Targeting the Post-Modern Consumer

7/29/2019 Targeting the Post-Modern Consumer

1/12

Targeting the postmodern consumer: Marketing Strategy Implications

Introduction to the postmodernist landscape

The postmodernist movement has been a key topic of discussion between intellectuals

across numerous academic fields for a number of years now. From psychology, to

economics, to marketing and almost every other field imaginable, postmodern has

become a buzz word of the new millennium, an attempt to label the enormous societal

changes this transition has brought with it. Described by Brown as one of the

dominant organising concepts across the social and human sciences (2003, pg. 22),

postmodernism as an ideal is very difficult to accurately define, as it can be

interpreted in a number of different ways and can mean completely different things to

different people. Most academics would agree upon the fact that postmodernism

refers to the passing of a critical point of learning in a field of knowledge or art, one

which will forever change the environment of the field in question.

In a marketing sense this critical point of learning can be defined as the latter dayadvent of interpretive or naturalistic approaches to the analysis of consumption

activities (Brown, 1995, pg. 287-288). As a result of 2 key factors, defined by Firat

and Dholakia as unprecedented developments in several technologies and watershed

transformations in culture (2006, pg. 123), consumers in todays postmodern world

are more knowledgeable, informed and critical than ever before. Consumers know

exactly what they want and how they want to experience it, and are no longer willing

to accept a product that merely satisfies a threshold level of their needs and desires.

The postmodern consumer is very heavily image focused, and often places a higher

emphasis on the image aspect of a good/service rather than the actual quantitative

aspects of their purchase.

As well as being heavily image focused, postmodern consumers exhibit conditions

such as hyper-reality, fragmentation, reversals of the roles of production and

consumption and a loss of commitment (Firat et al, 1993, pg. 41). The overarching

postmodern experience seems to be based entirely around the fact that postmodernism


2/12

itself is a juxtaposition of opposites/ contrary perspectives, and this is one of the few

things that is almost universally accepted in academic literature written about the

postmodern consumer/ marketing environment. These severe changes in consumer

behavioural patterns resulting from the transformation of consumers to a postmodern

consumer mindset, coupled with the uncertainty created by the contrary perspectives

mentioned earlier, will have a serious impact on the field of marketing, both from an

intellectual/academic (marketing theories) and, managerial (marketing practices)

perspective.

Postmodern marketing and the postmodern consumer

Since the rise to prominence and acceptance of marketing in the mid-to-late 1950s

the field has grown phenomenally, both in an intellectual and practical sense.

Although the economic ideals of which the early (and most basic) marketing theories

were based upon have not changed dramatically over the years, the scope and range of

marketing has grown (and continues to grow) at a tremendous rate. Today marketing

is an incredibly complex field that perhaps has more in common with psychology than

economics. Modern day marketing places a great importance on attempting to

understand and predict consumer behavioural patterns, as well as understanding the

motivation and decisions made by consumers that impact upon their buying into of

the marketing idea. Although the field of marketing was around long before

discussions about postmodernity began to become widely discussed in intellectual

circles (around the 1970s), it has been argued that since its conception the field of

marketing has always been of a postmodern design, even before the idea of

postmodernism began to spread throughout society and other fields. Indeed Firat et

al. have said that marketing acted as a precursor to the larger society for the ideals

of postmodernism (1993. pg. 43).

But while marketing may have had postmodern leanings from the beginning, the shift

in marketing theory that will be required to successfully satisfy the needs and wants of

the new wave of postmodern consumers will fundamentally change marketing

forever. Addis and Podesta even went so far as to describe this new marketing

environment as being founded on four Cs; change, complexity, chaos and

contradiction (2005), and Cova has said that Postmodernism proposes a complete


3/12

rethinking of the principles of marketing theory in particular (1996). The

implications the postmodern movement will have on the field of marketing are clear.

Modern marketing requires a complete overhaul if it is to continue to grow and

maintain its current status as a definition of the global society in which it operates. It

seems likely that the greatest change the move to postmodernism will have on modern

marketing is upon the current established marketing research practices. These current

research methods now appear to be too limited in their scope to adequately capture the

true essence of the postmodern consumer, and consequently now seem heavily

outdated.

As a result of the enormous societal changes postmodernism has introduced to the

global consumer base, new methods that more accurately reflect the postmodern

consumers behavioural patterns (and the social and cultural implications of these

behavioural changes) must now be developed to accurately identify and satisfy the

marketing needs of the new postmodern consumers. Although they are a vast number

of differences between modern and postmodern marketing (see appendices 1 and 2),

there are 3 key changes that bare the most importance. These three major aspects of

the postmodern consumer are: (1) their emphasis on image, (2) their movement

towards neo-tribalism and (3) the contrary and juxtaposing nature of their behaviours.

These 3 concepts (as well as the implications they will have on marketing practices

and strategies) will be discussed in detail below.

The power of the image

In traditional marketing theory the image is used to represent how the value of a

good/service will be perceived by consumers (Czepiel 1992), basically the image was

something the product/service projected outwards. However even from the early days

of marketing, marketers have always placed a greater emphasis on the image than the

theory would have suggested was prudent. The image was what was being marketed

and sold, and the product was merely a prop designed to support and display this

image. In this respect the actual practice of marketing (rather than the academic

theorising) has proven to be incredibly ahead of its time in this respect, with the

famous phrase sell the sizzle, not the steak far pre-dating discussions of

postmodernist nature (Firat et al. 1993, pg. 45). In todays postmodern era these


4/12

practices are more relevant than ever. Consumers are no longer mere consumers of

products; they are now completely in agreement with what marketing departments

and managers have been promoting all along: With products come an image, and this

image is the key aspect (Cova 1996, pg 16-17). The image is now the primary desire

of the postmodern consumer, and this has begun to cause a fundamental shift in the

foundations of marketing theories. Marketing theorists now realise that in the

postmodern world products are now merely used as a variable that attempts to

represent the image (Firat et al. 1993, pg. 45), and consumers are free (and indeed

expect to be able to) to interpret this image in whatever way best suits their needs.

Postmodern consumers do this through a vast number of ways, twisting and

interpreting the image of a product to suit their lifestyle needs. Mc Kenna (1995)

describes this phenomenon as real-time or participatory marketing, and this has lead

to image marketing having an increased presence in the postmodern marketing

environment (image marketing can be defined as the conscious and planned practice

of signification and representation (Cova 1996, pg 20).

This participatory marketing idea is directly linked to the postmodern condition of

hyper-reality, which is where reality has collapsed and become exclusively image,

illusion or simulation (Cova 1996, pg. 16). The hyper-real is a reproduction, it lacks

authenticity, and yet this is now what postmodern consumers desire. Consumers no

longer want to be merely a target for products; they now want to be the creators of

their own experiences. This need to experience something that they themselves have

created is just another example of the postmodern consumers desire to create their

own self-image, something that has become an integral part of consumer behaviour in

the postmodern marketing environment.

Juxtaposition of opposites

As mentioned before the juxtaposition of opposites is one of the key aspects of the

postmodern marketing environment. Pitt and Schlegelmilch have likened the

postmodern era (not just postmodern marketing) to the roman god Janus, the god of

beginnings and endings...always represented by a double-faced head, with the faces

looking in opposite directions (2008, pg. 70). This image of Janus is an accurate

representation for the postmodern marketing era, and it is clear that this comparison


5/12

could just as easily be applied to the behavioural patterns of the postmodern

consumers. Consumers went to be individualistic, yet part of a tribe. Consumers want

to create a unique self-image, yet they want to do it by using the images of products to

support them. Consumers desire products that satisfy their needs and desires, yet that

is not the primary reason for which they are purchased. The list of contrary wants

goes on and on. The only certain aspect of postmodern marketing is that the

environment is uncertain. This poses a serious problem for marketing theorists and

practitioners across the globe. Modern marketing had many frameworks, theories and

structures over the years that were used to explain key concepts such as consumer

behaviour and effective market segmentation. Surely it is impossible to create

similarly rigid, well structured and logical theoretical frameworks for such an

uncertain postmodern environment, one that is in a constant state of contrariness?

Brown suggests that it is possible to achieve such goals, and that the answer is simply

to copy postmodern marketings complete 180 degree turn from established modern

marketing theory, and allow for the huge amount of uncertainty in postmodern

marketing by taking an open, untargeted, ill-defined, imprecise approach, which

leaves scope for imaginative consumer participation (Brown 2003, pg. 22). This

view suggests that its simply no longer possible to quantify the consumer market to

such a precise degree in the postmodern environment, and so a less structured, more

open approach would better serve the new postmodern environment. It is interesting

also to note that Browns view emphasises the importance of consumer participation.

This once again ties in with the view that postmodern consumers have become

creators of unique experiences, rather than consumers of generic products.

In the postmodern age of marketing consumers give feedback and explicit instructions

on exactly what they want, and so it makes sense to tailor marketing efforts to this

feedback, rather than marketing in the way that a framework or theory suggests best

suits a certain consumers grouping (as marketers in the modern age of marketing did).

It is ironic that in order to adequately adapt to the changes the wave of postmodernism

brings, that marketing may in fact have to simply change its structure that match that

of the postmodern marketing environment. Brown believes that through marketing in

this way postmodern marketing can exceed the sum of its parts and become a


6/12

sublime whole (Brown, 2003, pg. 22), which is really what the postmodern

marketing environment needs in the long term.

Neo-Tribalism

Perhaps the major implication the postmodernist movement will have on consumer

targeting strategy is the ability to answer the fundamental question of who is the

target market? This seemingly simple question becomes much more difficult to

answer in the postmodern environment, where accurate consumer profiling suddenly

becomes much more complex and uncertain than it ever was before. The purpose of

targeting is to break consumers into segmented groups based on behavioural,

psychographic and profile criteria (for example perceptions, personality, lifestyle,

socio economic demographic and so on), in order to product advertising techniques

designed to appeal directly to these target groups (the target market for a

good/service) (Jobber 2007, pg. 283-284). However it has become increasingly

difficult to effectively group postmodern consumers into reference groups such as

those that have been used since the conception of marketing theory, and not only that

but that grouping in them in this manner is no longer relevant in postmodern

marketing. Consumers no longer want to be merely grouped together according to

arbitrary criteria set out by a manager in a marketing department, the postmodern

consumers now want to engage with others who share similar believes and interests as

they do, and marketing as a field must adjust to these significant changes in their

consumers behavioural patterns.

This movement by consumers towards a more communal association has been

described as neo-tribalism. This tribal aspect of postmodern consumer behaviour

was described by Cova and Cova as the re-emergence of quasi-archaic values; a

sense of identification.the common denominator of which is the community

dimension (2001). The neo-tribalism aspect of the postmodern consumer era marks

a distinct change from the market segmentation that was demonstrated and practiced

in the past. As a result of these societal shifts postmodern researchers (no longer)

attach too much importance to coherent consumer groupings, because their belief (is

now) that such groupings are based on imagined, implausible consumer profiles

(Cova and Cova 2001). Cova and Cova explained the difference between tribes and


7/12

segments was that a tribe is a networkof heterogeneous individuals as opposed to a

segment, which is a group of homogenous people (2001, pg. 69). The difference is

rather than the consumers being viewed as being identical and grouped together as a

result of their characteristics, the consumers are viewed as being unique and

networked, linked to one another based on their sharing of an experience or passion, a

shared experience of reality (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). This is why consumers

now place such an emphasis on the image and linking value of the goods/services they

purchase.

The implications of this are obvious, the tested and trusted marketing segmentation

and targeting theories that have been in use for over 50 years are now bordering on

irrelevance, they have become outdated and obsolete. And as such the marketing

practices that are used every day by organisations across the globe are equally

antiquated, being based on what were once concrete marketing theories that have now

began to decline in relevancy. According to Firat and Schultz in fragmented

contemporary marketplaces (i.e. marketplaces containing postmodern consumer

culture) the effects on consumer research have already been quite severe, with long

established concepts such as consumer segmentation being rejected (1997).

Implications for marketing strategies / Conclusion

It has been clearly demonstrated that the movement from the modern to the

postmodern consumer has fundamentally changed the marketing landscape forever,

and that Postmodern conditions call for major transformations in the way marketing

is practised, theorised, researched and evaluated (Firat et al 1993). Established

theories focusing on aspects such as behavioural consistency and consumer needs that

have been practiced and perfected over a number of years are now subpar at best, if

not outright obsolete, and now need to be re-examined, recast or even abandoned

(Firat et al 1993). As mentioned earlier, marketing has evolved beyond merely

affecting society, and has now become one of the major socio-cultural forces that

define society. It has been suggested that marketing as a field needs a serious

overhaul, perhaps even a complete revolution in thinking, in order to properly fulfil

the immensely important role that it now plays in current times, as well as to produce


8/12

solid theories and strategies that accurately reflect and account for the high degrees of

complexity and uncertainty inherent in the postmodern marketing environment.

There is still much debate over how exactly this revolution could be best be achieved,

for example Sherry (1995) suggests approaching the topic of post-modern marketing

using a combination of a psychosocial viewpoint with an ethno sociological approach,

Simmons (2008) suggests that the revolution can be accomplished through using tools

such as the internet to foster communication and a greater degree of engagement with

consumers on both an individual and community-based level, whereas Cova (1996)

argues that whilst creating postmodern marketing theory the consumer (has to be

included) not as a target for products, but as a creator of experiences otherwise the

entire process will fail.

On the other hand some authors such as Brown argue whether or not this revolution

will ever materialise, even if it is necessary for marketing to remain relevant (1992).

Those in support of this view often argue that such revolutions are rare in the social

sciences (Brown 1992, pg. 25), and that this wave of postmodernism is just a fad that

will pass. A middle ground between these two extremes is presented by Pitt and

Schlegelmilch, who say that while change may be necessary, it need not be as

revolutionary as some may suggest, and that adopting to this changes slowly through

an adoption of the strategic evolution by creeps approach may be best suited in order

to avoid simply fixing what isnt broken (2008, pg. 80).

The bottom line is that there are numerous other viewpoints on the matter, and the

debate over how best to achieve the paradigm shift marketing needs to stay relevant in

the postmodern era continues even today, over a decade after the theory of post-

modern marketing began to gain academics/marketers interest. It is yet to be seen

which of these various approaches is best suited towards the creation of this new fount

of marketing knowledge, but it is most likely that the desired results will be best

achieved by the combining of a varied mixture of conflicting and juxtaposing styles

and viewpoints, much like the reality of postmodern marketing itself. I


9/12

Appendix

(1) Taken from:

Brown, S. (1992). Postmodern Marketing?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.

27, No. 4, pg. 22.

(2) Taken from:

Cova, B. (1996). The Postmodern Explained To Managers: Implications for

Marketing,Business Horizons, Vol. 39, No. 6, pg. 22.


10/12

References

Addis, M. and Podesta, S. (2005). Long Life to Marketing Research: A Postmodern

View,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 3/4, pg. 386-413

Brown, S. (1992). Postmodern Marketing?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.

27, No. 4, pg. 19-34.

Brown, S. (1995). Postmodern Marketing Research: No Representation Without

Taxation, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 37, No. 3 pg. 287-311.

Brown, S (2003). Postmodern Marketing: Everything must go! in Baker, M. (2003)

Eds, The Marketing Book, 5th ed, Genesis Typesetting, Rochester Kent.

Cova, B. (1996). The Postmodern Explained To Managers: Implications for

Marketing,Business Horizons, Vol. 39, No. 6, pg. 15-23.


11/12

Cova, B and Cova, V. (2001). Tribal Aspects Of Postmodern Consumption Research:

The Case Of French In-line Roller Skaters,Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1,

No. 1, pg. 67-76.

Czepiel, J. (1992). Competitive Marketing Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood - New

York.

Firat, A. and Dholakia, N. (2006). Theoretical and Philosophical Implications Of

Postmodern Debates: Some Challenges to Modern Marketing, Marketing Theory,

Vol. 6, Issue. 2, pg. 123-162.

Firat, A., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1993). Marketing in a postmodern world,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 1, pg. 40-56.

Firat, A. and Schultz, C. (1997). From segmentation to fragmentation: Markets and

marketing strategy in the Postmodern era, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30,

No. 3/4, pg. 183-207.

Holbrook, M. and Hirschmann, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:

Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 2,

pg. 253-260.

Jobber, D. (2007). Principles and Practices of Marketing 5th ed. McGraw Hill,

Maidenhead Berkshire.

Mc Kenna, R. (1995). Real-Time Marketing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73,No. 4, pg. 87-95.

Sherry, J. (1995). Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behaviour: An

Anthropological Sourcebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks - California.

Simmons, G. (2008). Marketing to Postmodern Consumers: Introducing the Internet

Chameleon,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, No.3/4, pg. 299-310.


12/12

Pitt, L. and Schlegelmilch, B. (2008). Juggling Janus Strategy for General

Managers in an Age of Paradoxical Trends, Journal of General Management, Vol.

33, No. 3, pg. 69-84.

Targeting the Post-Modern Consumer

Documents

Transcript of Targeting the Post-Modern Consumer