The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation

Joumal of Marketing Management, 1999, 15, 587-602

¥ • r\>ikM II 1 J The Utility of the RelationshipLisa O'Malley' and ^ . , • /- M i i. A^ i. ^ Metaphor m Consumer Markets: ACaroline Tynan >̂ .^ , T̂ , ^

-̂ Cnbcal Evaluation

Cardiff Business School

Nottingham BusinessSchool

The popularity currently enjoyed by relationshipmarketing obscures a host of problems relating tothe apparent domain extension into consumermarkets. Such problems are argued to include: thelack of an accepted definition; fragmented andlimited theory development; a boundary-lessdomain and a limited understanding of exchangerelationships (Buttle, 1996; Gummesson, 1997;Wilson, 1995). This paper contends that the root ofthese difficulties lies in the process of metaphorictransfer (Hunt and Menon, 1995). As such, there isa need to review the role of metaphor withinacademic research generally, and to investigate theextent to which the metaphor of interpersonalrelationships remains apposite within the domainof consumer markets. In attempting to address thisissue, the paper appraises the process ofmetaphoric transfer, evaluates the utility of t/ieinterpersonal relationship metaphor in the contextof mass consumer markets and highlights anumber of important implications for theorydevelopment in this field. Finally, the paper offerssome directions for further research.

Introduction

Relationship marketing (RM) has been variously referred to as a "new paradigm"(Gronroos, 1994), an "emerging sub-discipline" (Sheth, 1996) and "the neworthodoxy" (Petrof, 1997) within marketing. However, given the absence of anaccepted definition (Buttle, 1996) and disappointing progress in terms of theorydevelopment (Gummesson, 1997) such references remain, as yet optimistic.That said, RM is undoubtedly in vogue among contemporary marketingacademics and practitioners, not only in high-contact service and inter-organisational contexts where it emerged, but also in mass consumer marketswhere it wcis once overtly shunned.

' Correspondence. Lisa O'Malley, Cardiff Business School, Aberconway Building, ColumRoad, Cardiff CF37 lDL Telephone (01222) 874000. E-mail - [email protected]

ISSN0267-257X/99/070587+15 $12.00/0 ©Westbum Publisher Ltd.

588 Lisa O'Malley and Caroline Tynan

Although RM is considered to be a relatively young and emerging area ofinterest discussions within the context of inter-organisational exchange andservices marketing have existed since the late 1970s. Research suggests that inthese contexts, interaction between buyers and sellers is typically far morepersonal and extended than is generally the case in bigger, more anonymous andlargely homogeneous consumer product markets (see Ford, 1980; Hakansson,1982; Shostack, 1977). Indeed, the motivation for seeking an altemative to themix management paradigm was predicated upon these differences. Becauseinteraction in high-contact service and inter-organisational situations was foundto be largely interpersonal it was believed to be relational in nature. As a resultof this conceptualisation, interpersonal relationship theories were borrowed inorder to further illuminate and understand interaction in a commercial context(see Anderson and Narus, 1984, 1990; Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Crosby et al,1990; Wilson and Mummalaneni, 1986). This borrowing of concepts from anexisting, but unrelated, body of literature is known as "metaphoric transfer" (Huntand Menon, 1995), Many concepts relating to interpersonal relationshipsincluding trust, commitment mutuality, reciprocity and communication (seeWilson, 1995; Sheaves and Barnes, 1996) have proven both useful and valid inconceptualising exchange relationships in both inter-or^anisational and servicemarketing situations (see Hibbard and Iacobucci, 1998). Values are alsoappropriated when employing metaphor and in this case the notion of close,long-term, committed and trusting commercial relationships have come torepresent the ideal (Levitt 1983). It is important to note, however, that earlyIMP researchers did not intentionally imply that close buyer-seller relationshipswere a necessarily positive force. Rather they viewed the relationship metaphoras a useful aid to understanding (Ford, 1997).

The Domain BTctension

The domain extension into consumer markets is a fairly recent phenomenon,dating as it does from the mid 1990s. However, initial attention was stimulatedover a decade ago by Dywer et al, (1987, p. 12) who suggested that both businessand consumer marketers could "benefit from attention to conditions that fosterrelational bonds leading to reliable repeat business". Their argument wasgrounded on the assumption that like interpersonal and inter-organisationalrelationships, consumer-organisational relationships could also be described interms of increasing trust mutuality and long-temi commitment Despite thisargument the practical problems of identifying individual customers let alonedeveloping discrete relationships with them, resulted in little interest in this workat that time. Indeed, it was generally accepted that the characteristics ofconsumer markets made relationship building difficult if not impossible (Barnes,1994, 1995; Gronroos, 1994). These characteristics include lar̂ ge numbers ofanonymous consumers, limited opportunity for interpersonal interaction, and, theprevalence of low value/low involvement purchases. As such, the mixmanagement paradigm was argued to be far more appropriate in this context as

The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets 589

demonstrated by Gronroos' (1991) marketing/strategy continuum. However, thevery characteristics which make relationship building difficult in consumermarkets, also made it an attractive proposition as a possible source ofcompetitive advantage (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). Developments intechnology furthered interest in RM because non-personal interaction, could be,to some extent at least personalised through direct marketing (Blattberg andDeighton, 1991; Shani and Chalasani, 1992). This has resulted in numerousattempts to apply RM in consumer markets (see Dwyer et al, 1987; Blattberg andDeighton, 1991; Shani and Chalasani, 1992; Palmer and Bejou, 1994; Child et al,1995; Pine et al, 1995; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Christy et al, 1996; Gronroos,1996; Stone et al, 1996; Abela and Sacconaghi, 1997; Bames, 1997; Coviello etal, 1997; Foumier, 1998). Incredibly, such applications centre on lowinvolvement purchasing situations where there is little or no interpersonalinteraction between buyers and sellers and where customisation of goods andservices is rarely offered to buyers. These include f.m.cg. products, white andbrown goods and services such as supermarkets and petrol retailers. In themajority of these situations the relationship is managed or mediated throughtechnological developments such as the database and/or the World Wide Web.However, because there is limited interpersonal interaction the ensuingrelationship is not conceptualised as occurring between people but ratherbetween the customer and the organisation. As a result the consideration of RMwithin mass consumer markets can be seen to represent a significant andsomewhat surprising domain extension.

This domain extension is no longer questioned. Indeed, researchers now treatexchange in consumer markets as though it is (or should be) relational anddeliberately search for evidence of interpersonal relationship attributes (seeBames, 1994, 1995, 1997; Foumier et al, 1998; O'Malley et al, 1997). Moreover,Coviello et al (1997) suggest that the label relationship marketing should bereserved for approaches which are technology based, as in mass consumermarkets, while relationship building as conceptualised within service and inter-organisational contexts should be re-named interaction marketing. However,this suggestion blatantly ignores both the historical and conceptual roots of RMand assumes that something akin to an interpersonal relationship is morefeasible in situations where customers interact with technology rather thanpeople.

Lack of clarity in discussions of consumer-organisational relationships has ledus to consider how the word relationship is being used. Complicating thisendeavour is the fact that language is inherently imprecise, and as a result thatwhich is often unclear is the precise use of the term relationship in any givencontext Indeed, there are insufficient words at our disposal to define the wholerange of emotions, perceptions and observations which define us as humanbeings and this has a number of implications. Firstly, in order to define a singleword, we need to employ at least five or six other words. For example,relationship is defined as "an association between two or more variables,phenomena, or people" (Collins Concise Dictionary). Secondly, the context in


which a word is used is important when communicating meaning - relationshipin a statistical context has very different connotations to relationship within aninterpersonal context Thirdly, we often describe something in terms ofsomething else; that is, we employ metaphorical reasoning in communicatingmeaning. However, in the context of RM it is often difficult to identify whetherthe term relationship is employed literally or metaphorically, or indeed, toappreciate the intended meaning of the author. However, the conceptual rootsare clearly metaphorical (Hunt and Menon, 1995) and this, in itself, justifies anevaluation of the metaphor's continued utility in a mass marketing context

This paper considers the appropriateness and utility of the domain extensionoutlined here. Essentially, the paper argues that while the metaphoric transfer ofsocial exchange theory may have proven insightful in inter-organisational andservice marketing situations its wider utility in consumer market situations isdecidedly uncertain. In developing this argument the paper reviews the role ofmetaphor in creative thinking and explicates the process of metaphoric transfer.Next the utility of the "interpersonal relationship" metaphor in the context ofmass consumer markets is evaluated and implications drawn. Finally, the paperhighlights some directions for further research.

On Metaphor

A metaphor is "a literally false, declarative assertion of existential equivalencethat compares two concepts or things, where one concept called the primaryconcept is claimed to be another, the secondary concept" (Hunt and Menon,1995, p.82). Metaphors are employed as creative lenses through which we view,understand and/or examine our thoughts and actions (Lakoff and Johnson,1980). This is possible because metaphors suggest attributes for an unknownphenomenon that belong by convention to something else (Goodwin et al, 1996).That is, the creative process brings two separate and apparently dissimilardomains into cognitive and emotional association, where one is used as aframework for understanding the other. Cognitive and emotive tensions arecreated by interacting with the literal meaning of the metaphorical extension.This occurs when the literal dictionary definition (denotative meaning) is false,while suggestive meanings (connotative meaning) are potentially true (Hunt andMenon, 1995).

Metaphors perform a number of roles in both everyday and scholastic life. Atone level, metaphors facilitate communication by enabling us "to portray ideaswhich are emotionally, sensorially and cognitively vivid" (Wilson, 1992, p.883).They do this by allowing us to explain vague concepts in terms of those withwhich we are already familiar (Van den Bulte, 1994). For example, we commonlytalk about "the corridors of power'; we are impeded by "glass ceilings"; we "seethings in a new light"; "throw in the towel" and make sure we gain advantage by"striking the first blow". In this way the use of metaphor allows the user to create"a compact version of an event without having to spell out detail" (Wilson, 1992,p.883), and the role of metaphor in this context is primarily to illuminate and


vivify an idea.The marketing literature is replete with metaphor (Van den Bulte, 1994) and

we reputedly reply upon metaphor more than any other area of the socialsciences (Zaltman et al, 1982). Indeed, much of the language of marketing ismetaphorical in nature and is employed to represent and communicate complexissues. For example: the idea that products experience different rates and typesof growth over time is captured in the product "life cycle" metaphor^ thatmarketers should focus their commercial efforts at specific and identifiablegroups of customers is portrayed through the metaphor of a customer "segmenf,and the notion that marketers can fail to appropriately define their core businessis illustrated by marketing "myopia". Moreover, a review of more contemporarymetaphorical themes affirms the continued popularity of metaphor in themarketing literature. Such themes include the marketer as tourist (Brown andTurley, 1997) and the marketing academic as cartographer (Kavanagh, 1994;Gummesson, 1997; O'Malley and Patterson, 1998). In bringing these metaphorsinto play we do not actually identify the marketer as literally a tourist or amapmaker. Rather, we use these as a powerful way of explaining andtransferring meaning. In this way, metaphors allow us to "express theinexpressible" (McWilliam and Dumas, 1997).

Some metaphors play a more fundamental role in that they underpin many ofour paradigmatic perspectives (Amdt 1985). These are what Hunt and Menon(1995) refer to as "theoretical metaphors" and they include marketing "warfare","instrumental man", "victimised consumers" and, more recently, "exchangerelationships" (Amdt 1985; Alvesson, 1994; Hunt and Menon, 1995). Thesemetaphors not only communicate ideas but also direct research activity byallowing researchers to borrow concepts which already exist within the sourcedomain. In order to achieve these aims the source domain must have a richbody of theories, frameworks and concepts and these, together with theirunderlying values must be of some relevance when transferred to the targetdomain (Hunt and Menon, 1995).

By its very nature, metaphor represents a partial truth (Morgan, 1980; Vanden Bulte, 1994) and implicitly or explicitly brings with it a set of normativevalues (Desmond, 1997; Hunt and Menon, 1995). This is demonstrated by the"war" metaphor which is not only particularly pervasive within the marketing andstrategic management literature (Amdt 1985; Desmond, 1997; Hunt and Menon,1995) but also provides a direct contrast with the values inherent in therelationship metaphor. In employing a "war' metaphor researchers recognisethat marketing is not literally "war' but that there are certain attributes of "war""which may be carried over, transferred to, or borrowed by, marketing" (Hunt andMenon, 1995, p.81). For example, the language of war is regularly used andincludes terminology such as mission, strategy, tactics and intelligence gathering.Game theory, contingency theory and Douhet̂ s theory of air power (most evidentin the manipulation of the marketing mix) also feature strongly (Hunt andMenon, 1995). More profoundly, however, the values of war are also borrowed inthe metaphoric transfer (Desmond, 1997; Hunt and Menon, 1995). For example:


the idea that warfare (competition) is a good thing and is essential to thecreation/maintenance of a healthy market system; that war facilitates andsanctions the exercise of power, and; that war creates a win-lose dichotomy. Waroccurs between strategic competitors and "the mind of the consumer forms theterritory on which the battle is waged" (Desmond, 1997, p.344). As a result ofemploying the "war' metaphor researchers and practitioners direct their attentionto such issues as defending territory, identifying targets and defeating theopposition.

An Evaluation of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets

The relationship metaphor has provided a particular and partial insight intoexchange in mass-market situations. It has allowed us to appropriate the valuesof interpersonal relationships and to borrow their theoretical and conceptualframeworks in order to understand commercial exchange. As a result a newperspective is brought to the consumer-organisational interface which demandsthat the research focus be extended beyond "single, isolated exchanges"(Houston and Gassenheimer, 1987, p. 10). Implicit within this broaderperspective is the recognition that consumers interact not only with people, butalso with organisational technology and systems (Gronroos, 1994). Greateremphasis is therefore placed on holistic research processes, the role of "part-timemarketers" (Gummesson, 1987) and the value of intemal marketing. However,the process of metaphoric transfer has not been unproblematic. In particular,there is a lack of clarity in source domain, while the implicit reliance on Judeo-Christian marriage results in a very narrow conceptualisation of exchange.Furthermore, the juxtaposition of interpersonal relationship values with existingcompetitive values may be inappropriate. Finally, there is evidence that themetaphor itself has been reified.

Interpersonal relationships are dealt with by a number of disciplines includingsocial psychology, exchange theory, and contractual relations. This literaturevariously refers to close personal relationships, role relationships and small groupbehaviour. As a result these different source domains have all been employedwithin discussions of RM. However, theories, frameworks and conceptualisationsare not consistent between schools and implicit assumptions as to whatconstitutes a relationship also vary. Consequently, there is a lack of clarity as to"when a relationship can truly be said to exist" (Sheaves and Bames, 1996,p.216). This has allowed for various interpretations and provided researchers theluxury of being able to choose whichever relationship best fits their researchagendas at any given time. It has also enabled researchers to pick and choosebetween relational characteristics originating in these different schools. Thissituation is further exacerbated by the fact that concepts like trust andcommitment also have meaning in our everyday lives. Consequently, theintended meaning of the author is often lost as readers bring with them theirown more intemalised understandings of such terms. This is problematic in thatit renders the comparison of empirical findings particularly difficult However,


despite the ability to defme concepts fairly conveniently, there remains limitedevidence of their relevance in mass marketing situations. For example, empiricalresearch suggests that in consumer markets there is little evidence trustcommitnent mutuality of interest or respect (Bames, 1994, 1995; O'Malley et al,1997; Foumier et al, 1998; Hibbard and Iacobucci).

While the lack of specificity in source domain might be expected to result inthe use of relationships between siblings, parents and children, friends,acquaintances or colleagues and/or professionals, most researchers haveimplicitly relied upon "marriage" and their own experiences of close personalrelationships as their source domain. This is important in terms of thenormative values which are brought to bear. The "marriage" metaphorintroduced by Levitt (1983), when he advised that companies should enterwedlock rather than engage in a series of one-night stands, has proven intuitivelyappealing (See Tynan, 1997; 1999). Indeed, the values of Judeo-Christianmarriage appear to provide fresh insights into commercial exchange. In contrastto the "war' metaphor which can be viewed as inherently adversarial and whichemphasises victory and conquest or the "instmmental man" metaphor whichstresses self-interest seeking, the "relationship" metaphor highlights co-operation,mutuality and trust Thus, as a result of metaphoric transfer these are now seenas positive values. Competition, aggression and adversarial stances are replacedwith co-operation, and mutuality and reciprocity are valued over individual gainand one-upmanship. In this way, the appropriation of relational language andconcepts are believed to position marketing in a more positive light Indeed,McKenna (1991, p.68) su^ests that there is a "fundamental shift in the role andpurpose of marketing: from manipulation of the customer to genuine customerinvolvement from telling and selling to communicating and sharing knowledge;from last-in-line function to corporate-credibility champion". Furthermore,according to Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) treating the customer as co-producerrather than a passive recipient of marketing offerings dilutes marketing's negativeimage of manipulation and thus reduces the costs necessary to create/maintain apositive image. However, the reliance on "marriage" as the source domain is alsoproblematic in that rather than opening up creative possibilities, it has resultedin a very narrow conceptualisation of exchange. It presumes a certain level ofequality between parties and it brings with it normative values, for example,monogamy, reciprocity, trust commitment faimess, mutuality, harmony and love.In doing so, it ignores a wider range of creative possibilities which could usefullybe employed. In particular, it disregards relationships which convey inequality interms of power and dependence and those which are conceived as dysfunctional.

As a conceptual tool a metaphor must be literally false while simultaneouslyoffering creative possibilities when source and tariget domains interact Thus, inthe case of RM, it is important to understand that exchange between consumersand organisations are not interpersonal relationships per se, but that theattributes of interpersonal relationships might usefully be employed whendescribing and attempting to understand that exchange. Although theconceptual roots are cleariy metaphorical an evaluation of the contemporary


literature indicates than many authors treat consumer-organisationalrelationships as though they literally exist That is, consumer-organisationalrelationships have been reified. For example, Abela and Sacconaghi (1997,p.216) discuss the use of the Intemet by consumer marketing companies toobtain "constant up-to-date insights into consumers' opinions and developstronger relationships with them more quickly" by offering value exchanges.Similarly, Child et al (1995) coin the term 'continuous relationship marketing' todenote an approach in which the company develops and maintains a deepunderstanding of each customer's needs in order to build close relationships.Consumers and producers are bound together in what Pine et al (1995, p. 103)describe as "a leaming relationship - an ongoing connection that becomessmarter as the two interact with each other, collaborating to meet the consumer'sneeds over time". This problem is not uncommon with metaphor, because asVan den Bulte (1994, p.416) outlines "a metaphor may be accepted as truth.After long and repeated use, a metaphor may become so hackneyed that peoplefotget it is a metaphor and sublimate its relationship with reality".

Further evidence of metaphoric reification is found where researchers havesought tangible evidence of interpersonal relationship attributes in commercialexchange between consumers and organisations. That is, rather than looking forsomething like trust they have sought evidence of trust However, trust isgenerally only considered to be important in situations involving vulnerability(Anderson and Nams, 1990; Bradach and Eccels, 1989; Creed and Miles, 1996).As a result Cowles (1997) suggests that exchange in consumer markets shouldnot be characterised as an act of trust because safeguards (legislation, warranties,guarantees, retums policy etc.) exist which reduce consumers' vulnerability incommercial situations. More fundamentally, Williamson (1993) argues that trustis a concept which should be reserved for the domain of close personalrelationships. Iacobucci and Ostrom (1996) support the assertion that trust isnot relevant in certain types of commercial exchange by suggesting that such'relationships' are not based on trust and are generally less intense and moreshort-term than either individual-to-individual or inter-organisationalrelationships. Indeed, a meta-analysis of extant research published in the topmarketing joumals highlighted that no empirical evidence exists to support theassertion that anything akin to an interpersonal relationship exists in massmarketing situations (Hibbard and Iacobucci, 1998). Interaction occurs primarilyto facilitate exchange. Thus, Iacobucci and Ostrom (1996) coin the termtransactional relationship. Although the word relationship is still employed, theuse of the qualifying term transactional suggests that such relationships are verydifferent from close interpersonal relationships such as marriage.

Discussion

Amdt (1985, p. 16) argues that "words, names, and ideas are used not so much todenote extemal things but as tools for understanding what is out there in waysthat may be shared with others". When viewed as an association between two or


more variables, it is clear that a relationship exists between consumers andorganisations. The association is that consumers fulfil their exchangerequirements with one or more organisations. However, when the interpersonalrelationship metaphor is employed the concepts and values borrowed from socialpsychology, social exchange theory, contractual relations and so forth, areattributed to that association. Although this may appear excessively pedantic theco-existence of literal and metaphoric meaning results in a lack of clarity. Whileacademics rarely confer attributes such as tmst and commitment to therelationship between two variables in a research study, they regulariy do so whendiscussing the relationship between consumers and organisations. Indeed, suchattribution continues in spite of growing empirical evidence highlighting thelimitations of this approach. Thus, the greatest problem with this metaphor liesin the reification of exchange relationships. This occurred because the use ofmetaphor facilitates a tendency to overconcretize the phenomenon we areattempting to understand (Amdt 1985). Furthermore, many authors are oftenblissfully unaware that they are using a metaphor at all (Orwell, 1962). In thecase of this particular metaphor, the possibility for reification is exacerbated bythe imprecise nature of language, and that fact that meaning is largely dependenton context

The interpersonal relationship metaphor is undoubtedly beguiling. It isaccessible to us both as individuals and scholars. It brings with it strongnormative ideals which are believed to position the marketing discipline and,therefore, ourselves in a more positive light However, there exists little evidenceto support the contention that marketing is now more about mutuality thanmanipulation. Practitioners appear to have simply borrowed relational languagewithout adopting the underlying values of co-operation and reciprocity (O'Malleyet al, 1997). Rather than buying into a "make love not war" philosophy, thelanguage of strategy, tactics, power and intelligence gathering co-exist (somewhatuncomfortably) with that of trust harmony and commitment Indeed, asDesmond (1997) argues, given RM's operational reliance on barcodes, smartcards, scanners and relational databases we have perhaps only moved to a morecontemporary conceptualisation of warfare. This is "primarily about themanipulation of the flow of intelligence and information to know all one canabout an adversary while keeping the adversary from knowing much aboutoneself..." (Desmond, 1997, p.345). Furthermore, the values of "instrumentalman" remain prevalent given that assumptions about self-interest seekingconsumers and organisations are retained (Alvesson, 1994). Indeed, asGummesson (1997, p.268) suggests "the new values have not killed the old ones,just pushed them into a comer from which they make recurrent efforts to breakout" Thus, rather than offering altemative normative values, in practice therelationship metaphor has been assimilated by existing perspectives. "Rationaleconomic man meets rational economic woman and they strike a mutuallyagreeable bargain", (Fischer and Bristor, 1994, p.328).

As researchers we have not been sufficiently critical in our approach tometaphoric transfer. We have unquestioningly taken on board the concepts and


values of social exchange theory. Moreover, the appropriation of the literature onsocial exchange may be no accident as this literature itself is dominated by amarket epistemology (Hartsock, 1983) with the market metaphor running rightthrough it (Fischer and Bristor, 1994). In seeking evidence of interpersonalrelationship attributes in commercial relationships we have treated socialexchange concepts as a valid description of reality thereby reifying the metaphor.This has occurred because, when using metaphor "what we see depends to someextent on what we expect to see" (Van den Bulte, 1994, p.4O7). Furthermore, thesearch for evidence of interpersonal relationship characteristics and valuesrepresents, in many cases, something of a circular and self-fulfilling discourse (seeBrownlie, 1997). Consequently, the search for altemative approaches andconcepts has been largely ignored. In order to advance theory development wemust recognise that this metaphor offers but one perspective on commercialexchange and brings certain baggage to our work. That is, it provides aparticular insight and ties us to social exchange theory.

On the basis of the preceding discussion it might seem appropriate toadvocate that the relationship metaphor be abandoned, at least within a massmarketing context However, given that the metaphor has not been fully explored(Tynan, 1997) this might be somewhat premature. In eschewing the simple,familiar, close interpersonal metaphor of marriage we could explore other dyadicrelationships (parents and children, siblings, friends) and those which are moredistant (neighbours or professional colleagues) or even dysfunctional. Indeed,Tynan (1977) advocates the use of a fuller range of source metaphors includingstalking, rape, prostitution, polygamy and seduction to describe the range ofrelationships which exist between organisations and consumers. However, weshould not rely completely on a relationship metaphor. Rather we should followthe advice of Morgan (1983) to explore various other metaphors, thuscounterbalancing their various strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, Amdt (1985,p. 17) reminds us that "No single metaphor can capture the whole of a selectedaspect of reality in its full complexity. Thus, it seems we need not one, butmany metaphors in order to fully explain complex phenomena. Indeed, "we canimprove our field by being more critical of our existing metaphors and moreconscious in picking up new metaphors" (Van den Bulte, 1994, p.419). Thus, themost promising direction for future research may lie in undertaking a sustainedsearch for altemative metaphors. Although this can be conceptually driven, aretum to inductive empirical research would help to rejuvenate the creativeprocess. Indeed, the original relationship metaphor was inductively inspired (seeHakansson, 1982) and the use of metaphor as a creative empirical tool iscurrently advocated in the literature (see Goodwin et al, 1996; Zaltman andCoulter 1995; Zaltman, 1996). Therefore, research which explores consumer'sviews on the relationship metaphor would be apposite. However, in thisendeavour care must be taken because consumers rarely use relational language(Stone et al, 1996). Furthennore, encouraging consumers themselves to developand consider altemative metaphors would be particularly insightful.


Conclusion and Research Agenda

Amdt (1985, p.2O) reminds us that "a first step in the emancipation of marketingthought is to understand the limiting and constraining nature of paradigms andmetaphors, which are given the status of uncontested dogma". In this review werespectfully suggest that the interpersonal relationship metaphor, which hasbecome dominant is now dormant We have heard the phrases so offen that weare no longer aware that the words are not literal but metaphorical. As a resultrepeated transactions between consumer and organisations are treated asthough they are relationships. In reifying consumer-organisational relationshipswe have relied too heavily upon social exchange theory, and we are perhapsguilty of undertaking self-fulfilling research. This may result in the academybecoming resistant to new creative insights. We must be aware of the risks ofusing metaphors without a sound conceptualisation of our subject However,metaphors have much to offer us both as a way of developing constructivefalsehoods leading to new understanding, and as a way of communicating andillustrating a message. As Sir Winston Churchill noted: "How infinite is thedebt owed to metaphors by politicians who wish to speak strongly but are notsure what they are going to say. Hardly less is the debt owed to metaphors bythose who, knowing what they are going to say, wish to illumine and vivify if(Fowler, 1968, p.359).

Metaphors are intended to liberate our imagination (Van den Bulte, 1994)and to provide concepts and values which remain valid during the process ofmetaphoric transfer (Hunt and Menon, 1995). However, the concepts borrowedfrom social exchange theory do not appear to be valid within a mass marketingcontext (see Hibbard and Iacobucci, 1998). This is the case because there islimited interpersonal interaction and technology is not and never can be, a directsubstitute for people. Furthermore, the values of interpersonal relationshipshave not replaced those of competition and self-interest seeking, but rather sitsomewhat uncomfortably, alongside.

The domain extension of RM into consumer markets has been widelyconsidered as both reasonable and acceptable. The use of the interpersonalrelationship metaphor has govemed not only how we conceptualise andoperationalize research questions, but also our normative views on commercialexchange. Given the problems of metaphoric transfer outlined in this paper thevalidity of this domain extension is undermined. It has ignored the fact that RMwas intended cis an altemative approach to marketing in contexts which differedsignificantly from mass marketing situations and where high interpersonalinteraction occurs. Despite this the assumption that RM is relevant in massmarketing situations has not been challenged or tested in any meaningful way.Rather the limitations of RM in this context have been camouflaged by thepossibilities afforded by direct marketing.

We argue that the relationship metaphor is of less value in mass consumermarketing contexts than it has been in high-contact inter-organisational andservice marketing contexts. It does not serve to foster understanding in ways that


can be shared with others. On the contrary, the different levels at which the termrelationship can be employed, literal and metaphoric, interpersonal relationshipsgenerally and marriage in particular, obfuscate meaning. Rather than opening upcreative possibilities the metaphor has, in fact been restrictive. Furthermore, thedomain extension into consumer markets has not served to advance theorywithin the emerging discipline in any meaningful way. Indeed, Wilson (1995,p.343) confirms that "our knowledge of relationships is at an early stage", whileGummesson (1997, p.267) considers that "much of what is currently writtenabout RM is theoryless, a stack of fragmented philosophies, observations andclaims which do not converge in the direction of an emerging RM theory". Evenone of its staunchest advocates has recently suggested that RM is experiencingan identity crisis (see Sheth, 1998). Thus, we conclude that the domainextension into consumer markets has been damaging for this research area, inthat it has directed attention away from more fundamental issues. We thereforeadvocate that the boundaries of RM be redrawn to deal only with thosesituations involving a high degree of interpersonal interaction and thataltemative metaphors be actively sought to better explain exchange in a massmarketing context

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank both reviewers for their helpful comments andsu^estions. We would particulariy like to acknowledge the support andguidance provided by Maurice Patterson.

References

Abela, AV. and Sacconaghi Jr., AM. (1997) 'Value Exchange: The secret ofbuilding customer relationships on line". The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp.216-219.

Alvesson, M. (1994) "Critical Theory and Consumer Marketing", ScandanavianJoumal of Management, 10(3), pp.291-313.

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, JA (1990) "A Model of Distributor Firm andManufacturer Firm Working Partnerships", Journal of Marketing, 540anuary),pp.42-45.

Amdt J. (1985) "On Making Marketing Science More Scientific: Role ofOrientations, Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving", Joumal ofMarketing, 49(Summer), pp.11-23.

Bames, J.G. (1994) "Close to the Customer but is it Really a Relationship?",Joumal of Marketing Management, 10, pp.561-570.

Bames, J.G. (1995) "Establishing Relationships - Getting Closer To The CustomerMay Be More Difficult Than You Think", Irish Marketing Review, 8, pp. 107-116.

Bames, J.G. (1997) "Closeness, Strength, and Satisfaction: Examining the Natureof Relationships between Providers of Financial Services and Their Retail


Customers", Psychology and Marketing, 14(8), pp.765-790.Blattberg RC. and Deighton, J. (1991) "Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age

of Addressabilit/, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.5-14.Bradach, J. and Eccles, RC. (1989) "Price, Authority, Tmst From Ideal Types to

Plural Forms", Annual Review of Sociology, 15, pp.97-118.Brown, S. and Turiey, D. (Eds.) (1997) Consumer Research: Postcards from the

Edge, London: Routledge.Buttle, F. (1996) Relationship Marketing: Theory and Practice, London: Paul

Chapman Publishing.Child, P., Dennis, RJ., Gokey, T.C, McGuire, T.I., Sherman, M., and Singer, M.

(1995) "Can Marketing Regain the Personal Touch?," The McKinsey Quarteriy,3, pp.113-125.

Christy, R, Oliver, G. and Penn, J. (1996) "Relationship Marketing in ConsumerMarkets", 7ouma/ of Marketing Management, 12, pp. 175-187.

Coviello, N.E., Brodie, RJ. and Munro, HJ. (1997) "Understanding ContemporaryMarketing: Development of a Classification Scheme", Joumal of MarketingManagement, 13, pp.501-552.

Cowles, D. L. (1997) "The role of trust in customer relationships: asking the rightquestions". Management Decision, 35(4), pp. 273-282.

Creed, D.W.E. and Miles, RE. (1996) "Tmst in Organisations: A ConceptualFramework Linking Organisational Forms, Managerial Philosophies, and theOpportunity Cost of Controls", in Kramer, RM. and Tyler, T.R (Eds.) Trust inOrganisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Beverley Hills, CA Sage.

Crosby, LA, and Stephens, N. (1987) "Effects of Relationship Marketing onSatisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry," Joumal ofMarketing Research, 24(November), pp.404-411.

Crosby, LA, Evans, KR and Cowles, D. (1990) "Relationship Ouality in ServicesSelling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective", Joumal of Marketing,540uly), pp.68-81.

Desmond, J. (1997) "Marketing and the War Machine", Marketing Intelligenceand Planning, 15(7), pp.338-351.

Dwyer, F. R, Schurr, P. H. and Oh, S. (1987) "Developing Buyer-SellerRelationships" Joumal of Marketing, 51(April), pp.11-27.

Fischer, E. and Bristor, J. (1994) "A Feminist Poststmcturalist Analysis of theRhetoric of Marketing Relationships", Intemational Joumal of Research inMarketing, 11,317-331.

Ford, D. (1980) "The Development of Buyer-Seller Relationships in IndustrialMarkets", European Joumal of Marketing, 14(5/6), pp.339-354.

Ford, D. (1997) Understanding Business Markets: Interaction, Relationships,Networks {2"'^ ed.), London: Academic Press.

Foumier, S. (1998) "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing RelationshipTheory in Consumer Research", Joumal of Consumer Research, 24(4),pp.343-373.

Foumier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D.G. (1998) Treventing the Premature Deathof Relationship Marketing", Harvard Business Review, January-Febmary,


pp.42-51.Fowler, H. W. (1968) Fowler's Modem English Usage, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Goodwin, C, Grove, SJ. and Fisk, RP. (1996) "Collaring the Cheshire Cat

Studying Customers' Service Experience Through Metaphor", The ServiceIndustries Joumai, 16(4), pp.421-442.

Gronroos, C. (1991) T h e Marketing Strategy Continuum: Towards a MarketingConcept for the 1990s", Management Decision, 29(1), pp.7-13.

Gronroos, C. (1994) "From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards aParadigm Shift in Marketing", Management Decision, 32(2), pp.4-20.

Gummesson, E. (1997) "Relationship Marketing as a paradigm shift someconclusions from the 30R approach". Management Decision, 35(4), pp.267-272.

Gummesson, E.(1987) T h e New Marketing - Developing Long-Term InteractiveRelationships", Long Range Planning, 20, pp. 10-20.

Hakansson, H. (1982) Intemational Marketing and Purchasing of IndustrialGoods, New York Wiley.

Hartsock, N. (1983) Money, Sex and Power Toward a Feminist HistoricalMaterialism, New York Longman.

Hibbard, P and Iacobucci, D. (1998) "Marketing Relationships: A Meta-Analysis",in Menon, A (Ed.) Emerging Theory in Relationship Marketing, 4* BiannualRelationship Marketing Conference, Emory University, Atlanta, June 10 - 12*.

Houston, F.S. and Gassenheimer, J.B. (1987) "Marketing and Exchange", Joumaiof Marketing, 51, pp. 3-18.

Hunt S.D. and Menon, A (1995) "Metaphors and Competitive Advantage:Evaluating the Use of Metaphors in Theories of Competitive Strategy", Joumaiof Business Research, 33, pp.81-90.

Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A (1996) "Commercial and interpersonal relationships;Using the stmcture of interpersonal relationships to understand individual-to-individual, individual-to-firm, and firm-to-firm relationships in commerce",Intemational Joumai of Research in Marketing, 13, pp.53-72.

Kavanagh, D. (1994) "Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16", European Joumai ofMarketing, 28(3), pp.26-41.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Levitt T. (1983) The Marketing Imagination, New York The Free Press.McKenna, R (1991) Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies For The Age

of the Customer, Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.McWilliam, G., and Dumas, A (1997) "Using Metaphor in New Brand Design",

Joumai of Marketing Management, 13, pp.265-284.Morgan, G. (1980) "Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization

Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly 25(December), pp.605-622.Morgan, G. (1983) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Beverley Hills,

CA Sage.O'Malley, L, Patterson, M. and Evans, MJ. (1997) "Intimacy or Intrusion: The


Privacy Dilemma for Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets", Joumal ofMarketing Management, 13(6), pp.541-560.

Orwell, G. (1962) Tolitics and the English Language", in G. Orwell Inside theWhale and Other Essays, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.143-157.

Palmer, A and Bejou, D. (1994) "Buyer-Seller Relationships: A Conceptual Modeland Empirical Investigation", Joumal of Marketing Management, 10, pp.495-512.

Petrof, J. V. (1997) "Relationship Marketing: The Wheel Reinvented", BusinessHorizons, 40(6), November/December, pp.26-31.

Pine, J.B., Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1995) "Do You Want to Keep YourCustomers Forever?", Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 103-114.

Shani, D. and Chalasani, S. (1992) "Exploiting Niches Using RelationshipMarketing",/ouma/ of Business Strategy, 6(4), pp.43-52.

Sheaves, D.E. and Bames, J.G. (1996) "The Fundamentals of Relationships: AnExploration of the Concept to Guide Marketing Implementation", Advances inServices Marketing and Management, 5, pp.215-245.

Sheth, J.N. and Pravatiyar, A (1995) "Relationship Marketing in ConsumerMarkets: Antecedents and Consequences", Joumal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 23(4), pp.255-271.

Sheth, J.N. (1996) "Relationship Markeing", Keynote Speech in Parvatiyar, A andSheth, J.N. (Eds.), Contemporary Knowledge of Relationship Marketing, 3"̂ ^Biannual Relationship Marketing Conference, Emory University, Atlanta, June13-15*.

Sheth, J.N. (1998) "Relationship Marketing", Keynote Speech in Menon, A (Ed.)Emerging Theory in Relationship Marketing, 4* Biannual RelationshipMarketing Conference, Emory University, Atlanta, June 10 - 12*.

Shostack, LG. (1977) "Breaking Free From Product Marketing", Joumal ofMarketing, 45(April), pp.73-80.

Stone, M., Woodcock, N. and Wilson, M. (1996) "Managing the Change fromMarketing Planning to Customer Relationship Managemenf, Long RangePlanning, 29(5), pp.675-683.

Tynan, C. (1997) "A Review of the Marriage Analogy in Relationship Marketing",Joumal of Marketing Management, 13, pp.695-703.

Tynan, C. (1999) "On Metaphors, Marketing and Marriage", Irish MarketingReview, Forthcomming.

Van den Bulte, C. (1994) "Metaphor at Work", in Laurent G.. Lillien, G.L andPras, B. (Eds.) Research Traditions in Marketing, Boston: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, pp.405-425.

Williamson, O.E. (1993) "Calculativeness, Tmst and Economic Organization",The Joumal of Lxxw & Economics, 36(1), pp.453-486.

Wilson, D.T (1995) "An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships", Joumalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), pp.335-345.

Wilson, D.T. and Mullamani, V. (1986) "Bonding and Commitment in Buyer-Seller Relationships: A Preliminary Conceptualisation", Industrial Marketingand Purchasing, 1(3), pp.383-404.


Wilson, F. (1992) "Language, Technology, Gender, and Power", Human Relations,45(9), pp.883-904.

Zaltman, G. (1996) "Metaphorically Speaking: New Technique UsesMultidisciplinary Ideas to Improve Oualitative Research", Marketing ResearchForum, 8(2), pp. 13-20.

Zaltman, G. and Coulter, R H. (1995) "Seeing the Voice of the CustomerMetaphor-Based Advertising Research", Joumal of Advertising Research,July/August pp.35-51.

Zaltman, G. Lemasters, K and Heffring, M.(1982) Theory Constmction inMarketing, New York John Wiley and Sons.

The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation

Documents

Transcript of The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation