This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 09:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

(Mis)trust in marketing: a reflection onconsumers' attitudes and perceptionsTeresa Pereira M. Heath & Matthew HeathPublished online: 01 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Teresa Pereira M. Heath & Matthew Heath (2008) (Mis)trust in marketing: areflection on consumers' attitudes and perceptions, Journal of Marketing Management, 24:9-10,1025-1039, DOI: 10.1362/026725708X382037

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725708X382037

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTRODUCTION

The concept of marketing is inseparable from that of consumers. Marketing manuals devote extensive space to understanding consumers (e.g. Blythe 2006); top rated marketing journals stress the importance of consumer research (e.g. Journal of Consumer Research, Advances in Consumer Research), while marketing scholars proclaim the relevance of understanding consumers’ motivations, attitudes and

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 9-10, pp. 1025-1039ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online © Westburn Publishers Ltd. doi: 10.1362/026725708X382037

(Mis)trust in marketing: a reflection on consumers’ attitudes and perceptions

M. Teresa Pereira Heath, Universidade do Minho, Portugal*

Matthew Heath, Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal

Abstract Consumers are at the focal point of marketers’ attention. However, while extensive research is devoted to understanding consumers’ motivations, attitudes and behaviour, surprisingly little attention is given to the consumers’ views of marketing itself. This paper explores consumers’ attitudes towards marketing and their perceptions of it, reflecting critically upon their views. Since much criticism of marketing focuses on its role in promoting consumption, we also consider perceptions of current levels of consumption and the extent to which marketing is held responsible for them. Based on 29 in-depth interviews we find evidence suggesting the prevalence of negative attitudes towards marketing, especially associated with deceptive or dishonest campaigns, although marketing’s informative role is acknowledged. Importantly, findings reveal a limited understanding of the discipline, suggesting a gap between the concept of marketing and consumers’ perceptions of it. This paper sends marketers important messages from consumers and offers grounds for further debate.

Keywords Marketing, Criticisms, Consumers, Attitudes, Perceptions

JOURNAL OF

MARKETINGMANAGEMENT

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

behaviour. However, despite the importance of consumers to marketers, there is a surprising dearth of research into consumers’ feelings about marketing itself (especially since the nineties). Furthermore, those studies that do exist suggest that negative attitudes are the norm (Sheth and Sisodia 2005). Since consumers are at the core of marketing strategies, and their perceptions of marketing may be expected to influence their behaviour, marketing academics and practitioners should address their concerns. Additionally, as existing empirical research is based primarily on surveys, our understanding of consumers’ views would benefit from qualitative approaches.

The main purpose of this paper is to explore consumers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, marketing and to stimulate debate by reflecting on their own views. Since much of the published criticism of marketing focuses on its role in promoting excessive consumption, we also consider perceptions of current levels of consumption and their causes. This article answers calls for empirical research both into marketing’s part in promoting a consumer society (e.g. Kjellberg 2008) and into related criticisms of marketing (e.g. O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002). It is also a response to the welcome call of the 2008 Academy of Marketing Conference to reflect critically upon “marketing in a material world”.

We begin with an overview of relevant literature on criticisms of marketing, paying particular attention to the discipline’s part in promoting consumption. We then describe our research method, which consists of twenty nine in-depth interviews with consumers. Thereafter, we report the findings of interpretive and content analyses of participants’ accounts. Finally, we discuss the findings critically and raise some questions that should foster academic debate.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Customers have long been at the heart of most definitions of marketing (e.g. Keith 1960; Levitt 1960). Marketing is described as “the whole business from the customer’s point of view” (Drucker 1954, p. 39) and the customer is considered to be “at the centre” of the business universe (Keith, 1960, p. 35). While the marketing concept has evolved, this “customer focus” (Grönroos 2006, p. 407) has prevailed. Authors such as Dixon and Blois (1983) and Grönroos (1989) have highlighted the importance of a customer or market oriented conceptualisation of marketing, in contrast with a production-oriented approach. A marketing philosophy should include “a concern for the customers’ needs and wants, an appreciation of the benefits and satisfactions which are looked for” and “a genuine effort to establish a dialogue and build a long-term relationship” (Baker 2005, p. 19). The establishment of “mutually satisfying exchange relationships”, seen as the “true essence of marketing” (Baker 2005, p. 1), requires that customers get value from the actions of marketing (Webster 2002; Grönroos 2006), allowing companies to gain value in return (Kotler et al. 2008). Knowledge of the customer is essential to this (McGee and Spiro 1988; Webster 1994) and, accordingly, research techniques are employed to understand consumers and to learn which market offerings best satisfy them.

While marketing’s focus on consumers (and customers) may be a virtue, the discipline and its practices are often the target of suspicions (Smith 2005), and its ethics have long been questioned (e.g. Farmer 1967). Amongst other things, marketing has been associated with dishonest and “exploitative” (Sheth and Sisodia 2006, p. 4) practices, considered “the worst offender of the business functions” (Smith 2005, p. 248), and “viewed as manipulative and of questionable ethics” (Hunt and Chonko

JMM1026

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1027

1984, p. 32). Kelley (2007) states that marketing has always been regarded as “a bit iffy, unethical, amoral.” (p. 54). Several empirical studies, based on surveys, have revealed a dominance of negative attitudes and discontent towards marketing amongst consumers (e.g. French et al. 1982; Varadarajan and Thirunarayana 1990; Sheth et al. 2006). For example, Smith (2006) presents results from a Yankelovich Partners study, conducted in 2004, in which most respondents expressed a negative opinion of marketing and 60% agreed that their opinions of marketing and advertising had worsened over the past few years. Additionally, Simpson and Licata (2007) found that older people tend to be more negative about marketing than younger adults.

One of the main criticisms of marketing comes from a macro perspective of the discipline (e.g. Belk and Dholakia 1998) and rests on its promotion of a consumption-oriented vision of life (e.g. Rassuli and Hollander 1986; van Dam and Apeldoorn 1996) or excessive buying (e.g. Wu, Malhotra and Ittersum 2006; Kjellberg 2008). Marketing is considered to play an important part in the emergence of the so-called “consumer society”, where individuals are largely oriented towards spending and the accumulation of possessions (e.g. Buchholz 1998). This consumer society is said to be hedonistic, concerned with the search for instant gratification (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002) and with “the idea of pleasure as a way of life” (Buchholz 1998, p. 875; Campbell 1990). Literature on hedonic consumption (e.g. Hirschman and Holbrook 1982), reflects the pleasure-oriented nature of many consumer experiences, which may further serve as a reward or therapy for individuals’ life experiences (e.g. Mick and DeMoss 1990). As marketing endorses a hedonic attitude to consumption, it is further believed to facilitate the association of consumption with aspirations such as happiness (e.g. Alvesson 1994), social status (e.g. O’Cass and McEwen 2004) and quality of life (e.g. Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997). It is also said to foster consumption by fuelling a “cult of innovation” (Marion 2006, p. 254), in which new products are constantly promoted to replace enduring ones.

Advertising, in particular, is singled out as “the main propagandist for the pervasive logic of consumerism” (Rumbo 2002, p. 128). It is blamed for promoting high levels of consumption (e.g. Galbraith 1958), a materialistic lifestyle (e.g. Rassuli and Hollander 1986; van Dam and Apeldoorn 1996) and for making “consumption a top-of-mind behaviour” (Pollay 1986, p. 21), by associating pleasure, happiness and the good-life with consumption (e.g. Belk and Pollay 1985; Buchholz 1998). This concern that consumption is pushed to the centre of people’s consciousness is taken further by Rumbo (2002), who describes advertising as colonising public, discursive and individuals’ mental spaces, and of exerting control over these spaces. The powerful effect of advertising is facilitated by its intrusive and repetitive character (Pollay 1986). At the same time, advertising presents a worldview where consumption is presented as a commonplace (Pollay 1986); it lessens consumption-related guilt and offers an “alibi for self-indulgence” (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002, p. 526).

While advertising is said to have become more sophisticated in order to stimulate demand (Buchholz 1998), consumers fear the manipulative and subliminal techniques that it uses (Pollay and Mittal 1993). Pollay (1986) discusses how the language of advertising, the “incomplete information, half-truths and careful deceptions” (p. 22), affects its credibility. Consumers have consistently revealed a lack of confidence in advertising (e.g. Barksdale and Darden 1972; French et al. 1982; Pollay and Mittal 1993) and further criticised its effects on children (e.g. Young, de Bruin and Little 2003). In a recent survey conducted by GfK Custom Research (2008) on trust in various professional groups in Europe, advertisers were the second least trusted group, after politicians.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

Authors have discussed the downsides of the emphasis on consumption promoted by marketing and advertising. These include failing to deliver promised happiness (e.g. Campbell 1990; Alvesson 1994; Kiron 1997), problems with the natural environment (e.g. Buchholz 1998; Fuller 1999), consumer debt (e.g. Buchholz 1998; Wu et al. 2006), and distraction from important priorities and values (e.g. Pollay and Mittal 1993; Borgmann 2000).

Counteracting the view that marketing is a prime driver of consumption, some claim that it is a neutral tool, responding to consumer preferences and serving society (Smith 2005; Kjellberg 2008). This “neutral tool” theory is based on the view that consumers are sovereign and that is wrong to make moral judgments about their preferences (Kjellberg 2008). On this topic, many practitioners state caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) and argue that consumers can (and should) act in their own best interest (Smith 2005, p. 247). A related and ongoing debate is whether marketing (or advertising in particular) creates needs or wants (see, for example, Firat and Venkatesh 1998) or if it merely allows them to surface (see, for example, O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002). Before going any further, we mention Baker’s (2002) call to note the distinction between needs and wants. Baker argues that, even if marketers often use the words interchangeably, needs “represent basic requirements such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment”, while wants entail “highly specific means of satisfying these basic needs” (p. 190). While we agree with this, in this review we have used the two words as the original authors did. Galbraith (1958) was an early supporter of the view that wants and desires are artificially created by advertising. Supporters of the alternative view argue that to consider otherwise would imply that consumers were passive agents, “motivationally ‘empty’ until injected ‘with wants’ through the means of advertising” (Campbell 1990, p. 46). O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy (2002) claim that it seems truer to consider wants as latent until activated by marketing activities. According to Marion (2006), the argument that needs are not constructed but only activated by marketing, frees marketers from related responsibilities. More than this, the notion that marketers “search for unmet needs” and “encourage the development of products and services addressing these needs” is, according to Kotler (2004, p. 35), a reason for marketers to be proud of their field.

Although existing research reveals a prevalence of negative attitudes towards marketing and its effects on consumption, there is little discussion of those aspects in marketing literature, especially discussion grounded in consumers’ views. This paper addresses this gap.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

This paper aims to be a reflection on consumers’ views of marketing and consumption in contemporary, developed societies. Specifically, we seek to gain insights into participants’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, levels of consumption and marketing, and to reflect critically on their views. In accordance with the exploratory nature of the research, a qualitative method, based on in-depth interviews, is used. This method is suited to obtaining an understanding of the phenomenon under study from the point of view of the participants (e.g. Taylor and Bogdan 1998; Miller and Glassner 2004). Interviews were conducted face to face, according to a standardised open-ended format (Baker and Foy 2008), which was left flexible to allow unexpected,

JMM1028

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1029

relevant topics to be discussed (Patton 2002; Bryman 2004). While previous research has been based on surveys (e.g. French et al. 1982; Varadarajan and Thirunarayana 1990), we believe our discovery-oriented approach (Kwortnik 2003) can provide a fresh slant on existing knowledge (Goulding 1999) and enrich the discussion on the topic.

The sample includes 17 women and 12 men, aged between 20 and 76. Following a theoretical sampling approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Bryman 2004), interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was believed to be achieved. The sample includes participants with various jobs and levels of education, but no participant had worked in or studied marketing since those who did were expected to have atypical opinions. Data were collected in Portugal in 2008, translated into English and subjected to back-translation using native speakers of both languages.

The interview analysis aims to offer a description and interpretation of the participants’ “lived world” (Kvale 1996, p. 187). Drawing on authors such as Spiggle (1994), Thompson, Locander and Pollio (1990) and Rubin and Rubin (1995), we read carefully through each of the transcriptions, looked for perceived patterns in the data, grouped transcriptions describing the same views together, and further reflected on the material. Further attention was given to the recurrence of words and phrases used to describe marketing. This content analysis highlighted core consistencies and meanings (Patton 2002) held by participants about the discipline, which together with an interpretive reflection on the data enriched our understanding of their views.

FINDINGS

The findings are organised into two main categories that are discussed below: first, attitudes towards levels of consumption and perceived reasons for them and, second, perceptions of marketing and attitudes towards it. This corresponds to the order of those issues in the interview guide.

Attitudes towards levels of consumption and perceived reasons for them

All but one of the participants claimed that people consume to excess in contemporary society. When asked if this consumption raised any concerns, most mentioned debt for families. Such financial worries were said, in turn, to cause relationship problems, including divorces. It is worth noting that almost all of those who raised such concerns were close to someone who had suffered with debt. Two participants mentioned the impacts of packaging on the natural environment.

The reasons given for high levels of consumption can be divided into three groups, discussed below: compensatory/therapeutic reasons, reasons of conspicuous consumption and marketing appeals. Engaging in shopping as compensation for life’s deficiencies or to deal with problems (e.g. stress, loneliness, unhappiness, depression, frustrations) was seen as one of the main causes of high levels of consumption. Conspicuous display was also held to play an essential part in consumption. Indeed, many participants related high levels of consumption to the need to convey an image of wealth. As illustrated below, the word “show” or related expressions were often used in this context:

… people want to show that they are richer or have more purchasing power than others… it’s a selfi sh attitude, a certain showing-off in society. […] there is the idea

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

that the more money and material possessions they have, the greater is their status in society {Emphasis added}

[1: male, 68] 1

However, marketing appeals (especially advertising) were by far the most frequently stated reason for high levels of consumption, having been raised spontaneously by twenty of the participants. Marketing was believed to “push things” [2: female, 47] onto consumers or to “force people to buy” [19: male, 49] what they otherwise would not. This perception that marketing leads people to consume unwillingly was conveyed vividly in several expressions, such as: “marketing programs our minds as if we were mice in a mouse trap” [7: male, 71], “it [marketing] brain-washes us” [16: female, 59], or “I am also a victim of marketing… we all are” [29: male, 56].

Marketing was also criticised for endorsing a consumer society by launching and promoting new products to replace others that still work and by offering too wide a variety of products. Several participants added that the ease of obtaining credit from banks or other financial institutions, and the facilities given for payments in shops, further facilitates consumption and consumers’ debt.

Perceptions of what marketing is and attitudes towards it

Whilst earlier the topic of marketing was raised spontaneously as a primary cause of the high levels of consumption, in a later stage of the interviews, participants were specifically asked to discuss their perceptions of what marketing is, and their attitudes to it.

Thirteen participants associated the word “marketing” with a “science”, or a set of techniques or strategies, designed to help companies to sell. Nine related marketing to companies’ promotions or advertising, also with the intent of helping the companies’ sell. Some definitions referred to marketing’s promotion of consumption through creating needs and/or exploiting consumers’ wants or fears. It should be added that, when asked (at a later stage of the interviews) their opinion of whether marketing creates needs, or awakens latent needs or wants, all of the participants claimed that marketing does create needs (although some argued that it does both). Participants’ descriptions of marketing often came with criticism and some indicated particularly strong impressions of manipulation or deception, as the following excerpts illustrate:

Oh… marketing .., it is devilish techniques to … push the products at consumers…err… associating them with the best qualities, whether they are good or not {Emphasis added}

[8: female, 67]

Marketing is a scam! One word just, that’s it… scam. {Emphasis added}[28: male, 54]

When asked about their attitudes towards marketing, all participants expressed negative views. It was accused of being “dishonest”, “misleading”, “manipulative”, and/or of “taking advantage” of consumers, especially by using “tricks” such as, “withholding relevant information” [1: male, 68], using “tiny small print for information they want

1 The transcriptions presented are coded with a number which refers to the number of the interview (numbers ranging from 1 to 29) and are associated with the gender and age of each interviewee.

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24JMM1030

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

to hide” [25: male, 37], “exaggerating the qualities [of the products]” [8: female, 67], or simply by “not telling the truth” [11: female, 21]. It is worth noting that seven interviewees spontaneously added that consumers should take a defensive stance towards marketing or be “always alert” to it. Marketing was further criticised for being “aggressive”, “insistent”, “abusive”, and/or “excessive”. Additionally, more than half of the participants complained specifically about advertising or promotion techniques, which were also regarded as “misleading”, “dishonest”, “aggressive”, and/or “excessive”. Several gave detailed descriptions of experiences in which they felt misled or deceived by marketing campaigns, as illustrated below:

They promised a trip if we’d buy some dishes, top quality dishes […] Then… when I went to book, the trip had to be done at a certain time of the year when I couldn’t… I was working then […] they had it in small print and never told me before

[19: male, 49]

Three participants believed advertising used subliminal messages to further manipulate consumers and a few specifically criticised consumer research, which was depicted as “manipulative […] pseudo-psychological techniques” [6: male, 38]. Marketers’ intentions to develop long-term relationships with customers were criticised as an “abuse of the initial contract” [7: male, 71]. A few participants also expressed annoyance at “invasions of privacy” [28: male, 54] via their telephones, mailboxes or email inboxes. Some claimed that marketing appeals make it harder to raise children and that branding promotes discrimination amongst children at school.

Whilst almost all participants talked spontaneously, and often enthusiastically, about their negative attitudes towards marketing, most needed prompting, and took some time, to remember positive aspects. One participant said, seeming uncomfortable: “Yes, there are positive things [in marketing], there are… although I can’t remember any” [13: male, 30]. A few others claimed marketing was positive only for the companies that use it. This notwithstanding, most believed that marketing had a positive side in informing consumers about new and existing products. Three interviewees referred to positive applications of marketing to spreading social messages, such as “for people to stop smoking, to recycle, to be aware of environmental issues” [6: male, 38]. One participant praised “pretty, sweet and old-fashioned looking packages” [16: female, 59] and a few of them spoke positively about “interesting”, “creative”, “well made” and/or “funny” advertisements, as illustrated below:

… That advertisement with the dolphin was extremely beautiful […] there are very well made advertisements with lots of creativity. I recognise the value of advertising and of the designers, or whoever makes them… Sometimes, they are little masterpieces, but few are really original.

[22: female, 52]

It is noteworthy that, even when discussing positive dimensions of marketing, participants would often change tack part-way through a sentence and express reservations. Specifically, mentions of positive aspects would frequently be followed by “but”, “although” or “even if ”, as in the previous and following transcriptions:

I believe marketing brings colour to life, even if… [shrugs shoulders] [4: female, 38]

1031Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

The table below summarises participants’ attitudes towards marketing and related activities (which were alluded to in participants’ spontaneous, ad-hoc expressions). In the first column are marketing aspects or activities (as referred to, for instance, in Kotler et al. 2008). The second column contains positive terms offered spontaneously and which can be associated with those aspects/activities and the third column contains negative associations. In brackets we show the number of participants that used each expression. We note the strong tendency to favour negative descriptions, especially of marketing communication.

In order to gain further insights into participants’ views and explore the extent of their negative attitudes, we asked, at the end of the interviews, if they would rather that marketing did not exist. Despite their overall negative impressions all but one preferred for marketing to exist. The vast majority, including those who had

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24JMM1032

TABLE 1 Consumers’ attitudes towards marketing

Marketing Aspects Positive associations Negative associationsConceptMarketing Creative/appealing/

interesting (5), useful (8)

Misleading/deceiving (12), Dishonest (10), Aggressive/excessive (5), Manipulative (4), Negative influence on children/ pressure on parents (4), Abusive (1)

Meeting needs and wants

Imposing/enforcing/insistent (16), Creating needs or wants (10)

Developing relationships

Intrusive/invading privacy (4)

Consumer Buying Behaviour

Consumer Research Manipulative (3)Product New product

developmentReplacement of old products

too quickly (6), Promotes “disposable” mentality (4)

Packaging Pretty (1) Environmentally damaging (2)Brands Promotes discrimination (3)CommunicationInforms/

CommunicatesInforms/

Communicates (22)Selective/partial information (11)

Advertising Creative/appealing/interesting (6), Funny (2), Well made (4)

Misleading/deceiving (13), Dishonest/untrue (10), Aggressive/excessive (7), Subliminal (3) Annoying (2), Irresponsible (1), Stupid (1)

Sales Promotions Insistent (5) , Misleading/deceiving (5)

Direct Marketing Abusive/intrusive (4)Other aspectsNot-for-profit

MarketingBeneficial/useful (3)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

shown themselves to be highly critical, justified the need for marketing because of its informative role with regards to available products, even if, as some added, that information is not completely reliable. At this point several interviewees expressed some sympathy towards the discipline but simultaneously regretted not being able to trust it more, as in the following:

I think it is good that it shows the qualities of the products that are being sold but, at the same time, I think it should be more honest… I’d like to be able to trust marketing, what is being offered… I enjoy knowing about products, what is better or worse… but I am sorry that I’m not informed on a truthful basis

[8: female, 67]

On the other hand, a few participants added that marketing is a “necessary evil” [27: female, 31] and some suggested that it is the responsibility of consumers to be vigilant to its techniques.

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

This paper challenges us to reflect critically upon the gap between fundamental aspects of the marketing concept and consumers’ perceptions. Whilst conceptualisations of marketing typically stress the centrality of customers – e.g.: “Marketing is a customer focus…” (Grönroos 2006, p. 407) – these same customers seem not to conceive of the discipline in the same way. Indeed, participants’ perceptions of marketing are focused on companies, as marketing is consistently described as a process designed to help companies to sell. At the same time, customers are not mentioned, except as people to whom marketing is done for the benefit of companies. Participants’ few allusions to consumer research or to companies’ efforts to develop relationships with customers come with criticism and are considered only from the point of view of companies’ benefit. These perceptions lend empirical support to the “fundamental contradiction” of marketing, suggested by Sheth and Sisodia (2005), according to which “marketing claims to be about representing the customer to the company, but it remains mostly about representing the company to the customer” (p. 12). Furthermore, participants’ views seem to be attuned to a production-oriented view of marketing, associated with the marketing mix model (see Grönroos 1989, 1994; Baker 2006), which rather than seeing the customer as “somebody for whom something is done”, treats him as “somebody to whom something is done” (Dixon and Blois 1983, p. 4).

O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy (2002) argue that, in the context of marketing’s role in the consumer society and its hedonistic lifestyle, the term “marketing” is used by its critics to mean only those activities designed to “tempt the consumer into buying” (p. 525), ignoring that it also responds to consumer preferences (see also Smith 2005). Even if this perception is a “purely outsider’s view of marketing” (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002, p. 525), it should not be overlooked since it is a perspective that many consumers will have (unless they happen to work in, or study, marketing). Indeed, this partial view of the discipline is shared by the participants of this study. We believe that scholars and practitioners of marketing need to pay attention to the fact that they might be using the name of their discipline with a different sense to that employed by the general public. It is certainly the case that it is sometimes necessary for specialists in a field to use words with a meaning different to common usage. However, if we are using the word “marketing” according to the

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1033

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

rules of a different “language game” (in the terms of Wittgenstein 1953), we risk constantly being misunderstood (and misunderstanding “outsiders”) when discussing it in the public sphere. It is, at least, important to be aware of this difference.

Participants believe that people buy unnecessary goods for therapeutic reasons, agreeing with the literature on self-gifts (e.g. Pereira, Ennew and Tynan 2005) and on compensatory consumption (e.g. Woodruffe-Barton and Elliott 2005). Many mention reasons of conspicuous display (see, for example, O’Cass and McEwen 2004) and refer to people using goods as a means of “status communication” (e.g. Rassuli and Hollander 1986). However, high levels of consumption are mostly attributed to marketing, indicating support for the assertion that marketing is a promoter of an ideology of consumption (e.g. Kilbourne et al. 1997). This is especially significant because the topic of marketing is raised spontaneously by the vast majority of participants, without previous reference to it by the interviewer. Participants further convey the idea that persuasion by marketing excuses consumers from responsibility for self-indulgent consumption, since they are “forced” by marketing to buy. The extent to which this belief is a “defence mechanism” to protect oneself from the guilt associated with consumption deserves further study. Indeed since marketing is the “most exposed” area of business (Varadarajan and Thirunarayana 1990), highly visible to the general public (Diacon and Ennew 1996), it may be a particularly convenient scapegoat for guilt. Furthermore, unconvinced by the rhetoric that marketing is serving customers best interests and unaware of the academic debates on whether needs can be created by marketing (e.g. Marion 2006), participants believe that marketing does create needs in consumers. This belief is relevant because it is frequently used as a reason to disapprove of marketing and blame it for excessive consumption. Marketing is also held responsible for the consequences of that consumption, especially for family debt. Surprisingly, the environmental impacts of consumption (see for example Peattie and Crane 2005) are very rarely mentioned; this may be related to the unusually high numbers of negative, economic reports in the news at the time of the interviews, making debt the top-of-mind concern.

Besides holding marketing responsible for high levels of consumption, participants’ accounts reveal contempt and suspicion towards the discipline. Most negative impressions seem to stem from marketing campaigns or consumption experiences where the participants felt deceived because of hidden or incomplete information. Amongst other things, marketing, and particularly advertising are seen as “misleading”, “dishonest”, “manipulative”, and “aggressive”, which strengthens previous criticism (e.g. Pollay 1986; Pollay and Mittal 1993). Still, a few participants believe it is the responsibility of consumers to be vigilant in their buying decisions. This view agrees with the caveat emptor argument (Smith 2005), but overlooks that consumers are often not well-informed nor in a powerful position when making their purchase decisions due to marketing itself (Alvesson 1994). Marketing’s impact on children and the pressure it creates for parents to buy them certain products is a particular concern, corroborating previous research (e.g. Young et al. 2003).

Is the participants’ distrust and discontent justified? Or is marketing simply failing to market itself well to the public? As long ago as (1962), Warne called for more “fact-faithful” and “unbiased” communication with consumers, arguing that although “artificial product differentiations and romantic fantasies” may temporarily capture consumers’ attention, “these techniques are no substitute for unadulterated truth” (p.14). Findings from this paper seem to support this view and suggest that marketers could gain by developing more transparent communication strategies that would truthfully inform consumers. Perhaps if consumers appreciated and trusted

JMM1034

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1035

marketing better, its techniques would be more effective. Indeed, growing resistance to marketing is found to affect its productivity (Smith 2006).

Additionally, and drawing on a macromarketing perspective (see for example, Kilbourne et al. 1997; Belk and Dholakia, 1998), consumers’ criticisms of marketing should be addressed regardless of their implications for marketing’s productivity or strategy formulation. For example, those criticisms may impact upon the natural environment, by allowing blame for excessive consumption to be shifted onto marketing and hence making it easier for consumers to shop indulgently. The criticisms also have a negative impact on recruitment into, and social acceptance of, marketing (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002).

As early as 1959, Borton discussed the respectability of marketing, believing that the discipline would “mature into a more helpful, effective and respected member of society” (p. 47). Insights from this study, together with previous research (e.g. French et al. 1982; Sheth and Sisodia 2005), suggest otherwise. Are we, as marketing academics, happy to work for a “necessary evil” and to be embarrassed to name our profession when asked, as many appeared to be when we raised this issue at the 2008 Academy of Marketing Conference? Should we rather be proud of our field, as Kotler (2004) claims? It is, then, our responsibility to contribute to restoring respect for, and the image of, marketing (Sheth and Sisodia 2005). For example, in view of these findings, we believe that marketers need to explain possible benefits of marketing to consumers. Gaining respectability and appreciation further requires a broad reflection on marketing’s role in society (Marion 2006), to avoid a new “marketer myopia” (Sheth and Sisodia 2005, p. 10), where marketing academics and practitioners fail to notice and address changes happening around them (such as environmental problems). We should ask ourselves the question Levitt (1960) introduced in his seminal paper: “What business are you really in?” (p. 138). If the consumers’ understanding and satisfaction are an important part of our business orientation, we should not be afraid to address their concerns and criticisms. To do otherwise would be a denial of the very principle of a marketing orientation.

This is especially important since our participants do not seem to have given up on marketing, agreeing with Smith (2006) that “consumers do not want marketing to end” (p. 18). Despite the overall negative attitudes, all but one of the participants want marketing to exist, most recognise its important informative role and some refer to the entertaining character of creative advertising. This finding lends empirical support to O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy (2002) claim that “if advertising were to disappear tomorrow, there would be a perception of loss, because […] advertising provides a sense of what is happening in the world, while many ads have intrinsic appeal” (p. 536). Our participants add, however, that they would like to be able to trust marketing and to rely on its information without having to be on their guard.

In summary, this paper explored views of marketing and its focus on consumption, from a consumers’ perspective. The methodology led to fresh insights onto participants’ views. Their opinions should be taken seriously since, being consumers, participants talk from a great base of experience (Barksdale and Darden 1972). These findings strongly suggest that marketing is a top-of-mind attribution for high levels of consumption. They further provide evidence of the prevalence of negative attitudes towards the discipline, especially focused on distrust of advertising and promotion campaigns, and usually built on negative personal experiences. At the same time, and on a more hopeful note, findings suggest that consumers appreciate marketing’s existence and want to believe in it. These are important messages for marketing executives which should not be ignored. Moreover, insights from this study suggest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

a profound gap between the marketing concept and consumers’ perceptions of the discipline, which may contribute to discrediting marketing and should also be addressed by marketers.

This study is not without limitations. The sample used does not allow generalisations to be made. Although we followed a theoretical sampling approach, a larger number of interviewees would also facilitate possibly relevant comparisons between different participants, based on variables such as level of education or age. The period of the data collection, marked by difficulties with the country’s economy and the worldwide credit crisis, might have inflamed negative attitudes towards marketing (given its visibility and its promotion of consumption) and further produced answers affected by social desirability bias. Nevertheless, these limitations offer interesting avenues for further research. In particular, we call for insights from this work to be incorporated into large, qualitative and quantitative, studies on the topic and suggest some aspects to explore. For example, further studies should focus on understanding how knowledge about marketing might influence attitudes towards the discipline. Special attention should be given to further explore the origins of the negative, as well as the positive, perceptions of marketing. Given that participants’ attitudes seem to be rooted in past experiences, a critical incident technique might be appropriate. Additionally, it is important to learn the extent to which consumers’ blaming of marketing for high levels of consumption is a way of assuaging guilt and how this may facilitate consumption.

While marketing is the most contested subdiscipline of management (Alvesson 1994), in large part because of its impact on consumption, there is a surprisingly lack of research discussing criticisms of marketing from the point of view of consumers. This research, although exploratory, has the merit of sowing the seeds for further informed debate on this fundamental and neglected area of marketing.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. (1994), “Critical Theory and Consumer Marketing”, Scandinavian Journal Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 291-313.

Baker, M. J. (2002), “Research Methods”, Marketing Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 167-193.Baker, M. J. (2005), “Marketing – Philosophy or Function?”. In: Baker, M. J., (ed.), Marketing

Theory, Padstow: Thompson, pp. 1-20. Baker, M. J. and Foy, A. (2008), Business and Management Research, 2nd edition, Helensburgh,

Scotland: Westburn Publishers Ltd.Barksdale, H. C. and Darden, W. R. (1972), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketing and

Consumerism”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 28-35.Belk, R. and Dholakia, N. (1998), “The Shaping of Consumption and Marketing Institutions”.

In: Belk, R., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A., (eds.), Consumption & Macromarketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, pp. 1-18.

Belk, R. W. and Pollay R. W. (1985), “Images of Ourselves: The Good Life in Twentieth Century Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 887-897.

Blythe, J. (2006), Principles & Practice of Marketing, London: Thomson Learning.Borgmann, A. (2000), “The Moral Complexion of Consumption”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 418-422.Borton, W. M. (1959). “Respectability for Marketing?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 2,

pp. 47-50.Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Buchholz, R. A. (1998), “The Ethics of Consumption Activities: A Future Paradigm?”, Journal

of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 871-882.

JMM1036

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1037

Campbell, C. (1990), The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Diacon, S. R. and Ennew, C. T. (1996). “Ethical Issues in Insurance Marketing in the UK”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 67-80.

Dixon, D. F. and Blois, K. J. (1983), “Some limitations of the 4Ps as a Paradigm for Marketing”. In: Proceeding of the Marketing Education Group Annual Conference, Cranfield: Cranfield Institute of Technology.

Drucker. P. F. (1954), The Practice of Management, New York: Harper & Row.Farmer, R. (1967), “Would You Want Your Daughter to Marry a Marketing Man?”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1-3.Firat, A. F. and Venkatesh, A. (1998), “Postmodern Perspectives on Consumption”. In: Belk,

R., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A., (eds.), Consumption & Macromarketing, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, pp. 234-265.

French, W. A., Barksdale, H. C. and Perrault, W. D., Jr (1982), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketing in England and the United States”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 20-30.

Fuller, D. A. (1999), Sustainable Marketing – Managerial-Ecological Issues, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Galbraith, J. F. (1958), The Affluent Society, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago, IL: Aldine. GfK Custom Research (2008), GfK Trust Index, Nuremberg: GfK Custom Research.Goulding, C. (1999), “Consumer Research, Interpretive Paradigms and Methodological

Ambiguities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 9/10, pp. 859-873.Grönroos, C. (1989), “Defining Marketing: a Market-Oriented Approach”, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 52-60.Grönroos, C. (1994), “Quo Vadis, Marketing: Toward a Relationship Marketing Paradigm”,

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 347-360.Grönroos, C. (2006), “On Defining Marketing: Finding a New Roadmap for Marketing”,

Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 395-417.Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts,

Methods and Propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 92-101. Hunt, S. D. and Chonko, L. B. (1984), “Marketing and Machiavellianism”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 30-42.Keith, R. J. (1960), “The Marketing Revolution”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 3, January,

pp. 35-38. Kelley, D. (2007), “I Bet you Look Good on the Salesfloor”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,

Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 53-63.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. 4-24.

Kiron, D. (1997), “Perpetuating Consumer Culture: Media, Advertising, and Wants Creation”. In: Goodwin, N. R., Ackerman, F. and Kiron, D., (eds.), The Consumer Society, Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 229-236.

Kjellberg, H. (2008), “Market Practices and Over-Consumption”, Consumption, Markets & Culture, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 151-167.

Kotler, P. (2004), “Wrestling with Ethics - Is Marketing Ethics an Oxymoron?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 30-37.

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V. and Saunders, J. (2008), Principles of Marketing, 5th European edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Kwortnik, Jr. R. J. (2003), “Clarifying ‘Fuzzy’ Hospitality-management Problems with Depth Interviews and Qualitative Analysis”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 117-129.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

Levitt, T. (1960), “Marketing Myopia”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 45-56.Marion, G. (2006), “Marketing Ideology and Criticism: Legitimacy and legitimization”,

Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 245-262. McGee, L. W. and Spiro, R. L. (1988), “The Marketing Concept in Perspective”, Business

Horizons, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 40-45.Mick, D. G. and DeMoss, M. (1990), “Self-Gifts: Phenomenological Insights from Four

Contexts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 322-332.Miller, G. and Glassner, B. (2004), “The ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’: finding realities in

interviews”. In: Silverman, D., (ed.), Qualitative Research – Theory, Methods and Practice, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 125-139.

O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 25-39.

O’Shaughnessy, J. and O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002), “Marketing, the Consumer society and Hedonism”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 5/6, pp. 524-547.

Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Peattie, K. and Crane, A. (2005), “Green Marketing: Legend, Myth, Farce or Prophesy”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 357-370.

Pereira, M. T., Ennew, C. and Tynan, C. (2005), “Self-Gift Consumer Behaviour: Does it Make You Feel Better?”, In: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference, Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

Pollay, R. W. (1986), “The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended Consequences of Advertising”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, No.2, pp. 18-36.

Pollay, R. W. and Mittal, B. (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 99-114.

Rassuli, K. M. and Hollander, S. C. (1986), “Desire – Induced, Innate, Insatiable?”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 4-24.

Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (1995), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, London: Sage Publications.

Rumbo, J. D. (2002), “Consumer Resistance in a World of Advertising Clutter: The Case of Adbusters”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 127–148.

Sheth, J. N. and Sisodia, R. S. (2005), “Does Marketing Need Reform?”. In: Bolton, R. N., (ed.), “Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice, and Infrastructure”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 10-12

Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S. and Barbulescu, A. (2006), “The Image of Marketing”. In: Sheth, J. N. and Sisodia, R. S., (eds.), Does Marketing Need Reform?, New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc., pp. 26-36.

Simpson, P. M. and Licata, J. W. (2007), “Consumer Attitudes toward Marketing Strategies over the Adult Life Span”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23, No. 3-4, pp. 305-326.

Smith, J. W. (2006), “Coming to Concurrence: Improving Marketing Productivity by Reengaging Resistant Consumers”. In: Sheth, J. N. and Sisodia, R. S., (eds.), Does Marketing Need Reform?, New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc., pp. 15-25.

Smith, N. C. (2005), “Marketing Ethics”. In: Baker, M. J. (ed.), Marketing Theory, Padstow: Thompson, pp. 244-263.

Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 491-503.

Taylor, S. J. and Bogdan, R. (1998), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: a Guidebook and Resource 3rd edition, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B. and Pollio, H. R. (1990), “The Lived Meaning of Free Choice: An Existential-Phenomenological Description of Everyday Consumer Experiences of Contemporary Married Women”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 346-361.

van Dam, Y. K. and Apeldoorn, P. C. (1996), “Sustainable Marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 45-66.

JMM1038

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pereira Heath and Heath (Mis)trust in marketing 1039

Varadarajan, P. R. and Thirunarayana, P. N. (1990), “Consumers’ Attitudes towards Marketing Practices, Consumerism and Government Regulations: Cross-national Perspectives”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 6-22.

Warne, C. E. (1962), “Advertising – A Critic’s View”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 10-14.

Webster, F. E. (2002), “Marketing Management in Changing Times”, Marketing Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 18-23.

Webster, Jr., F. E. (1994), “Defining the New Marketing Concept”, Marketing Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 22-31.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Woodruffe-Barton, H. and Elliott, R. (2005), “Compensatory Consumption and Narrative

Identity Theory”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 461-465.Wu, L., Malhotra, N. K. and van Ittersum, K. (2006), “Excessive Buying: Conceptual Typology

and Scale Development”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, pp. 401-402. Young, B. M., de Bruin, A. and Eagle, L. (2003), “Attitudes of Parents toward Advertising to

Children in the UK, Sweden and New Zealand”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 475-490.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

M. Teresa Pereira Heath completed her PhD at Nottingham University Business School, with an awarded scholarship granted by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. She also has an MA in management with specialisation in marketing, for which she received the highest classification given. She is an Auxiliary Professor of Marketing at the University of Minho with co-responsibility for the international strategy in the Business Department. She is also a member of the Board of Direction for that department’s Masters in Management. Her publications and research interests focus primarily on consumer behaviour, advertising and marketing ethics.

Corresponding author: Dr M. Teresa Pereira Heath, Business Department, Escola de Economia e Gestão, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar 710-057 Braga, Portugal

T +00351 253 604510 (ext. 5522)F +00351 253 601380E mtsp@eeg.uminho.pt

Matthew Heath completed his PhD at the University of Nottingham. He has an MMath degree with first class honours. He has several academic publications and is currently working as a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Mathematics of the Instituto Superior Técnico in Lisbon. He has participated in research projects in marketing and consumption and published work on those areas.

Dr Matthew Heath, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

T +00351 218 417 000F +00351 218 499 242E mheath@math.ist.utl.pt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

16 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014