The computer game industry already generates more money than the film industry. Vegas and Consumer Infantalization,” Consumption, Markets, Culture, 4 (2): 101–23. Brown, Stephen (2001), MarketingThe Retro Revolution, London: Sage. Sign in to like videos, comment, and subscribe. Watch Queue Queue.

AdvertisementFunk, Soul, R&B, Pop, Hard Rock, Soft Rock and Disco all carved out their place in the music world in the 1970s. The late 70s also witness the birth of another young music style: hip-hop.Some of the best rock n roll of all time was recorded in the 70s. From David Bowie to Led Zeppelin to Pink Floyd, the list I could make would keep you scrolling for days.The 70s were a golden era for vinyl records. They were affordable to everyone and everyone had a record player. It seems like almost every song ever made in the 80s had a 70s sample in it.Music equipment had finally given artists more than 4 tracks to work with and music became much more experimental than it was technically capable of being in the 60s. QUICK REFERENCE LINKS1970s Music Timeline 1979 Music in 1970Enormous music festivals like Woodstock disappeared as quickly as they arrived, due to the inherent danger of attending. Riots, drugs, and violent crowds caused many potentially legendary festivals to be cancelled.Among the popular artists in 1970 year were Elton John, who arrived from England and the Jackson Five, hailing from “Motown” AKA Detroit, Michigan.

Ranging from 12-19 years old, the Jackson 5, featuring 12-year-old Michael Jackson, captured imaginations across the country. Diana Ross left the Supremes for solo fame. Neil Diamond, hit it big with “Cracklin’ Rosie” while Simon and Garfunkel impressed audiences with “Bridge Over Troubled Waters.”Johnny Cash won two Grammy awards for his song, “A Boy Named Sue.” Hard-rock group Three Dog Night ranked high on the national best-seller list. Elvis reappeared in concert, after making nearly 30 movies in the 1960s. Burt Bacharach gained new popularity with songs for TV and concerts.1970 marked the end of an era. The Beatles dissolved, suffering internal conflicts.

Each went their separate ways appearing on solo albums. Arguably the world’s most famous group of all time was no more.

The pop and rock music world, which The Beatles had forever changed, would never be the same.Louis Armstrong recovered from illness to throw a famous birthday bash on his “70th birthday” on July 4, 1970. It wasn’t known until the 1980s that his true birthday was on August 4, 1901. When he died in 1971, he was actually only 69 years old.A statue was planned to be erected in Armstrong’s birthplace of New Orleans. Incredible jazz-only festivals were staged in Monterey and Newport.Two deaths rocked the music world in 1970. On September 18, mercurial guitarist Jimi Hendrix was found dead in London. Less than a month later, on October 4, Janis Joplin died in Hollywood.

The dream of peace and love held so dearly by the hippies of the sixties seemed to be vanishing before their very eyes. Led Zeppelin 1971 Tour PosterAlthough glam rock and jazz were busy pushing boundaries, for the most part, 1971 was a year rife with nostalgia.The British Invasion rebooted, featuring several successful tours by several English artists. Black Sabbath, Elton John, The Who, Led Zeppelin and Bee Gees were just a few of the hugely popular English musicians.The Mamas and the Papas were rejuvenated, making a new album in hopes of a tour. Sonny and Cher came back into demand, as did Perry Como. The Beach Boys turned their music to an older audience, those who had listened to them in their earlier days.All of the former Beatles were successful this year, but none more than George Harrison, with “My Sweet Lord.” His epic, 3-vinyl box set titled “All Things Must Pass” is considered by many to be Harrison’s ultimate masterpiece.The Newport Jazz festival was cancelled, again due to violence. The Monterey Jazz festival avoided certain peril itself by directing its music toward an older audience.1971 witnessed the death of one of the greatest musicians in the history of humankind.

In New York City, on July 6, Louis Armstrong died. “Satchmo” could reach unheard-of notes, and his originality made people want to learn the trumpet just to imitate him. Fortunately, he left us with a massive catalog of over 1,500 records.

His influence on modern music, while not necessarily obvious to many, is certain to be felt for centuries to come. David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust1972 started off with a tragic blast. Two bombs exploded, with minutes of each other, on January 26 which damaged the NY HQ of Columbia Artists Management and the nearby offices of Sol Hurok. The blasts were attributed to the Jewish Defense League which protested the Russian treatment of Jews.

Columbia and Hurok had pioneered in importing Russian talent.1972 saw the national emergence of “soul music.” At one point, the five top-selling records in the US and 11 of the top 20 albums were by African American artists.Leading the way was Isaac Hayes, with his smash hit from 1971, Shaft. Other legendary R&B artists at the top of their game were Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield and even Sammy Davis Jr.

Got into the mix with “Candy Man” from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.American rockers went a decidedly softer direction. Neil Young, Three Dog Night and America all released singles that could be described as easy listening.Not so in Britain. Glam rock was in full force as Ziggy Stardust and T. Rex strutted their stuff on stage.

Fireworks and other startling effects brought a return to theatrics as Alice Cooper treated his concerts with all the pomp and circumstance of a Broadway play based in Hell.Along with the glamorous imagery and glittering costumes came a quality characterized by some observers as “Rock n Rouge” because of their bi-sexual overtones.The Rolling Stones also toured the US for the first time since 1969 in support of their iconic Exile on Main Street album.The most popular song of the year, however, belonged to Don McLean with American Pie. The cryptic 8-minute long song captured the hearts and minds of the entire country for the first two months of the year. AdvertisementRock and pop ruled “Supreme” in 1973. Soul was huge too, featuring legends like Barry White, Stevie Wonder, and more.Reggae was making a breakthrough in the United States, headlined by the Wailers and Jimmy Cliff. Music in 1974Elton John’s popularity soared in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

At a concert in California, 75,000 tickets sold out within hours of becoming available.Bob Dylan reappeared in concert after a near 10-year hiatus. AdvertisementAerosmith was one of the most popular groups in 1976, with lead singer Stephen Tyler drawing comparisons to Mick Jagger in more ways than one.Paul McCartney finished a world tour with his band Wings. The tour, which had begun in Europe the previous year, ended with a tour of the United States and Canada, and was extremely successful.Eric Carmen was a popular new artist, playing multiple instruments while singing. Piano-playing crooner Barry Manilow was another popular artist. British-born Peter Frampton brought a little popularity to the United States, outselling Bob Dylan with his album “Frampton Comes Alive!”Electrified funk became a new musical genre, led by Wild Cherry and their lead singer/guitarist, Robert Parissi.

Their single “Play That Funky Music” sold over a million copies.Jazz ruled, especially guitarist George Benson. He hit #1 in charts for popular, soul, and jazz music, with his album “Breezin’.” Other popular jazz artists included Nat Adderly, Milt Jackson, and Kenny Burrell. Music in 1977Punk rock developed seriously for the first time, with bands like the Sex Pistols and the Ramones thrashing their way to success. Their crazy stage behavior and offbeat arrangements drew both praise and discouragement.Kiss popularized in 1977, drawing crowds of young people with their costumes and heavy rock style.Fleetwood Mac came into the clear for American audiences by adding new members and changing their traditionally blues style. By the end of the year, their two ridiculously successful albums had collectively sold over 11 million copies.James Taylor and his wife Carly Simon were successful in selling their own records, with his platinum record “JT” and her single “Nobody Does It Better.”The Commodores were also successful, with R&B hits like “Brick House” and “How Much Love.”Herbie Hancock helped organize a jazz tour with members of Miles Davis’ quintet and Freddie Hubbard in place of Davis on the trumpet. Their tour was less than overwhelming, going through Tokyo, London, and the United States.

Guitarist George Benson kept up his pre-established fan base, with his jazz tunes.The deaths of Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby, however, rocked the music industry in 1977. The world was saddened by the loss of two such legends, and both will be remembered for generations to come.

Music in 1978The Bee Gees exploded into the music world, selling more records than anyone thought possible. They also were the ushers for the disco era, as it was in full swing in 1978. The soundtrack for the movie Saturday Night Fever sold nearly 30 million copies.Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton blended their country with other styles of music. Parton pioneered more of a pop-country, while Nelson made his own rock-country mix.Bruce Springsteen reemerged with “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” considered by many to be one of the great rock albums of the decade. But Billy Joel was the most popular rock artist of the year.

Joel sold over 6 million copies of his albums in the United States alone, topping the charts.Steely Dan created a platinum record of their own, “Aja,” which had a jazz-like feel to it. Kenny Loggins and Jim Messina split, and Loggins made a new album, the popular “Night Watch.”Jazz received a surge of popularity produced by the President. Jimmy Carter invited over 30 jazz instrumentalists to come play on the White House lawn on June 18. Some of the musicians invited were Herbie Hancock, Benny Carter, and Chick Corea. The president hailed jazz as America’s own original music.

The rise of retro has led many to conclude that it represents the end of marketing, that it is indicative of inertia, ossification and the waning of creativity. Marketing — The Retro Revolution explains why the opposite is the case, demonstrating that retro-orientation is a harbinger of change and a revolution in marketing thinking. In his engaging and lively style, Stephen Brown shows that the implications of today's retro revolution are much more profound than the existing literature suggests. He argues that just as retro-marketing practitioners are looking to the past for inspiration, so too students, consultants and academics should seek to do likewise. Format:Brown, S.

Marketing – The retro revolution London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.41220283Brown, Stephen. Marketing – The Retro Revolution.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2001. Doi: 10.41220283.Brown, S 2001, Marketing – the retro revolution, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, viewed 23 April 2020, doi: 10.41220283.Brown, Stephen.

Marketing – The Retro Revolution. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2001. SAGE Knowledge. 2020, doi: 10.41220283. © Stephen Brown 2001First published 2001Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Is There a Taxidermist in the House?However, as I look back on writing a book about looking back – the book that lies ahead of you – I appreciate that it couldn't have been composed without extensive back-up and unstinting encouragement.

Rosemary Nixon of Sage supported this venture at every stage, as did her esteemed colleague Kiren Shoman. Thank you both. I'm also deeply indebted to Hope Schau (Temple University, Philadelphia) and Anthony Patterson (University of Ulster) who helped gather some of the retro raw material contained herein, though the innumerable stylistic infelicities are my own, my very own. Once again, Sharon Malcolm prepared the excellent diagrams, for which I am very grateful. Last but not least, I appreciate the (im)patience and (mis)understanding I've received from my wife, Linda, and daughters, Madison, Holly and Sophie, who suffered while I struggled to write in an academic yet accessible style. Maybe next time. Page 204‘Oh yeah, you're the postmodern guy.

Tell me, how do you teach that stuff?’ You know, if I've heard that question once, I've heard it a thousand times. The funny thing is, however, I have never had a problem when I present ‘that stuff to students, be they post- or under-graduate. On the contrary, I find that they get it right away, that they know where I'm coming from, that ‘that stuff makes a semblance of sense to them. Now, I wouldn't for a moment claim to be more in touch with today's students than the scientifically minded marketing majority. It seems to me, nevertheless, that if we live in a postmodern world, as many maintain, then postmodern marketing perspectives may be more pertinent than the ‘modern’ paradigm that continues to hold sway in our field. If, moreover, contemporary marketing is characterized by a retrospective orientation, as the present book has sought to show, then the new-and-improved, onward-and-upward ethos that dominates traditional Kotlerite textbooks is completely out of kilter with twenty-first-century commercial practice.As Marketing – The Retro Revolution has been written for a general audience – titter ye not!

– I feel obliged to include some appropriately pedagogic material or approximations thereof. Instead of resorting to a carefully chosen collation of case studies (their narratological appeal notwithstanding), I'd like to reflect on the preceding eleven chapters, plus preface. Not only is this more in keeping with postmodern reflexivity, but it also gives me a chance to address some of the issues (deliberately) omitted from the foregoing essay. The hope, therefore, is that my reflexive ruminations might provide the starting point for class or seminar discussion. In this regard, please bear in mind that Marketing – The Retro Revolution is a fairly broad-brush treatment.

I'm well aware that the topics I raise are more nuanced than the present volume pretends. I appreciate, furthermore, that there's a world of difference between the modern marketing paradigm, as it is ordinarily portrayed in BFBAMs, and how marketers behave on a day-to-day basis. APIC, Page 205nonetheless, is presented as the marketing ideal, the way marketing should be, the condition that marketing practice must aspire to. The aim of this book is to challenge the Kotlerite ideal and to posit an equally idealized replacement. TEASE, in other words, is a normative alternative to APIC and thus portrays marketing, not as it is, but as it ought to be.To begin at the beginning, I suspect that the preface will have offended quite a few readers. The majority of these will doubtless be affronted by the thought of my air guitar antics (albeit the double-necked tennis racket was my actual adolescent axe of choice). But for those who persevered, the key academic issue is Americanization.

My contention that marketing is quintessentially American is sure to be contested. We are regularly informed, are we not, that all sorts of marketing practices went on prior to the emergence of modern marketing in the Eisenhower era. Long, in fact, before the colonization of the United States of America. Josiah Wedgwood, the medieval guilds, the ancient Greeks, neolithic flint-knappers and the lapis lazuli tradespersons of pre-cuneiformed Mesopotamia, have all been plausibly posited as proto-marketing pioneers.

Modern marketing, moreover, is not exclusively North American, as the Relationship Marketing paradigm (Scandinavia), the Postmodern Marketing paradigm (France), and several other nationally inflected variants remind us (British pragmatics, Irish poetics, German isolationism, Japanese indifference, etc.). Indeed, it can be convincingly contended that each and every organization possesses its own idiosyncratic marketing modality or, if one really wants to take it to the limit, that every individual commercial decision comprises a unique instantiation of marketing mores.I'm not disputing either of these temporal (premodern marketing) or spatial (different Ps for different places) arguments. At the same time, however, I think there is something special about the Barnumesque marketing that emerged in the late nineteenth century and the customer-orientated paradigm that erupted in the post-war epoch. I suspect that most non-marketing people associate marketing with the United States of America.

I believe that the sheer ubiquity of marketing nowadays has blinded us to the fact that it comes from America. Yes, marketing has become universalized, in much the same way as the movie industry is now Hollywoodized, fast food is McDonaldized, theme parks and heritage centres are Disneyfied and the soft drinks business is Coca-Colonized. Such is its omnipresence, that we even project it backwards in time in order to convince ourselves that marketing has always been with us and thus represents some kind of innate human trait. Personally, I very much doubt that Josiah Wedgwood considered himself a marketing man – the concept simply didn't exist – let alone our friendly neighbourhood flint-knapping Neanderthal.

Indeed, even when allowances are made for academic anachronism and twenty-first-century ubiquity, I would submit that marketing still retains a distinctively American cast. Page 206 Discussion Questions.

Can American marketing imperialism be stopped? Should it be stopped? What's the most effective way of stopping it?

Why hasn't it been stopped before now?is an attempted tour d'horizon of retromarketing. It identifies three different types of retro, seeks to account for the recent retro outbreak and suggests that a retro stance can be taken on marketing theory and thought. Each of these assertions is debatable in itself (are there any other forms of retro? Have important explanatory factors been omitted? Is it legitimate to infer that the rise of retro has implications for marketing thought?). But the issue that I want to focus on is definitional. In, I avoid giving a definition of retromarketing, arguing that it is pointless.

Now, I won't deny that an agreed definition of retro – like an agreed definition of ‘brands’, ‘internationalization’, ‘involvement’, ‘marketing’ etc. – would be convenient, but marketing's record in this area suggests that it's unlikely to happen, unless all manner of arbitrary decisions concerning retro/not-retro are imposed upon the material. Where, for example, does retro begin? The seventies, the sixties, the nineteenth century, the day before yesterday? How many parts of the marketing mix – assuming it is possible to agree on the make-up of the mix – must be included before the retro designation is officially bestowed on a product or service?

Does a completely new product with ye-olde advertising count? What about ye-olde services with a contemporary promotional twist?That said, I suspect most people see retro in decadal terms – the seventies, the fifties, the twenties, etc. – and, indeed, decadal temporal schemata are very popular in our field. Decades, to be sure, are somewhat arbitrary cultural constructs in themselves (when did the sixties really begin?) and are subject to the sorts of gross stereotyping we noted in our discussion of retroscapes in.

What's more, they too come complete with definitional imponderables. How much of a ‘cooling off period is necessary before a decade is revivable?

Are we ready for a nineties comeback, for yet another round of retro? Will the pick ‘n’ mix decade be back before we have finished picking it clean? Discussion Questions. What is the function of marketing definitions? As none has ever been agreed upon, except on a short-term basis, why do we continue to pursue the definitional chimera?

Is it purely a pragmatic matter or, as Foucault would have us believe, are there important political dimensions to inclusion and exclusion? Discuss the suggestion that there have been so many seventies revivals since the seventies that they have lasted longer than the original decade.In, we returned to the primal scene of the ‘modern’ marketing paradigm. Theodore Levitt, to be sure, wasn't solely responsible for the Page 207post-war marketing revolution.

The pioneering contributions of Drucker, Keith and McKitterick played an important part in the transformation, as many commentators have observed. One suspects, however, that the canonization of the latter three has more to do with marketing's desire to manufacture heroic antecedents – the rhetoric of mainstream texts requires a cadre of champions, great men, free thinkers and misunderstood geniuses – than with the impact their publications had at the time (Drucker's was a throw-away remark, for example, and McKitterick's paper appeared in an obscure volume of conference proceedings).

The same cannot be said for ‘Marketing Myopia’, an award-winning paper that appeared in a highly regarded journal and proved controversial from the outset. It is surely no exaggeration to state that ‘Marketing Myopia’ was an intellectual watershed and, given its enduring influence, that a deconstructive critique is long overdue.

Pulling a classic paper apart doesn't mean the end of marketing civilization as we know it, nor is it a traitorous act. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is only by reading against the grain and turning conventional wisdom on its head, as Levitt himself was wont to do, that we can better appreciate a classic's importance.Aside from its close reading of a marketing classic, makes a couple of debatable points. The first of these is that the 1950s was an anti-marketing decade, an era when marketers and advertisers were held in fairly low esteem. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to this effect, there is no way of proving the point, or of categorically refuting it. In a situation where interpretation is all and the evidence is ambivalent, much depends on what the investigator seeks to find.

Ambivalence, I believe, is the operative word here, because the standing of marketing is always somewhat ambivalent, a paradoxical combination of attraction and repulsion. With this in mind, it can be contended that an attraction-rejection dialectic exists, where marketing's social standing waxes and wanes with the passage of time. Certainly, it helps account for the situation in the 1920s, whereby Barton strove valiantly to render marketing respectable, and the latter-day plunge in marketing's esteem, on account of the vociferous critiques of the no-logo contingent.A rhythmic reading is also relevant to the other main point at issue in. It was argued that Levitt's great achievement involved repositioning the consumer in marketing's cosmology. By situating the consumer at the centre of our conceptual universe, he effectively redefined what it means to be marketing orientated, what qualifies as marketing, the activities that warrant the appellation ‘marketing’.

If it's not consumer-centric, then it's not marketing. This is as close to a proper paradigm shift (in the Kuhnian sense) as a pre-paradigmatic discipline like marketing gets.

However, it is important to appreciate that highly sophisticated marketing activities went on before Levitt's modern marketing revolution. What's more, the customer still figured Page 208prominently in this pre-Copernican epoch, albeit not at the centre, not as the point of departure, not as the supreme court of marketing appeal (pardon my mongrel metaphors). The issue, therefore, is where exactly does the consumer/customer stand relative to the marketing system? Purely for the purposes of discussion, I would submit that a cyclical process is again at work.

In the inter-war era, as Marchand shows, marketers portrayed themselves as the consumer's partner, a dependable friend who could always be turned to for honest advice. They were equals, in other words, rather than the consumer-master/marketer-slave posture posited by Levitt. At the start of the twentieth century, however, marketing ruled the roost, marketers called the shots, a marketer-master/ consumer-slave situation obtained. Caveat emptor and si populus vult deciperi, decipatur (if the people want to be deceived, let them) were the marketing maxims of the time. The first half of the cycle, then, swings from marketing on top, through equal standing, to consumer on top. In the post ‘Marketing Myopia’ epoch, furthermore, we have witnessed a gradual reinstatement of consumer-marketer equality (most notably in the rapidly fading Relationship Marketing paradigm) and the closing of the circle at the very end of the century, when cries of ‘forget the customer’ and ‘ignore the customer’ are increasingly heard.

Caveat emptor, once again, is our retro motto of choice. Discussion Questions. Consider the Consumer Situation Cycle.

Does it withstand close scrutiny? Identify the causes of the cycle, if any. What is its driving force? How does it relate to the waxing and waning of marketing's social standing?The main matters arising in are belief systems in general and magic in particular. The latter, to be sure, erupts at several points in the book, especially, but it's best to consider it within the broader context of spirituality. Outsiders, neutral observers and the great marketing unwashed – that is, the precious few who have not been indoctrinated into the APIC mindset – cannot help but be struck by the prevalence of ‘magical’ appeals in marketing and advertising. Our critics, moreover, often employ magically inflected terms of derision: witch doctors, hocus pocus, jiggery pokery, mumbo jumbo and so forth.

In fact, one of the most celebrated Marxist critiques of marketing, by Raymond Williams, memorably described it as ‘the magic system’. Yet marketers themselves are strangely reluctant to mention the M word in polite company and, although there are one or two published papers on magical marketing, the supernatural is conspicuous by its absence from mainstream marketing discourse. Why should this be?Well, the obvious answer relates to the negative connotations that the term ‘magic’ conveys (from an academic marketing perspective, I hasten to add). For good or ill, magic is irredeemably associated with conjuring, Page 209card tricks, sleight of hand, sword-swallowing, sawing scantily clad assistants in half, top hats infested with doves, rabbits or silk scarves, and the applause-inducing abracadabras of Paul Daniels, David Copperfield, David Blaine and so on.

Worse, the term is tainted with irrationality, anarchy, new ageism and the whole west coast, slightly flaky, bad acid, berry-eating, tree-hugging, Age of Aquarius, give peace a chance, remember (not remembering) the sixties, anti-marketing, anti-nomian, anti-authoritarian, alternative lifestyle thing.Modern marketing, then, can't admit to being magical, because to do so automatically undermines what little credibility it has. And herein lies the real problem. It is this desperate desire to be taken seriously, to prove that we are fully paid up scientists – rigorous, objective, white-coated laboratory workers – that is the major cause of our discipline's low standing (fluctuations in esteem notwithstanding). If marketing really wants to raise its status, it should be boasting of its magical capability, alluding to its secret, customer-compelling powers (pace Packard), and dropping cryptic hints about ancient sources of commercial wisdom. The irony, indeed, is that magic contains a very rich corpus of concepts. There are several schools of magical thought, ranging from the pioneering mentalistic analyses of Taylor and Fraser, through functional, contextual, structuralist, psychoanalytical and semiotic perspectives, to the recent phenomenological account of magical experience persuasively posited by Glucklich. The nature, purpose and efficacy of magic have been much debated and it is variously considered to be a form of pre-scientific science, a force for group solidarity or something that ‘works’ by suggestion and/or PNI (psychoneuroimmunology).

Nevertheless, the key point is that marketing is magic and our field would be much better off if we acknowledged the fact and got to grips – belatedly – with our natural conceptual constituency. Discussion Questions. Assemble a selection of glossy magazines and examine the advertisements for ‘magical’ appeals or ‘supernatural’ treatments of any kind. Are such appeals fairly evenly spread or are some product-markets more magical than others?

Can you account for this? Is the 4Ps, the ‘hey presto’ of marketing thought? Why, for that matter, should marketers believe anyone who doesn't believe in marketing?Without question, P.T. Barnum is the personification of the present book. He epitomizes the spirit of TEASE.

He is retromarketing incarnate. He is, in my humble opinion, the greatest marketing man who ever lived. So pervasive is the peerless Prince of Humbugs that the subtitle of this text should be ‘Six Degrees of P.T. Barnum’, though three degrees is closer to the mark. Almost everyone mentioned herein is connected in some way to the great showman: William James and his brother's childhood visits to the American Museum; L. Frank Baum being taken Page 210to see the Cardiff Giant; Sequah as an alumnus of Kickapoo, Healy and Bigelow's homage to the humbugger in chief.

Even Joe Camel, American Tobacco's timeless trade character, was based on one of Barnum and Bailey's bactrians. Barnum, what is more, went buffalo hunting with General George Custer, attended the gala performance of Oscar Wilde's American tour, planned to write a book with Mark Twain and actually has an (appropriately ostentatious) typeface named after him.Barnum, in many ways, transcends discussion, but his story is pertinent to an egregious absence from the present book; namely, the fourth P of price. My critics will doubtless take me to task for failing to examine pricing considerations. There is, as I point out in a couple of places, a retro dimension to contemporary pricing behaviours. Internet auctions, web-based buying groups, cyberhaggling and suchlike are undoubtedly a throwback to the bazaar, the forum, the agora. The Cluetrain Manifesto in particular makes much of this analogy. However, I chose not to give pricing a chapter to itself.

And Why?Because I don't believe that pricing is a marketing matter. It doesn't form part of the TEASE framework. Once again, I would stress that this does not mean pricing is unimportant or that it can be safely ignored. As with environmental considerations and customer preferences, pricing still registers on the corporate radar and emits a very strong signal. But the problem with pricing under the APIC paradigm is that it features too strongly, it looms too large. The inevitable upshot is that marketers spend much of their time justifying advertising expenditure, measuring marketing's contribution or calculating brand equity to the n-th degree. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is not marketing.

Marketers have become penny wise and pound foolish. They are, as Barnum observes in his ‘money getting’ lecture, saving at the spigot and wasting at the bung-hole.

It is impossible, according to the great showman, to spend too much on marketing. False economy in marketing matters is much worse than excess expenditure. Marketing is inherently excessive, or it was when Barnum ruled the waves. Discussion Questions. If marketing's matrix mania is a consequence of the late 1960s decision to broaden its domain, then the textbooks of the pre-broadening era should be devoid of grid squares. Compare a main-stream textbook of the mid-1960s with one of today – first and current editions of Kotler are ideal – and calculate the proportion of squares in each (relative to all illustrations).

Examine editions from intervening decades to see if there is any evidence of a secular trend. What factors might account for the rise in boxology?In 1835, Hans Christian Andersen published a pamphlet, Eventyr, fortalte for Born, containing his first four fairy stories, one of which was ‘The Princess on the Pea’. As children of all ages know, this tells the tale Page 214of a scientific test, designed to verify the truth claims of the nobility, princesses in particular.

A single pea is placed under twenty mattresses, on top of which are piled a further twenty feather beds. Impostors invariably spend a comfortable night, luxuriating in the mountain of bedding. But such is the sensitivity of true princesses that they complain of an irritant, something hard under the bedclothes disturbing their peaceful repose.It is a moot point whether marketing is a blue blood of the academy (and scientific truth is established by slightly different procedures these days), but there is no doubt that our discipline's dogmatic slumber is being disrupted by an errant P. That P is Planning. For more than a generation, planning has been regarded as the bedrock of modern marketing, the hard core of the Kotlerite concept, the P in APIC, no less.

In recent years, however, it has been subject to mounting criticism and, while planning is still widely practised, it is more like a meaningless, if well-meaning ritual than a forecast of meaningful marketing possibilities. Marketing planning is a magical rite for managers. And there's nothing wrong with that.The principal problem with marketing planning is not that it's a magical rite but that planners refuse to acknowledge its magical qualities.

Planners persist in believing that plans are of paramount importance and, while their conviction is touching (indeed, necessary, as noted in ), wishing will not make marketing plans rigorous, rational, reliable or robust. It is only in fairy stories that wishes come true, frogs turn into princes, pigs can fly, sows' ears make silk purses and marketing plans come to fruition exactly as anticipated.

Fairy stories, in fact, are what marketing plans really are and, again, there's nothing wrong with that. As argues, marketing planners are in the tale-telling business, the happily-ever-after business, the somewhere-over-the-rainbow business, the L.

Frank Baum business.To be sure, the writers of marketing texts are also in the tale-telling business, after a fashion., for example, comprises a simple morality tale, where an unfortunate situation (marketing plans are pointless) is made better (planners should become storytellers) and everyone lives happily after (sort of). Marketing – The Retro Revolution, incidentally, is also based on an overarching narrative structure. Discussion Questions. There has been much talk of political marketing – the application of marketing principles to political parties – but much less consideration of marketing politics, the political side of marketing practice.

Itemize the intra-organizational (marketing trumps accounts) and international (marketing as a front for Americanization) aspects of marketing politics and apply your insights to the consumer (pester-power) and cerebral (politics of publications) spheres. To what extent is the TEASE framework political?My father was a welder and I'm a welder too. Except that, in keeping with academics' status as the proletariat of post-industrial society, I weld Page 218together tissues of texts instead of sheets of metal. As much as anything else, this book is about other books.

Many of the chapters take publications as their point of departure, whether they be much-loved classics like Baum's Wizard of Oz and Levitt's ‘Marketing Myopia’, or best-selling tracts like Barton's The Man Nobody Knows and Packard's Hidden Persuaders, or, indeed, commercial detritus like the Innovations catalogue and Fyffes' sticky blue labels. Most importantly perhaps, Marketing – The Retro Revolution has been written to counterbalance traditional marketing textbooks. It does not attempt to complement the modern marketing paradigm. It offers an alternative to APIC. It is a counter-Kotler critique. It hopes to depose the model of marketing that has dominated our field for fortysomething years and replace it with TEASE-based marketing principles.Regardless of its revolutionary aspirations, the present text is primarily a work of literary criticism and the methods it has employed are appropriately literary. Despite appearances to the contrary, Marketing – The Retro Revolution is not an historical investigation, nor does it pretend to be.

This book, rather, adopts and adapts the research methods of the New Historicists, a leading school of contemporary literary criticism. Although there are several versions of New Historicism, they are all characterized by a belief in the essential textuality of historical knowledge; by fondness for historical accidents, incongruous juxtapositions, speculative inversions, telling anecdotes and flights of historical fancy; and by a discursive mode of discourse that eschews detailed textual analysis for narrative sweep and judicious digressions. Above all, however, the New Historicists refuse to privilege any single data source. Playbills, chapbooks, adverts and analogous textual ephemera are considered just as insightful as the traditional literary canon (hence the eclectic mix of sources in the present text).New Historicism, to be sure, is one among many latter-day schools of literary theory, almost all of which are applicable to marketing ‘texts’, broadly defined.

It is no exaggeration to state that the entire contents of the present volume could be ‘read’ in a radically different manner, depending on the theoretical stance adopted. This point is perfectly illustrated in, where revolting aspects of twenty-first-century advertising are interpreted as a revival of Barnumesque freak shows and the grotesque tradition within western art. Although such retro readings are in keeping with New Historicist method, there are other ways to look at it. From a psychoanalytical perspective, it could be contended that contemporary gross-out advertising illustrates the ‘anxiety of effluence’. Just as aspirant poets are weighed down with the weight of prior aesthetic achievements and are driven by an Oedipal desire to supersede their literary forebears, so too today's band of offensive advertisers are beset by the saprogenic accomplishments of the promotional piss artists of times past, P.T. Barnum in particular. Indeed, it seems to me that Page 219marketing per se is stricken by the ‘anxiety of impudence’.

The low esteem in which it has traditionally been held has forced the field to overcompensate for its purported transgressions. Hence, the post-war emphasis on science, measurement, probity, professionalism, trust, rectitude and what have you. The upshot is that marketing's innate insouciance, irreverence and downright indecency have been obliterated by do-gooding, well-meaning, customer-stroking, nothing-if-not-nauseating inoffensiveness. Discussion Questions.

Is advertising vulgar? Should advertising aspire to vulgarity? Are advertisers ashamed of their vulgar heritage? If vulgarity is good enough for Rabelais, Cervantes, Swift, Sterne, Dickens, Wilde, Joyce and Boccaccio, to name but a few, why should advertisers worry about propriety? Indeed, if marketing is customer orientated, as Kotler contends, what have marketers to gain from disgusting their customers?Inoffensiveness may have mainstream marketing in its vice-like grip, but vice-lite litters the contemporary commercial landscape. As the advent of gross-out advertising attests, our field is witnessing the return of the marketing repressed. Retro regression therapy is called for and, in the final chapter, a tantalizing, titillating, titivating alternative is posited.

Summarized in the acronym TEASE, this replaces abjection with flirtation, prefers scurrility to sincerity, recommends ribaldry rather than rigour and elevates exaggeration over exactitude. It maintains that Marketing is a Trickster, marketing is Excessive, Marketing is Adolescent, Marketing is Spirited, marketing is Entertaining. Marketing is something for nothing.

Marketing is more than your money's worth. Marketing is never knowingly understated. Marketing is magic realism for managers.Some readers, admittedly, might conclude that TEASE is an add-on, an aspect of marketing that can be accommodated within the existing APIC paradigm. Surely, they'll surmise, it is just another version of the old argument that marketing is artistic, marketing is creative, marketing is right-brained. Everyone knows that already and, while it is necessary to be reminded of the fact from time to time, there's no need to make a song and dance about it, let alone a paradigm shift. Although I can appreciate why many might lean towards such an interpretation (enough already, no threat, business as usual) and although I recognize that readers' readings are beyond authorial control (as latter-day literary theory reminds us), I'd like to stress the radical alterity that TEASE represents.Perhaps the best way to appreciate its implications is to refer to the so-called ‘broadening’ debate, mentioned earlier.

Thirty years ago, Kotler and Levy extended the customer-oriented APIC paradigm far Page 220beyond its for-profit focus and, in so doing, effectively transformed it into a universal verity, applicable in all circumstances, to all phenomena, at all times. True, some scholarly Cassandras warned of adverse long-term consequences, but the Kotler–Levy marketing philosophy carried the day and has since been applied to every conceivable domain, from continents to celebrities.If the Kotler–Levy protocols are the equivalent of marketing's Big Bang, TEASE comprises the Big Crunch. It is not something that is sprinkled on top of APIC, irrespective of the setting. It is a replacement for APIC. It insists that the term ‘marketing’ be reserved for teasing activities, and teasing activities alone.

Marketing is the something special, the hyperbolic hoopla, the charismatic catalyst that is added to commercial situations, be they advertising campaigns, new product launches, sales promotion incentives or hold-the-front-page publicity stunts. And that is all it is. Customers, according to the TEASE framework, are not marketing's concern, nor are profits, nor are prices, nor is planning, nor is strategy, nor is the environment, nor is research, nor is anything else that is conventionally considered to be marketing's ‘property’. To repeat, this does not mean that market research, or customer care or profit margins or corporate strategies are unimportant.

Quite the opposite. It simply means that they no longer qualify as marketing. APIC activities can still go on. Indeed, it is imperative that they do. But let's not pretend that in performing these activities we are ‘doing’ marketing. Marketing starts where APIC stops.

Innovations, Innovations Millennium Collection, Preston, Innovations, 2000.2. The Innovations phenomenon is discussed in I. Robson and J.

Rowe, ‘Marketing – the whore of Babylon?’, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (9/10), 1997, pp. How quickly marketing fads and postmodern panics pass! Who now remembers the maleficent millennium bug?4. See for example: J. Westwood, 30 Minutes to Write a Marketing Plan, London, Page 243Kogan Page, 1997; S. Simpkin and J. Bradley, The Marketing Planning Workbook: Effective Marketing for Marketing Managers, London, Routledge, 1996; A.

Hatton, The Definitive Guide to Marketing Planning, London, Financial Times, 2000.5. Dibb et al., op. McDonald, Marketing Plans: How to Prepare Them, How to Use Them, London, Heinemann, 1984; M. McDonald, Marketing Plans: How to Prepare Them, How to Use Them, fourth edition, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.7. McDonald, ‘Strategic marketing planning: theory and practice’, in M.J.

Baker (ed.), The Marketing Book, fourth edition, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999, p. Horrigan, Yesterday's Tomorrows: Past Visions of the American Future, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996; W.A. Sherden, The Fortune Sellers: The Big Business of Buying and Selling Predictions, New York, Wiley, 1998; C. Failu, The History of the Future: Images of the 21st Century, trans. Cowper, Paris, Flammarion, 1993; S.P. Schnaars, Megamistakes: Forecasting and the Myth of Rapid Technological Change, New York, Free Press, 1989.9. Kahn and A.J.

Wiener, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years, New York, Macmillan, 1967.10. Schnaars, op. Horrigan, op. Popcorn, The Popcorn Report: Faith Popcorn on the Future of Your Company, Your World and Your Life, Garden City, Doubleday, 1991; R.

Shalit, ‘The business of Faith’, The New Republic, 18 April, 1994, pp. See for example: B.K. Boyd, ‘Strategic planning and financial performance: a meta-analytic review’, Journal of Management Studies, 28 (4), 1991, pp.

Leppard and M. McDonald, ‘A re-appraisal of the role of marketing planning’, Journal of Marketing Management, 3 (2), 1987, pp. McDonald, ‘Strategic marketing planning: theory, practice and research agendas’, Journal of Marketing Management, 12 (1), 1996, pp. This criticism is a bit much, to put it politely. After fortysomething years, planners can hardly continue to blame bozo managers for failing to give it a fair shot.

Formal planning has been properly tried and found sorely wanting.18. Malcolm McDonald ‘Strategic Marketing Planning’ (1999, op. 70–76) lists ten barriers to successful marketing planning, ranging from lack of CEO support to a reluctance to plan for planning.19. Mintzberg, op. Mintzberg et al., op. Brown, Postmodern Marketing, 1995, op.

Mintzberg et al., op. ‘Environmental turbulence’ is yet another common justification for formal planning. The gist of this argument is that business conditions are so fast-moving, so mutable, so uncontrollable nowadays that careful planning is more necessary than ever before. Failure to plan in turbulent times spells disaster, invites failure, is tantamount to incompetence and the like. Granted, ‘environmental turmoil’ has been used as a rallying cry since the earliest days of strategic planning and careful planning may not be the most appropriate response to socio-economic turbulence, in any event.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that business conditions are no more complex, faster-moving or whatever than they have been at various times in the past. It only seems that way; the passage of time smoothes out minor perturbations; and, not least, the things-have-never-been-tougher claim is patently self-serving, since it demonstrates how much better, smarter and more astute today's marketers are than the amateurs back then, who obviously didn't know how lucky they were.23. Indeed, the recent millennial transition has stimulated an orgy of prognostication. See for instance: S. Griffiths, Predictions: 30 Great Minds on the Future, Oxford, Oxford Page 244University Press, 1999; Y.

Blumenfeld, Scanning the Future: 20 Eminent Thinkers on the World of Tomorrow, London, Thames and Hudson, 1999; S. Chowdhury, Management 21C, London, Financial Times, 2000.24. I'm not being facetious here (well, just a little bit). The comfort-blanket aspect of planning is very important. There's no doubt that plans act as intra-organizational pacifiers, notwithstanding the political battles that may accompany their implementation. By insinuating that the future is manageable, if only in part, they function as an anxiety-reducing mechanism. In this regard, marketing plans are akin to magical rites and rituals, as Gimpl and Dakin astutely observe (M.L.

Gimpl and S.R. Dakin, ‘Management and magic’, California Management Review, 1984, 27 (1), pp. Stories, needless to say, are not confined to management studies. They are everywhere. Whereas Walter Benjamin, one of the leading cultural theorists of the mid-twentieth century, famously lamented the decline of storytelling in modernity, it seems that at our millennial transition storytelling is back with a postmodern bang (see below).26. For most commentators, the postmodern and storytelling are inseparable.

According to Lyotard, the postmodern intellectual's principal function is to ‘tell stories’; Jameson defines postmodernism as ‘a return to storytelling’; Hutcheon regards postmodern culture as ‘essentially novelistic’; Simpson diagnoses a veritable ‘epidemic of storytelling’ in the human sciences today; and Michel de Certeau contends that we reside in a recited society, one that is defined by stories, by citations of stories and by the interminable recitation of stories. I consider this dimension of postmodernism in S. Brown, Postmodern Marketing Two, 1998, op.

Again, I've summarized much of this literature in Postmodern Marketing Two (ibid.). Also useful are: B.B. Stern, ‘Narratological analysis of consumer voices in postmodern research accounts’, in B.B.

Stern (ed.), Representing Consumers: Voices, Views and Visions, London, Routledge, 1998, pp. Brownlie, ‘Beyond ethnography: towards writerly accounts of organising in marketing’, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), 1997, pp. 264–284; J.E. Escalas, ‘Advertising narratives: what are they and how do they work’, in B.B. Stern (ed.), op. Heilbrunn, ‘My brand the hero? A semiotic analysis of the consumer-brand relationship’, in M.

Lambkin et al. (eds), European Perspectives on Consumer Behaviour, London, Prentice-Hall, 1998, pp. Brownlie and J. Desmond, ‘Apocalyptus interruptus: a tale by parables, apostles and epistles’, in S.

(eds), Marketing Apocalypse, op. Bromiley, ‘Strategic stories: how 3M is rewriting business planning’, Harvard Business Review, 76 (May-June), 1998, pp. To my knowledge, I hasten to add. Such is the pace of marketing scholarship that several storytelling studies will no doubt have appeared by the time this text is published.31. Berger, Narratives in Popular Culture, Media and Everyday Life, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1997; S.

Onega and J.A.G. Landa, Narratology: An Introduction, London, Longman, 1996; M. Currie, Postmodern Narrative Theory, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998; C. Nash, Narrative in Culture: The Uses of Storytelling in the Sciences, Philosophy and Literature, London, Routledge, 1990.32. The literature on Baum is vast. Biographical details are provided in A.S. Carpenter and J.

Frank Baum: Royal Historian of Oz, Minneapolis, Lerner Publications, 1992; M.O. Riley, Oz and Beyond: The Fantasy World of L. Frank Baum, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1997; W.R. Leach, ‘The clown from Syracuse: the life and times of L. Frank Baum’, in L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Belmont, Wadsworth, 1991, pp. Rahn, The Wizard of Oz: Shaping an Imaginary World, New York, Twayne, 1998.

(By the way, I know that it was silver slippers in the book and that ruby came courtesy of MGM. No irate letters in green ink, please. Except those with an Emerald City postmark.)33. In light of our discussion in, it is noteworthy that Baum's pro-marketing books were widely banned in the anti-marketing 1950s. These days, by contrast, Oz is back in favour – reprints of the original texts, the 1939 film re-released, plans for another stage Page 245show, etc. – largely, one suspects, on account of the centenary of Baum's landmark text. There's even a self-help spiritual cult based on the Oz books.

Morena, The Wisdom of Oz, San Diego, Inner Connections Press, 1998.34. This consumption-orientated interpretation of the Oz books has become very popular in recent years.

Just as consumption has become a ‘legitimate’ topic in lit-crit per se, so too Baum is getting the apologist-for-capitalism treatment. Key contributions to the debate include: W.

Leach, 1993, op. (especially, pp. Schwartz, op. Culver, ‘What manikins want: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Art of Decorating Dry Goods Windows’, Representations, 21, 1988, pp.

Culver, ‘Growing up in Oz’, American Literary History, 4 (Winter), 1992, pp. 607–628; T.S. Oilman, ‘“Aunt Em: Hate you!

Taking the dog. Dorothy”: conscious and unconscious desire in The Wizard of Oz’, Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 20 (Winter), 1995–96, pp. 161–167; M.D.

FIFA 99 Free Download PC game setup in single direct link for windows. FIFA 99 is an amazing sports football game. FIFA 99 PC Game Overview FIFA 99 is developed and published under the. On this game portal, you can download the game FIFA 99 free torrent. The full game FIFA 99 was developed in 1998 in the Sports genre by the developer EA Canada for the platform Windows (PC). At the moment latest version: Full Game, rating: rate. Open “F1F 99” folder, double click on “Setup” and install it.; After installation complete, go to the folder where you install the game. Open folder, double click on “Fifa99” icon to play the game.Done! Click on Below Button to Proceed to Download Page. Download Fifa 99 Game Overview. Fifa 99 PC Game is an open-world action-adventure game developed by EA Vancouver. It was released on June 10, 1998 for the PlayStation, Microsoft Windows, Xbox and all other well known operating systems. Fifa 99 download. FIFA 99 (aka FIFA '99: European League Soccer), a really nice sports game sold in 1998 for Windows, is available and ready to be played again! Time to play a soccer / football (european) and licensed title video game title.

Westbrook, ‘Readers of Oz: young and old, old and new historicist’, Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 21 (3), 1996, pp. Zipes, ‘Introduction’, in L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful World of Oz, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1998, pp. Baum, The Wizard of Oz, in L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful World of Oz, 1998, op. Like Oz, Utopia is making a comeback. Recent overviews include: J.

Carey, The Faber Book of Utopias, London, Faber and Faber, 1999; G. Claeys and L.T. Sargent, The Utopia Reader, New York, New York University Press, 1999; R. Jacoby, The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in an Age of Apathy, New York, Basic Books, 1999; C. Kelly, Utopias, London, Penguin, 1999. For a marketing angle on Utopia, see S.

Maclaran, ‘The future is past’, in S. (eds), Marketing Apocalypse, op. Culver, 1988, op. The Wizard was specifically based on Barnum, not only in the original drawings by W.W. Window but also in Frank Morgan's portrayal of the Wizard in the 1939 MGM movie. One of the later Oz books, in fact, informs us that the Wizard was once a performer in ‘Bailum and Barney's Consolidated Shows’ (see Z.

Papanikolas, Trickster in the Land of Dreams, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1995).40. Leach, 1993, op. Emphasis added.42. The fullest discussion of Oz-as-allegory is found in P. Nathanson, Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1991. Of course, Baum's works are not unique in this regard. One only has to consider the manifold meanings ‘read into’ the works of George Orwell, Lewis Carroll, J.R.R.

Tolkien and countless others.43. Baum loved things.

He was a total spendthrift, a shopaholic avant la lettre, who wrote most of the sequels whilst living in a luxurious hotel, the Del Coronado, in southern California.44. Brown, ‘Trinitarianism, the Eternal Evangel and the Three Eras Schema’, in S.

(eds), Marketing Apocalypse, op. I explore the quest narrative in S. Doherty and B. Clarke, ‘Stoning the romance: on marketing's mind forg'd manacles’, in S. (eds), Romancing the Market, op. Volger, The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, Los Angeles, Michael Wiese, 1998. The twelve stages, from ‘Ordinary World’ to ‘Return with Elixir’ are contained in S.

Brown, Postmodern Marketing Two, op. They are applied to four contrasting Hollywood movies, including The Wizard of Oz. Feel free to adapt it to the marketing planning process.

You don't expect me to do everything for you, do you?48. Dorothy's homesickness, however, is largely motivated by misplaced loyalty to Page 246Uncle Henry and Aunt Em.

By the fifth book, even Dorothy succumbs to Oz's charms when she finally ups sticks and relocates permanently.49. Academic marketing is more than one hundred years old; ample time, one would have thought, to concoct a general theory or two. The ‘youthful discipline’ argument simply doesn't wash. Acting youthfully is another matter entirely, however. Sure, you're as young as you feel 50. Eysenck, Genius: The Natural History of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; G.

Morgan, Imaginization: The Art of Creative Management, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1993; J.N.T. Martin, ‘Play, reality and creativity’, in J.

Henry (ed.), Creative Management, London, Sage, 1991, pp. Zipes, The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales: The Western Fairy Tale Tradition from Medieval to Modern, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000; M. Warner, From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers, London, Vintage, 1998; B. Bettelheim, The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales, New York, Vintage, 1975; J. Zipes, Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion, New York, Routledge, 1983.52.

Shaw et al., op. Peterman, ‘The rise and fall of the J. Peterman Company’, Harvard Business Review, 11 (September-October), 1999, pp. Piercy, Tales from the Marketplace, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.54. Jensen, The Dream Society: How the Coming Shift from Information to Imagination will Transform your Business, New York, McGraw Hill, 1999.55. Mintzberg et al., op.

Dunlop, Business Heroes, Oxford, Capstone, 1997; S. Crainer, ‘Storytelling’, in S. Crainer (ed.), A Freethinker's A-Z of the New World of Business, Oxford, Capstone, 2000, pp. Roll on Marketing Planning the Harry Potter Way! Wheeler and J. Day, ‘Shock tacticians’, Marketing Week, 23 March, 2000, pp.

Doward, ‘Tailor's hand who fashioned a fortune with few connections’, The Observer Business, Sunday 26 September, 1999, p. Sherwin, ‘Judge says “fcuk” is obscene and should be banned’, The Times, Saturday 4 December, 1999, p. Miskin, ‘Jerusalem in uproar over obscene ad campaign’, The Jerusalem Post, 18 July, 1996, p.

McClintock, ‘Offensive weapons?: more brands are courting controversy by going for ads with shock value’, The Grocer, 10 August, 1996, p. 15; Marketing Week, ‘ASA and poster industry take over pre-vetting notorious advertisers’, Marketing Week, 13 December, 1996, p. 12; Marketing Week, ‘Clothing outfit courts controversy with ads’, Marketing Week, 6 August, 1998, p. 7; Marketing Week, ‘Jokey Jesus advertising campaign branded blasphemous’, Marketing Week, 13 August, 1998, p. 12; Marketing Week, ‘ASA slams Diesel over sexy nun ad’, Marketing Week, 9 July, 1998, p. Chittenden and E.

Saner, ‘Mums in aprons are out as adland sells on sex’, The Sunday Times, 30 July, 2000, p. Doward, ‘The flesh is weak’, The Observer Business, 3 September, 2000, p. Borrows, ‘Too good to eat’, Night and Day, 30 July, 2000, pp. Husband, ‘I'm just a simple working model’, You Magazine, 30 July, 2000, pp.

Carter, ‘Are you getting too much sex in your ads’, The Independent, 31 July, 1996, pp. 2–3; Marketing Week, ‘Advertisers jeopardise image in pursuit of indecent exposure’, Marketing Week, 2 February, 1996, p. Vezina and P. Olivia, ‘Provocation in advertising: a conceptualisation and an empirical assessment’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (3), 1997, pp. 177–192; J.H.

Barnes and M.J. Dotson, ‘An exploratory investigation into the nature of offensive television advertising’, Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 1990, pp. Barker, ‘Does art still have the capacity to shock us’, The Times, Wednesday 23 August, 2000, p. Wood (ed.), The Challenge of the Avant-Garde, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1999; M. Collings, op. Meecham and J.

Sheldon, Modern Art: A Critical Introduction, London, Routledge, 2000.8. Walsh, ‘It's a new cultural revolution’, The Observer Review, Sunday 11 June, 2000, p. Alexander, ‘Advertising fever grips e-commerce’, The Sunday Times Business, 21 November, 1999, p. Helmore, ‘Going mad on Madison Avenue’, The Observer Business, Sunday 5 December, 1999, p.

In this chapter I'm concentrating on advertising and promotion, but gross-out matters are relevant to marketing as a whole.Page 25311. Kirschenbaum, Under the Radar: Talking to Todays Cynical Consumers, New York, John Wiley, 1998.12.