4.7 PART 6: MISHCA (THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL
4.7.3 Mishca’s perspective core concept of marketing
A broader exchange of value was propagated under the ‘Reconstructionists’ ambit of the core concept of marketing. In the case of Mishca, the importance of the social units in the marketing process included references to marketers, academics, consumers and students. Mishca’s viewpoints within this dimension are included in Figure 4.22.
113
Figure 4.22: Mishca’s statements- core concept of marketing
The core concept of marketing related to the transactional or broader exchange of value of marketing. In the case of the ‘Reconstructionists’, the broad exchange of value amongst social units was considered a necessary part of the marketing process. For Mishca, students at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels are social constituents that are influenced by the curriculum to which they are exposed.
In particular, Mishca questioned the level of critical thinking and reflexivity amongst marketing students at undergraduate level. Her critique was levelled at the marketing curriculum being the promoter of a management technology process, where the tools of the marketing process were emphasised. The focus on the management technology process of marketing would therefore accept the conceptual definition of marketing as sound without being subject to reinterpretation or reconstruction. For Mishca, this would not allow student to question how their value system would influence their thinking.
1. “What we are producing at undergraduate level? Are we producing reflective, reflexive thinkers, critical thinkers or are we just producing candidates who are equipped with the tools of the trade…
maybe even in first year a questioning of your values.” 5
2. “I think that most textbooks were defining it as an add on in almost as a stop-gap measure, at the university level and particularly at post graduate level we have the freedom look at in depth some of the philosophies.” 4
3. “…so within our environment there’s been no pressure so we have not been responding to even what corporates require in training our candidates...” 7
4. “…we should defend ourselves… marketing certainly doesn’t hook money out of peoples’ pockets…it persuades people…you still have the freedom of choice.” 9
5. “I still hold that consumers should have the freedom of choice, the trouble is when you are in an underdeveloped context that the trust and faith placed in marketers is so high, that consumers don’t exercise their choice.” 9
6. “we have control over a curriculum…we can serve to ‘conscientise’ our candidates… if we introduce those kinds of competencies, almost a competency to be critical and to reflect on some of the decisions you make as marketers we could be doing one part of it but by the same token I think there needs to be a massive consumer education program…” 10
7. “…it’s a push and pull effect and a pull effect would be if consumers are so ‘conscientised’ that they say to marketers. You are spending too much money, I don’t like what you’re doing… I won’t buy …so it’s a pull rather than push and I think both are needed.”10
8. “…the difficulty with embedding it is then you have to sell it…to persuade people to adopt a set of values that will inform their curricula…how do you police it and how do you monitor it?” 13
114
Mishca also underscored the relevance of investigating new philosophies at a postgraduate level where such ideas can be probed and reflected upon. However, she again pointed to how the limited scope of textbooks failed adequately to address issues outside the norm of the marketing curriculum. She alluded to the simple add-on of issues such as sustainability into textbooks and the inability of universities to respond to changes in the environment around them. Mishca’s referred to the apathetic responsiveness of universities because of the lack of pressure within these institutional structures to effect change. Consequently, for Mishca, the continuous focus of the existing marketing curriculum remained acceptable.
In the context of the ‘Apologists”’ and the Social Marketers’, the core concept of marketing focused on the transactional exchange value of marketing. Whilst the ‘Reconstructionists’
argued for a broader level of exchange, Mishca’s views in this regard appeared to share some similarity with the ‘Apologists”’ and the ‘Social Marketers’. Mishca did believe in the transactional process of marketing, but felt it could occur in a manner that did not disadvantage consumers. She did not believe that marketers could be held wholly responsible for taking money from people as consumers could exercise their freedom of choice. However, for Mishca, the social context of a developing country placed consumers in a vulnerable position where they did not exercise their choice.
Mishca’s emphasised a ‘conscientisation’ process for students, consumers and marketers.
Mishca believed that a reflection on one’s value system would allow students, consumers and even marketers to think critically about the decisions they make. Mishca supposed that such a process would allow these social constituents to review what the core concept of marketing could be.
However, for Mishca, the ‘conscientisation’ process would challenge people to question their own core values and reconcile it with a new set of proposed values. Mishca’s statements related to this dimension have revealed a strong orientation for her towards the core concept of marketing being extended to a broader exchange of value.
115