Department of Marketing

Why do some firms not change their strategic orientation despite economic incentives to do so? Most current
literature on changing strategic orientations has focused on an antecedents and outcomes approach to business
orientations. Intimated, but rarely addressed, are the notions that (1) strategic orientations may be thought of as
ideologies and (2) such ideologies are likely to contend with each other. Taking such a perspective may be helpful
in discussing why it is challenging to transition to more sustainable strategic orientations even in the presence of
financial incentives to do so. In assessing the transition to organic production and marketing in a commodity
agriculture context, the authors find that contending ideologies restrict its adoption. In addition, they suggest that
strategic orientations are not adopted or contested solely within firms but also among them. The authors find that
ideological contestation among firms in this context takes the form of a marketplace drama between a chemical,
productionist orientation and an organic orientation in which protagonists mobilize several forms of legitimacy.

A perennial problem in social marketing and public policy is the plight of at-risk consumers. The authors define at-risk consumers as marketplace participants who, because of historical or personal circumstances or disabilities, may be harmed by marketers’ practices or may be unable or unwilling to take full advantage of marketplace opportunities. This definition refers to either objective reality or perceptions. Early research focused on consumers who were at risk because they were poor, ethnic or racial minorities, immigrants, women, or elderly. Today’s researchers also study consumers who are at risk because they are from religious minorities, disabled, illiterate, homeless, indigent, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. The authors identify four tensions affecting research on and policy and marketing applications for at-risk populations: the value of focusing on (1) vulnerabilities versus strengths, (2) radical versus marginal change, (3) targeting versus nontargeting, and (4) encouraging knowledgeable versus naive consumers. They conclude with a discussion of the significance of including at-risk consumers as full marketplace participants and identify future research directions.