Marketer’s mindset: Key to develop bottom of the pyramid market

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 ( 2014 ) 169 – 179

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ICTMS-2013.doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.182

ScienceDirect

ICTMS-2013

Marketer’s mindset: Key to develop bottom of the pyramid market

Kumkum Bharti*, Vinay Sharma, Rajat Agrawal, Anita Sengar

Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee-247667, India

Abstract

In the current scenario, marketers have a major role to play in the development and bringing advancement at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) market by spreading awareness about meaningful consumption, need based consumption, preferential and purposeful spending on the utility products & services and promotion of the village based communities in production and production related activities. In this humongous task, change in the mindset of the marketers, policy and decision makers is collectively foreseen to bring out changes in the ideology and perception of the change makers. This paper proposes for an importance of change in mindset of the marketers ready to enter in the emerging markets with the pursuit of developing and serving the market. Exploratory research design is used as the research methodology to an exhaustive study of the available literature on BOP. The factors that may influence the mindset of the marketers have been extracted from the research papers available in the field of sociology, psychology and management and business studies. The paper foresees the emergence of an understanding through the confluence of scholarly work done within and outside the academic researches done on the BOP consumers. The change in the marketer's mindset is one of the significant enabler in influencing the way BOP market is looked upon as and carries the potential of treating BOP market as equally profitable markets. The study will help the researchers and practitioners to develop and investigate a structured form of research for the issue proposed, which may give direction to few strong empirical researches. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ICTMS-2013 Keywords: Bottom of the Pyramid; Emerging economies; Market development; Mindset of marketers

1. Introduction

Perception of market opportunity is a function of the way many managers are socialized to think (Prahalad and Hart, 2002)

* Kumkum Bharti. Tel.: +91-8126700140. E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ICTMS-2013.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.182&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.182&domain=pdf

170 Kumkum Bharti et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 ( 2014 ) 169 – 179

Emerging economies hold two third of the total world poor and according to the year 2011 figures of the World Bank, 32.7 percent of India lives below international poverty line of US$1.25 per day while 68.7 percent live on less than US$2 per day. Marketers have a big role to play in the development and bringing advancement in the BOP market by spreading awareness about meaningful consumption or need based consumption, preferential and purposeful spending on the utility products & services and promoting the village based communities in production and production related activities. In this humongous task, the change in mindset of the marketers, policy and decision makers are collectively foreseen to bring out changes in the ideology and perception of the change makers. A change in mindset seems to be a subjective task but without doing so upliftment of the BOP or viewing BOP market as an attractive market remains to be a fallacy. This paper proposes for the importance of change in the mindset of the marketers that intends to enter into the emerging markets with the pursuit of developing and serving the BOP. However, changes in the mindset can be only made by first, raising the level of self- motivation of the entrepreneurs (existing and potential) and large private organizations. Secondly, by illustrating the examples of successful, socially driven and intrinsically motivated entrepreneur that have entered into the BOP markets. Lastly, by refurbishing and extending the vision of the firm as a socioeconomic development entity and reminding and reassuring the purpose of business by giving back to the society as a way of doing business rather merely considering it as a norm to fulfil. Also, preaching and practice of Gandhian philosophy is essential to realize the true potential and development of the BOP market that comes as valuing the BOP community as consumers and producers equivalently.

Based on the understanding of ‘The principle of reciprocity’ with respect to developing subsistence markets may be seen with the perspective that profitability should remain a primary goal for private concerns because it is mandatory for the survival of the business whereas welfare should be seen as a simultaneous goal that will lead to earning goodwill, reputation and sustenance in the market thereby generation of loyalty followed by trust in new and emerging markets. Most of the emerging economies are culture driven and faith based organizations and therefore right understanding and just implementation of values and value system within the organization is required. 2. Evolution and advancement of the BOP

The term Bottom of the pyramid was first used by the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 7, 1932 in a Radio address, The Forgotten Man where he said “These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power...that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” After a long span of 70 years, i.e. in year 2002 C.K. Prahalad and Stuart L. Hart define the people living on less than $ 2 per day per person as BOP. The seminal work of Prahalad (2004) and Hart (2007) in their books ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ and ‘Capitalism at the Crossroad’ respectively has further popularized the concept among the academicians, corporate decision makers, and policy planners. Prahalad (2004) proposes that BOP can be developed by the multinational organizations with the support of the government and of the NGOs with the intention of development through inclusive capitalism. He further purports that the poor are value conscious consumers and should be provided with value creating products and services that are utilitarian in nature.

According to Prahalad & Hart (2002) and Prahalad (2004) poor are creative entrepreneurs and their abilities, if honed, can be of great use for the multinational organizations in reducing the overall cost and increasing the profitability of the firm. However, the work of Prahalad has gained criticism from Karnani (2007a; 2007b), where he stated that the size of the BOP is an over exaggeration of the real size of the world poor and it is seductively appealing, dangerous delusion and hence a mirage. His work was later supported by Arora and Romijin (2011) where BOP is termed as ‘discursive curtain’ that unmasks unequal power relations in its folds by depoliticizing corporate interventions in the lives of the poor. According to Karnani (2007a) poverty can be reduced only by treating BOP as producers and not merely as consumers. To incorporate BOP into the value chain as producers will lead to an increase in the real


income of the BOP that will strengthen the self-esteem, social cohesion and empowerment of people. In year 2009, Ted London proposed a solution to reduce poverty through market based logic. Author envisions BOP as a business partner that might foster the development of new businesses for mutual benefit through co-creation. He also contributes in the BOP literature by forming an impact assessment framework tool for the assessment of BOP ventures and measuring the poverty alleviation impact. London (2009) was the first author that has made an empirically proven contribution to the literature of BOP. In the same year, Hahn (2009) has emphasized on the importance of ethics while doing business with the poor and signifies the importance of inter- and intra-generational justice of John Rawls (1971). Recently, the issues related to sustainability, ethical practices, corporate social responsibility have an amalgamation with the academic writings for the BOP development and advancement.

2.1 Definitions of the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP)

The BOP does not have a single definition due to the discrepancies stated by the authors in the actual size of the population living in the lowest tier of the economic pyramid. Definition of BOP population is centered on the size where income inequality enjoyed precedence over economic inequality. Various definitions of BOP are shown in Table I.

Table I: Definitions of the Bottom of the Pyramid

Authors and Year Definitions Prahalad & Hart (2002) Categorizes the tier 4 people of population 4 billion as the bottom of the

pyramid whose per capita income – based on the purchasing power parity in U.S. Dollar- is less than $ 1500. These people live in rural villages, or urban slums and shantytowns. The population majorly resides in regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Hammond et al., (2007) Nearly 3.7 billion people across emerging economies occupy the base of the pyramid (BOP); they earn less than US$ 8 a day (2002 PPP$) and remain largely excluded from formal markets.

Economist (2004) The size of the BOP is 600 million. World Development Indicators (2005)

Defines BOP population at 4 billion. Out of this 4 billion population, 2.8 billion lives on between $1 and $2 a day and the remaining 1.2 billion lives on less than $ 1 a day.

World Economic Forum, Geneva (2011)

The income threshold of Bottom of the pyramid is roughly $ 8 per day per person.

National Sample Survey Organization, India (2011-2012)

The Rural Indian BOP market is defined as households in the bottom four expenditure Quintiles that spend less than Rs. 3,453 Indian rupees (US$75) on goods and services per month. This definition represents a market of 114 million households, or 76 percent of the total rural population.

Evident from the literature, the size of the BOP population varies as per the criterion of income

level chosen ($1, $2, $ 6 and even $ 8 per day). The attractiveness of the BOP has raised interest and cynicism amongst the academicians that resulted in germination of alternative names for it like ‘The Bottom Billion’ (Collier, 2007), Subalterns (Chakrovorty & Spivak, 1988; Chaudhari, 2010), ‘The Next Billion’ (World Economic Forum, 2009) and Subsistence Marketplace (Vishwanathan, 2007). However, the popularity of the term ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ enjoyed precedence over other terms emerged over the years.


2.2. Characteristics of BOP

The predominance of certain factors like lowness of income (Jaiswal, 2007; Karnani, 2007; Subrahmanyan and Gomez-arias, 2008), geographical dispersion (Karnani, 2007a), high level of diversity (Gollakota, Gupta & Bork, 2010), heterogeneous culture (Karnani, 2007a; Karnani, 2007b), poor infrastructure with respect to transportation, communication and media (Prahalad and Hart, 2002; Karani, 2007a; Karnani, 2007b), lack of education (Prahalad and Hart, 2002, Sen, 2000), different lifestyles and circumstances as compared to their urban counterparts (Gollakota, Gupta & Bork, 2010), low or lack of affordability (Prahalad, 2005), lack of availability (Vachani & Smith, 2008) defines the BOP population. The presence of these factors has intrinsically de-motivated private organizations to enter into the BOP markets. Additionally, the dominance of illiteracy, poor health and unemployment has further deteriorated BOP populace. However, these factors are in close association with the effects of poverty. Traditionally, poverty is understood with a narrower view where it is considered to be as a situation of inadequacy of income (Gillin, 1946) or income inequality. Indeed, it should be considered as a situation of economic inequality and should be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities (Sen, 1981, 1984). Chaudhari (2010) defines it as a condition of economic deprivation in which a person is crippled and incapacitated because of the presence of multiple hegemonic forces that exist in society, social structures, and institutions but also deprived of ill health and education. Since, BOP population is infected with the nuisances of dependence, helplessness and deprivation therefore the problem of poverty at the BOP can only be removed if above said three problem areas are addressed in the right connotation. Therefore, to rightly address the problem of poverty, it is important to change the behaviour which is the outcome of a change in mindset.

3. Why marketer’s mindset should be changed?

Primitively, BOP population is seen as support led and support seeking markets over resource

generating market. The prominence of this thinking has led to the negligence of corporate organization and policy makers to view BOP as potential value contributors in economic and non-economic activities of the nation. BOP is considered to be as a subjugated and deprived set of population living on donations and charity. Policy makers and marketers have always looked at this market with the perception of being as underdeveloped, deprived and exploitative set of world largest and poorest group. However, the new approach of Prahalad to view BOP as potential consumers and promising entrepreneurs have changed the mindset of marketers around the world. Since year 2002, BOP population has garnered huge attention because of certain peculiar characteristics of markets, i.e. cumulative purchasing power and immense pool of creativity, innovation, and tacit knowledge resources that constitutes for an important enabler for developing products and services specifically for the BOP market. The involvement of marketers is suggested to rightly address the needs and expectations of the BOP and to bring forth the ideas and profitability from this section of the economic pyramid. However, the arctic behaviour of private organizations towards BOP has resulted in the loss of potential revenues and poor social capital, which, if develop can lead to changes in the way BOP is looked upon as today. Therefore, organizations should address their dual role of providing resources and knowledge to the BOP in such a manner that will eventually lead to an enhancement in the varying level of participation with the perspective of self-reliance of and by the BOP. However, to rightly address the BOP, change in the behaviour of the BOP community and of the providers to view BOP markets differently is required. Since, behaviour change is the outcome of mindset change; therefore, mindset change is an important change element in the perception development for the BOP.

Economists like Adam Smith and authors like Stuart L. Hart, C.K. Prahalad and Eric Kacou (2011) in their seminal work on the Wealth of Nation (1776), Capitalism at the Crossroad (2007), the Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (2005) and ‘Entrepreneurial Solutions for Prosperity in BOP markets’ have


emphasized on the importance of change in the mindset of the corporate organizations and policy makers in viewing the deprived and socially inferior section of world society. Prahalad (2002) emphasized on the need to change the mindset of the managers, producers, entrepreneurs, politicians and NGOs to serve or to develop the BOP market. Author repeated his thoughts on ‘mindset change’ of the marketers on viewing BOP as potential customers and promising entrepreneurs in his book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid markets- Eradicating poverty through profits (2005). Kacou (2011) in his work has identified the outdated mind-sets that have led to mistrust, dependence, and failure and has provided with seven new opportunities and suggested human centric approach through which mindset can be changed and BOP can be transformed. The literature over the last one decade has shown that academicians and marketers have emphasized upon the importance of change in the mindset of the decision and policy makers to rightly understand and address the BOP markets. Table II has highlighted the aspects on which authors have emphasized upon in the BOP development over years.

It has been observed that a change in the mindset has ripple effect on the change in organizational culture and on the individual and organization behaviour. Since, change in the mindset is a long term process and involves certain unwritten rules that eventually lead to changes in the behaviour, therefore, should be altered in a way that can be reflected and exhibited in the activities of the person for whom it has been targeted for. Author Edgar Schein in his book Organizational Culture and Leadership first published in 1985 has highlighted that the activities performed by the leaders are replicated by the followers. Therefore, managers with strong leadership intent and skills shall be directed towards the development of BOP marketers. It other words, the result of a change in the mindset of the marketers as reflected in their behaviour can become an example for others related or non-related organizations to follow.

However, apart from the mindset, perception also plays an important role in changing the behaviour. It has been observed that change in perception of an individual leads to a direct permanent change in the human behaviour (Steel, undated). However, it is important to understand that change in the marketer’s mindset is important for rightly viewing and addressing the BOP population.

Table II: Literature on Marketers Mindset for BOP Development

Authors and Year Perception about BOP

Prahalad and Hart (2002)

Emphasized on the need to change the mindset of the managers, producers, entrepreneurs, politicians and NGOs serve or develop the bottom of the pyramid markets.

Prahalad (2005) The Author has emphasized on the significance of mindset change in viewing and serving the Bottom of the Pyramid markets

Sheth (2011) He elaborated the concept of mindset change with the context of emerging markets and emphasized upon changing the mindset of the marketers serving these markets.

Habib and Zurawicki (2010)

The authors emphasized upon the need to capitalize on the resources and knowledge of the poor entrepreneurs at the BOP by the MNCs and wealthy NGOs. This can be addressed by incorporating the change in the mindset of the decision maker of an organization.

Vaidyanathan and Scott (2012)

Require mindset change for developing shared values which is one of the important elements for developing social capital, an important element in developing and winning the hearts and markets of the bottom of the pyramid

4. Marketer’s Mindset: Enabler for Desired Changes

The desired changes are foreseen in the form of holistic development of the society, often called as economic development, long term profitability and sustainability. The change in the marketer’s mindset will be reflected in their behaviour and on an organization culture. However, to bring out changes in the


mindset certain aspects needs to be developed and studies based on which it can be identified that whether mindset change can be made or not. 4.1. Mindset leads to certain behaviours

To meaningfully develop the BOP market it is important to change the mindset of the people involved, i.e. the decision makers (managers, decision makers and policy makers) and the beneficiaries of change (customers, both internal and external). It is imperative to understand that the way a marketer mindset has been altered and the thinking evolved and developed, has to be percolated and has to happen in the same way he visualized the things and people around him. Also, it can be said that change in the behaviour (individual and organization) is the reflection of change in mindset. However, it is important to administer mindset change of the decision maker in order to record the impact of such change on the culture of the organization. Indeed, changes in the behaviour and culture of the organization shall have a direction and benefaction for the development of the BOP. Since, the longevity of mindset and culture change is relatively high, carries importance and strategic in nature, thus requires close and continuous monitoring. Additionally, new behaviour so developed for the BOP as a result of mindset change must be based on conviction and choice and must be seen with potential consequences that are immediate, positive, certain and visible. 4.2. Change in behaviour leads to change in attitude and beliefs towards BOP

It has been proven that changes in the behaviour also leads to changes in the mindset (Cuddy, 2007).

Therefore, it is wrong to state that mindset drives behaviour; it may be the other way round also. Therefore, precedence of behaviour change over mindset or the vice versa has received a mixed response from the researchers around the world over the years. However, the debate on the precedence of behaviour over mindset or vice versa may digress the readers from the main topic. It also does not fall into the purview of our research area. Therefore, it can be stated that behaviour change which is influenced by the type of personality, perception, social consciousness of an individual, environmental observation, ideology and thinking (Fisher, 1993), knowledge and teaching, coaching and role modelling plays a very important role in changing the behaviour of the individual or the manager.

5. Outcome of Change in the Marketer’s Mindset 5.1. Justified and meaningful presence

BOP population is more susceptible to exploitation due to poor formal education and lack of

knowledge. Therefore, only those organizations should serve the BOP markets that offer utilitarian products and services and help in alleviating the BOP status by offering them employment opportunities and fostering the entrepreneurship. However, if the elements of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are understood in the right context, BOP development can be made (Davidson, 2009). Also, when businesses invest to spur better health, improve education, and generate higher productivity, they expand their customer base and increase the purchasing power for their goods and services (Vaidyanathan and Scott, 2012). Therefore, it becomes imperative to incorporate the rightful approach of reaching the BOP with the intent of Creating Shared Value (CSV) markets might help in building trust and reputation of an organization. It is suggested that organizations can build their presence in the right manner by enhancing the social capital (Putnam, 1993). Social capital can be built by utilizing the existing channels of meeting places or congregations like aanganwadis (Day care or Play school in Indian villages), Choupals (meeting places for elderly people in villages), religious congregation places like temples, mosques, Gurudwaras


and Churches. Organizations can utilize these existing platforms in educating the customers (existing and potential) about the right use and importance of utilitarian products and services in the customer’s lives.

INPUTS INFLUENCES POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

Figure I: Conceptual Framework of Marketer’s Mindset

5.2. Imparting education on purposeful consumption Organizations looking towards BOP as prospective profitable markets with long term profitability

and sustainability should educate BOP consumers for purposeful and mindful consumption (Sheth, 2011). Organizations should also perform demarketing (Kotler, 2011) by discouraging the base of the pyramid population for making compensatory consumption. 5.3. Promotion of participation of all and participation by each

Mindset change will foster change in the perception in the form of BOP development by encouraging

wilful participation by all and participation by each (Kumarappa, 1951). The ideology of participation has been stated in the Gandhian philosophy of development of the village and cottage industries for building holistic development of the nation. Authors London (2009) and Karnani (2007a) has elongated their work on the integration of BOP population into each level of the value chain. The participation of each member of the community at the BOP level in the development and economic activities will increase real income, improve work cohesiveness and help in building social capital which is important for maintaining the integrity and removing inter and intra community gaps of BOP population. 6. Possible ways to change the marketer’s mindset

The importance of change in the mindset has been advocated because changes in the marketer’s

mindset means a change in the ideology and the thinking process of an individual and when that

Building connectivity through public private spiritual partnership (PPSP)

Integration of thinking, learning, and doing

Building Social capital: social identity theory and vicarious dissonance

Illustration of successful stories of social entrepreneurs and intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs

Justified and meaningful presence

Promotion of participation of all and participation of each

Imparting education on purposeful consumption

CHANGE IN MINDSET Change in behaviour Change in attitudes and beliefs


individual plays the role of a decision maker or policy maker it becomes extremely important to alter the situations and resources as per the desired and most sought after benefits of market development. Since Mindset change is highly subjective in nature and can be done either by forcibly leading to behaviour change through micro management and pressure or by making intrinsic changes (Visco, 2010). Since, forcibly changing the mindset is non-viable and may not lead to desired changes required to address the BOP market therefore, in our manuscript we have emphasized on intrinsic factors, if developed, might lead to desired changes. Various ways have been suggested to change the mindset that includes building connectivity through public spiritual partnership (Sharma, 2009), by integrating thinking, learning and doing, and illustrating the examples of successful and socially driven, intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs. 6.1. Building connectivity through public spiritual partnership(PSP)

Gandhian philosophy is based on the principles of self-reliance, participation and karma (Kumarappa, 1951). It is suggested that to have a just and equitable society it is important to be independent by having a participatory work environment at each level of the economy. Also, it is important to identify and encourage the spirit of entrepreneurship amongst the members of society especially at the base of the pyramid. It can be done through assertive leaders who can also act as the change agent and ought to be considered as important pillar of change in bridging the existing gaps of economic and social inequalities. Indeed, through Public Spiritual Partnership (Sharma, 2009) the vision of sustainable development with an impetus to earn moderate profits should be encouraged.

6.2. Integration of thinking, learning and doing The mindset of the marketers can be significantly influenced by involving the potential managers and

marketers into large purposive activities. The activities so involved must involve the integration of thinking, learning and doing (Fisher, 1993). Learning, thinking and doing can further be channelized through role modelling, teaching and coaching (Edgar, 1985). Also, firms can identify those managers or leaders that are motivated with high need for affiliation and assertive and are ready to take challenges. The importance of role modelling, fostering understanding and convention, developing talent and skills, reinforcing with a formal mechanism (Jacoby, undated) to influence the marketer’s mindsets can be adopted as a means to change the mindset. 6.3. Building Social Capital: Inferences from social identity theory and vicarious dissonance

Human beings are social animals and take their identity partly from their group memberships. Therefore, group or community members’ discomfort becomes their discomfort and others dissonance become their own discomfort. It implies that when an individual experience discomfort vicariously it will lead to attitude change in order to reduce it (Norton, et al., 2003). Mindset change is a long term process but holds a key in bringing change in the way BOP is looked upon. The change in mindset as stated earlier in the manuscript might lead to changes in behaviour and perception of a marketer, which is strategic for addressing the BOP in the right perspective. A change in mindset is significant because it might lead to change in perception of viewing the BOP population as merely support driven population to support providing population for the MNCs, change in thinking, personality and attitude of the marketers towards BOP. Since, attitude change is a function of choice, consequences and group identification (Cooper, 2009) therefore, the marketers shall be provided with a choice to serve the BOP markets by suggesting them the possible outcomes of serving the BOP in the form of reputation building, goodwill, trust generation, the profits due to volumes, growth and long term profitability and sustainability and


unique brand building and a trustworthy organization. Therefore, change in attitude again is an important element in the change of the marketer mindset. 6.4. Illustrating the examples of successful socially driven and intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs

The mindset of an individual or policy maker or decision makers can be changed by initially changing the behaviour that will eventually lead to changes in mindset. Cuddy (2007) theorizes that it is presumed that if an individual act powerfully, it will begin to think powerfully. Therefore, managers and potential entrepreneurs should be guided towards BOP markets as challenging yet promising opportunity led markets by illustrating the examples of successful entrepreneurs who have entered into troubled waters and have earned profits and developed the impoverished markets from scratch.

7. Conclusion The magnanimous task of developing the BOP market and an entire BOP community require change

that can be seen and felt in the way BOP leads its life. The changes in the way observed in this manuscript, if made, might lead to a desirable change in the quality of life of the people living at the BOP. Also, this humongous and time consuming task of bringing out the changes at the BOP can be made by making changes that are intrinsic to human beings, i.e. changing the mind of the market. The rationale for making changes in the mindset and the suggested ways of bringing out a change in the mindset can help the marketers of large multinational organizations and entrepreneurs, the change agents. This paper has also highlighted the importance of public spiritual partnership for making changes in the mindset that are intrinsic in nature and thus difficult to make. References Akula, V. (2008). Business Basics at the Base of the Pyramid. Harvard Business Review South Asia, 31-35. Hammond, A., Kramer, W.J., Tran, J., Katz, R., & Walker, C. (2007). The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the

Base of the Pyramid. World Resources Institute, 164. Arora, S., & Romijn, H. (2012). The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid. Organization, 19 (4), 481-505. Batra, R. (1997). Executive insights: marketing issues and challenges in transitional economies. Journal of International Marketing,

5(4), 95-114. Becker, S. (1997). Responding to Poverty: The Politics of Cash and Care. London: Longman. Chakravorty-Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak?. In Nelson.C. and Grossberg, L.(Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of

Culture, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 271-313. Chaudhari, H. (2010). Everyday life of the subaltern consumers: contexts, realities, and issues for marketing. The Marketing Review,

10(3), 259-267. Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper, J. (2009). Vicarious Cognitive Dissonance: Changing Attitudes by Experiencing Another’s Pain. Retrieved from

http://www.sydneysymposium.unsw.edu.au/2009/chapters/CooperSSSP09.pdf on 9 November 2012. Cuddy, A. C., Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors From Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology , 92(4), 631-648. De Soto, H. (2002). The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic

Books. Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality. Harvard Business Review November-December, 101-109. Gillin, J.L. (1946). Social Pathology. New York: Appleton century-Crofts Inc. Gronmo, S. (1988). Compensatory consumer behaviour: elements of a critical sociology of consumption. New York: Solum Forag

Norway’ Humanities Press. Guesalaga, R., & Marshall, P. (2008). Purchasing power at the bottom of the pyramid: differences across geographic regions and

income tiers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(7), 413-418. Habib, M., & Zurawicki, L. (2010). The Bottom of The Pyramid: Key Roles For Businesses. Journal of Business & Economics

Research, 8(5), 23-32. Hahn, R. (2009). The Ethical Rational of Business for the Poor – Integrating the Concepts Bottom of the Pyramid, Sustainable

Development, and Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3), 313-324.


Hart, S.L. (2007). Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, and Humanity (2nd ed.). Upper saddle River. NJ: Wharton school publishing, 18-23

Hastorf, A.H., Kite,W.R., Gross, A.E., & Wolfe, L.J. (1965).The Perception and Evaluation of Behavior Change. Sociometry, 28(4), 400-410

Jaiswal, A.K. (2007). Strengthen the Bottom of the Pyramid. Retrieved from www.hindubusinesslines.com/2007/12/19/stories/2007121950130900.htm

Kacou, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial solutions for prosperity in BOP markets. New York: Wharton School Publishing. Karnani, A. (2007). The Mirage of Marketing to the Bottom of the Pyramid: How The Private Sector Can Help Alleviate

Poverty. California Management Review, 49(4), 90-111. Kumarappa, J.C. (1951). Gandhian Economic Thought. Bombay: Vora & company. Lewis, O. (1967). The Children of Sanchez, Pedro Martinez, and La Vida. Current Anthropology 8(5), 480-500. London, T. (2007). A Base-of-the-Pyramid Perspective on Poverty Alleviation. Washington, DC: United Nations Development

Program. Growing Inclusive Markets Working Paper Series. London, T. (2009). Making Better Investments at the Base of the Pyramid. Harvard Business Review South Asia, 84-91. London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the transnational model, Journal of

International Business Studies, 35(5), 350-370. Majumder, M. (2012). A Critical Approach in Understanding Bottom of the Pyramid Propositions. Journal of Management &

Public Policy, 3(2), 18-25. Martin, K. D., & Hill, R. (2012). Life Satisfaction, Self-Determination, and Consumption Adequacy at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1155-1168 Murphy, P. E. (1999). Ethics in advertising: review, analysis, and suggestions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 316-

19. Norton, M.I., Monin, B., Cooper, M.A., & Hogg, J. (2003). Vicarious Dissonance: Attitude Change From the Inconsistency of

Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1) , 47– 62. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization

Studies, 24, 403–441. Pareek, U. (1970). Poverty and Motivation: Figure and Ground. In: Allen, V.L. (ed.), Psychological Factors in Poverty, New York:

Academic Press, pp.3-32. Pitta, D. A., Guesalaga, R., & Marshall, P. (2008). The quest for the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: potential and challenges.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(7), 393-401. Prahalad, C. K. & Hart, S. L. (2002). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy + Business. 26: 54-67 retrieved from

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~brewer/ict4b/Fortune-BoP.pdf on 26 August 2012. Prahalad, C. K. (2002b). Strategies for the Bottom of the Economic Pyramid: India as a Source of Innovation. Reflections, 3(4), 6-

17. Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: eradicating poverty through profits. Wharton School Publishing,

9-14. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business

Press. Prahalad, C.K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably, Harvard Business Review. September. Prahalad, C.K., & Lieberthal, K. (2003). The end of corporate imperialism. 81, 109-117 Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. London: Oxford University Press. Santos, N., & Laczniak, G. (2009). Marketing to the Poor: An Integrative Justice Model for Engaging Impoverished Market

Segments. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 3-15. Say, J.B. (1828). cours complet d’economie politique pratique. Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharma, V. (2009). Health for All through Affordability and Profitability with Public Spiritual Partnership. Retrieved from

http://www.adbi.org/files/2010.12.11.cpp.sess2.5.sharma.paper.health.affordability.pdf on 12 November 2012. Sheth, J. (2011). Impact of Emerging Markets on Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and Practices. Journal of Marketing,

75(4), 166-182. Simanis, E., & Hart, S. (2009). Innovation From The Inside Out. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 77-86. Smith, A. (1776). Wealth of Nation. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Steele, W.L. (undated). Change Perception to Change Behaviour. Retrieved from

http://www.thinkmagic.com/pdfs/restricted%20articles/Change%20Perception%20to%20Change%20Behavior.pdf on 11th November 2012.

Subrahmanyan, S., & Gomez-Arias, J. (2008). Integrated approach to understanding Consumer Behavior at Bottom of Pyramid. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(7), 402-412.

Teagarden, M. B. (2010). Capturing hearts, minds, and markets at the bottom of the pyramid. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(1), 1-3.


Vachani, S., & Smith, N. (2008). Socially Responsible Distribution: Distribution Strategies for Reaching the Bottom of the Pyramid. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 21, 1-55.

Visco, D. (April, 2010). Changing mindset and behavior for 5S sustainment. Retrieved from http://5sbestpractices.ning.com/forum/topics/changing-mindset-and-behavior.

Viswanathan, M. (2007). Understanding product and market interactions in subsistence marketplaces: a study in south India. Advances in International Management, 20, 21-56.

Volkert, J. & Petrova, V (2008). How do Transnational Corporations Influence Poverty as Capability Deprivation?. Global Governance for Sustainable Development. 12th EADI General Conference, Geneva.

Woodruffe, H.R. (1997). Compensatory consumption go do why women go shopping when they’re fed up and other stories. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15 (7) 325-334.

Marketer’s mindset: Key to develop bottom of the pyramid market

Documents

Transcript of Marketer’s mindset: Key to develop bottom of the pyramid market