Journal of MarkeUng Management, i998,14, 445-464

Michael Saren The Nature of the Product in Market

and Nikolaos Relationships: A Pluri-Signified Product
Tzokas Concept
This paper chaiienges tiie U-aditionai markeUng Idea Uiat
a product can be conceptualized as a separate unit wiiich
^^^ * ^ broken down and understood by its basic
e/e//?e/7/:s. A criUque of Uie tradiUonai product concept in
IJirsitv of MarkeUng is presented. On Uw basis of recent UieoreUcai
J! ^fu^i^f, snd empiricai evidence a new nvmework is developed In
niQ^aow ' which Uie product Is represented as Uie outcome of a U-l-
parUte signincaUon process between the buyer, the
supplier and Uw object Finally, Uie implications of Uiis
new perspecUve for markeUng Uieory and pracUce are
ouUined.

Introduction '
Recentiy there has been a growing body of literature attempting to re-define or
re-Uiink the role of marketing in today's societies (e.g. Gummesson i987; Sheth
etai i988; McGee and Spiro i988; Webster i992; Browniie and Saren i992;
Hunt i994). Tiie forces of change that dictate the re-assessment of the exisUng
marketing theory and prescriptions are weii manifested in the markeUng
iiterature (see for exampie Webster i992; Hunt 1992, 1994; Brown 1995;
Tiiomas i994; Browniie etai 1994; Firat and Venkatesh i995).
In line with the above researchers, we hold Uie view that any attempt to
foster the marketing theory into the new miilennium must re-address and re-
define fundamental concepts that have, hiUierto, guided the deveiopment of tiie
discipline. These concepts/principles include, inter alia, (i) the nature of the
product (be it consumer, industriai or services), (ii) the roie of tlie producer and
customer in Uie production and consumption systems, and (iii) Uie wider context
and deeper meaning of the exchange between and among key actors in Uiese
systems.

(a) it is widely acknowledged that products are consumed for their symbolic
meaning (Zaitman and Wallendorf 1979; Hirschman and Hollbrook 1992).
However, marketing tiieory provides little guidance on iiow this symbolic
meaning is ascribed to products and how it Is 'consumed' (Mick and Buht
1992).

(b) Simiiariy, empirical evidence In a number of fieids suggests that we are

witnessing a biurring of the boundaries defining the roie of producers and
their customers in the production and consumption systems
(Parasuraman. Zeithami and Berry i985; Hippei i986; Foxaii 1989;
Nonnan and Rainirez 1993; Firat and Venkatesh 1995). in spite of this.
1SSN0267-257X/98/050445+19 $12.00 Westbum Publishers Ltd.
446 Michael Saren and NIkolaos Tzokas

mainstream marketing theory sUii predicates a clear disUncUon between

Uie production and the consumpUon system; between buying and selling.

(c) Finally, the recent rise of strategic ailiances and co-operative

agreements atnong producers, customers and their competitors indicates
tiiat the exchanges in which Uiey pariicipate Involve something more than
the simpie exchange of products for money Uiat will satisfy Uieir differing
objectives, encompassing broader relaUonships among them (Hakanson
and Ostberg 1975; Ford 1980; Gummesson i987; Groonroos i990;
Webster i992. Sheth and ParvaUyar 1995).

In Uiis paper we attempt to tackle one of the above concepts I.e. that of the
product Tlie purpose of the paper is to put forward a conceptual framework for
understanding the factors that shape the nature of Uie product and discuss iiow
this framework can be utilized from a marketing perspective. In doing so, our
thinking is strongiy infiuenced by the emerging 'new paradigm' in marketing
theory which adopts a reiaUonal perspecUve towards markeUng phenomena
and their investigation (Gummesson 1987; Webster 1992; Sheth and Parvatlyar
1995). The philosopiiicai underpinnings to which we refer for our reiaUonai
methodoiogy is based on Feuerbacii's (1911) seminal critique of Hegelian
phenomenology, in which he recognises Uie importance of the l-Tliou
relationship for addressing human perceptions, understanding and behaviour.
We piace reiaUonships and 'inter-experiences' wiUi others at Uie centre of our
research philosophy here.
We do not assume, however, that people's reiaUons wiUi others are as
'subjects related to objects' in the nonnai positivlst sense. On the contrary, we
foilow Heideggar (1962) in viewing peopie as active participants in the so-called
'extemal worid', who - In relaUng to others - also engage in a communicative
praxis. Heideggar argued that by pariicipaUng {"Daselrf) in the worid, human
beings both infiuence and are influenced by other peopie and objects wiUi
which they interact The relational perspecUve which we adopt In analysing Uie
product concept is also therefore dynamic, recognising the conUnual changes in
the Inter-experiences In which market actors engage.
In Uiis paper, we explain firstly the extant conceptualization of the product In
the markeUng discipline. Then a criUque is presented that challenges the
legitimacy of this concept in the face of recent UieoreUc and empirical insights.
On the basis of this, we develop a new conceptuai framework and ouUine Its
ImplicaUons within the markeUng discipiine.

The Traditional Conceptualization Of The Product

Despite the fact that markeUng theory Is predicated on the central role of the
product In the exchange process (KoUer. 1972), few attempts have been made
to answer the question: 'What do we mean by a product?' Most of these have
been In popular marketing text-books without the space to refiect an in-depUi
discussion about the nature of the product
To begin wiUi, all markeUng text-book auUiors stress the importance of
 Tlie Nature of the Product in Market RelaUonships '. 447

defining wiiat we mean by a product McCartliy's (1978:237) stance is

manifested in Uie foiiowing iines:

"...wiiat we are reaily seiiing in a product is tiie capacity to provide the

satisfaction, use. or perhaps the profit desired by the customer. Ali the
customers ask is that their cars look good and continue to run. They do not
care how they were made. Furthermore, they want to clean with detergent
not anaiyse it And wiien they order something, they don't reaily care how
much out of the way Uie driver had to go or where he has been. They just
want their package. Similariy. when producers and middiemen buy products,
they are interested in tiie profit Uiey will get from their purchase, through
use and resale, not how the products were made".

According to Kotler (1972:246). "a product is anything that can be offered to a

market for attenUon. acquisition, use or consumption that might satisiy a want
or a need. It includes physicai objects, services, persons, places, organizations,
and ideas". Initialiy. KoUer (1972:247) conceptualized the product in terms of
three levels. He suggested that

"The most fundamentai ievel is tiie core product which answers the
question. What is the buyer reaily buying? Every product is really the
packaging of a probleiii-soiving service. The core product Is turned into a
tangible product Tangibie products inay have as many as five
characteristics : a quality level, features, styling, a brand name, and
packaging. Finaiiy a product planner may offer additional services and
benefits Uiat make up an augmented product".

Later, KoUer (1988) advanced his Uiree level concept of a product to a five level
concept nameiy the core benefit the generic product the expected product the
augmented product and the potentiai product (see Figure i). Similariy. Levitt
(i969) suggested that tiie product can be viewed at severai ieveis whicii inciude
the core or generic, the expected, tiie auginented and the potenUai levei.

A Critique

Christopher et al (i 989:58) emphasize the usefuiness of this molecular

visualization of the product or offering with the nucieus, surrounded by a series
of both tangibie and intangibie attributes, features and benefits. They argue that
this "aiiows us to reconciie the marketer's traditional view of tiie product seen
in the terms of various inputs and processes needed to produce it and tiie
consumer's view of tiie offer as being a set of soiutions and supporting benefits".
In the foiiowing paragraphs we question the vaiidity and, Uierefore,
usefulness of the traditionai conceptualization of tiie product We analyze each
level of the product as suggested by Kotler (1972), since his product concept
may be regarded as representative of the few ones that have appeared in the
marketing iiterature.
448 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

Expected product
,-
Generic product

Figure 1. Five Product Level (Kotier, 1988)

Tlie Core Beneflt And The Generic Product
According to Kotier (1972:429), "the most fundamental level of the product Is
the core benefit namely the fundamental service or benefit that the customer Is
really buying. In the case of a hotel, the night guest is really buying "rest and
sieep". In the case of lipstick, the woman is reaiiy buying "hope". In the case of
drills, the purchasing agent is really buying "holes". The marketer has to turn
the core benefit into a generic product namely a basic version of the product
Thus, "a hotel consists of a building that has a front desk and rooms to rent".
KoUer's conceptualization of the core benefit and the generic product gives
the impression that Uie benefit is inherent in the material properiies of tiie
product (generic). However, it is well known that benefits are not Inlierent In
products which the consumer then selects, but they are partly attributed to the
product by the consumer both before, during and after the consumpUon process
(Elliot 1993).
Advances In Uie theory of semloUcs suggest that consumers do not consume
products for their material uUliUes but consume the symbolic meaning of Uiose
products (Baudrillard, 1988). Moreover, Uiis symbolic meaning is not
deterministic and uni-direcUonal in that neither the marketer nor the consumer
alone ascribe it to the product Elliot et al (1993) postulate Uiat consumers do
not passively accept markeUng CommunicaUons but may actively re-negoUate
the meaning subjectiveiy and construct their own interpretaUons. Thus, the
symbolic meaning of products is not fixed but "free-fioaUng" and each individual
may ascribe different and inconsistent cultural meanings to a product (Mick and
Buhl 1992; Hoilbrook 1994; O'Donohoe 1994).
The claim that core benefits can be pre-detennined by the marketer and
used as tiie stariing point for Uie creaUon of the generic product may turn out to
 The Nature of the Product in Market Reiationships 449

be a futiie exercise, especially in cases where the product does not foiiow the
identification of a need but gives rise to the need or benefit (e.g. Sony's
Waikman or as is the case wiUi many scientific discoveries).
Moreover, we contend that attempts to isoiate the core benefit may iead to
simplification of a compiex piienomenon witii the risk of diverting marketers'
attention away from the customer's wider consumption activity in which he/she
is invoived. In Uiis respect the oid concept of the hotel as a front desk and
rooms to rent whicii can provide rest and sieep cannot explain the today's
evoiution of hotels as conference centers, providing sports faciiiUes, for dining
and wedding celebrations, sometimes even without a front desk and a
receptionist Although some may view these services In a hotel as supporting
the 'core benefits' (e.g. sieep and rest) we view them differentiy. We regard this
evoluUon as a refiecUon of the high complexity inherent - even in what seems to
be a 'sinipiistic' consumption activity. We argue that core needs have been
repiaced by a complex constellation oi" needs/activities, partly dictated by tiie
wider activities in which the individuai expends effort. For the case of the hotel,
visionary hoteliers have managed to tum a necessity (need) into an opportunity
for Uieir customers by breaking away from the core benefit or product and
addressing the wider activiUes in which the individuai participates; in other
words Uie wider context

The Expected Product

According to KoUer (i972:430). "at the third level the marketer prepares an
expected product namely a set of attributes and condiUons that buyers
nonnally expect and agree to when they purchase this product Hotel guests, for
example, expect a clean bed. soap and toweis. plumbing fixtures, a teiephone,
clothes closet and a relative degree of quiet".
This definiUon of the expected product is probiemaUc for the following
reasons:
Firstly, there are many dimcuiUes in assessing what is "normally" expected.
In traditional temis the quest for "nomial" behaviour and expectaUons reflects
beliefs that universal or segmented truths can be identified which can be used
as common denominators of behaviour. On the contrary. expectaUon can be
individuai-specific and Uierefore the uitimate 'coinmon' denominator is the
individual. Secondly, marketers rarely prepare an expected product from the
attrtbutes tiiat buyers expect ex ante Instead in preparing a set of product
attributes the marketer often creates expectations (Deighton and Grayson 1995).
This applies even more in the case of totaily new products where the consumer
has not yet created any expectaUons at ail owing to the lack of any infomiaUon
and experience of the product Finally, KoUer's definiUon presents a
determinisUc assessment of consumers' expectations which in itseif is staUc. In
other words, it does not take into account that expectations are created
dynamicaiiy by means of a process which takes place before, during and after
the consumer's experience of the product
I
The Augmented Product
Kotier (1972:430) proposed that, "|at| the fourth level tiie marketer prepares
450 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

an augmented product namely one that Includes additional services and

benefits that distinguish the company's offer from competitors' offers. A hotel, for
exampie, can augment Its product by inciuding a teievlsion set shampoo, fr^sh
fiowers. rapid check-in, express check-out fine dining and room service and so
on".
Whiie augmentaUon is quite evident In today's marketing, we disagree with
KoUer's impression that Its sole purpose is to disUnguish the company's offer
from competitors' offers. We suggest that producers add offerings not oniy to
differenUate their products from competitors, but also for enabling customers to
experience and harvest the full benefits. Furiher to KoUei^s argument that
product augmentation costs money to the firm, some save money and indeed
are initiaily driven as much by cost reduction objectives e.g. the introducUon of
automated teller machines In banks. Producers aiso augment in ways not seen
by the customer but adding to Uie overall satisfacUon. Customers may witness
the result of a quick delivery, for example in Uie freshness of vegetables, but not
the means for achieving it

The Potentiai Product

According to KoUer (1972:431). "at the fifth ievel stands the potenUal product
namely all the augmentations and transformations that this product might
ulUmately undergo in the future...the recent emergence of aii-suite hoteis where
Uie guest occupies a set of rooms represents an innovative transfomiation of the
tradiUonai hotei product".
The conceptuaiization of this product ievel fits weil with recent advances In
the industriai and consumer product domain, where the customer runs Uie risk
of being locked in a 'technology migraUon path' from whicii It is difilcuit and
expensive to escape (Shaw et al 1989). However, we believe that to foresee the
potential product as a projection of what the product is today Is myopic. Tiiis is
so since the new generaUon of the product might be a totaily dlfi'erent product
family e.g. typewriters to word-processors .
What is important is not the ultimate shape of the product but the vision of
the next few steps in the transfomiaUon and deveiopment of the product that
may be perceived by the customers and, Uierefore, may infiuence tlieir current
atUtude towards tiie product

The "Unexpected Surprises" '

"Some of the most successful companies add benefits to their offer that not
only satisfy the customer but also delight the customer. Deiighting is a matter of
adding unexpected s\xr^x\sQS to Uie offer" ( KoUer, 1972, pp.429-431).
Surprises constitute an essenUai pari of the customer's enabling process. We
would not deny that this is one means of adding to customer satisfacUon. But
there are other and perhaps more imporiant means by which companies seek
to achieve this. Today's experience indicates that companies recognize the
differences between customers, and 'deiight' them by providing the opUon of
'taiioring' the product to their own particuiar needs e.g. things avaiiabie upon
request in the hotel (see also Anderson and Narus 1995). We contend that It Is
not the surprise itself that delights but rather providing the customer with the
 The Nature of the Product in Market RelaUonships 451

ability to build tiieir own additionai benefits tfUwyciiose to do so..

Given this criUcism of the individuai parts that according to KoUer, inake up
the product we argue for a new conceptuaiizaUon of tiie product it appears
that one probiem with Kotier's conceptuaiization is the very attempt to define
the product In Isolation from the customer-supplier context. It regards the
product as an autonomous unit wiiich can be de-constructed and understood in
Its basic eiements. But this is fundamentally wrong since the mere
understanding of the existence of a product for consumpUon purposes is
reaiized not by its 'materiai nature' (wliicli someUmes need not to be there at
all), but aiso by its symbolic meaning that society and individual consuiners and
producers ascribe to it This may be through culture, use or experience and
their interaction with each other (e.g. McCracken i988; Hoiibrook i994). The
next secUon wiii expiain this further.

The Pluri-Signified Product i

We conceptuaiize the product as the outcoine of a conUnuous tri-partite

signification process between buyers, suppliers and the 'object'. This is siiown in
tiie foiiowing Rgure 2, wiiere Uie reiationsiiips between tiw three actors (buyer-
supplter-objecO denne Uw product, hence tiiis is shown at the center of the
triangle as a 'pluri-signified' product
The corollary of this is Uiat the product itself does not exist Independently of
this tri-partite relationship. Ratiier, it is created and becomes at any point in time
reaiized. interpreted and re-interpreted by means of the continuousiy negotiated
reiaUonship between these three actors in what is traditionaliy tenned Uie
'market exchange process'.
Moreover, these tiiree actors' roles are fiuid and variable, defined by the
outcome of their relations with each other and the environment As such, no
one actor's roie in the market can be defined on its own. Tlie buyer, for
exainpie, does not have a role independently of the supplier and the object
Similarly, tiie suppiier does not iiave a roie except in reiation to the object and
the buyer; and the object is not a product of consumption independent of the
suppiier and buyer, liie liey unit of anaiysis in our conceptuaiization is the
relationship between the actors rather than any inherent characteristics of
the actors themselves.
Neariy thirty years ago. Levitt (i969:25) in his seminal definiUon of the
product concept stated that "a product is therefore a transacUon between tiie
seller and the buyer...". We go further to inciude the object in tiie definition as
well because, as we have menUoned earlier, the object Is not Uie 'product' but
the inaterial input to the signification process of tiie product
Levitt (i969:il) went on to suggest that "only philosophers can afford to
define products in ontoiogical terms, and that Is only because for them it makes
no operaUonai difference what the definition is. For anybody to whom it inakes
a difference. Uie definition must have actionable content It must suggest a
concrete course of acUon". The actionabie content of our conceptualization of
the product can be idenUfied by focusing on either Uie buyer's or the supplier's
role In the signification process of the product For tiie purposes of this
452 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

explanation we wlil take the role of the buyer.

Tiie
Object

The
Piuri-Signified
Product

The
Supplier

Figure 2. The Pluri-Signified Product

One way in which the buyer views the product is in terms of its expected
advantages. These expected advantages themseives wiil be interpreted from key
relationships the buyer has with either or both the object and the suppiier. For
example, a customer Interprets the object to create the expected uses or
applicaUons to which it could be put even In the absence of the knowledge of
the supplier. Similarly the knowledge of the supplier can create expectaUons of
the advantages of the product before even the object is made (e.g. 'Mercedes-
Benz announces new product launch'...). In either case what is happening is that
buyers are signifying what the product is to them. For example, many Industriai
companies form reiationships with suppliers in order to jointly produce new
products through co-operative R&D. They have formed expectations of the
advantages of a product whose existence is purely imaginary, rather than
physicai at that stage; it is nonetheless a product and a transaction has
occurred!
The meaning of these expected advantages only have relevance for the
buyer in so far as they are related to their percepUons of present and
 The Nature of Uie Product in Market ReiaUonships 453

anUcipated needs. capabiiiUes and objecUves. The meaning of Uie product may
be clear, but tiie buyer may see no use for it or may not be able to use that
product These factors further affect their interpretaUon of Uie product in
addition, the buyers' perceptions of Uieir needs. capabiliUes and objectives are
tiiemselves strongly Influenced by the context of the consumption process in its
totality, i.e. cuiture, society, other consumers, objects, suppiiers etc. Tiierefore,
these factors also piay a roie in the buyer's signification process.
We wiii now discuss the direct reiationsiiips from tiie buyer's point of view.

The Buyer And The Supplier 1

As emphasized earlier one of the two key relationships in which the buyer
enters during Uie process of product signification is Uiat wIUi Uie system of
suppliers. Tills reiaUonship has aiready received comment both in tlie consumer,
service and industriai marketing literature.
in industriai markets it has been acknowledged that most products in today's
markets are suppiier specific (Hiii and Hlllier 1977; Baker 1983) and Uierefore. Uie
choice of a product direcUy entaiis Uie choice of its suppiier. As such, the
characteristics of the suppiier reflect upon the customer's interpretation
(evaiuaUon) of the product Wilson and Ghingoid (1987) furUier suggested tiiat in
mature markets buyers often perceive product and company attributes as
identlcai. According to SheUi (i973) attributes of products and suppliers, as
perceived by buyers. consUtute Uie criteria by which buyers fonnulate Uieir
expectaUons regarding the perceived potentiai of products and suppiiers to satisfy
their objectives. Furtiiermore. SiieUi made a distinction between explicit and
impiicit criteria. wiUi the iatter representing mainiy supplier's specific attributes
such as reputation, size, iocation. personaiity and technical expertise, reciprocal
relaUonsiiips. salesmanship and even iife styies of Uie saies representatives.
Similariy, Siiaw etai (1989) found that for MarkeUng infonnaUon Systems (MIS)
directors choosing a maini^me operaUng system, the vendor-reiated attributes
were of equal importance to them as the physicai/tangibie attributes of Uie product
Vendor-related attributes were found capable of reducing Uie buyers' perceived
risk over future product development and migration patlis. The m^or concem of
Uie buyers was Uieir abiiity to catch up wiUi possibie Hiture upgrading of Uie
system as weii as Uie deveiopment of compiementary products. Tliis situation is
particuiarly relevant to new industrial products where Uie decision to adopt carries
the risk of ioci<Jng tlie adopting fimi into a certain technoioglcai paUi from wiiich is
very difficult to siiift if required. Further research on Uie evaluation criteria used by
industrial buyers lias produced a vast nuinber of suppiy-reiated issues. Aiiioiig Uie
most prominent issues are suppiier's credibility, service capabiiity and
technological strengUi (Kassicieh and Rogers i986; Lehmann and O'Sliaugnessy
1982; Abratt 1986; Deinpsey 1978; Hakanson and Wootz 1975; Hawes and
Bamhouse 1987). The buyer's percepUon of suppliers' strengUis and weaknesses
in Uiese terms becomes a key part of their conceptualization of Uie product
offering, in oUier words Uie product cannot be separated iYom its supplier Tiiis is
due to tiie fact that in order for Uie product to deiiver the expected benefits to Uie
customer, Uie reassurance of the suppiier, Uieir service support and technologicai
capacity are needed. Without Uie latter Uw product would not be complete.
454 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

Similarly, in tiie case of services tiie characterisUcs of tiie supplier constitute a

m^or Input In Uie buyers' process of service evaiuaUon. In the field of service
quality this is profoundly documented by Uie dimensions (constructs) used to
measure service quaiity (Parasuraman etal 1985).
Finaiiy, wiUi regard to consumer products, Zeitiiami (1988) suggested Uiat
consumers use a number of characterisUcs which do not emanate from the
physical product as cues for tiieir interpretation of tiie product In Uie case of
consumer goods tiie system of suppliers Is taken into account in mulUple ways.
When Uie actual producer is known (e.g Sony) tiie consumer is subsuming Uie
producer's reputation as indicative of tiie product's quality. The reality of the
consumer informaUon search is Uiat when brand name informaUon Is presented
tiiey do not engage in any further information acquisition (De Chematony and
Knox i990). When the producer is not known and/or Uie brand name is not
known by Uie customer Uien Uiis image maybe substituted by Uiat of tiie retaiier.
The fact tiiat products are offered in a specific retailing chain can add to Uieir
presUge and reputation. The customer translates Uieir trust and confidence for Uie
retailer to tiiist and confidence for tiie product It is only recenUy. iiowever. tiiat
researches have made some decisive steps towards demonstrating that what
consumers know or feei about a company can Infiuence tiieir evaluation of Uie
company's products (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Dacin and SmiUi, 1994; SmiUi. 1995;
Brown and Dacin, 1997).
Literatijre reviewed thus far substanUates Uie fact that products are interpreted
by buyers not simpiy on criteria based on Uie funcUonai vaiue of the object Le.
instrumentai use, input-output Instead, suppliers' characteristics and
communications become part of tiie repertoire buyers use to interpret Uie products
offered. However, this evidence gives tiie impression tiiat suppiiers' characterisUcs
are taken Into account in order eitiier to reduce the perceived risk of Uie buyer in
their decision to favour one product over anoUier or to enhance tiie expected
benefits from the use of tiie product As such, in terms of Uie extant
conceptuaiization of Uie product characterisUcs of tiie supplier have been
perceived as pari of Uie "total ofi'er" and as "hygiene" factors by otiiers. Tlie latter
suggests that Uiere Is a hierarchical process in tiie evaiuaUon of a product That is.
buyers examine first the funcUonai ciiaracteristics of Uie product and after tiiey
find Uiem satisfactory tiiey proceed to examine Uie characterisUcs of tiie vendor.
Yet tiiere are reasons to doubt that Uie latter views are Uie only ones prevaiiing.
in industrial markets Uie functional characteristics of some products do not get any
chance to be evaluated If Uie vendor is not on tiie iist of the buyer, in service
markets, Uie initiai interpretaUon of tiie service (product) is based, among otiier
things, upon tiie promises of Uie suppiier. Cieariy, afier tiie experience of Uie
service customers' interpretaUons change, yet in some cases, customers may
never experience Uie actijai use of Uie whole product (e.g. medical insurance
schemes), in consumer markets Uie funcUonai use of a product sometimes
becomes subordinate to Its symbolic and cultural meaning which is communicated
by various oUier means.
Our conceptualizaUon of the product goes beyond Its Instrumentai use.
Arguably. Uie relaUonsiilp between the buyer and supplier does not oniy enhance
Uie buyer's confidence In tiie perfonnance of Uie product but is itself seen as part
 The Nature of the Product in Market ReiaUonships 455

of Uie process of meaning seeking, meaning creaUon (producUon) and ineaning

consumption. In other words. Uie reiationship itself parUy defines the product For
this process to be performed Uie active engagement of both parties is necessary.
From tiie buyers point of view tiieir engagement may progress froin a siinpie
knowiedge of Uie coinpany to a much closer and symbiotic reiaUonship.

The Buyer And Tiw Object \ .

The other key reiaUonship that defines the product for the buyer Is the
relationship with Uie object itself. Tliis relationship can deveiop from Uie most
basic one of distant awareness of Uie object to a close and detaiied knowiedge
from frequent use. experience and familiarizaUon of the object
In recent years the marketing discipiine has moved away from economics
based raUonai and udiitarian explanations of Uiis reiationship. Today it is
acknowledged that Uie interacUon between Uie buyer and Uie object is a discourse
towards a negotiated interpretaUon of the object; a process of meaning producUon,
projection and consumpUon (Elliot 1993). Meaning is not inherent In the object
itseif but it is projected onto the object produced fUrtiier and consumed wiUiin the
different stages of tiie relationship between the buyer and the object (Amould and
Price 1993. Eliiot 1993).
in our view, Uiis relationship can be ciiaracterized as a circuiar and continuous
process whereby buyers engage in the worid of objects by projecting ineaning onto
Uiem. and tiie meaning laden objects participate in Uie everyday iife of buyers by
enabling the production and consumpUon of meaning. This experience enters the
Interpretative framework of buyers, thus becoming part of the toois for the next
round of meaning projection, production and consumpUon for Uie same product or
that wiiich appears in the same or similar context Moreover, ineaning is symbolic.
subjective and perceptuai. and therefore different individuals may project different
meaning onto the same object (Hoiibrook i994). inevitabiy, tills aflects Uie way
individuais approach each object and, in tum, Uie way in whicii tliey use it across
different situaUons.
In our view three Issues are criticai for understanding this relationship: 0 Uie
interpretative framework and the mechanisms used by buyers to project ineaning
onto objects; iO Uie different dimensions of meaning objects assume; and iii) what
we call Uie object's "protocol". By all accounts our understanding of Uiese critical
issues is still very limited, yet in recent years prominent insight has emerged in Uie
markeUng discipiine and eisewhere.
WiUi regard to Uie object's protocol, objects engage in Uie life of individuais not
passively but by dictating, to a large extent Uieir interpretaUon by tiie buyer. For
example, it iias been found Uiat by participating in a context of oUier objects.
buyer's perceptions of "what Uie object is for" as weii as "what Uie object is" may
be influenced (Kleine and Keman, i99i). In addition. Uie object's physical and
technicai characterisUcs determine to a large extent our use of It and as such our
interpretaUons. Finally, its communicated perfomiance specifles to Uie buyer Uie
range of activities for which it can be used, in our view, context physicai and
teciinicai characteristics, and communicated pertonnance constitute the object's
protocoi.
As to the meaning projected onto the objects, Tliarp and Scott (1990) offered a
456 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

synthesis of past research flndings in Uie fomi of eight dimensions of an object's

meaning namely: ancestral totem, experienUai memoir, pleasure giving. uUllty,
social status communication, interpersonal medium, self expression and
transcendence. Different dimensions may be projected onto tiie same object
According to Tliarp and Scoti: (1990:50), "for each category of meaning, an object
could be represented in a scaling system simiiar to the one Osgood et al (1957)
used with bipolar adjecUves that tapped Uie evaluation, acUvity and potency of
verbal concepts". Evaluation represents the positive or negaUve feelings of Uie
Individual about tiie object for a dimension of meaning, activity indicates Uie
importance of Uiis dimension of meaning to the individual and potency captures
Uie strength of this dimension of meaning for Uie individual as compared to tiie
otiier seven dimensions.
WiUi regard to tiie mechanisms used for projecting meaning onto objects,
recent advances in the discourse of consumption demonstrate how objects are
perceived. WiUiin this fleid there are empiricai explanaUons or Uie ways objects
are consumed and how performance is allocated credit Holt (1995) presented a
typology of consumpUon metaphors namely, consuming as experience, as
integration, as ciassiflcaUon and as play (see also, Hoilbrook and Hirschman 1982;
Belk 1988; Douglas and Isherwood 1979). Within each of these metaphors he
identified specific mechanisms for making sense of Uie object of consumpUon. He
found that spectators experience professional baseball by means of accounting,
evaluaUng and appreciaUng; tiiey reach a stage of integration by using assimilating
pracUces, by participating in Uie producUon of tiie experience through managing,
predicting and bonding with the game and Uie players, and by personalizing; they
consume tiie game in an autotelic manner by communicaUng their experience
wiUi each other and by socializing through entertaining of each other by means of
experientiai practices; finally spectators ciassity oUiers and themseives through
objects and actions employed during Uie game in order to demonstrate tiieir
relationship wiUi Uie game. As to the ways credit is allocated to performances,
Deighton (i992) disUnguisbed perfomiances into contractual, enacted and
dramaUstic. He suggests tiiat individuals allocate credit by means of objectiiying,
professionailsing, personaiising and de-personalising.
Literature relevant to the issues above also resides in fields such as
anthropology, socioiogy, psychoiogy and oUier business disciplines. Clearly,
attempts to integrate tiiis impressive amount of work wlii advance our
understanding of these issues lUrUier. ! . '

The Supplier And The Object

The Uiird key relaUonship which defines Uie product is one in which Uie
customer is not directiy involved. Tiie key attiibute of Uils relationship is that for
tiie customer this is a 'hidden relationship' and because of tills Uie customer is
unaware of Uie various ways In which tiie suppiier and Uie object interact Tliese
Interactions inciude tiie physicai processing of materials, the human labour input
to Uie manufacturing process, the deiivery, distribution and otiier activities by
which tiie supplier transforms and delivers Uie object as a commerciai offering to
the customer.
In tiie absence of any experience or knowledge of tiie suppler - object reiaUonships
 Tlie Nature of the Product in Market Relationships 457

buyers form assumpUons about Uiese which inevitabiy affect Uie image of tlie
product and Uie suppiier. Tiiese assumpUons may concem the safety of producUon
meUiods, Uieir environmentai impact use/abuse of iabour in Uie ilrm, eUiicai
conduct of business pracUces and so on. As iong as Uiese assuiiiptions are not
violated by any contrary infonnation Uiey tend to remain domiant However. Uie
buyer may be inade starkiy aware of Uiem by an event self or comiiiunicated
experience, or word of mouth communicaUon which may act as a 'trigger' of
consciousness mechanism. This can evoke a higli involvement on Uie part of tiie
buyer. For exampie, UK beef consumers' assumpUons about Uie hidden
reiaUonship between animal feed suppliers or famiers and Uielr livestock was
suddenly brought to iminediate awareness by Uie pubiicity about Uie BSE ' scare.
Similarly, in Uie case of Uie Levi Strauss Co. buyers' perceptions of the values
which were communicated to Uiem Uirough tlieir open reiationsiiips with Uie
suppiier and Uie object were those of 'freedom', 'Uie American w a / , 'ciioice', 'weii
made' and 'reliability*, it appears that customers had assumed that tiie hidden
reiaUonsiiip (between Uie suppiier and Uie objecO was consistent wiUi Uie saine
vaiues. The trigger which chalienged these assumpUons was tiie discovery Uiat the
Levi Strauss Co. had a factory in Uie People's Republic of China (see Preece et al..
1995), a State which at that time was considered to be repressive, totaiitarian and
Uie anUUiesis of Levi's communicated vaiues. Tlius. the reiaUonship between Levi
Strauss Co. and Uie object Uirough the production process became an influence on
buyers' percepUons of ttie product In our view. Uie importance of Uiis hidden
relationship becomes cruciai in today's economies where consumers' scepticism
about tiie role of flnns in poiiuUon, nature conservation. eUiical and moral
employment places greater demands upon Uieir operaUons (Cova, 1993). This
reiaUonship between the supplier and the object as perceived by the customers.
has been the focus of attention in a number of recent studies. Tiieir aim lias
been to idenUiy how customer responses to new products are afl'ected by
percepUon of fit with regard to transferabiiity of a firm's skills to the new
product (Smith, i995; Brown and Dacin, 1997). According to Smith (1995). flt
between Uie company and tiie product can affect customers' evaluations of the
product either by infiuencing Uie extent to wiiicii their attitudes for tiie coinpany
are extended to the product, or by faciiitaUng the customer to fomi expectations
about the new product
Having idenUfied tiie reiationships among tiie buyer, the suppiier and the
object in the signification process of the product we now tum our attenUon to
the Levitt's requirement for tiie 'actionable content' of our conceptualization.

Implications for Marketing Theory and Practice i

Our conceptuaiizaUon of tiie piuri-signified product unveils a number of
opportuniUes for marketing theory and practice. ^
CompeUUve Strategy
As Browniie and Saren (1992:40) remarked, "the mainstream markeUng
ideology - and indeed the concept itseif - iacks a strategic perspective even

' Bovine Spongiform Encephaiopathy

458 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

within the marketing function". Similarly, Hunt (1994) observed that marketing's
contribuUon to the strategic theory of the firm has been marginalised during Uie
past decades. Indeed prominent authors in the sU*ategy field have abandoned
the rigidities of well-defined, pre-planned strategies and become adherents of a
more fiuid and fiexible conceptuaiizaUon of the firms' strategy (Hamel and
Prahalad 1991; Pettigrew 1992; Mintzberg, 1994). However, marketing sUll
predicates adherence to a simpiisUc logic and fixed notions of the market the
customer and the product
Our conceptualization of the pluri-signified product conUibutes to Uie
strategic discourse of organizations by unveiiing new opportunities for
compeUtive advantage. Indeed, today companies find it very hard to create a
competitive advantage since their products are easily imitated by reverse-
engineering or surpassed by new technoiogy. Yet whereas it is easy for a fimi to
clone the characterisUcs of an object it is very difilcuit to imitate the
relaUonship the customer forms with the supplier. Our concept calls for
Increased attention to the muiUfarious relaUonships In the signification process
of Uie product It suggests platforms for the creation of compeUUve advantage
that rest in the dynamic process of interacUon among the buyer, the suppiier
and the object A criUcal antecedent of this compeUtive advantage is the
reiationship competence of the firm.
In addition, our conceptuaiizaUon of the piuri-signified product ouUlnes the
strategic importance of Uie buyer in the compeUtive arena. Contrary to the
notion that buyers (customers) oniy cany strategic Importance in tenns of
market share, sales figures or purchasing power, we locate their strategic
importance and vaiue in the signification process of the product Therefore, from
a strategic point of view, our concept caiis for a strategic empowering of the
customer base enabling them to signify (appropriate) the product in ways that
create competitive advantage to the finn and addiUonal vaiue for themselves.
We would argue Uiat the real compeUtive advantage of the firm lies not only
In the uniqueness of its products and services, but also in the uniqueness of
what constitutes satisfaction for its customers. The latter Is very hard for
compeUtors to copy, since its uniqueness is based on individuals who in
themseives are unique. Our ongoing research in this field informs us that Uie
reiaUonship between Uie firm and its customers 'invents the future' and gives
rise to 'inter-experiences' which can not oniy 'deliver' satisfaction but actuaily
're-define' what satisfacUon means for the customers and employ Uiem into its
co-creaUon process. In doing so, from a strategic point of view, the firm can re-
define the rules of Uie market game by changing the conceptuaiization of the
fieid, changing the roles of the piayers and providing opportuniUes for new game
plans and moves.

Generation ot New Product Concepts

We believe that our conceptuaiization broadens the scope of search for new
product ideas. The traditional approach to idea generation has been that the
suppiier should create a product concept which eiUier comes from or is tested
on buyers' needs. Our conceptuaiizaUon prescribes that the product concept
itself emerges from the three key relaUonships postuiated In our model Thus
 The Nature of tiie Product in Market Reiationships 459

new product ideas are essenUaily the result_of relaUonships This broadens the
search for new product concepts i^om that of traditionai Uieory whicii is based
on the needs and expectations of the customer. It suggests a shirt in attenUon to
the total customers' consumpUon context and Uie relaUonships between the
customer, tiie object and the supplier; over which Uie marketer has aiiegediy
more influence.
Rather than the suppiier iiaving a pureiy reacUve roie in idea generaUon. i.e.
in response to market needs, our frainework reinstates the role of suppliers as a
proacUve force in idea generation in two ways. Firstly, supplier factors partly
dictate the signiflcaUon process of the product concept Secondly. Uie suppiier
iias a strong infiuence on the key reiationships which define tiie product for the
custoiner. Our framework reinforces the role of tiie customer. Whereas in the
past consumers have been perceived as reactive recipients of finished products,
our frainework posits tiieir role as active participants in the dynainic redefinition
of product concepts, wiiicii itseif unveiis opportunities for new product ideas.
Such an approach to tiie generaUon of new product concepts wouid enabie
flrms to appreciate cases where customers buy 'driiis' and not just 'iioies' as the
recent phenomenal coinniercial success if the Dyson's bag-iess vacuum cleaner
attests. In addition, it would enable fimis to realise cases where botli tiie "driil"
and the "hole" represent partiai cognitive processes which, given technoiogical
advances, run the risk of becoming inefficient ways of perfonning a task. A
prime exampie is the fumiture idustry where siiicon technology is increasingly
replacing exisUng processes for putting pieces of wood and metai togeUier.

The New Product Development Process

Traditionai inodeis of NPD have focused on Uie deveiopment of the
reiationsiiip between tiie suppiier and the object More recentiy there has been
attenUon on the roie between Uie customer and supplier (Foxaii and Tiemey
i984; Hippei.i986). Our frainework posits a wider view of the context of NPD as
taking place in Uie interplay of the Uiree key relationships between custoiners,
suppliers and objects. To focus on oniy one of tiiese perspectives omits the
contribuUon to NPD by tlie other two and their interplay. Tliis framework
consoiidates recent advances in Uie NPD iiterature which has discovered cases
of product deveiopment taking place in eacii type of key reiationships e.g.
predoininantly supplier, supplier joinUy with the customer and predominanUy
customer (Foxaii. 1989). \ "'
The current conceptualization of the NPD process encompasses only the
development of objects raUier tiian tlie development of 'fuiiy signified products'.
Suppiiers shouid iook at the deveiopment of the signification process through
the key relationships as part of new product deveiopment raUier than
concentraUng on Uie deveiopment of objects. The new product deveiopinent
process cannot be seen in isolation of the conduct of the signification process.
And, instead of stages in the new product development or product iife cycies. it
may be useful to Uiink of 'signification ioops' wiiereby both the initiai idea. Uie
material fomi of Uie object and its use are continuousiy transfomied tiirough the
interaction of the supplier, the buyer and the object
Such an approach is capabie of re-defining the constraints imposed onto the
460 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

new product development team. These constraints are much too ofien customer
specific (I.e. in accordance with Uieir requirements derived mainly from an
understanding of their production, financial and market characterisUcs.
However, the role of marketing in the NPD process is not simply to abide by
these constraints but to unveil opporiuniUes for both the firm and its customers
by quesUoning these constraints proactively. Tiiis is in line wiUi the proactive
role of markeUng in the NPD process as envisaged by Gatignon and Robertson
(1989).

Buiiding the Customer Base

Our framework opens the door to new ways of building the customer base.
RaUier than grouping customers into segments based on their common
demographic characterisUcs or use of the product marketers should facilitate
potenUal customers to enter favourably into the key reiationships with the
supplier and the object by iooking at the antecedents of Uie product significaUon
process (i.e. key reiaUonships and contexts). They should allow customers to
deflne their own individuai relationship with the supplier and the object instead
of this being determined by their membership (or not) of some pre-exisUng
segmentation ciassificaUon. Customers can Uiereby self-select their groupings
through the signification process. This may iead to a segmentaUon basis which
can be described as "Regions of Semiotic Connectedness" (Fitchett et al 1996)
and it may also provide the means for a more 'hoiistic' and 'dynamic' account of
the customer base. Such an approach to market segmentaUon leads to a greater
appreciation of the interacUon between the finn and its customers and opens up
a whole new spectrum of directions for the promoUonal and communication
messages of the firm, i.e. from key product characterisUcs and benefits to key
relaUonships and signification processes.
For exampie, current segmentaUon practices seek to Identify the most
profitabie market segments based on existing notions of perceived 'fit' between
the offer and the characterisUcs of the segment However, the practice of banks
serving a student popuiaUon suggests that this need not be true. Indeed, serving
a student account is, by impiicaUon, unprofitable during the individual's
studying years. Neveriheless, the bank realises Uiat addressing the financial
needs of this market aithough iniUally unprofitable, may increase patronage of
the bank later on when these accounts wiil become profitable and targeted by
other banks. Some banks see an opporiunity Uiere in deveioping an eariy
reiationship wiUi students. The individuai remains free in his/her fijture choice
of the bank, yet the bank has aiready provided a series of unique inter-
experiences which in tum wiii infiuence. favourably or unfavourably, the
individuai's final choice of remaining with Uils bank-
To conclude, tiiis paper lias challenged the traditional idea Uiat a product
can be conceptualized as an autonomous unit which can be de-constructed and
understood in its basic eiements. We have put forward the idea of the pluri-
signified product which views the product as the outcome of a tri-parUte
signification process between buyers, suppliers and the object and we have
ouUlned some of the implications for markeUng theory and pracUce.
During the last 30 years markets, products and Uie consumpUon process
 Tiie Nature of the Product in Market RelaUonships 461

have advanced rapidiy; so too iias our empiricai and theoretical body of
knowledge in the marketing discipiine. We contend that our conceptualization
of the product wiiich lies at the iieart of marketing theory, provides new
research directions that can advance our understanding of one of its
fundamentai eiements. , ,

References

Aaker. D. and Keiler, K (1990), "Consumer EvaluaUons of Brand Extensions',

Joumai of Marketing, 54, (January), pp. 27-4 i.
Abratt P- (i986). "Industrial Buying in High Tecii Markets", Industrial MarkeUng
Management, 5, pp. 293-298.
Anderson. JA and JA Narus, J A (1995). "Capturing the Value of Supplementary
Services". Harvard Business Review, (January-Febmary), pp.75-83.
Arnouid, E.J. and Price. LL (1993), "River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and
Uie Extended Service Encounter". Journal of Consumer Research. 20, pp. 24-
45.
Baker. M. J. (i983). Market Development, Penguin Books Ltd.
Baudriliard, J. (1988). In Jean Baudriilard : Seiected WriUngs (Ed) Poster, M.,
Cambridge: Polity.
Belk R (1988). "Possessions and the Extended Seir. Journai of Consumer
Researcii, 15, pp. i 39-i 68.
Brown, S. (i995). PosUnodem MarkeUng, London. Routiedge. ^
Brown. T. and Dacin. P. (i997). "The company and the product: Corporate
associations and consumer product responses", Joumai of MarkeUng, 61,
(January), pp. 68-84.
Browniie, D.. and Saren. M. (i992). "The Four Ps of the Marketing Concept:
Prescriptive. Polemicat Pennanent and Problematicai" European Joumai of
MarkeUng, 26. 4. pp. 34-47.
Browniie, D.. Saren, M.. Whittington. R. and Wensiey. R. (i994). "The New
MarkeUng Myopia: Critical Perspectives on Tiieory and Research in
Marketing", European Joumai of Marketing, 28. 3, pp. 6-i2.
Christopher. M., Payne, A and Baiiantyne, D. (1991). ReiaUonship Marketing,
Oxford. Butterworth - Heinemann Ltd.
Cova. B., (1993). "Beyond Marketing: From Marketing to Societing?". In
ReUilnking MarkeUng Symposium, (Eds) Browniie, D., Saren, M., Wensiey, R.
Whittington. R, University of Warwick, U.K
Dacin, P. and Smith, D. (1994). "Tiie Effect of Brand Portfolio CharacterisUcs on
Consumer Evaiuations of Brand Extensions", Joumai of MarkeUng Research,
31.(May), pp. 229-242.
De Chematony, L. and Knox. S. (1990). "How an AppreciaUon of Consumer
Behaviour can Help in Product TesUng", Joumai of Uw Market Research
Society, 32. 3, pp. 329-347.
Deighton. J.. (1992), "The Consumption of Performance", Joumai of Consumer
Research, 19. pp. 362-372.
Deighton, J. and Grayson, K (1995). "Marketing and SeducUon : Buiiding
Exchange RelaUonships by Managing Sociai Consensus", Joumai of
462 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

Consumer Research, 21, pp. 660-676.

Dempsey, W. (1978), "Vendor SelecUon and The Buying Process", industrial
MarkeUng Management, 7, pp. 257-267.
Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979), The World of Goods, New York, Basic
Books
Eliiot R. (1993), "MarkeUng and the Meaning of the Postmodem Consumer
Cuiture". In ReUilnkIng MarkeUng Symposium, (Eds) Brownlie, D.. Saren, M.,
Wensley, R, WhitUngton, R, University of Warwick, U.K, July. pp. 1-14.
Elliot R. Eccies, S. and Hodgson, M. (1993), "Re-coding Gender
Representations", fntemaUonal Joumal ot Research in MarkeUng, 10, pp. 1-
14.
Feuerbach, L. (1911). "Critique of Hegelian Philosophy", In Collected Works,
(Eds) Bolin, W. and Jodl, F, IV, pp. 299-356, ReuUier and Richard, Beriln.
Firat AF. and Venkatesh, A (1995), "Liberatory Postmodemism and the Re-
enchantment of ConsumpUon", Joumai ot Consumer Research, 22. No. 3,
pp. 239-267.
Rtchett J., Brownlie. D. and Saren, M. (1996), "The cultural meaning of
consumption". In Marketing tor an Expanding Europe, Beracs, J.. Bauer, A
and Simon. J., Proceedings of the 25"" EMAC Conference, Budapest pp. 435-
453.
Ford, D. (1980), "The Development of Buyer-Seller RelaUonships in Industriai
Markets", European Joumal ot MarkeUng, 14, 5, pp. 339-353.
Foxalt G.R and TIemey. J. (1984), "From CAPi to CAP2: User-initiated
InnovaUon tcom the User's Point of View", Management Decision, 22, 5, pp.
3-15.
Foxall, G.R. (1989), "User Initiated Product InnovaUons". Industrial Marketing
Management, 18, pp. 95-104.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson. T.S. (1989). Technology Diffusion: An Empirical
Test of CompetiUve Effects", Joumal ot Marketing, 53, (January), pp.35-49.
Groonroos. C. (i990), "ReiaUonship Approach to the MarkeUng FuncUon in
Service Contexts", Joumal ot Business Research, 29, 1, pp. 3-12.
Gummesson, E.M. (1987), "Tlie New-MarkeUng: Developing Long Term
Interactive Relationships", Long Range Planning, 20, 4, pp. 10-20.
Hakanson. H. and Wootz, B. (1975), "Risk ReducUon and the Industrial
Purchaser", European Joumai ot Marketing, 9, 1. pp. 35-51.
Hakansson, H. and Ostberg, C. (1975). "Industrial MarkeUng: An Organisational
Problem", IndusUlai Marketing Management, 4, pp. 113-123.
Hamel. G. and Prahalad, C. (1991), "Corporate ImaginaUon and Expeditionary
MarkeUng", Harvard Business Review, July-August PP. 81-92.
Hawes, J.M. and Bamhouse, S.H. (1987), "How Purchasing Agents Handle
Personal Risk". Industrial Marketing Management, 16. pp. 287-293.
Heideggar, Mariln (1962), Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E.
Robinson. Harper Row, New York.
Hill, W.R and Hlllier, TJ. (1977), Organisational Buying Behaviour, MacMiilan
Press Ltd.
Hippei, Von. E. (1986), "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts",
Management Science, 32, 7, pp. 791 -804.
 The Nature of the Product in Market Reiationships 463

Hirschman, E. and Hoiibrook, M. (1992), Postmodem Consumer Research: The

Study of Consumption as Text, Newberry Park. Cal., Sage.
Hoiibrook M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), The ExperienUai Aspects of
ConsumpUon : Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun". Joumai of Consumer
Research, 9, pp. 132-140.
Hoiibrook, M. B. (1994), "The Nature of Customer Value". In Service Quality,
(Eds), Rust R and Oilver, R, pp. 21-71.
Holt, D.B. (1995), "How Consumers Consume: A Typology of ConsumpUon
Practices". Joumai of Consunwr Research, 11, pp. 1-16.
Hunt S. (1992), "For Reason and Realism in Marketing", Joumai of MarkeUng,
56. pp. 89-102.
Hunt S. (1994), "On Rethinking Marketing : Our Discipline, our PracUce, our
Methods", European Joumai of MarkeUng, 28. No.3 , pp. 13-25.
Kassicieh, S.K and Rogers. RD. (i986). "Microcomputer Purchase Criteria
across Industries", Industrial MarkeUng Managemerit, 15. pp. 139-146.
Kleine, RE. and Keman. J. (1991), "Contextual Influences on the Meaning
Ascribed to Ordinary Consumption Objects", Joumai of Consumer Research,
18. pp. 3ii-324.
Kotier. P. (i972), MarkeUng Management: Analysis, Planning and Control New
Jersey, Prentice-Hail
Kotier, P (1988). Marketing Management, Sixth Edition. New Jersey, PrenUce-
Hali.
Lehmann, D. and O'Shaughnessy, J. (1982). "Decision Criteria Used In Buying
Different Categories Of Products", Joumai Of Purchasing And Materials
Management, pp. 9-14.
Levitt T. (1969), "Tiie Augmented Product Concept", in The MarkeUng Mode,
Levitt T.. McGraw Hiii. pp. 1-27.
McCarthy, E.J. (1978). Basic MarkeUng, SbcUi Edition, RD. Irwin inc
McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and ConsumpUon: New Approaches to Uw
Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and ActiviUes, Bloomlngton, Indiana
University Press.
McGee. L.W. and Spiro, R (i988), "Tlie MarkeUng Concept in Perspective",
Business Horizons, 31. May-June, pp. 40-45.
Mick, D. G. and Buhl. C. (1992). "A meaning-based modei of advertising
experiences". Joumai of Consumer Researcii, 19, pp. 317-338.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fail or Strategic Planning, Englewood Cliff,
NJ, PrenUce Hall
Nonnann. R and Ramirez, R. (i993), "From Vaiue Chain to Vaiue Constellation:
Designing Interactive Strategy", Har\'ard Business Review, Juiy-August pp.
65-77.
0' Donohoe. S. (i994). "Advertising Uses and GraUficaUons", European Joumai
of MarkeUng 28, 8/9, pp. 52-75.
Osgood. C.E., Suci. G.J. and Tannenbauin. P.H. (i957). The Measurement of
Meaning, Urbana, IL, University of Iiiinois Press.
Parasuraman. A, Zeithaml. V. and Berry. L (1985), "A Conceptual Model of
Service Quaiity and its impiicaUons for Future Research" Joumai of
MarkeUng, 49, pp. 41-50.
464 Michael Saren and Nikoiaos Tzokas

Pettigrew, AM. (1992), "The Character and Significance of Strategy Process

Research", Strategic Management Joumal 13, pp. 5-16.
Preece, S., Fleisher, C. and Toccacellt J. (1995), "Building a ReputaUon Along the
Value Chain at Levl Strauss" Long Range Pianning, 28, pp. 88-98.
Shaw. J., Giglierano. J. and Kallls, J. (1989), "Marketing Complex Technical
Products: Tlie Imporiance Of Intangible Attributes", IndusUlai MarkeUng
Management, 18. pp. 45-53.
SheUi. J. (1973), A Model Of Industrial Buyer Behavior", Joumai ot MarkeUng,
37, pp. 50-56.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A (1995), "The EvoluUon of Relationship Marketing".
IntemaUonal Business Review, 44, pp. 397-418.
Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garett D.E. (1988), MarkeUng Theory: Evolution
and EvaiuaUon, NY, John Wiiey & Sons.
Smith, D. (1995). "Rethinking the Effect of Perceived Fit on Customers'
Evaluation of New Products", Joumal of the Academy ot MarkeUng Science,
23, 1. pp. 4-14.
Tharp, M. and Scott L.M. (1990), "The Role of Marketing Processes in CreaUng
Cuiturai Meaning" Joumal ot Macromarketlng, Fait PP- 47-60.
Thomas, M. (1994), "Marketing - In Chaos or Transition?", European Joumal ot
MarkeUng, 28. 3, pp. 55-62.
Webster, F. Jr. (1992), "Tlie Changing Role or Marketing in the CorporaUon".
Joumal ot Marketing, 56, 4. pp. 1-17.
Wilson, D.T. and Ghingoid, M. (1987), "Linking R&D to Market Needs" Industrial
Marketing Management, 16, pp. 207-215.
Zaitman, G. and Wallendorf, M. (1979), Consumer Behaviour Basic Finding and
Management ImplicaUons, New York, John Wiley.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence". Journal ot Marketing, 52.
July, pp. 2-22.