THE NEW REALITIES AND PARADIGMS IN THE MARKETING

Prof. Boyan Durankev, PhD Dept. “Marketing and Strategic Planning” University of National and World Economy 1700 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] THE NEW REALITIES AND PARADIGMS IN THE MARKETING The marketing is a specific art, which is used by some scientific means Philip Kotler Котлър, Ф. Котлър за маркетинга. Как да създаваме, печелим и управляваме пазарите. Издателство “Класика и стил”, С., 2000, с. 244. The classical theory of economics and marketing originates from some basic positions, which at first sight don’t need any evidences. In accordance with this theory, the following points have axiomatic character both for the consumer (buyer) and for the producer (seller): The consumer has some needs, which appear to be necessities. These needs are objective “product”, which isn’t liable to marketing forming or shaping. The consumer wants to choose the best, studying carefully the commodity supply, the prices, the distribution facilities and the advantages offered by the communications. He can deal with enough dime information and abilities for recording and working of this information. The influence exercised on him is minimal and in the most cases doesn’t change his final decision. The consumer is more social and rational than biological and irrational creature. The seller has some producing powers, which could be enlarged (for a period of time). He carefully studies the needs of the consumers and also optimizes his choice in the previous points but looking from production and competition’s sight. The aim of his action is money. We accept that this means maximum profit. The two sides make the exchange with a deal. They communicate adequately in order to satisfy their needs. The transaction is a single act if there is a service. Mostly the classical marketing theory equalizes the consumer with the producer in the process of making a decision. What’s more, there is also a principle of absolute mobilness – the institutional and psychological factors, which make the exchange impossible, difficult or slower, practically don’t exist. There are two things, which are enough for the creation of the global marketing. The first thing is that on the opposite side of the producers to stand enough of the amount of consumers and on the other hand on the opposite side of the consumers to stand enough of the amount of producers. In these cases the engine of the development is the absolute bilateral (prefect) competition. The morality of the two sides is stated by a presumption. The exchange is exchange of equivalents: the buyer satisfies his needs and the seller is awarded by a profit. Aggression, pressure and dishonesty are not allowed. These axioms are rising problems, when some special cases are being analyzed and also the evolution of the marketing. In fact nothing which is considered to be right is right. More precisely these five basic points of the classical marketing are only private cases of a simple marketing system. What will happen if all the consumers or all the producers, or both together are endless? These situations are typical, for example, for the development of the international competition and when the national economics are opened. The endless information isn’t liable to shaping. Then? Then simply neither the consumers nor the producers will have their own optimal choice (but this doesn’t deny the possibility to have some choice). But even in the standard situations the question for the optimality of choice today – in the beginning of the XXI century hasn’t clear answers. The changes in consuming and producing in the last decades (especially in the developed countries) put old questions on plan. The marketing answers become more complicated from the discoveries of the social psychology, anthropology and sociology. From economical and marketing to market-mark man. On one hand some important changes in consumers and producers have occurred. Although everything, as it will be proven afterwards their consumers’ behavior, is “more or less repeating decisions in connection with the choice of trade marc” John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth. A Theory of Buyer Behavior, in Changing Marketing Systems … Consumer, Corporate and Government Interfaces: Proceedings of the 1967 Winter Conference of the American Marketing Association, 1967, Red Moyer, ed., published by American Marketing Association.. Although their needs are unchangeable, they could be changed by the influence of the changes in the objective conditions of life. Even more important is the dynamic of needs, which under the influence of the Second and the Third wave (Tofler) – industrial, and informational, are growing and changing with unknown till today temps. The spreading of new production and information – like a blow – provokes both needs and wishes, which could not be easily characterized. Why for instance people drink “Pepsi”? According to the classical marketing theory that’s because they need liquids for their extinction and that in one moment that need of liquids appears by the need of “Pepsi”. It’s logical to object to this because that kind of need can be best satisfied with pure ice-cold mineral water. It’s harder to answer why some people prefer in some exact moment, exactly this drink from this brand. Which are the factors and the conditions? Things are very simple. The increase and diversification of the needs are provoked from the preliminarily growth and variegation of information for satisfying the existing needs. For example in the past the need of information was satisfied by individual or group research. Later, after the discovery of the press (printing establishment), books and newspapers made the spreading and receiving of the information. Today the potentials are practically unlimited. They are limited only by the potentials of the people. No person and no group can gather, archive and deal with such amount of information. There is not enough time to receive and deal with such amount of information. For example, many European citizens learn for the things that happen around the world from the TV, the radio and the press. According to our research for the satisfaction of this need they use daily about 15 minutes at an average, which is only current information. In fact 100% of the citizens do not have a full image for the world because the information has developed and they don’t have enough time for its gathering and forming. There is another thing that limits the acceptation of the information and that is the ability of the man to save and shape it. According to Milton Friedman the freedom of choice increases with the increase of the information. According to our researches the relationship has the opposite sense. It is easy to choose a cheese if there are only 2 or 3 types in the store. But when there are 20 or 30 types of cheese (ten times more) it is difficult for the consumer to communicate with the information for the new types. He appears to be conservative and continues to buy something he is sure in. but what happens later when the informational avalanche pores over the consumer? With the increase of the proposed sorts of cheese up to 200 – 300, for the buyer it is impossible to make out his choice even if he has wish, enough time and money. Do you imagine what difficulties the consumer could have if he must describe all sorts of cheese by their appearance, smell, taste, rate of nectars, pesticides, heavy metals, microbiological content and so on? The real dependence is – “the bigger the choice, the smaller the opportunities of choice are”. This relationship is stated by Chomsky but without being exact and precise. Let’s add another difficulty. Many buyers not only can’t but also don’t want to choose. An experiment shows that consumers are able to assume only the information for which they are prepared or they want to assume. They watch everything but see only this which they are disposed to accept. For example in one fashion show men and women watch the same thing but they accept it in different ways. Women can remember the new mode line, while the men will marc on the models and the prices of the clothes. But which thing determines “the receptivity of one exact information” for a defined person and also the opposite – “unreceptive ness to other? Indeed the “economical man” always rationalizes his choice on the base of the whole information – symmetrically, on the other hand the “marketing man” makes his choice on the base of the “influence”, for instance – the advertisement – by asymmetric information? Neither the first nor the second are totally true. It is just limited and rather false visualization of the reality. The right answer is revealed by the consumers’ or the producers’ behavior. The decrease of the sense of worry in your choice is done by the repeating – information for one’s way of action in a defined situation George Katona, Rational Behavior and Economic Behavior. Psychological Review, September, 1953, pp. 307-318.. If one action is done frequently, quickly and with successful results, the probability of repeating this action will be bigger in future around the bigger part of the people. In other words if somebody has drunken 364 times in a year “Heineken”, if he did this yesterday and does it today, if the result is always satisfying the thirst and enjoying its taste, he will eliminate with a big probability the other 12345 types of beer fizzy drinks and mineral waters. On the other hand the behavior directed in solving a new problem is needed very rarely. Then additional information is needed, but not all the information. But this is obvious diversion from the normal habitual behavior. Therefore, the economic man just hasn't existed, despite the archeologists' efforts to find his traces. And the marketing man is a twin brother to the economic man. "Coca -Cola" used to be number one among the trademarks and "Pepsi" -number two. All the rest followed them. Both producers companies are investing millions of dollars in advertisement, but it doesn't lead to changes in the behavior. The consumers are more and more comparing the trademarks by their prize, and if someone offers a discount, which is reasonable, the customer's flow points at the cheaper trademark disregarding the advertisement of the" better one". It's the same with car selling, with the clothes, and with many of the foods. Just this fact made the producers divert the expenses from the advertisement to the encouragement of the sales, and as fewer resources are invested in advertisement, the man as a customer in many aspects becomes less "marketing". Otherwise people act almost without wondering or choosing - they act the way they've acted before, in similar circumstances. Finally it is important that recently the family council, which had taken the place of the domestic council, has made the most of the important decisions about purchase. Figuratively, "the board of directors" shrank from 15 - 20 to 5 people. The same applies to the corporative collegiums. Today and in the future the important decisions will be taken individually, not collectively, more and more often, which significantly decreases the opportunity to create a protective "organizational bushon" for the consumer. However, the belonging to a specific group and its support for a specific type of solutions still plays an important role in the problem-solving behavior. Mr. Jones can go to work in the morning with a blazer from "Go High", but nothing stops him to be in his club in the evening with a pullover and jeans from "Go Home". A little bit later he will satisfy the caprice of his younger girlfriend to go to a rap-club, but on the way he will definitely put on clothes from "Go Down". The first, the second and the third groups does not obstruct Mr. Jones at all to feel comfortable in different clothes, and relieve his comfort if they are similar "group" attire. Of course different groups will make the decisions at the different stages of his lifecycle. That's why the man connects with a specific brand for repeating or support, which is a brand-portal for him to a specific way of living in the present or the future. The abrupt and revolutionary changes are absent in this behavior, except if they are not caused by abrupt and significant changes in the outer environment. At the end the consumer in the developed and intermediately developed countries has abundant and various information for the supply without being able to respond to it adequately both in terms of ability to perceive and organization. The consumer is weaker and less protected from yesterday in the marketing aspect. This trend is objective and contradicts the classical marketing theory. However the consumer responds to the trends not by researching the whole information in order to optimize it (as an economic man) not by being strongly influenced by the asymmetric information (as a marketing man), but by deciding and acting selectively on the basis of repetition or support through trademarks - portals. In the theory this can be called a transition from the vision of an economic and marketing man to the vision of a marketbrand man. This man rationally chooses and decides, but relying on repeating and support. From a researching to an involved producer On the other hand, there are serious transformations in the producers too. The final goal of marketing according to classical theory is the profit in the broad sense of the term. Exactly because of this the producer organizations undertake actions, which guarantee the accomplishment of the aim, including in the field of marketing. However, some objective trends in economics and society lead to a remarkable quality change in marketing from the producer's side. The fast increase of production and services is evident which leads to a lot more accelerated increase of the information about them. The producers literary cover the consumers and competitors with new products and information. This full water stream cannot be stopped. Just look at the variety of the offered trademarks and models of radio devices and think which client is capable of trying them before the purchase! Becoming stronger and stronger (with innovations) the producers in the meantime reduce their influence over the consumers because they become more conservative as stated above. Even the "prize games", which extend over most of the goods due to the same reason, do not influence the selling much. The central commercial streets in most of the big cities are crowded with stores, which loudly inform about the discounts they offer. However in most of the cases the buyer is not only passive and cautious but he has a negative disposition towards such tricks when they become a manner. He seeks "normal" prices for the desired goods. Distributional profits gradually reach their limit. The stock - product or service, is not difficult anymore to be delivered to the place of consumption. And in this respect the competition decreases. The luring offers, which reach the buyer, either through television or directly through the PO boxes, very often are not even watched or read. They become an element of the everyday vexation when they are dominating. On the contrary another trend is present - the buyers undertake "excursions" to the stores with cognitive or even entertainment goal. However the power of the producer organizations due to artificially caused by them dynamics of the information for the production through their communication politics and mostly through advertisement focused both on the primary and the secondary impulses of the consumers, which additionally disbalanced their psychomatrix. Because of this the choice is often impulsively activated and produces psychic disturbances. Regardless of the age of the consumer, he drinks “Pepsi” to “feel young” or “to win right away”. But he drinks “Coca-Cola” too, because the competition makes him feel thirsty all the time. He buys new clothes not because his old ones have become rubbed but because other forces make him feel old fashioned. He drives a new car not because his old one is for scraping but because in this way he will look better and feel more comfortable according to the advertisement. This trend becomes objective in the following: the communication of the consumer with the producer organization is substituted either with the escape in the imagination or with the escape in the consumption of unnecessary goods. These facts push the producers to seek more and more market alcoves hidden behind the traditional and the new needs and desires. Some of the marketing investigations lead the producers to chronic market – mania – a strong aspiration to be guessed to all buyers’ caprices. And as all of them compete exactly from the guessing of the caprices, they often complain from unloyal clients. As a matter of fact the last ones are just overstated, generally when we talk about final buyers. A lot of pizzerias have tried to make their hungry clients to make a pizza by their own recipe. How disappointed were they, when the clients disgracefully rejected such kind of idea – they were looking for the standard solution, but not a freedom of the choice. The marketing management has never been connected with the market – mania. According to the marketing, the earning is not the aim of the organization, but a reward for the ability of satisfying the buyers’ needs better than the competitors. The marketing management shows how to achieve the buyer’s satisfaction from the rational choice, and not how to satisfy his caprices. Because of this reason in the 80-s years of the last century, the marketing cut out the idea for maximization of the earning (a bad loan of the economics) and go to an optimization of the relations with clients. The selling departments were substituted with marketing directions. The organizations were changed not only inside. For surprise of the followers of the orthodox economics and even their followers lawyers, “in their aspiration for increasing of the economical effectiveness the companies in even grater degree use administrative and biurocratical control, and in even smaller degree – market control” Frederick E. Webster, Jr., The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October 1992.. This deliberate quotation is useful mostly for the fanatic students of the East. Among the organizations now even more reveal the un-market relations. If among the companies of the market reveal the research of the needs between two sides (according to the classical marketing), then in the un-market relations reveal the each others familiarization and as a result – the thoughtfulness of each side to the problems of the other. The change is more then terminological. The relations between Organizations start with ordinary transactions but the aspiration is mostly toward repeated deals. On its turn, the latter becomes in long-lasting relationships. Though it’s prolonging, they stays mostly relations among rivals and depend on the market situation. Today’s supplier No l is tomorrow's No 0. But the long lasting relationships can grow in partner relationships in which each side depends entirely from its counteragents in definite spheres and the relationships among them (by necessity) are filled out with mutual confidence. The price mechanism of the free market steps back on the “bureaucratically prices” achieved according during the revisions and accepting the mutual interests. The next levels are the strategic alliances. In them spring up new economical units, for example, on working on new stock, in investigating projects of mutual interest ant etc. The common companies are only one mark of similar relationships. The mutual penetrating later expands to the level of business nets, which are more than unions. In that meaning the mutual swallowing rarely are more unsuccessful and less productive than the “independent” organizations that take part in business nets. That new role of the marketing management inside and among the organizations, based if not on entire confidence, so on sympathy, changes the role of the marketing too. From marketing through marketing researches on the market it goes to sympathy marketing in business nets, which is qualitative higher of the most precise researches of the opposite side. Before the marketing was the kernel of the walnut and today it is the ground of the walnut wood, which fills the separate walnut. From unshackled deals to complicated exchange There was time, when the guru of the marketing Philip Kotler defined the basic part of the marketing is the deal. The marketing in those times revealed the relationships as free and market, in which the millions producers and the millions buyers formed something like plankton, swimming free indefinite where (absolutely mobile) in dependent from the new coming tempting information (absolutely mobile). As a result millions discreet market transactions were made, and the product, the price, the place and the promotion exhausted the entire necessary information. The role of the marketing direction was locked mostly in finding of such decisions as for the four P, which attracts more potential users to “your side”, if misses a “distinctive competence”. The romantic relationships in marketing were achieved by clear transactions (deals) — single exchange of values between two sides, limited in a definite moment of time. The only meaning for each side in the transaction is the sale. Kotler transferred the romantic in these relationships almost without problem on practical all human relationships Philip Kotler and Sidney J. Levy. Broadening the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, January 1969, pp. 10-15.. The single sex between two unknown persons, which liked each other accidentally, after which they separated forever, consequently is marketing. The “price” of the transactions a separate energy for satisfying mutual needs. It is more marketing if the ‘service’ is paid, and the pleasure — mutual. Conversely, the same relationships in the family, in which the wife is not very inclined, but at least imagines she is with Tom Cruse, and the husband is inclined, but he imagines he is with Claudia Shifer, is not marketing, but psychopathological case. But what have to be said for the buying of sneakers with the face or the dog Rita (“Puma”), which are evident falsification and are sold to a high price by a criminal group in many village shoos, in which go 82% of the inhabitants, because they have no money for bus ticket to the neat town, in which there is bigger choice — is that marketing or not? After in 1969 Philip Kotler twisted the knot, in 1975 Richard Bagozzy tried to untie it Richard P. Bagozzy. Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, October 1975, pp. 32-39.. He asked the questions: why do people and organizations enter in an exchange, which are its forms and what defines the extreme decision for an exchange (and which exchange can be called marketing)? The analyze proved to him that the simple, limited in time binary exchange is quite a rare case. Much more frequently can be seen a generally exchange, in which are available single relationships at least among three acting persons, and in which each side receives not direct, but indirect benefit. The cases are not exceptions, when can be seen the complex exchanges, in which take part at least three persons, and each of them takes part at least in one direct exchange. The last two aspects send in the past the theory about the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith, typical of the double exchange), which yields to the visible consciously organized conductive systems. From exchanges and transactions to relationships The f mailing of the exchange, on first look, in the general case ends with the move of a product to the user and money to the producer. Far away before it is the standardizing of the exchange — by surveying of the mutual needs and necessities, motivations, attempts for influencing t the decisions and so on. The necessity is the beginning; the deal is the end of the chain for the both sides. But if the institution, which makes effort to enter in an exchange and to realize deals, really ends the exchange through a deal, and on the next stage it will stand against the necessity to make the next manufacture marketing charges for surveying the needs and the necessities of the next user, to his motivation, to try to influence his decision and so on. Conversely, if the user stands against the necessity to choose again among different alternatives, he will be objectively forced to do his user’s marketing expenses in investigating the alternative means to satisfy the necessity, to compare them, to spend time and so on. Even in the ulitar exchanged (when are exchanged stocks because of their functions and direct benefits) the expenses are high, while in the symbol exchange (when are exchanged stocks because of their meanings) they become higher. But if the producer deepens his relations with the user, if he knows his better and answers fuller and exact to his needs, if, controversially the user develops his relations with the producer, if he gives him his higher expectations to the stock, it, as a result, and the both sides will decrease their marketing expenses on the condition in creating spot-bonds, but to long-lasting exchanging relationships. The expenses decrease, the prices relatively get down. On its turn that will allow to turn from market-mark human to marketing human, which will survey needs and necessities through long lasting exchange. The sympathy to the problems to the other side, which was said former, is in the base of the confidence and long lasting relationships, which displaces the single exchange and the accidental deals to long lasting profitable relations. The exchanges stops being ulitar, symbol or mixed, and it becomes “exchange plus” - exchange of relations too, which are based on the confidence. From market marketing it turns to social marketing and the marketing becomes, according to Bagozzy, “a discipline, which interests in surveying the conduct of the human in the process of exchange and solving the existing problems”. In that way the marketing really turns to function of the management, which has universal application. From rivals and monopoles to globopoles. The former described tendencies may provoke the imagination for unclouded relations in the chain “producer-rival”, and in the chain “producer-user”. That exactly is not right. Probably in your computer is installed the system Microsoft Windows too, and tonight the children will convince you of going to McDonalds, to make use of the promotions of Harry Potter. In other place, but in the same time , but in less computers is operated by Linux which is may be not worse than the rival product, and other kids insist to be taken to Pizza hut,, after they watched The Lord Of The Rings. The things have obviously changed. If the rivalry was the engine, which moved the economic after IV-th century, supported by clever political and military operations; if monopoles were the posts of XIX-th century and even in the beginning of XX-th century, supported by strong political lobys; if the multinational companies were the cry of the fashion in XX-th century, supported by the “international” (but not the world) community; so XXI century is a century of a new phenomena. The basic part of the global corporations, born in the past century, turned to globopoles. At least two decades ago this tendency was felt by the guru of the management Theodore Levitt: while the multinational corporations “operate in several countries and adapt its stocks and working methods to their specialties, which provokes high relative maintenance, the global corporation can be distinguished with its constancy, defining the low level of the relative support; it pursues such a politic, that as if the whole world (or its main regions) present something united and whole; its stocks and strategy are everywhere same” Theodore Levitt. The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review. May/June 1983.. Behind the global corporation Levitt saw two vectors — of the technologies and the globalization. That let him think of the idea that of arising of "global rivalry", though the right conclusion that the global corporations "never think the user of a king”. Ten year later the tendencies cannot be said with more exact words. If the rivalry was among a hundred of manufacturers in a definite branch, and monopoles competed on "rivalry" among ten producers, so globopoles today (in their branch) are most as the count of the fingers of the one hand (mostly 2, but not more than 7). They are really product of the new technology (including marketing), but the globalization is not a factor for them, and in a big extent - their consequence. Using first or best the new technologies, the global corporations forms product, price, distributor and promotion rivalry advantages, which have two directions. First, these are advantages which subordinating themselves the standard "former king" — the buyer. Second, those are advantages, which are directed against the rivals. All illusions that the necessities are stable were disrupted fast. The necessities turned to be very dynamic independent of the “culture peculiarities”, “the personal tastes and standards”. The counting of such peculiarities, tastes and standards is due to the multinational companies. Conversely, the fanning of standards in the buyers (and the “manufacture” of a new culture, tastes and standards) is due to the global corporations. On its turn, the standardized in new way buyers and the high barriers in the business allow the global corporations not only to remove, but also to oppress the local or international rivalry. They create standards of the rivalry -standards that cannot (although the wishes and efforts) to be gained by other rivals. The "ocean" of the rivalry has changed. From ocean in which there is only plankton, now there is an ocean, in which calm (in different branches) swim large sharks, followed by small fish (looking for remainders from the booty of the big ones) and much, much plankton. Here the statistic cannot play its next game with the "average form". The sharks are always better feed and more and more subordinate to themselves the rivals and the booty. They are the orient because they really are globopoles. The Eastern Europe and the USSR surrender in front of the West. The Eastern Europe, the USSR and the West surrender in front of globopolities. From passive unethics to aggressive ethics In the former relation it shouldn’t underrate or overrate the development of the organizations — users. The growth of their economical, financial and political (by the lobys) power increases sensitively the their abilities for influence to the buyers. Against each of us — individual user, stands the whole army of marketing and advertisement specialists of Coca-Cola or Pepsi or whatever another organization. The more developed it is, the more its potential opportunities to make pressure to the users. Usually these opportunities become real, in defiance of all stories about culture and ethics. The users themselves stay quite more disorganized towards the manufacture organizations, their money and their places in the medias, which make them weaker and defenseless. That increases the desire for aggressive pressure and influence on the part of the producers on behalf of the benefit. Besides, the power of the great organizations is expressed in pressure or in destabilization or in informational liquidation of the weaker rival. A typical example as illustration - Bulgarian manufacturers of soft drinks (soft on the background of the others) were erased by the steam-rollers of the mentioned Coca-Cola and Pepsi, that had arrived with much experience, money and media presence. Not less suffered the producers of Bulgarian electronic too. Let’s take another example. Much parties all over the world, so in Bulgaria (more than 200), as much programs they write, as much persons they lead ahead, they are regularly vanquished by two-three or four "duty" parties, which rule through their money and medias. The marketing tendency here objectifies in the following: the more an organization is stronger (as organizing, financial possibilities and media presence), the more chances it has to become stronger. The strength growthes in informational monopole. The conclusions are firm. The quality marketing change in the new informational (and symbol) society is expressed in the following: it is more and more misbalanced. Misbalancing is in profit of the producing organizations, but what refers to the relations producers-users, as in profit of the big and small strong organizations when it matters to the relations big organizations-small and average organizations. These objective tendencies prove definitely that the marketing "fights" today transfer from the sphere of proofs for the quality' of the production, to the sphere of the informational pressure and the open manipulation of users and rivals. I lore it is possible to be made only one conclusion — the aggressive leading of the market fights through a strong informational presence, but not through the production itself, is the winning weapon of the marketing arsenal of the epoch of the Third wave. The aggression often becomes political or advertisement impudence which can hardly be sensed from the unprofessional eye of the buyer. So for example the batteries “Varta" are advertised in Bulgaria with the cynic "The better batteries", which doesn't answer the question why they are better, but that increases sensitively the sellings; the cigarettes of "Bulgartabak" are presented as a symbol of prosperity — "Only for prospered!" even though everybody knows the damage of them! With this the classic marketing theory steps back in the past, removed by the aggressive marketing theory, oriented through the information relationships and psychological weapons. Even though everything, there are positive changes too. If in the epoch of the free rivalry, monopoles or even in the time of the Neanderthal marketing the main rule was “take the money and run” and the unethical relations was supposed from itself as the air is necessary for breathing, so today this rule is limited like the shagreen pelt. Today it becomes harder (owing to the civil society and social organizations) to practice active or passive deceit. And if in the past the buyer even accepted for “normal” to be deceived by the advertisement, swindled or something like that, so his lobysm or the concealing of taxes today is liable to destroying critics. That was understood even the biggest sharks among the professional deceivers. An example for illustration. There were times, when New York Times announced the giant ENRON for a “model for the American workplace”, and Fortune announced it six consecutive years for “the most innovative company in USA”, as the seventh position of Fortune 500 was the least it deserved. The firm operated calm with in 40 countries and had 21 000 clerks. For auditor it had a force like Arthur Andersen, and the last check-up of the famous Deloiltee-Touche in Andersen has shown that there everything is all right. Pricewatterhouse Coopers has advised them about two contradictive associations, and KPMG has made the independent audit of these companies. The exclusive aggression is the most common feature, in order with the others professionally made aggressive frauds of the lobbystic politics of the company. ENRON has made a specific computer system called “Matrix” through which the economists of the company had calculated (reading the growth, the inflation, the risks and others) how much will cost the initiation of every change in the legislation in company’s advantage. If the cost prize of the change appears to be cheaper from the expected profit, the company activates its whole net of lobbyists and politics, chosen with the money of ENRON, to pull down the expenses and to reach the wanted effect. In the collection of ENRON there are famous people with bright influence among the society – politics, journalists, and political scientists. They were attracted as consultants with a temporary contracts, and they make “consultations” not more than 2-3 times a year against 5 figure rewards (about 50 000$). Even more, there are “bough” supreme politics in Washington. Only for the period of 1997 – 2000 year ENRON has put aside, for political purposes 10,2 million dollars, as for the campaign of the candidate George Bush there were invested 115 000 dollars. According to unofficial records even the energy strategy of the new administration is “consulted” with ENRON. It is not necessary to describe in details the business of ENRON to receive clearer picture. Today the giant is a debtor with minimum 17 billion dollars, and the politics are “debtors” to the society in attitude of the trust. If ENRON was “forced” to make large skailed cheatings than what is left for “the small fish” of the plankton? This negative but typical for the market economy example does not give an opportunity for generalizations. The marketing of the relationships, based on the concerned complicated volume and trust, is pushing out slowly but surely, the passive and the active immorality, and changes them with morality. The morality it self is not passive, but it is necessary to be an aggressive morality exactly because of its separation from “the normal” pre-business, based on, with apologizes, cheating. This morality is not a subsequent PR, but is a style and culture of behavior. This means that some of the sharks and piranhas will become vegetarians by force, to have a “long” and “healthy” life. A shark vegetarian is becoming fashionable. The marketing is becoming more and more science? May be Philip Kotler was right saying that “once the marketing was alchemists, but today, from pseudoscience it is turning into real science” Котлър, Ф., Очертанията на пазара на бъдещето. В: Преосмисляне на бъдещето. Издателство “Екслибрис”, С., 2002, с. 235.. The contemporary marketing is much more precise in its formulation then at its birth. But the marketing stays an art, to catch and even model its tendencies. That’s why the marketing can never be an exact science. The opposite, the economical science needs an essential change because principally does not examine the question of the informational (psychomdelating) monopols. The questions of effectiveness of the market economy and the parlamental democracy are much sharpened, - they pass over in new quality condition, which does not express the general needs and necessaries. But this is a theme of another marketing analysis. PAGE 1