richard p. bagozzi marketing as exchange -...

Richard P. Bagozzi

Marketing as ExchangeThe exchange concept is a key factor in understanding

the expanding role of marketing.

THE exchange paradigm has emerged as aframework useful for conceptualizing mar-

keting behavior. Indeed, most contemporarydefinitions of marketing explicitly include ex-change in their formulations.' Moreover, the cur-rent debate on "broadening" centers on the verynotion of exchange: on its nature, scope, andefficacy in marketing.

This article analyzes a number of dimensions ofthe exchange paradigm that have not been dealtwith in the marketing literature. First, it attemptsto show that what marketers have considered asexchange is a special case of exchange theory thatfocusts primarily on direct transfers of tangibleentities between two parties. In reality, marketingexchanges often are indirect, they may involve in-tangible and symbolic aspects, and more thantwo parties may participate. Second, the mediaand meaning of exchange are discussed in orderto provide a foundation for specifying underlyingmechanisms in marketing exchanges. Finally, so-cial marketing is analyzed in light of thebroadened concept of exchange.

The following discussion proceeds from the as-sumptions embodied in the generic concept ofmarketing as formulated by Kotler, Levy, andothers.^ In particular, it is assumed that market-ing theory is concerned with two questions: (1)Why do people and organizations engage in ex-change relationships? and (2) How are exchanges

1. See, for example. Marketing Staff of The Ohio StateUniversity, "A Statement of Marketing Philosophy," JOUR-NAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 29 (January 1965), pp. 43-44; E.Jerome McCarthy, Basic Marketing, 5th ed. (Homewood, 111.:Richard D. Irwin, 1975); Philip Kotler, Marketing Manage-ment, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p.12; and Ben M. Enis, Marketing Principles (Pacific Palisades,Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1974), p. 21.

2. Philip Kotler, "A Generic Concept of Marketing,"JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 36 (April 1972), pp. 46-54; andPhilip Kotler and Sidney J. Levy, "Broadening the Conceptof Marketing," JOURNAL OF MARKETING. Vol. 33 (January1969), pp. 10-15.

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 (October 1975), pp. 32-39.

created, resolved, or avoided? The domain for thesubject matter of marketing is assumed to bequite broad, encompassing all activities involving"exchange" and the cause and effect phenomenaassociated with it. As in the social and naturalsciences, marketing owes its definition to the out-come of debate and competition between diver-gent views in an evolutionary process that Kuhnterms a "scientific revolution."' Although the de-bate is far from settled, there appears to be agrowing consensus that exchange forms the corephenomenon for study in marketing. Whether thespecific instances of exchange are to be limited toeconomic institutions and consumers in the tradi-tional sense or expanded to all organizations inthe broadened sense deserves further attention bymarketing scholars and practitioners. Significant-ly, the following principles apply to exchanges inboth senses.

The Types of Exchange

In general, there are three types of exchange:restricted, generalized, and complex.'* Each ofthese is described below.Restricted Exchange

Restricted exchange refers to two-party recip-rocal relationships which may be representeddiagrammatically as A<-*B, where "«^" signifies"gives to and receives from" and A and B repre-sent social actors such as consumers, retailers,salesmen, organizations, or collectivities.' Mosttreatments of, and references to, exchange in

3. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolu-tions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1970).

4. The distinction between restricted and generalized ex-change was first made by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Boston:Beacon Press, 1969). An extended critical analysis of re-stricted and generalized exchange may be found in Peter P.Ekeh, Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions (Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), Chap. 3.

5. Ekeh, same reference as footnote 4, p. 50.

32

Mari<etJng as Exchange 33

the marketing literature have implicitly dealtwith restricted exchanges; that is, they havedealt with customer-salesman, wholesaler-retailer,or other such dyadic exchanges.

Restricted exchanges exhibit two characteris-tics:

First, there is a great deal of attempt tomaintain equality. This is especially thecase with repeatable social exchange acts.Attempts to gain advantage at the expenseof the other is [51c] minimized. Negatively,the breach of the rule of equality quicklyleads to emotional reactions. . . . Secondly,there is a quid pro quo mentality in re-stricted exchange activities. Time intervalsin mutual reciprocities are cut short andthere is an attempt to balance activitiesand exchange items as part of the mutualreciprocal relations.*

The "attempt to maintain equality" is quite evi-dent in restricted marketing exchanges. Retailers,for example, know that they will not obtain re-peat purchases if the consumer is taken advan-tage of and deceived. The "breach" in this rule ofequality—which is a central tenet of the market-ing concept—has led to picketing, boycotts, andeven rioting. Finally, the fact that restricted meir-keting exchanges must involve a quid pro quo no-tion (something of value in exchange for some-thing of value) has been at the heart of Luck'scriticism of broadening the concept of market-ing.^ However, as will be developed below, thereare important exceptions to the quid pro quo re-quirement in mciny marketing exchanges.

Generalized ExchangeGeneralized exchange denotes univocal, recip-

rocal relationships among at leaist three actors inthe exchange situation. Univocal reciprocity oc-curs "if the reciprocations involve at least threeactors and if the actors do not benefit each otherdirectly but only indirectly."* Given three social

6. Ekeh, same reference as footnote 4, pp. 51-52.7. David J. Luck, "Broadening the Concept of

Marketing—Too Far," JOURNAL OF MARKETING. Vol. 33(January 1969), pp. 10-15; and Luck, 'Social Marketing:Confusion Compounded," JOURNAL OF MARKETING. Vol. 38(October 1974), pp. 70-72.

8. Ekeh, same reference as footnote 4, pp. 48 and 50.

• ABOUT THE AUTHOR.Richard P. Bagozzi is a doctoral candidate in theMarketing Department of the Graduate School ofManagement, Northwestern University, Evanston, il-iinois.

actors, for instance, generalized exchange may berepresented as A-^B-^C^A, where "-•" signifies"gives to." In generalized exchange, the social ac-tors form a system in which each actor gives toanother but receives from someone other than towhom he gave. For example, suppose a public buscompany (B) asks a local department store chain(A) to donate or give a number of benches to thebus company. Suppose further that, after the de-partment store chain (A) gives the benches to thebus company (B), the company (B) then places thebenches at bus stops for the convenience of itsriders (C). Finally, suppose that a number of theriders (C) see the advertisements placed on thebenches by the department store chain (A) andlater patronize the store as a result of this expo-sure. This sequence of exchange, A^B-^C^A, isknown as generalized exchange; while it fails toconform to the usual notions of quid pro quo, itcertainly constitutes a marketing exchange of in-terest.

Complex ExchangeComplex exchange refers to a system of mutual

relationships between at least three parties. Eachsocial actor is involved in at least one direct ex-change, while the entire system is organized byan interconnecting web of relationships.

Perhaps the best example of complex exchangein marketing is the channel of distribution. Let-ting A represent a manufacturer, B a retailer, andC a consumer, it is possible to depict the channelas A<^B*-*C. Such open-ended sequences of directexchanges may be designated complex chain ex-changes.

But many marketing exchanges involve rela-tively closed sequences of relationships. Forexample, consider the claim made by Kotler thata "transaction takes place . . . when a person de-cides to watch a television program."^ Recently,Carman and Luck have criticized this assertion,maintaining that it may not exhibit an ex-change.'" The differences stem from: (1) a dis-agreement on whether exchange must consist oftransfers of tangible (as opposed to intangible)things of value, and (2) a neglect of the possibilityof systems of exchange. Figure 1 illustrates theexchange between a person and a television pro-gram and how it may be viewed as a link in asystem termed complex circular exchange.'' In this

9. Kotler, same reference as footnote 2, p. 48.10. James M. Carman, "On the Universality of Market-

ing," Journal of Contemporary Business, Vol. 2 (Autumn1973), p. 5; and Luck, "Social Marketing," same reference asfootnote 7, p. 72.

11. A form of circular exchange in primitive societies was

34 Journal of Marketing, October 1975

Entertainment, en)oyment,product information, etc.

Person

$10.00

Attention, support, potentialfor purchase, etc.

Television:Programs andCommercials

Book $.80Opportunityto place adon program

$1 00

Publisher

Exposure of product inmass media

AdvertisingAgency

FIGURE 1. An example of complex circular exchange.

system of exchange, the person experiences a di-rect transfer of intangibles between himself andthe program. That is, he gives his attention, sup-port (for example, as measured by the Nielsenratings), potential for purchase, and so on, andreceives entertainment, enjoyment, product in-formation, and other intangible entities. The per-son also experiences an indirect exchange withthe television program via a sequence of direct,tangible exchanges. Thus, after being informed ofthe availability of a book through an exchangewith the television program and its advertising, aperson may purchase it for, say, $10.00. Thebook's publisher, in turn, may purchase the ser-vices of an advertiser, paying what amounts to apercentage of each sale, say, $1.00. Finally, theadvertiser receives the opportunity to place acommercial on the air from the television net-work in exchange for what again amounts to apercentage of each sale, say, $.80. In this particu-lar example, the occurrence of the direct intangi-ble exchange was a necessary prerequisite for thedevelopment of the series of indirect tangible ex-changes. Thus, an exchange can occur between aperson and a television program.

Complex chain and complex circular exchangesinvolve predominantly conscious systems of so-cial and economic relationships. In this sense.

first suggested by Bronislaw Malinowski in Argonauts of theWestern Pacific (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922),p. 93; but in his concept the same physical items weretransmitted to all parties, while in complex circular ex-change as defined here different tangible or symbolic en-tities may be transferred.

there is an overt coordination of activities andexpectations, which Alderson called an organizedbehavioral system and which he reserved for thehousehold, the firm, and the channel of distribu-tion.'^ However, it should be evident that thedesignation "organized" is a relative one andthat other exchange systems, such as the oneshown in Figure 1, also evidence aspects of overtcoordination in an economic, social, and sym-bolic sense.

Generalized and complex exchanges are alsopresent in relatively unconscious systems of socialand economic relationships. Thus, a modemeconomy may experience a covert coordination ofactivities through exchanges that occur whenmany individuals, groups, and firms pursue theirown self-interest. This is what Adam Smithmeant by his reference to an "invisible hand."''Similarly, in his analysis of primitive societiesand marketing systems, Frazer has shown thatexchange and the pursuit of self-interest can bethe foundation for the web of kinship, economic,and social institutions."* The recent exchangetheories of Homans and Blau are also based onthis individualistic assumption of self-interest.'^ It

12. Wroe Alderson, Dynamic Marketing Behavior(Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1965), Chap. 1.

13. For a modern treatment of Adam Smith's contribu-tion to exchange theory, see Walter Nord, "Adam Smith andContemporary Social Exchange Theory,"' The AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 32 (October 1974),pp. 421-436.

14. Sir James G. Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament,Vol. 2 (London: Macmillan& Co., 1919).

15. George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary

Marketing as Exchange 35

should be stressed, however, that the exchangetradition developed by Levi-Strauss is not an in-dividualistic one but rather is built on social, col-lectivistic assumptions associated with general-ized exchange.'* These differences will becomemore apparent when social marketing is analyzedbelow.

The Media and Meaning of Exchange

In order to satisfy human needs, people andorganizations are compelled to engage in socialand economic exchanges with other people andorganizations. This is true for primitive as well ashighly developed societies. Social actors obtainsatisfaction of their needs by complying with, orinfluencing, the behavior of other actors. They dothis by communicating and controlling the mediaof exchange which, in turn, comprise the linksbetween one individual and another, between oneorganization and another. Significantly, market-ing exchanges harbor meanings for individualsthat go beyond the mere use of media for obtain-ing results in interactions.

The Media of ExchangeThe media of exchange are the vehicles with

which people communicate to, and influence,others in the satisfaction of their needs. Thesevehicles include money, persuasion, punishment,power (authority), inducement, and activation ofnormative or ethical commitments.'^ Productsand services are also media of exchange. In con-sumer behavior research, marketers have exten-sively studied the effects of these vehicles on be-havior. Moreover, it has been suggested that anumber of these vehicles be used in conjunctionwith sociopsychological processes to explain thecustomer-salesman relationship.'* It should benoted, however, that marketing is not solely con-cerned with influence processes, whether theseinvolve manufacturers influencing consumers orconsumers influencing manufacturers. Marketingis also concerned with meeting existing needs and

Forms, rev. ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1974); and Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964).

16. Levi-Strauss, same reference as footnote 4. See also,Ekeh, same reference as footnote 4, Chaps. 3 and 4.

17. Talcott Parsons, "On the Concept of Influence,"" PMWICOpinion Quarterly, Vol. 27 (Spring 1963), pp. 37-62; and Par-sons, "On the Concept of Political Power, " Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical Society, Vol. 107 (June 1963), pp.232-262. See also, Richard Emerson, "Power DependenceRelations,"/4frjenca« Sociological Review, Vol. 27 (February1962), pp. 31-40.

18. Richard P. Bagozzi, "Marketing as an Organized Be-havioral System of Exchange," JOURNAL OF MARKETING. Vol.38 (October 1974), pp. 77-81.

anticipating future needs, and these activities donot necessarily entail attempts to influence orpersuade.

To illustrate the multivariate nature of mediain marketing exchanges, consider the example ofthe channel of distribution, a complex chain ex-change. The firms in a channel of distribution areengaged in an intricate social system of be-havioral relationships that go well beyond the vis-ible exchange of products and money." Typically,the traditional channel achieves its consciouscoordination of effort through the mutual expec-tations of profit. In addition, each firm in thechannel may influence the degree of cooperationand compliance of its partners by offering in-ducements in the form of services, deals, or otherbenefits or by persuading each link in the channelthat it is in its own best interest to cooperate. Afirm may also affect the behavior or decisions ofanother firm through the use of the power it maypossess. Wilkinson has studied five bases of powerin the channel of distribution—reward, coercive,legitimate, referent, and expert power—and hastested aspects of these relationships betweenfirms.^" Finally, a firm may remind a delinquentmember in the channel of its contractual obliga-tions or even threaten the member with legal ac-tion for a breach of agreement. This influencemedium is known as the activation of commit-ments.

The Meaning of Exchange

Human behavior is more than the outward re-sponses or reactions of people to stimuli. Man notonly reacts to events or the actions of others buthe self-generates his own acts.-' His behavior ispurposeful, intentional. It is motivated. Man is aninformation seeker and generator as well as aninformation processor. In short, human behavioris a conjunction of meaning with action and reac-tion.

Similarly, exchange is more than the meretransfer of a product or service for money. To besure, most marketing exchanges are characterized

19. See, for example, Louis W. Stem, Distribution Chan-nels: Behavioral Dimensions (New York: Houghton MifflinCo., 1969).

20. Ian Wilkinson, "Power in Distribution Channels,""Cranfield Research Papers in Marketing and Logistics, Session1973-1974 (Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, Bed-fordshire, England); and Wilkinson, "Researching the Dis-tribution Channels for Consumer and Industrial Goods: thePower Dimension," Journal of the Market Research Society,Vol. 16 (No. 1, 1974), pp. 12-32.

21. This dynamic, as opposed to mechanistic, image ofhuman behavior is described nicely in R. Harre and P. F.Secord, The Explanation of Social Behavior (Totawa, NJ.:Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1973).


by such a transfer. But the reasons behind theexchange—the explanation of its occurrence—liein the social and psychological significance of theexperiences, feelings, and meanings of the partiesin the exchange. In general, marketing exchangesmay exhibit one of three classes of meanings:utilitarian, symbolic, or mixed.

Utilitarian Exchange. A utilitarian exchange isan interaction whereby goods are given in returnfor money or other goods and the motivation be-hind the actions lies in the anticipated use or tan-gible characteristics commonly associated withthe objects in the exchange. The utilitarian ex-change is often referred to as an economic ex-change, and most treatments of exchange in mar-keting implicitly rely on this usage. As Bartelsnotes with regard to the identity crisis in market-ing:

Marketing has initially and generally beenassociated exclusively with the distributivepart of the economic institution and function.

The question, then, is whether marketing isidentified by the field of economics in whichthe marketing techniques have been de-veloped and generally applied, or by the so-called marketing techniques, wherever theymay be applied.

If marketing relates to the distributivefunction of the economy, providing goods andservices, that physical function differentiatesit from all other social institutions.^^

Most marketers have traditionally conceptualizedthe subject matter of the discipline in these terms,and they have proceeded from the assumptionsembodied in utilitarian exchange.

In general, utilitarian exchange theory is builton the foundation o[ economic man.^^ Thus, it isassumed that:

1. Men are rational in their behavior.2. They attempt to maximize their satisfaction

in exchanges.3. They have complete information on alterna-

tives available to them in exchanges.4. These exchanges are relatively free from ex-

ternal influence.Coleman has developed an elaborate mathemati-cal framework for representing exchange be-

22. Robert Bartels, "The Identity Crisis in Marketing,"JOURNAL OF MARKETING, Vol. 38 (October 1974), p. 75. Em-phasis added.

23. For a modem treatment of economic man, see HaroldK. Schneider, Economic Man (New York: The Free Press,t974).

havior that assumes many of the features ofeconomic man.̂ " His model is based on the theoryof purposive action, which posits that each "actorwill choose that action which according to hisestimate will lead to an expectation of the mostbeneficial consequences."^' Among other things,the theory may be used to predict the outcomesand degree of control social actors have for a setof collective actions in an exchange system.

Symbolic Exchange. Symbolic exchange refersto the mutual transfer of psychological, social, orother intangible entities between two or moreparties. Levy was one of the first marketers torecognize this aspect of behavior, which is com-mon to many everyday marketing exchanges:

. . . symbol is a general term for all in-stances where experience is mediatedrather than direct; where an object, action,word, picture, or complex behavior is un-derstood to mean not only itself but alsosome other ideas or feelings.

The less concern there is with the con-crete satisfactions of a survival level of exis-tence, the more abstract human responsesbecome. As behavior in the market place isincreasingly elaborated, it also becomes in-creasingly symbolic. This idea needs someexamination, because it means that sellersof goods are engaged, whether willfully ornot, in selling symbols, as well as practicalmerchandise. It means that marketingmanagers must attend to more than the rel-atively superficial facts with which theyusually concern themselves when they donot think of their goods as having symbolicsignificance. . . . People buy things not onlyfor what they can do, but also for what theymean. 26

Mixed Exchange. Marketing exchanges involveboth utilitarian and symbolic aspects, and it isoften very difficult to separate the two. Yet, thevery creation and resolution of marketing ex-changes depend on the nature of the symbolicand utilitarian mix. It has only been within thepast decade or so that marketers have investi-gated this deeper side of marketing behavior intheir studies of psychographics, motivation re-search, attitude and multiattribute models, andother aspects of buyer and consumer behavior.

24. James S. Coleman, "Systems of Social Exchange,"Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 2 (December 1972).

25. James S. Coleman, The Mathematics of Collective Ac-tion (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1973).

26. Sidney J. Levy, "Symbols for Sale," Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 37 (July-August 1959), pp. 117-119.


Out of this research tradition has emerged a pic-ture of man in his true complexity as striving forboth economic and symbolic rewards. Thus, wesee the emergence of marketing man, perhapsbased on the following assumptions:

1. Man is sometimes rational, sometimes irra-tional.

2. He is motivated by tangible as well as intan-gible rewards, by internal as well as externalforces.^^

3. He engages in utilitarian as well as symbolicexchanges involving psychological and so-cial aspects.

4. Although faced with incomplete informa-tion, he proceeds the best he can and makesat least rudimentary and sometimes uncon-scious calculations of the costs and benefitsassociated with social and economic ex-changes.

5. Although occasionally striving to maximizehis profits, marketing man often settles forless than optimum gains in his exchanges.

6. Finally, exchanges do not occur in isolationbut are subject to a host of individual andsocial constraints: legal, ethical, normative,coercive, and the like.

The important research question to answer is:What are the forces and conditions creating andresolving marketing exchange relationships? Theprocesses involved in the creation and resolutionof exchange relationships constitute the subjectmatter of marketing, and these processes dependon, and cannot be separated from, the fundamen-tal character of human and organizational needs.

Social Marketing

The marketing literature is replete with con-flicting definitions of social ttmrketing. Some havedefined the term to signify the use of marketingskills in social causes,^* while others have meantit to refer also to "the study of markets and mar-keting activities within a total social system."^^

27. It should be stressed that man is motivated by thehope or anticipation of future rewards, and these may con-sist of classes of benefits not necessarily experienced in thepast. See Homans's individualistic exchange theory, a learn-ing perspective, same reference as footnote 15; Levi-Strauss's collectivistic, symbolic perspective, same refer-ence as footnote 4; and Ekeh, same reference as footnote 4,pp. 118-124, 163.

28. Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman, "Social Marketing:An Approach to Planned Social Change," JOURNAL OF MAR-KETING, Vol. 35 (July 1971), p. 5.

29. William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley, eds.. Social Mar-keting: Perspectives and Viewpoints (Homewood, 111.: RichardD. Irwin, 1973), p. 4. Emphasis added.

Bartels recently muddied the waters with stilla new definition that is vastly different fromthose previously suggested. For him, social mar-keting designates "the application of marketingtechniques to nonmarketing fields."'^ Since thesedefinitions cover virtually everything in market-ing and even some things outside of marketing, itis no wonder that one author felt compelled toexpress his "personal confusion" and "uncom-fortable" state of mind regarding the concept.^'

But what is social marketing? Before answeringthis question, we must reject the previous defini-tions for a number of reasons. First, we must re-ject the notion that social marketing is merely the"use" or "application" of marketing techniques orskills to other areas. A science or discipline issomething more than its technologies. "Socialmarketing" connotes what is social and what ismarketing, and to limit the definition to the toolsof a discipline is to beg the question of the mean-ing of marketing. Second, social marketing is notsolely the study of marketing within the frame ofthe total social system, and it is even more thanthe subject matter of the discipline. Rather, themeaning of social marketing—like that of market-ing itself—is to be found in the unique probletnsthat confront the discipline. Thus, as thephilosopher of science. Popper, notes:

The belief that there is such a thing asphysics, or biology, or archaeology, and thatthese "studies" or "disciplines" are distin-guishable by the subject matter which theyinvestigate, appears to me to be a residuefrom the time when one believed that atheory had to proceed from a definition of itsown subject matter. But subject matter, orkinds of things, do not, I hold, constitute abasis for distinguishing disciplines. Disci-plines are distinguished partly for historicalreasons and reasons of administrative con-venience (such as the organization of teach-ing and of appointments), and partly becausethe theories which we construct to solve ourproblems have a tendency to grow intounified systems. But all this classification anddistinction is a comparatively unimportantand superficial affair. We are not students ofsome subject matter but students of problems.And problems may cut right across the bor-ders of any subject matter or discipline.'^

30. Same reference as footnote 22. Emphasis added.31. Luck, "Social Marketing," same reference as footnote 7,

p. 70.32. Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (New

York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 67.


The Needy and Dependent in Society

Authority, salaryinformation, etc

Taxes,authority, etc.

FIGURE 2. Social marketing and exchange.

Social marketing, then, addresses a particulartype of problem which, in turn, is a subset of thegeneric concept of marketing. That is, social mar-keting is the answer to a particular question: Whyand how are exchanges created and resolved insocial relationships? Social relationships (as op-posed to economic relationships) are those suchas family planning agent-client, welfare agent-indigent, social worker-poor person, and so on.''Social marketing attempts to determine thedynamics and nature of the exchange behavior inthese relationships.

But is there an exchange in a social relation-ship? Luck, for example, feels that "a person whoreceives a free service is not a buyer and has con-ducted no exchange of values with the provider ofthe service."'"* It is the contention in this article

33. For a conceptual framework comparing marketingand other social relationships, see Richard P. Bagozzi,"What is a Marketing Relationship?" Der Markt, No. 51,1974, pp. 64-69.

34. Luck, "Social Marketing," same reference as footnote 7,p.71.

that there is most definitely an exchange in socialmarketing relationships, but the exchange is notthe simple quid pro quo notion characteristic ofmost economic exchanges. Rather, social market-ing relationships exhibit what may be calledgeneralized or complex exchanges. They involvethe symbolic transfer of both tangible and intan-gible entities, and they invoke various media toinfluence such exchanges.

Figure 2 illustrates a typical social marketingexchange. In this system, society authorizesgovernment—through its votes and tax pay-ments—to provide needed social services such aswelfare. In return, the members of society receivesocial insurance against common humanmaladies. Government, in turn, pays the salciriesof social workers, gives them authority to providesocial services, and so on. It also distributes wel-fare payments directly to the needy. These rela-tively contemporaneous transfers make this mar-keting system one of generalized exchange. Inaddition, a number of symbolic and delayed trans-fers occur that make the system also one of complex


exchange. For example, as shown by dotted linesin the figure, in many cases the needy and depen-dent have given to the government in the past,since they may have paid taxes and voted.Moreover, members of society anticipate thatthey, or a number of their members, will becomedependent and that social services represent aninvestment as well as an obligation. Hence, in onesense there is a mutual exchange between societyand the needy separated, in part, by the passageof time. Finally, it should be noted that there areother tangential exchanges and forces occurringin this social marketing system that, dependingon their balance, give it stability or promotechange. The system achieves stability due, first, tothe presence of the exchanges described above,which create mutual dependencies and univocalreciprocities; and, second, to symbolic exchanges,which reinforce the overt transfers. For example,the social worker gives to the needy but also re-ceives back gratitude and feelings of accomplish-ment. The system undergoes change due to thedynamics of competing interests, as is exemplifiedin the efforts of lobbies and pressure groups tobring their needs to bear on the legislative pro-cess.

Thus, social marketing is really a subset of thegeneric concept of marketing in that it deals withthe creation and resolution of exchanges in socialrelationships. Marketers can make contributionsto other areas that contain social exchanges byproviding theories and techniques for the under-standing and control of such transactions. Theydo not usurp the authority of specialists in areassuch as social work, but rather they aid and com-plement the efforts of these social scientists. It isnot so much the fact that the subject matter ofmarketing overlaps with that of other disciplinesas it is that the problems of marketing are univer-sal. In answer to Bartels's query, "Is marketing aspecific function with general applicability or ageneral function that is specifically applied?""—one may state that it is neither. Rather, market-ing is a general function of universal applicability.It is the discipline of exchange behavior, and itdeals with problems related to this behavior.

Conclusions and ImplicationsA number of broad research questions may be

posed:35. Same reference as footnote 22, p. 73.

1. Why do marketing exchanges emerge? Howdo people and organizations satisfy theirneeds through exchange?

2. Why do some marketing exchanges persistin ongoing relationships while others fallapart?

3. What are the processes leading to changes inmarketing exchange relationships? How dothe social actors or third parties influence orcontrol an exchange?

4. What are the consequences of imbalances inpower, resources, knowledge, and so on, in amarketing exchange? What is an equitableexchange?

5. What are the relationships between conflict,cooperation, competition, and exchange?

6. At what level may marketing exchanges beanalyzed? What are the consequences ofviewing exchanges as single dyads or com-plex systems of relationships? What are theconsequences of employing the individualis-tic reductionism of Homans versus the col-lectivistic orientation of Levi-Strauss for un-derstanding exchange behavior?

7. Is the exchange paradigm universal? Does itapply to the free-enterprise countries of thewestern world, the planned economies of thecommunist countries, and the primitiveeconomies of the third world?

8. How well does the exchange paradigm meetthe requirements for theory as specified byphilosophy of science criteria?

Although marketing seems to defy simpledefinition and circumscription, it is essential thatmarketers locate the distinctive focus (or foci) ofthe discipline. Failure to do so impedes both thegrowth of the discipline and the character of itsperformance. Exchange is a central concept inmarketing, and it may well serve as the founda-tion for that elusive "general theory of market-ing." This article has attempted to explore someof the key concepts in the exchange paradigm.Future research and discussion must search forspecific social and psychological processes thatcreate and resolve marketing exchanges.

The author wishes to acknowledge his gratitude to Profes-sors Clewett, Kotler. and Levy and Associate Dean Westfallof Northwestern University, and to the reviewers, for theexchange of ideas that led to this article.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

richard p. bagozzi marketing as exchange -...

Documents