monetary cost and total customer cost. Therefore,
marketers utilise the RM concept to prolifically meet and exceed consumer value proposition,
as RM is to identify, establish, maintain, and enhance value with customers and other
stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties involved are met; and this is done
by mutual exchange and the fulfillment of promises (Gronroos 1996). Furthermore, some
others (Gronroos 1996; Gummesson 2002) think that the RM is a paradigm shift that changes
marketing thinking.
Gummesson (2002) described RM does not exclude transaction marketing or anonymous
mass marketing when those are justified. RM does not throw the 4Ps overboard, just changes
their position. Most significantly, RM can be applicable to any industry and market, but the
relationship portfolio should follow only the given situation of the target market. RM
signifies the value proposition should be meaningful in terms of all associated stakeholders’
perspectives, including consumers. Therefore, the postmodern marketers adapt RM principles
in their marketing management, as it responds the postmodern marketing management issues.
Table 2 summarises the RM application against the postmodern marketing management
issues.
(insert table 2)
RM has become the fundamental concept of postmodern marketing. Regrettably, RM is not
as straightforward as its definition. It requires at the very least a long-term outlook, an
embracing of technology and a commitment to customer focus. Stavros (2005) describes that
RM provides a fertile and detailed area of inquiry and as a relatively new marketing concept;
the possibilities of exploration and advancement of RM are significant. Therefore, RM has
been entrenched in postmodern marketing management, as well as its fertile and further
development nature, RM has established itself to respond prolifically the continuously
changing trend of the postmodern market.
THE TRANSDISCIPLINARY MODE-2 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION OF RM
RM proportionates with the Transdisciplinary Mode-2 knowledge production concept, which
helps RM to prolifically influence various multifarious issues of the postmodern market.
Mode-2 knowledge production is a term to denote a shift in the way society expects and
accepts knowledge production (Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons 2001), whereas Mode-1
knowledge production is based on traditional scientific research within a single discipline,
while Mode-2 knowledge production is based on transdisciplinary and is concerned with
knowledge as it works in practice in the context of application (Gibbons et al. 1994). Along
with increasing the complexity of the postmodern market, the traditional 4Ps marketing
management adapts RM as more strategically profound value oriented concept, where RM
provides stakeholder relationship centred value proposition, based on understanding
customers’ latent and contemporary needs (society expects and accepts knowledge) from a
transdisciplinary Mode- 2 value proposition (knowledge production) viewpoint. For example,
the postmodern consumers focus on facts, appearance and experience. From this context, RM
helps to convey facts to the target market through distilled information purified by market
research (statistical software) and conveyed by web based social media (Information
Technology). Graham (2003, p. 1) described:
Mode 1 and Mode 2 represent two contrasting forms of society (market): the society
of modernism and postmodernism respectively. Mode 1 society connotes the
scientism of bygone modernism (Nowotny 1999) that exemplifies production
capitalism. In contrast, Mode 2 society connotes a new economic rationalism in the
post modernity (Nowotny et al. 2001).
Likewise, Gummesson (2002) described that concepts such as the industrial (production
capitalism) society, the post-industrial society, the knowledge era or the information age try to
spot the key changes that have also been labelled the new economy (the postmodern
economy). Here Modernism coincides with the logic of the industrial society where
transactional marketing were existed and post-modernism with the value and network society
where RM has taken place. Gummesson (2002) added, to a large extent, successful marketing
has always been postmodern. The knowledge production (value proposition) in the
postmodern market concerns the value of commercialising knowledge in terms of market
competitiveness, cost effectiveness and social (customer) acceptability. These involve the
contextualised application of knowledge production (Graham 2003). Simultaneously, Graham
(2003) elaborated that the Transdisciplinary Mode-2 knowledge production involves three
interconnected
concepts:
contextualisation,
transgressiveness
and
hyper-rationality.
Transdisciplinarity is synonymous with the transgrassive nature of Mode-2 society and
inherent in its accountability, joint problem solving, quality control, multiple stakeholders, the
two-way communication between society and science, the conceptualisation of the
participants and in the multiple centres of research activity (Gibbons and Nowotny 2001).
Again, Graham (2003 p. 10) demonstrates that:
According to Nowotny et al. (2001), Mode-1 scientific methodology (single
disciplinary 4Ps marketing management) is increasingly unable to compete with the
transgressive images of science disseminated by the media, users and critics. In
Consequence, Transdisciplinary Mode-2 (RM focused marketing management)
knowledge production can be said to commensurate with societal, market, cultural
and scientific domains of the postmodern society.
Therefore, the postmodern marketers have been increasingly utilising the Transdisciplinary
Mode-2 value proposition approach of RM to cope up with the complexity of the postmodern
market. Table 3 demonstrates the Transdsciplinary Mode-2 value proposition (knowledge
production) approach of RM.
(insert table 3)
In Transdisciplinary Mode-2 approach, entrepreneurial competition is generated by the
principle of continuous improvement such that innovation has become systemic and drives
capitalist economic advantage (Romer 1990; Burton-Jones 2001). Simultaneously, Nicolescu
(1993) conceive transdisciplinarity as hyper-rationality involving the transcendence of
learning beyond disciplinarity. Employing quantum thinking, Nicolescu (1993) conceives the
hyper-rationality of different realities as essential for meaningful knowledge production.
Nicolescu (1999) refers Lupascu’s work as a new logic where Luposco posits the concept of
‘T’ to represent ‘the included third (or middle)’. The axiom of the included middle states that
there exists a third term ‘T’ that is at the same time A and non-A. Nicolescu (1999)
demonstrates the three terms ‘A’, ‘non-A’ and ‘T’ and the dynamics associated with them by
a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other
vertices at another level of Reality (portrayed in Figure 1).
(insert figure 1)
Nicolescu (2002) demonstrated that knowledge (reality) is existed on different levels and the
issues existed in the associated triangle (through ‘T’, ‘A’ and ‘non-A’) of two different levels
of realities (NR 1 and NR 2) that collectively could discover a new knowledge (reality). It is
similar to the logic of no knowledge is not new as all knowledge are existed from the very
beginning of the civilization and it has been discovering one by one. There are various
marketing management issues (modernist and postmodernist) are existed in the triangle
(through ‘T’, ‘A’ and ‘non-A’) of the Figure 1, where, NR 1 represents the modernist single
disciplinary 4Ps marketing management era, and the NR 2 represents the postmodernist
Transdisciplinary Mode-2 value proposition era of RM. These two levels of reality (NR 1 and
NR 2) collectively influence the postmodern marketing management issues through the
fundamental 4Ps marketing management concept and Transdisciplinary Mode-2 value
proposition of RM, and collectively develop, initiate, maintain and enhance value proposition
(new knowledge production) in response of postmodern marketing management issues to
delight postmodern consumers.
IMPLICATION AND CONCLUSION
The paper attempts to develop an idea about the transition of modern to postmodern market,
associated marketing management issues, and the evolution of marketing management
thinking, practice and trend to respond the marketing management issues of the postmodern
market. The 4Ps traditional marketing management, which was initiated during the modern
market, has been transforming to several Ps RM focused and strategically profound
marketing thinking and practice to cope up with the postmodern marketing management
issues. Several postmodern marketing management issues are presented in the paper, which
are practically uncontrollable through the traditional single disciplinary 4Ps marketing
management, as it is established that the Mode-1 scientific methodology (single disciplinary
4Ps marketing management) is increasingly unable to compete with the postmodern
marketing management issues. Therefore, marketing practice turns to emphasizing on
collective interests of all associated stakeholders by creating mutual prolific value instead of
only concerning individual goals in response to postmodern issues through the application of
RM focused Transdisciplinary Mode-2 value proposition. RM has established itself as a
practical value centred fundamental concept of postmodern marketing management, applying
itself as a value proposition, based on transdisciplinary input in the value package, and
presenting the value, based on how the target market expects and accepts (Mode-2 knowledge
production) a certain value. After demonstrating the evolution of marketing thinking and its
trend briefly, the paper presented a short and snappy description about the transition from
modern market to post modern market and associated implications on marketing
management. Because of the different stimulating attributes of these two markets, the
consumers of the both markets act differently. A significant number of issues have been
identified from the literature that has been impacting the postmodern marketing management.
The modern consumers were passive members of the value delivery network, where the
consumers were happy, as soon as their needs were satisfied. In contrary, the postmodern
consumers are the active member of the value delivery network, where the entire value
delivery network is designed to delight the consumers’ actual and latent needs. In a word, the
consumers are the ultimate architect of the postmodern value delivery network. Marketers
first try to realise the actual and latent contemporary needs of the consumers in postmodern
market, then they design how that needs could be met and exceeded. The value consciousness
of postmodern consumers, availability of several substitute brands, overwhelming of
information, influence of market space, along with traditional marketplace, mass
consumption, importance on facts, appearance and experience and so forth makes them hard
to please. Therefore, the postmodern marketers have started to think about more value
focused value delivery process to meet and exceed postmodern marketing management
issues. From this perspective, the RM has evolved with a win-win outcome centred value
delivery network for all involved stakeholders. RM concentrates to create mutually beneficial
value for consumers and share that value with other stakeholders. A succinct demonstration
has been presented in the paper in regards of how RM responds to the postmodern marketing
management issues.
As the modern consumers were only a passive member of the value delivery network, it was
fairly adequate to bridge the market gaps through traditional 4Ps marketing practice. On the
other hand, because of the redefined value perception of the postmodern consumers, the RM
has evolved to respond the postmodern value proposition, where RM is built on a synthesis
between traditional marketing management, marketing mix and the 4Ps; services marketing;
the network approach to B-to-B; quality management; network organisations; new accounting
principles; IT; and the experience of the reflective practitioner. Moreover, RM could utilise
other disciplinary knowledge as and when required, based on the expectation and acceptance
of the postmodern market to cope up with the contemporary and latent market trend, which
should be validated by market competitiveness, cost effectiveness and social/customer
acceptability, in addition to peer review. RM intends the value proposition based on
anticipating the value perception of the consumers. Therefore, such a Transdisciplinary
Mode-2 value proposition (knowledge production) approach of RM helps marketers to
respond the complex and sometime vague value perception of the postmodern consumers.
Indeed, RM becomes the fundamental marketing management concept in the postmodern
market. Furthermore, a concise description has been presented on how the single disciplinary
Mode-1 knowledge production of traditional 4Ps marketing management and the
Transdisciplinary Mode-2 knowledge production of RM proportionate with the different
perspectives of modernist and postmodernist eras. A symbolic representation of two different
realities (4Ps single disciplinary Mode-1 value delivery and RM based Transdisciplinary
Mode-2 value proposition) has been demonstrated in order to exemplify how underlying the
4Ps marketing management, and in association with transdisciplinary input, RM delivers,
maintains and enhance value and responds to the postmodern market based on the way the
market expects and accepts (Mode-2 knowledge production) value. Therefore, the learning
from the literature review facilitates to realise the Transdisciplinary Mode-2 Knowledge
production (value proposition) approach of RM in order to meet and exceed contemporary
needs of the target markets.
References
Berner, A and Tonder, CLV (2003), “The Postmodern Consumer: Implications of Changing
Customer Expectations for Organisational Development in Service Organisation,” Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 29 (3), 1-10.
Burke, B (2000), “ Post-modernism and Post-modernity,” (accessed June 25, 2011), [available
at http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-postmd.htm ].
Burton-Jones, A (2001), Knowledge Capitalism-Business, Work, and Learning in the New
Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Featherstone, M (1991), Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Firat, AF and Dholakia, N (1995), “Marketing in a Postmodern world”, European Journal of
Marketing, 29 (1), 40-57.
Friedman, LW (2006), “Writing the Literature Survey Paper”, (accessed June 30, 2011),
[available at http://cisnet.baruch.cuny.edu/friedman/rm/litreview.htm ].
Hassard, J (1993), Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms, and
Postmodernity. Cambridge: University Press.
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P and Trow, M (1994), The New
Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
Gibbons, M and Nowotny, H (2001), The Potential of Transdisciplinarity. London: Thompson.
Gide, E and Shams, SMR (2011a), “The Impact of Relationship Marketing on Reinforcing
Corporate Brand, Identity and Reputation: Analysis of Five Sport Cases”, in the 7th global brand
conference of the Academy of Marketing’s brand, corporate identity and reputation sig
proceedings, Oxford: Kogan Page, 55-57.
Gide, E and Shams, SMR (2011b), “The Role of Web-based Promotion on the Development of a
Relationship Marketing Model to Enable Sustainable Growth”, Procedia Computer Science, 3,
1060-1073.
Gordon, I (1998), Relationship Marketing: New Strategies, Techniques and Technologies to
Win the Customer You Want and Keep Them Forever. Ontario: John Wiley & Sons Canada
Ltd.
Gould, SG and Lerman, DB (1998), “Postmodern versus Long-standing Cultural Narratives
in Consumer Behaviour: An Empirical Study of NetGirl online”, European Journal of
Marketing, 32 (7/8),644-654.
Graham, C (2003), “ The Transition from Mode-1 to Mode-2 Society: The Implications for
Education,” (accessed May 15, 2011) [available at http://www.futures1.net/docs/Mode2%20Paper.doc.pdf ].
Gronroos, C (1996), “Relationship Marketing: Strategic and Tactical Implications,”
Management Decision, 34 (3), 5-14.
Gronroos, C (2004), “The Relationship Marketing Process: Communication, Interaction,
Dialogue, Value,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19 (2), 99-113.
Gummesson, E (2002), Total Relationship Marketing. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kotler, P (2003), Marketing Management, International edn. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Little, E and Marandi, E (2003), Relationship Marketing Management. Singapore: Thomson
Learning.
MapActive (2000), “E-business: Breakfast Briefing,” Johannesburg: Gallo Manor.
Murphy, B, Maguiness, P, Pescott, C, Wislang, S, Ma, J and Wang, R (2005), “Stakeholder
Perceptions Presage Holistic Stakeholder Relationship Marketing Performance,” European
Journal of Marketing, 39 (9/10), 1049-59.
Nicolescu, B (1993), “Towards a Transdisciplinary Education,” paper presented in the
Conference on Education of the Future, 4-8 October, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Nicolescu, B (1999), “Godelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge,” (accessed June 12,
2011) [available at http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm].
Nicolescu, B (2002), Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Nowotny, H, Scott, P and Gibbons, M (2001), Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the
Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rentschler, R (2003”, “Focus Groups with Corporate Clients of the Australian Cricket Board
and the Australian Football League in regard to their Relationship Marketing Needs,”
(accessed January 24, 2008) [available at
http://www.fuel4arts.com/files/attach/RelnMktForum1.PDF ].
Romer, PM (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy, 98,
(5), 71-102.
Shams, SMR (2011), “A Relationship Marketing Model to Enable Sustainable Growth of the
Bangladesh Cricket Board: A Stakeholder Causal Scope Analysis,” doctoral dissertation,
Central Queensland University.
Stavros, C (2005), “Relationship Marketing in Australian Professional Sport: An
Organisational Perspective,” doctoral dissertation, Griffith University.
Thomas, MJ (1997), “Consumer Market Research: Does it have Validity? Some Postmodern
Thoughts,” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15, (2), 54-59.
Tomer, JF (1998), “Beyond Transaction Markets toward Relationship Marketing in the
Human Firm: A Socio-economic Model,” The Journal of Socio- Economics, 27 (2),207-228.
Table 1: the marketing mix and the extension of the 4Ps.
4Ps
McCarthy (1960)
5Ps
Judd (1987)
6Ps
Kotler (1984)
7Ps
Booms and Bitner
(1981)
15Ps
Baumgartner (1991)
Product, Price, Promotion, Place
Product, Price, Promotion, Place, People
Product, Price, Promotion, Place, Political power, Public opinionformation
Product, Price, Promotion, Place, Participants, Physical evidence,
Process
Product/service, Price, Promotion, Place, People, Politics, Public
relations, Probe, Partition, Prioritise, Position, Profit, Plan,
Performance, Positive implementations
(Source: Little and Marandi, 2003)
Table 2: RM application against the postmodern marketing management issues
Postmodern Marketing
Management Issues
RM Application
Consumer controlled markets
RM is a marketing based on interaction in networks of
relationships with particular emphasis on customer relationshipsturned into prolific application of value proposition. Therefore,
RM responses against consumers’ superiority on value proposition.
Mass customisation of products
and services
RM is centred on customised production and marketing to the
individual and reduced focus on standardised mass production and
mass marketing. RM treats each customer is an individual or a
member of a niche market of like-minded customers.
Targeted micro and niche
markets
RM helps marketers to identify, meet, satisfy and delight the latent
needs of the market by further segmenting of a segmented market,
where the further segmentation of a segmented market helps to
closely realise and serve every single and even smaller needs,
wants and demands of the market through niche marketing,
whereas marketers usually identify niches by dividing a segment
into various sub-segments.
Expanded range of product
offerings and product categories
RM focuses on the selection of the relationships that a company
will focus on in its marketing. Therefore, it helps RM to customise
the production and marketing of expanded range of product
offerings and product categories based on the selection of
relationship portfolio.
Mass consumption through
consumer controlled customised
production process
One of the key concerns of RM is developing a customised
consumption pattern.
Overwhelming of information
about substitute brands
Customer relationship management through database marketing is
one of the prolific applications of RM against value proposition. RM
manages market information and tries to manipulate consumers and
competitors through database marketing.
Hyper-reality: influence of
market space
RM is applicable to any industry, but the relationship portfolio
should follow only the given situation of the target market.
Similarly, RM influences ecommerce prolifically.
Complex buying decision
process
Through relationship building and enhancing exercises, RM helps
consumers in their decision making. RM tries to provide flexibility
on customers’ preferences, which helps to influence buying
decision.
Focus on facts, appearance,
experience
RM proves advantage through customers’ experience.
Continued...
Postmodern Marketing
Management Issues
RM Application
Fragmented, unstable,
diversified and unpredictable
markets
RM offers products and services by understanding customer and
other stakeholder’s contemporary and latent needs, which helps
postmodern marketers to cope up with the volatile postmodern
markets.
Less brand loyalty
RM has been contributing significantly in all aspects of marketing
management since its evolution including enhancing brand image,
corporate identity and reputation.
(Source: adapted from Gummesson 2002; Berner and Tonder 2003; Shams 2011; Gide and
Shams 2011a, 2011b)
Table 3: transdisciplinary mode-2 value proposition (knowledge production) of RM
Transdisciplinary Input
Mode-2 Knowledge Production of RM
Theoretical and practical
foundation of RM
RM is built on a synthesis between traditional marketing management,
marketing mix and the 4Ps; services marketing; the network approach to
B-to-B; quality management; network organisations; new accounting
principles; IT; and the experience of the reflective practitioner.
Links to management
RM represents marketing-oriented management-an aspects of the total
management of the firm-and is not limited to marketing or sales
departments; the marketing plan becomes part of the business plan.
Links to accounting
The balanced scorecard and intellectual capital provide tools for
measuring return on relationships (ROR).
Links to organisational RM is the marketing manifestation of the network organisation.
perspective
Links to economics
RM adds collaboration to competition and regulations/institutions; the
symbioses of these contribute to a dynamic marketing equilibrium.
Links to society, citizens RM is the marketing of the value and network society with increased
and market economy
focus on customised production and marketing to the individual, and
reduced focus on standardised mass production and mass marketing.
Links to legal validity of By focusing on relationships, networks and interaction, RM offers a more
commercial relationship
realistic approach to the marketing management in the new economy. In
practice, RM works through a network of relationships, where
relationship commitments are connected through legal commercial
contract.
Links to Statistics
Links to
Technology
Market insight analysis is one of the precondition to utilise RM.
Therefore, RM uses statistical tools and software to conduct market
research and analysis.
Information Customer Relationship Management software, database marketing,
utilisation of web based marketing channels and other Information
Technology enhanced software are used prolifically as RM tool.
Links to Psychology
RM studies human (consumer) mind (buying/consumption) behaviour.
Links to other discipline
As a relatively new marketing concept, RM provides a fertile field of
exploration and advancement. Moreover, one of the ingredients of RM is
the experience of the reflective practitioner. Therefore, RM could utilise
other disciplinary knowledge as and when required, based on the
expectation and acceptance of the postmodern market to cope up with the
contemporary and latent market trend, which should be validated by
market competitiveness, cost effectiveness and social/customer
acceptability, in addition to peer review.
(Source: adapted from Gummesson 2002; Graham 2003)
T
NR2 (Transdisciplinary
Mode-2 Value
Proposition of RM)
A
non-A
NR1(Single Disciplinary 4Ps
Transactional Marketing)
Influence of NR 1
and NR 2 on
postmodern
marketing
management issues
Figure 1: Symbolic representation of the action of the logic of the included middle (T) in
which NR represents a level of reality.
(Source: adapted from Nicolescu 2002)
AUTHOR DETAILS
Dr S M Riad Shams
Doctoral Graduate and Alumni of
The Central Queensland University
4/116 Rossmore Avenue
Punchbowl, NSW-2196, Australia
Email: shamsriad@gmail.com
Phone: +61 401 059 176