Abstract
Provides a review of the nature of marketing. In order to explicate this work, presents marketing as a concept, management philosophy and organizational function. Acknowledges the contribution of key authors in the field, such as Alderson, Bagozzi, Houston, Hunt and Sheth, and pays attention to the nature of developments in marketing. Provides illustration to the evolution of marketing as a discipline with specific regard to the theoretical foundations of the subject matter. Draws various conclusions and makes certain implications as to the future of marketing.
Article type: Literature Review.Keywords: Marketing Activities, Marketing Concept, Marketing Philosophy, Marketing Theory.Content Indicators: Research Implications** Practice Implications* Originality* Readability**Management Decision Volume 34 Number 10 1996 pp. 19-26 Copyright © MCB University Press ISSN 0025-1747
INTRODUCTION
One of the classic management myths of recent history is that marketing involves nothing more than advertising. Furthermore, the marketing director of a medium-sized engineering firm recently told me of his profession, "…we're only peddlars and there's not more much to it than that!" Incidentally, since that illuminating discussion, his firm has been turned over to receivership. However, in attempting to clarify what is meant by the term marketing, many questions have been raised, some of which have been addressed by members of the profession and others that have remained unanswered because of their potential complexity. This article will attempt to illustrate a contemporary understanding of the term and a particularly useful framework with which to format the discussion will be to comment, in turn, on the concept, philosophy and function of marketing. For this purpose, the concept will be expressed as the means of operating within an organizational philosophy, the philosophy will be regarded as the medium which governs organizational life and the function will be referred to as the implementation reality and the form in which the concept is conspicuous in organizational behaviour[1, 2]. The article will then address issues that underly the development of the marketing discipline and provide the foundation to marketing theory. Finally, a number of conclusions are made which indicate areas of future development for the discipline.
THE MARKETING CONCEPT
The health of the marketing discipline is manifest in its constant desire and willingness to review and question the domain of marketing[3, 4, 5, 6] and this form of evolution has been sustained for several decades. For example, during the 1960s, the marketing concept was proclaimed as the saviour of companies[7], the 1970s saw it being challenged because it was unresponsive to greater societal issues[8, 9, 10], while during the 1980s it caused discontent by over-segmenting markets[11] and overstating the value of consumers' expressed needs[12, 13]. Responses to such indictments of the marketing concept have been many and varied. To date, the marketing concept has been broadened[14, 15], deepened[16], extended[17], redefined[18] and repositioned[2]. By implication, the marketing concept has attracted an abundance of definitions.
While there is some evidence of intellectual progress towards achieving an accepted definition of marketing[19, 20, 21, 22, 23], further developments are constrained owing to the difficulty of determining the precise inclusiveness of the term. That is, as the nature and scope of marketing has expanded, little attention has been given to explaining the boundaries within which the concept is applicable. For instance, some of the definitions which prevail are narrow in their form[24], while others have so much latitude in their nomenclature that they are notably generic and offer no real foundation for conceptualizing marketing. Even though it is difficult to reconcile these and other distinct viewpoints, Raymond and Barksdale[1] provide a definition of the marketing concept which is applied in nature. They have purported that,
…the marketing concept [provides] a single prescription for running a business successfully. The consumer must be recognised and accepted as the focal point for all business activities, and knowledge of customer needs and wants should be the starting point for all major business decisions[1, p. 42]..
This applied management emphasis is echoed in McGee and Spiro's[25] work which has stated that the marketing concept was intended to help marketers manage and co-ordinate their thinking about specific marketing questions. In formulating their definition they considered that the marketing concept involved the,
…specific techniques by which one seeks to identify and satisfy consumer needs. The concept involves what is commonly referred to as the marketing mix, the marketing tools a manager combines in a specific way to deal with a specific marketing situation[25, p. 41]..
This compares favourably with the American Marketing Association's (AMA) view. The AMA updated their definition of the marketing concept after an exhaustive debate. The definition now reads:
Marketing is the process of planning and exacting the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchange and satisfy organizational objectives[26, p. 1]..
These definitions are useful to the manager because they enable him/her to articulate the essence of marketing in the organizational setting. This is contrasted with the somewhat esoteric definitions found in the teaching literature in marketing. For instance, Houston [13, p. 85] considered that:
The marketing concept is a managerial prescription relating to the attainment of an entity's goals…The marketing concept states that an entity achieves its own exchange determined goals most efficiently through a thorough understanding of potential exchange partners and their needs and wants, through a thorough understanding of the costs associated with satisfying those needs and wants, and then designing, producing, and offering products in light of this understanding. 2
A similar viewpoint has been expressed by Kotler[27, p. 10] who has described the marketing concept as,
…a social and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating, offering, and exchanging products of value with others.
Even though many of these readings provide conceptually pure, well-grounded definitions of the marketing concept, they have been heavily criticized for their abstraction and limited practical value[21]. Indeed, this has been suggested as the basis for many misinterpretations of marketing in organiz-ations[28] and has initiated some of the criticism surrounding the marketing concept.
The number of definitions of the marketing concept are probably equalled, if not surpassed, by the number of criticisms it attracts. Nevertheless, for the most part, these criticisms can be distilled down to four main critical themes. First, historical evidence suggests that marketing has been portrayed as the most crucial management perspective within the firm[13, 29]. Second, many examples of poor implementation abound[30, 31, 32, 33] indicating a divorce between the rhetoric of the marketing concept and the reality of marketing practice. Third, the marketing concept does not sufficiently recognize the responsibility of the organization to society[27], the consumer[2, 25] or the human resources within the firm[34]. Finally, an exaggerated emphasis on the marketing concept within organizations has been blamed for a decline in productivity, competitiveness and the ability to successfully innovate[12, 35, 37].
In summary, despite the multiplicity of definitions for the marketing concept, it is clearly something which concerns the relationship between producers and consumers[17, 38]. Furthermore, the notion of an exchange relationship is central to understanding the foundation of the marketing concept[39, 40, 41]. Consequently, a clear axiom of marketing centres on exchanges of value between producers and consumers for the purpose of satisfying human needs and wants[27].
THE MARKETING PHILOSOPHY
It has been argued by many management writers that the implementation of the marketing concept in organizations requires the maintenance of a particular managerial philosophy or orientation[42, 43, 44, 45, 46]. Nevertheless, most organizations exhibit a host of conflicting philosophies which provide problems for the implementation of such a concept[47].
In contemporary readings, the marketing philosophy is usually presented as one of a number of managerial philosophies which constantly compete for visibility within the organization. Table I exhibits a number of these more prominent managerial philosophies and illustrates some attitudes that are typically associated with each.
The cost philosophy is generally considered short-termist and is a disinvestment approach commonly used as a strategy of retrenchment[48]. The product philosophy is reflected in organizations which have aggressive research and development programmes[2]. The production philosophy is concerned with capacity creation and volume production[28]. While this approach does require the identification and development of markets, manufacturing and production issues assume much greater significance in decision making[38]. The sales philosophy engages an organization to seek out customers aggressively and persuade them to consume existing offerings[13]. The erratic philosophy is the term used to characterize an organization that is unable to plan its activities owing to the turbulence and complexity of environmental circumstances[49]. The marketing philosophy focuses directly on three key issues of customer orientation, integrated organizational effort and profit direction[25]. First, customer orientation is derived through generating knowledge of the customer through an understanding of market needs and wants, and taking necessary actions to respond to the demands of target customers. Second, integrated effort refers to total organizational unity in attempting to achieve marketing purposes successfully. Finally, profit direction is intended to focus the attention of the organization on achieving profit rather than simply sales volume.
The societal marketing philosophy is an augmented form of the marketing philosophy and has its origins in questioning the legitimacy and acceptability of the marketing philosophy[51]. The societal marketing philosophy calls for a balance between three considerations of company profits, consumer want satisfaction and public interest[27]. Provided these three policy areas find an equilibrium, the organization is said to have adopted and implemented the societal marketing concept.
Even though the normative prescriptions of the marketing philosophy have been subject to some criticism[52, 53, 54], most of the controversy surrounding marketing can be targeted at the actual practice or rather "malpractice"[38, p. 11] of marketing. To this end, this discussion will proceed with an examination of the function of marketing.
THE MARKETING FUNCTION
In addition to being a concept and a philosophy, marketing is an organizational function[30, 55]. The extent of implementation of the marketing concept depends on a host of variables such as the organizational structure and the demands of internal operations. However, a number of writers have documented research studies in this area and attempted to operationalize and measure the "degree of implementation of the marketing concept"[56, p. 92] construct. Some of these studies were carried out a considerable time ago[57, 58, 59, 60, 61], while others are of more recent origin[31, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66]. These studies were conducted across many different industries and surveyed firms of different sizes with the general finding that the marketing concept had been adopted, to a certain extent, and marketing responsibilities expanded to accord marketing with the position of recognized functional status within the organization. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in accepting these findings in that the "degree of implementation of the marketing concept"[56, p. 92] construct is multidimensional which provides complex measurement problems[67]. Furthermore, many of the empirical conclusions in this area are contingent in nature and, therefore, limited to specific industries or organizational circumstances.
To summarize, there are formidable arguments to suggest that organizations should recognize the potential of marketing and thereby seek ways to implement the marketing concept in their own settings. To do so should provide benefits to the organization itself in the achievement of its goals and customers in the form of greater levels of satisfaction. For a detailed discussion of current thinking on the topic of market orientation, a pragmatic review has been provided by Harris[68] in a recent issue of this journal.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE
It has been argued that the genesis of the marketing discipline can be sourced to the beginning of the twentieth century[69]. Until that time, economic theory had provided explanations of decision-making activity and guidelines for business and government actions. However, as a result of changing economic circumstances the direct demand-supply relationship was complicated by increasingly sophisticated channels of distribution and wholesalers who were exerting greater influence in their transactions[70]. It has been further contended that the role of marketing within the firm formally developed during the early 1950s[1, 71] as a result of the post-war conditions of scarcity[25]. In short, firms began to realize that it was in their interests to focus their efforts on the satisfaction of the needs, wants and desires of particular customer segments. In the mid-1950s, marketing had become the keystone philosophy of business[1, 72] which was reflected in contemporary management opinion at that time and emphasized by Drucker[73, p. 37] who claimed that:
There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a satisfied customer. It is the customer who determines what the business is.
Although the 1950s witnessed the development of marketing, it was the mid-1960s that saw the pinnacle of its acceptance[25, 74]. However, marketing began to lose its organizational recognition during the 1970s for a number of reasons, one of which Clayclamp[72] considered to be management's disillusionment with the contribution of marketing to profit making. In addition, Wind and Robertson[75] believed another indicator to point to the demise of marketing was that production and sales orientations typically dominated organizational decision making. Nonetheless, it remained that new explanations of marketplace activities were needed and this formed the basis for the evolution of the marketing discipline.
Early writings on marketing were mainly descriptive and it was not until the 1940s that the discipline received recognized theoretical attention by researchers. The most significant contributions in this area at that time were provided by Alderson and Cox[76] and Bartels[77], who debated the position of marketing as a scientific discipline. The development of marketing thought was not at all rapid and, in 1964, Halbert[78] provided a damning indictment of the status of marketing. He concluded that marketing had no defensible theory on the basis of logical consistency, experimental rigour or adequate philosophical grounding. Indeed, theoretical developments were so limited that somewhat later, Bartels[77, p. 73] suggested that there was an "identity crisis" in marketing. Thereafter, a trend towards the examination of marketing theory emerged which provided a resurgence of interest in developing the foundations of the academic discipline[79].
The last two decades have witnessed numerous contributions to the field which now form the basis of contemporary marketing theory. Writers have approached this field of examination from several perspectives. For example, some see marketing theory in terms of its scientific content[80, 81, 82, 83], managerial perspective[73, 84, 85, 86] and meta-theoretical foundations[87, 88, 89, 90]. Despite this significant research attention, numerous opportunities still exist within the marketing discipline for generating new theories and providing a substantial contribution to knowledge[91]. This has been further emphasized by Howard et al.[79] who suggested that, in order to gain greater recognition, the marketing discipline must now generate an exemplary body of theory which:
…provides not only a continued interest in …fundamental theory questions, but a raison d'être for the current increase in scholarly attention being given to marketing[79, p. 15]..
THEORY IN MARKETING
In order to understand what constitutes theory and what is currently acceptable as such, some discussion needs to be given to the nature of scientific inquiry. Historically, it was considered that the role of science was to convert "doxa" (what is believed to be true) into "episteme" (what is known to be true)[83, p. 86]. However, this suggests that contentions can somehow be proven. The contemporary philosophical view tends to suggest that knowledge is not infallible but, moreover, tends to be conditional on particular circumstances. Arguably, one of the foremost commentators on the philosophy of science, in present times, is Dubin. His opinion of what constitutes a sound theory building approach is described, in two parts, as follows[92, pp. 7-8]::
A theoretical model starts with variables or (1) units whose interactions constitute the subject matter of attention. The model then specifies the manner in which these units interact with each other as (2) the laws of interaction…Since theoretical models are generally of limited portions of the world, the limits as (3) boundaries must be set forth within which the theory is expected to hold. Most theoretical models are presumed to represent a complex portion of the real world, part of whose complexity is revealed by the fact that there are various (4) system states each of which the units interact differently with each other…The theorist is [then] in a position to derive conclusions that represent logical and true deductions about the model in operation or the (5) propositions of the model.
However, the early stages of theory building represent conceptual aspects, whereas the final two reflect the empirical part of the research activity. It follows, therefore, that:
Should there be any desire to determine whether the model does, in fact, represent the real world, then each term in each proposition whose test is sought needs to be converted into (6) an empirical indicator… The next operation is to substitute the appropriate empirical indicators in the propositional statement to generate a testable (7) hypothesis. The research operation consists of measuring the values on the empirical indicators of the hypotheses to determine whether the theoretically predicted values are achieved or approximated in the research test[92, p. 8]..
Therefore, theory building can be considered to be a disciplined, systematic and rigorous approach to formulating and testing models of knowledge. Furthermore, Dubin's[92] seven-stage sequence, outlined above, is believed to be a generic framework for theory building and one which is not solely applicable to social science disciplines.
In considering the specific role of theory building in marketing, Hunt[93] has extensively reviewed definitions of theory[89, 94, 95, 96] and recognized some broad underlying common themes in various writings. He subsequently defined the scope of marketing theory as follows:
A theory is a systematically related set of statements, including some lawlike generalisations, that are empirically testable. The purpose of theory is to increase scientific understanding through a systematised structure capable of both explaining and predicting phenomenon[93, p. 228]..
Accordingly, marketing theory has three components: systematically related themes, lawlike generalizations and empirical testability. The first two of these components are fundamental criteria for any scientific explanation. That is, phenomena cannot be viewed in isolation and must be considered within the framework of broader and interconnected variables. The justification for the final component of empirical testability is explained by Hunt[93, p. 243] in that,
…any systematised structure which is not empirically testable will suffer from explanatory and predictive impotence.
Therefore, in order to claim some form of inference from a model, the theory must possess an empirical grounding. A review of most well-regarded marketing journals indicates the wealth and proliferation of research in the area. In fact, the nature of marketing theories are now so diverse that it could be suggested that the discipline has become fragmented. This fragmentation could mean that marketing is now only a generic label applied to a multitude of topics ranging from consumer behaviour to intra-organizational dimensions of marketing. However, this author prefers to believe that such a divergence in interests reflects the richness and colour of marketing, and demonstrates the breadth of contemporary understanding in the discipline.
CONCLUSIONS
It is reasonable to claim that marketing has achieved the position of, "… legitimate scholarly discipline"[91, p. 183] and is respected by academics and practitioners in the fields of management, economics, psychology, sociology and other social science professions. The nature of marketing and what it is seen to represent has been changed and adapted to conform with the requirements of the relevant decade. The 1990s will, no doubt, be regarded as the decade of relationship marketing[97] and, as we welcome the new millennium, opportunities offered by advances in information technology will surely take the application of marketing to even greater heights. Furthermore, the generic nature of marketing illustrates that challenges stand to be met from introducing the concept to non-traditional contexts such as professional services, political environments and allied areas of public administration.
The heritage that marketing can claim suggests that the profession is in a strong position to consolidate its status as a valuable organizational resource and a discipline which can enjoy established maturity. Furthermore, as emerging themes continue to be developed in both the practice and theory of marketing, it remains that such innovations are likely to maintain the position of marketing as a key discipline for the management student and as an item of crucial importance on the boardroom agenda.
Describing to others how Citizen Agency has become successful has been difficult. Mostly it’s because we couldn’t really pinpoint it. We don’t do anything that conventional wisdom would say could lead to success. We didn’t have a business plan. We refuse to use any traditional ways of marketing/advertising. Our website pretty much sucks. We don’t even keep our company blog up to date. Half the time we are out, we forget to take business cards. We don’t keep track of hours. We don’t have a process (patented or not). We are clueless when it comes to prioritizing. And we don’t have any business goals. We don’t get back to people very fast. We turn down big, lucrative contracts. We give more away than we keep. We don’t really care too much about growth. We value our leisure time over efficiency.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster, right? Yet…
We have more potential work than we can handle on a regular basis. We’ve never gone into the red (oops…wrong color!). We live amazingly great lives in the 2nd most expensive city in the US. We get to travel all over the world. We know people in almost several countries we can call friends (people who we could have dinner with or who will show us around). We are successful in exactly the way we measure it: a community of support, sustainable lifestyle and constant personal growth.
And one of the things we’ve learnt is something incredibly counterintuitive to current North American culture: the more we give away, the better we do.
When I make statements like, “It all balances out in the end,” I don’t mean that I buy person A a meal and the next time person A buys me a meal. I don’t mean that the volunteer work we do will generate leads, either. There is no obvious returns on investment…no clear reciprocal cause and effect of what we do. And I didn’t understand what was so powerful about that until I started reading The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property (thanks to Austin Hill).
Gifts Gain Value Through Circulation
In The Gift, Lewis Hyde explains through several folk tales and anthropological studies that the Gift Economy is not one of reciprocation at all. In fact, this obligatory reciprocation has sprouted from the idea of trade in our current market economy. A gift is not, in fact, a gift unless it continues circulating. So, I buy lunch for person A, then person A gives away her last $10 to person B, who uses it to buy sandwiches, which he shares with person C, who is now well fed enough to get creative and paint that amazing piece of art, which she gives to person D, who is so inspired by that art that he donates it to the local artist community, who displays it in their community garden, which many walk by to admire, one of whom decides to donate some money to a local neighbourhood beautifying project, which builds a spectacular park where I can now enjoy reading in, which will lead to all sorts of wonderful things.
The gift, as it moves along, actually becomes more and more valuable. In my example, a gift of lunch from me could turn into a large improvement in my community, but in really basic terms, the very nature of the gift is to continue to grow in value as it gets passed along and the increments don’t tend to be felt as burdens to the person passing the gift along, either as it is a natural process. Remember the story of the guy who ‘Traded up’ the paperclip for a house in Saskatchewan? Well, that’s kind of the idea…each ‘trade’ became a simple increment between a red paperclip to a whole house. And, at first glance, it may not seem like a very ‘gifty’ experiment (since only one guy got the house), but Kipling, Saskatchewan couldn’t be happier about the press and the sheer craziness of the act has sprouted many interesting copycat stories, re-ignited the swap industry and inspired many, many people to go out and try fantastic, crazy things.
As the paperclip story is passed along, it gives pleasure to all that are told it and status to those who tell it as well (storytelling is truly a gift). It’s the gift of possibility.
Instant Gratification Isn’t Part of the Gift Economy
We never really think about what we are going to get out of something we are giving, whether it is time or money or ideas or support. We do think about whether these gifts align with our own values, how the community will benefit and if we can afford to do it (we are definitely not martyrs and feel we can do better work if we can feed ourselves). I think this is a key point. So many companies will donate time, resources and money to something if they can establish a clear ROI. They’ll ask for a certain number of ‘impressions’ (logos, banners, etc.) or connections or a better public image.
Take BarCamp sponsorships, for instance. We’ve always insisted that sponsorships should work as follows: 1. companies can either sponsor a meal or donate a maximum of $250 cash, 2. companies don’t get any banners, logos, speeches or other ‘impressions’, 3. companies who sponsor are encouraged strongly to participate (or send representatives to participate) in the BarCamp, leading a session or just being there, getting involved. #3 is the most important point of all. Sure, the $250 is nice to have and feeds the troops, but we would rather lead the troops to the local Deli to buy their own sandwiches in lieu of someone’s participation time.
So many companies don’t understand this. It’s easy to throw money at an event, put up a banner and check that off their list of ‘good deeds done’, but it doesn’t contribute to the conversation. It doesn’t change culture. It doesn’t build relationships. These take time…not money.
Our good friend, David Crow, who was one of the people who led the BarCamp revolution in Toronto just recently joined Microsoft. At first I was a little skeptical about his move, then he described a recent interaction with another city throwing a BarCamp where they solicited him for a Microsoft donation. David agreed, but only if he was participating.
David understands that his participation is worth way more than Microsoft’s money. The money is a transaction, his presence is a connection.
Gifts Connect
When you buy a pair of shoes from Bata shoes, you exchange money for the shoes directly. Very rarely does that transaction create a deeper relationship with either the company or the shoe salesperson (unless they are amazing, but even then…I’ll explain later on). But when someone you meet gives you a gift, a deeper bond emerges. The more personal the gift, the deeper the connection (as long as it is not given as a device of control or obligation, which I probably won’t get to in this post).
You may have experienced this even in market economy transactions. You order a t-shirt from Threadless and when it arrives, you open the package to find ‘extras’ - little gifts in the form of stickers and postcards and buttons. In a non-market transaction, a gift given by a friend becomes more dear. The picture frame you were given reminds you of her every time you look at it. An unexpected bouquet of flowers not only tells you that he is thinking of you, but also connects you deeper.
Think of gifts passed down through generations, too. Both the connection and the growing value of the gift collides in your great-great grandfather’s pocket watch. Through generations, you are bonded more closely with an ancestor.
Gifts from strangers can hold weight, too. Someone holding open the door for you or helping you with your load connects you to an unknown person, even temporarily. Of course, living in the market economy has made us weary of accepting actual gifts as we always suspect a reciprocation or exchange is being required, but on those rare occasions where someone offers a gift unconditionally, their memory is permanently transplanted into your experience. This is true for both the giver and the recipient. I gave a coat to a freezing man years ago. I could still tell you what he looked like. I remember how I felt afterwards and how I felt so great that I called up a friend I had been fighting with to apologize.
Gifts Stick With You
You don’t need to have a whole lot to give. The fallacy is that, if you give, you are then without.
My experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve found that the more I give, the more I gain. No, it’s not instantaneous or even necessarily monetary.
Citizen Agency is built on a mixture of the market and the gift economy. Obviously, the market economy comes into play with our consulting practice. We give time, support and energy to our clients and they pay us for that. Clients want goals and plans and some sort of equivalent value for the money they pay. But the gift economy part of our business comes in how we have been successful. We grow because we give.
Chris gives so much of his time to new entrepreneurs and to web standards work — so much I sometimes have to pull him back on it and get him to log in those wireframes or similar task. I spend time and energy in my communities like coworking and encouraging the many young women in technology who reach out to me. We both volunteer our time and energy to projects like Net Squared, the Sunlight Foundation, Creative Commons, Freecycle and a variety of other non-profits. We offer an inexpensive (and free for some) community space and hire people to make sure it is available and sufficient for use by any group that needs it. We constantly connect people we meet to others we meet so that they can go further. We travel all over the world, most of the time at our own expense, to assist and encourage Coworking, BarCamp and other local global communities. We do all of this without really thinking about what we could get in return. Personally, I just get a high from doing it. Maybe it’s the Cancerian in me, but seeing others benefit from connections I make or advice I give is high reward.
But somehow it all comes back tenfold. It comes racing back at us with so much more than we could ever give. It’s almost embarrassing at times how much we get out of it all.
For those who say this isn’t scalable or transferable, take this into consideration. Less than two years ago, I was some chick working as a New Media Marketing Manager at some HR association in Ontario. Yeah, I had ideas and a bit of experience under my belt, but I was known to 5 people and one of those 5 was my Mom. Chris? Well, he’s the braver one. He came out of the gate with crazy ideas and a total lack of regard for the market economy ‘norms’. He taught me to embrace my own crazy ideas and go for it. But even Chris came out of obscurity not long ago. He moved to San Francisco and knew 3 people.
We both started simply…giving a little and playing along with “the rules” more. But as we moved along, we liked giving more than playing along with the rules…plus, the rewards were enormous! (but not the point) And it became addictive. Hell, we don’t really have much to give money-wise, but we knew we could give more of our time and experience. And wow, we found out that social capital is worth way more than money (and actually multiplies itself as you give it away).
And I start to think about this possibility: what if everyone started to act this way? If the world defaulted on generosity and the gift economy was given as much value as the market economy (but not a monetary value), what would happen? And we really think that the best way to make this happen is to just keep spreading this through example…and maybe pushing those clients we give up on too easily a little harder. And maybe we could put these theories into some more solid practice so that those who are scared of these hippie-sounding ideas could actually start to implement them into their businesses and lives and start to see the rewards themselves.
So, this is also something much bigger that I’m planning to talk about as part of my book, which I will provide the outline for at some point in the near future. I really believe the idea of the gift economy is going to play a big role in the future. We just need to wrap our heads around how we fit it together with the market economy in a way that balances the two sensibly.
