Content uploaded by Eminegül Karababa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eminegül Karababa on Jul 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://mtq.sagepub.com/
Marketing Theory
http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/14/1/119
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1470593113500385
2014 14: 119 originally published online 14 August 2013Marketing Theory
Eminegül Karababa and Dannie Kjeldgaard
Value in marketing: Toward sociocultural perspectives
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Marketing TheoryAdditional services and information for
http://mtq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://mtq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/14/1/119.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 14, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Feb 14, 2014Version of Record >>
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Commentary
Value in marketing:
Toward sociocultural
perspectives
Eminegu
¨l Karababa
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Dannie Kjeldgaard
University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Abstract
This commentary addresses recent debates in marketing research on the elusiveness of the notion
of value, with the aim of starting a dialogue on the possibility of developing a comprehensive and
culturally informed understanding of value and value creation processes. First, we provide an
overview of the predominant uses of value in marketing and consumer research literature and
discuss them in relation to three abstract conceptions of value. We show the interconnectedness
of these value types in market and consumption contexts. Next, we suggest possible avenues that
have their foundations in the notion of field, practice theory, and markets as networks approaches,
in order to conceptualize complexity in value and value creation processes.
Keywords
Economic value, CCT, semiotic value, social values, value, value creation
Introduction
The notion of value is a notoriously elusive concept in marketing and consumer research, often
applied implicitly in the context of particular conceptual dialogues (Graeber, 2001; Miller, 2008;
Zeithaml, 1988). Use value, exchange value, aesthetic value, identity value, instrumental value,
economic value, social values, shareholder value, symbolic value, functional value, utilitarian value,
hedonic value, perceived value, community values, emotional value, expected value, and brand
value are examples of different notions of value, which are frequently used without having an explicit
conceptual understanding in marketing and consumer research. Multiple understandings of value are
Corresponding author:
Eminegu¨l Karababa, Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mahallesi,
Dumlupinar Bulvari, No. 1 06800 C¸ ankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Email: eminegul@metu.edu.tr
Marketing Theory
2014, Vol. 14(1) 119–127
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1470593113500385
mtq.sagepub.com
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
based on the fundamental assumptions of different theoretical approaches in the social sciences, such
as economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Recently, Consumer Culture Theory
(CCT), Service Dominant Logic (SDL), and branding research have suggested that there is a need for
an explication and more conceptually grounded synthesis of these different conceptions of value
(e.g. Arvidsson, 2006; Domegan et al., 2011; Gro¨nroos, 2012; Gummerus, 2013; Holbrook,
1999; Pen
˜aloza and Mish, 2011; Vargo et al., 2008).
In this commentary, our aim is to address the contemporary multifariousness and elusiveness of
the concept in marketing theory and start a dialogue on how to develop a comprehensive and
culturally informed understanding of the notion of value and value constitution. First, we provide
an overview of the predominant uses of value in marketing and consumer research literature. We
discuss these uses in relation to three abstract value types: economic value, semiotic value, and
social values. Next, we propose avenues for further sociocultural conceptualization of value and
value creation from a CCT perspective.
Conceptions of value in marketing and consumer research
In the following sections, we outline a variety of ways in which the notion of value is used in
marketing theory and consumer research. In order to develop a more comprehensive sociocultural
approach, we seek to demonstrate that at the abstract level interrelations between economic, social,
and semiotic values (Graeber, 2001) form different context-dependent conceptualizations of value.
The notion of economic value is founded in classical and political economy. Marxian economics
define exchange value as the labor necessary to appropriate useful qualities and express it in the
quantity form (Marx, 1962; Tucker, 1978). Marx’s famous labor theory of value argues that the
basic source of any type of value is actually the labor time that is required to produce an item under
the normal conditions of production. Surplus value is the difference between the exchange value
and the sum of value used for production including raw materials, means of production, and labor
power. On the other hand, use value or utility, which is qualitative in nature, can only be realized
through consumption or use.
Social values [plural], in their most general form, are referred to as ‘‘goodness’’ and used in two
general senses: either an ethical sense of goodness, which is determined by an individual person, or
culturally as the ‘‘goodness of something,’’ which is external to a person, such as goodness of a
person, an idea, a product or an activity (see Ng and Smith, 2012, for an overview), that is, what is
considered good and valuable in human life.
Third, value in the semiotic sense refers to sign value or meaning (Baudrillard, 1993; Graeber,
2001). Cultural meanings are mediated through consumption and constantly reconstructed among
multiple actors, and the study of this subject has been one of the hallmarks of CCT research since
its early days (e.g. Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1986).
In the following sections, we will discuss how these value types are at play and are interrelated
in several conceptualizations of value.
Exchange value
The exchange paradigm, the predominant approach in marketing, conceptualizes marketing
behavior as a system of value exchanges among various parties (Bagozzi, 1975). On the firm side,
pricing strategy as an example of market behavior defines the economic value of a firm’s product.
In the context of market exchange, price is realized at a single point in time in the form of money
and can be determined in relation to cost of production or competitors’ pricing strategies, but also
120 Marketing Theory 14(1)
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
more frequently in relation to the measurement of utility or ‘‘use value’’ for the customer (Yip,
2012). The fact that the nature of consumption has individual, social, psychological, and economic
dimensions vastly complicates our understanding of value from the consumer’s side.
Perceived value
A consumer’s perceived value has been defined as ‘‘the consumer’s overall assessment of the
utility of a product, based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988:
14—for an overview see Sa´nchez-Ferna´ndez and A
´ngeles Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Zeithaml (1988)
problematizes the notions of perceived value, perceived quality, and perceived price in order to
understand the trade-off at the perceptual level. She argues that product information is retained
in the consumer’s mind at various levels. Attributes exist at the simplest level, and values such
as emotional payoffs or personal values exist at a very abstract and complex level. Rather than
adopting a purely economic perspective and conceptualizing utility as mere attributes of the phys-
ical product, Zeithaml (1988) includes functional, practical, and emotional benefits in the notion of
perceived value. Her conceptualization of perceived value demonstrates how economic value (the
function of a product) exists together with semiotic values such as feelings, which trigger mean-
ings. That is, the notion of perceived value incorporates economic and semiotic value in its con-
ceptualization. Later, Sheth et al. (1991) extended the concept of perceived value by introducing
five different types of perceived value: functional, conditional, social, emotional, and epistemic
value. Sheth et al.’s (1991) social value represents what is admired by a social group in a commod-
ity. The authors argue that all these five values have a role in the consumer’s choice. Thus, the
notion of perceived value incorporates attempts to juxtapose and translate different types of values
at the conceptual level.
Social values and value systems
Social values have been defined as ‘‘core conceptions of the desirable within every individual and
society’’ (Rokeach, 1979: 2). Instrumental and terminal types of social values are defined as beliefs
about desirable modes of conduct and desirable end states, respectively, at the individual or
societal levels (Rokeach, 1979). The consumer’s ranking of these different types of values is called
the consumer’s value system and is used as a segmentation criterion (Wedel and Kamakura, 2003).
Rokeach’s (1979) theory translates social values to the individual consumer level of choice. In this
perspective, values are assumed to be universally valid, and cultural differences are observed at the
level of rankings of different social values. Through marketing communication practices, these
values are attached to the objects, translated into semiotic value, and transformed into exchange
value.
Experiential value
Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) pointed out the importance of experiential aspects of consump-
tion, such as fantasies, emotions, and fun experienced through consumption. In their study, Babin
et al. (1994) demonstrated that hedonic aspects of shopping value include self-concept enhance-
ment (identity value) and feelings of fun, fantasy, escapism, and freedom. Hence, through the shop-
ping experience, emotional values and identity value are instantiated (Babin et al., 1994). In other
words, experiential value in the market context integrates semiotic value (meanings associated
with feelings) and economic value.
Karababa and Kjeldgaard 121
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Identity and linking value
In the myth market literature, Holt’s (2004) introduction of the notion of identity value as ‘‘the
aspect of a brand’s value that derives from the brand’s contribution to the self-expression’’ (Holt,
2004: 11) spurred a stream of research that examines the role of identity value in relation to the
emergence of markets. For example, Thompson and Tian (2008) demonstrated how commercial
myths, presented to society by the media, compete strategically for identity value. From the
framework introduced here, this research stream explores how semiotic value and social values can
translate into value in the economic sense.
The study of the communal aspects of branding and consumption has pointed to the ‘‘linking
value’’ of products (Cova, 1997) and of marketing as potentially constituting social value through
‘‘societing’’ (Badot et al., 2007). The notion of linking value demonstrates how social values and
economic value are interconnected in today’s market context.
Value as cocreated
The SDL perspective rejects the idea that value is embedded in tangible outputs and states that in
the context of use, value is defined and cocreated by both the consumer and the marketer through
the integration and application of operand and operant resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Value-
in-use is defined as the value perceived and experienced by customers and the role of the marketers
is limited to offering value propositions (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The interrelatedness of different
types of value has become apparent through SDL research. For example, Payne et al. (2008) con-
sider multiple types of value in the process of value creation such as revenues and profits for sup-
pliers, but also nonutilitarian values such as emotional and symbolic values created through
consumer experience. Recent SDL research has criticized cocreation processes for being metapho-
rical and lacking explicit theorization (Gro¨nroos, 2012) and has sought to create an all-inclusive
conceptualization by integrating the complex notions of value outcomes and value creation pro-
cesses (Gummerus, 2013).
Value as the cocreation of meaning
While value creation processes are traditionally situated on the production and/or marketing side of
the exchange (Porter, 1985), current research considers the role of the consumer in value/meaning
creation. Both SDL and CCT research have suggested a balanced customer–supplier centricity in
understanding value and/or meaning creation (Gummeson, 2008; Pen
˜aloza, 2001; Vargo and
Lusch, 2004). These perspectives problematize the assumption that value creation takes place only
in the context of exchange (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; McCracken, 1986; Pen
˜aloza, 2001;
Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Since its early days, one of the hallmarks of CCT research has been the
idea that cultural meanings or semiotic value are mediated through consumption and constantly
cocreated between marketer and consumer (e.g. Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1986).
Discussions and critiques
CCT research attempts to establish a dialogue among these diverse understandings of the notion of
value. For example, cross-cultural CCT research has challenged the claim of the universality of
social values by demonstrating that social values (e.g. materialism) have different meanings in dif-
ferent contexts (Ger and Belk, 1996; Venkatesh, 1995; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988). Alterna-
tively, Thompson and Troester (2002) modified Rokeach’s (1979) notion of the value system as
122 Marketing Theory 14(1)
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
context dependent. In various microcultures, cultural meanings that are available in society in the
discursive form are combined in alternative ways and form consumers’ value systems. Value sys-
tems are reconceptualized as networks of narratives that are revealed through consumers’ experi-
ences (Thompson and Troester, 2002). Hence, Thompson and Troester argue for the application of
semiotic value in place of social values.
In the discussion of the cocreation of value, CCT work argues that the implicit understanding of
value as being economic in SDL approach is limiting; rather it can also be thought of as meaning.
Producers and consumers cocreate also meanings in the market place. Others have discussed how
myth marketing generates identity value for consumers (Holt, 2004). That is, providing consumers
with mythical resources for identity construction. Identity value does not fit either economic value
or meanings, although they are related. Identity value fits more with what Holbrook (1999) terms
value(s) in the sense that being able to articulate one’s identity freely is something that is valued in
consumer culture at large.
Recent research in the SDL and CCT fields has also suggested the utilization of the notion of
networks, which includes the interaction of social and economic actors coproducing, cocreating,
and exchanging service offerings and cocreating value and/or meaning (Gummeson, 2008; Lusch
et al., 2010; Schau et al., 2009). For example, Schau et al. (2009) conceptualize the creation of
brand value within brand communities through the practices of networked firm-facing actors. That
is, the notion of value creation is moving from a linear value chain perspective toward a view of
value cocreation through the interactions of a multiplicity of actors.
Toward a sociocultural conceptualization of value
Our overview reveals that different theoretical positions within marketing and consumer research
are based on the juxtaposition or integration of different types of value. However, the existing
literature develops notions of value with little explicit clarity as to the social, semiotic, or economic
meaning of the kinds of values discussed, a shortcoming we hope to rectify here. The translation of
perceived value into exchange value, the transformation of social values into exchange value, or
the integration of different types of values demonstrate that the notion of value is subjective,
context dependent, complex, and interrelated. Akin to our attempt here, recent sociological
research has also scrutinized how social values form and operate at macro, meso, and micro levels
and interact with economic and semiotic values (Bachika and Schulz, 2011).
Domains of value are not separate and exclusive; they are interrelated and cogenerative. For
example, a society’s valuing of frugality may mean a greater demand for durable products, which
in turn is articulated semiotically (see e.g. Sahlins’s, 1972 account of the cultural foundation of
demand). Hence, the three types of value are separable analytically but are instantiated in specific
marketplace manifestations as a constellation of the three types. These bundles can be said to be
culturally active values that make sense for marketplace actors. We therefore root our discussion of
values in a cultural perspective—that is, something that is an outcome of sociocultural contexts and
processes. Such a perspective differentiates from Holbrook’s (1999) discussion of values based on
discussions of axiology. In this perspective on values, it appears that a particular set of values are
inherently human values, which can be at play in specific consumption situations. Furthermore,
although Holbrook states that values are situational, or context specific, this remains only at the
level of the consumption situation (i.e., a preference for an ice cream on a warm day or a hot cup of
tea on a cold winter’s day); his theory of value remains decontextualized. With a sociocultural
perspective, what is valued at the emic level is related to sociocultural contexts, so that what may
Karababa and Kjeldgaard 123
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
be valued societally is articulated semiotically and hence is also valorized in exchange terms:
‘‘when we talk about the ‘meaning’ of a word, and when we talk of the ‘meaning of life’ we are not
talking about utterly different things. And ... both have something in common with the sale-price
of a refrigerator’’ (Graeber, 2001: 2).
The specific processes of transformation of the types of value obviously occur in specific
contexts through the practices of a number of market-facing actors (Schau et al., 2009) at the
micro, meso, and macro level (Domegan et al., 2011). The specific processes of transformation can
be theorized as a process of marketing’s ‘‘qualculation’’ practices (Slater, 2002). That is, marketing
is involved in the evaluation of sociocultural differences and the articulation of the economic worth
of these differences. In this way marketing can be understood as a practice of configuration of
commodified value system potentials rather than a meaning transfer institution.
In developing a sociocultural perspective on value, the anthropology of markets’ perspective
should be a starting point (Abolafia, 1998; Carrier, 1997; Graeber, 2001; Pen
˜aloza and Venkatesh,
2006) for understanding the interrelatedness of value and value creation processes. Different kinds
of market-instantiated values, such as identity value, experience value, aesthetic value, functional
value, hedonic value, and community value, should be conceptualized as cocreated through the
practices of a multiplicity of actors, such as consumers, companies, the media, the state, and brand
communities, operating in the marketplace.
One fruitful avenue of inquiry is to conceptualize the value of a commodity as a bundle of
multiple values created by the practices (Schau et al., 2009) of a multiplicity of actors operating
in different but coexisting fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). For example, in the field of
consumption, Arsel and Thompson (2011) demonstrate how actors’ field-dependent identity val-
ues change in the face of the appropriation of the hipster identity at a macro market level, since
market-facing actors are transforming the semiotics of the hipster style into mass market com-
modities (exchange values). Also, in the field of consumption, consumers, households, and com-
munities create value according to socially defined taste regimes that operate as evaluative
criteria. In the field of production, a multiplicity of actors such as manufacturers, suppliers, and
intermediaries creates value-utilizing culturally defined evaluative criteria such as productivity,
functionality, calculability, and efficiency. Simultaneously, in the field of aesthetics, actors such
as designers, art critics, and fashion editors create value according to culturally defined criteria
such as originality, authenticity, novelty, and functionality. Economic, semiotic, and social
aspects of value are actively created in each field. Thus, the value of a commodity is a dynamic,
subjective, and context-dependent notion, which has been constantly cocreated within a network
of actors.
Conclusion
We propose that there should be further discussion of the concept of value from a CCT perspective
on market cocreation. A sociocultural approach should offer a less reductionist perspective on
value than cultural categories and principles (McCracken, 1986), the idea of value as merely
‘‘meanings’’ (Thompson and Troester, 2002; Venkatesh et al., 2006), or the economically inspired
conception of value as exchange and use value (Bouchet, 2007). Rather, we argue that marketing
theory begins to conceptualize how these notions of value can be brought into interaction to
improve our understanding of market values, particularly as cultural conceptions of the economy
often accuse economic theorizations of being reductionist (e.g. Slater, 2002). We propose that our
field not fall prey to the same fallacy.
124 Marketing Theory 14(1)
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Søren Askegaard and Gu
¨liz Ger for their valuable feedback.
References
Abolafia, M.Y. (1998) ‘Markets as Cultures: An Ethnographic Approach’, in M. Callon (ed.) The Laws of
Markets, pp. 69–85. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Arsel, Z. and Thompson, C.J. (2011) ‘Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect
Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths’, Journal of Consumer
Research 37(5): 791–806.
Arvidsson, A. (2006) Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture. London, UK: Routledge.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994) ‘Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian
Shopping Value’, Journal of Consumer Research 20(4): 644–56.
Bachika, R. and Schulz, M.S. (2011) ‘Value and Culture in the Social Shaping of the Future’, Current
Sociology 59(2): 107–18.
Badot, O., Bucci, A. and Cova, B. (2007) ‘Beyond Marketing Panaceas: In Praise of Societing’, in M. Saren,
P. Maclaren, C. Goulding, R. Elliott, A. Shankar, and M. Catterall (eds) Critical Marketing, pp. 85–98.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1975) ‘Marketing as Exchange’, Journal of Marketing 39(4): 32–9.
Baudrillard, J. (1993) Symbolic Exchange and Death. London, UK: Sage.
Bouchet, D. (2007) ‘Added Value: The Differences that Count. About the Necessity of Taking Language and
Culture into Account as Competitive Factors’, Language at Work Bridging Theory and Practice
3(Autumn): 38–44.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Carrier, J.G. (1997) Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. London, UK: Berg.
Cova, B. (1997) ‘Community and Consumption: Towards a Definition of the ‘‘Linking Value’’ of Product or
Services’, European Journal of Marketing 31(3/4): 297–316.
Domegan, C., Haase, M., Harris, K., Heuvel, W.J., Kelleher, C., Maglio, P.P., et al. (2011) ‘Value, Values,
Symbols and Outcomes’, Marketing Theory 12(2): 207–211.
Ger, G. and Belk, R.W. (1996) ‘Cross-Cultural Differences in Materialism’, Journal of Economic Psychology
17(1): 55–77.
Graeber, D. (2001) Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Gro¨ nroos, C. (2012) ‘Conceptualising Value Co-creation: A Journey to the 1970s and Back to the Future’,
Journal of Marketing Management 28(13–14): 1520–34.
Gummerus, J. (2013) ‘Value Creation Processes and Value Outcomes in Marketing Theory: Strangers or
Siblings?’, Marketing Theory 13(1): 19–46.
Gummeson, E. (2008) ‘Extending the Service-Dominant Logic: From Customer Centricity to Balanced
Centricity’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 15–7.
Holbrook, M.B. (1999) ‘Introduction to Consumer Value’, in M.B. Holbrook (ed.) Consumer Value:
A Framework for Analysis and Research, pp. 1–28. London, UK: Routledge.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982) ‘The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fanta-
sies, Feelings, and Fun’, Journal of Consumer Research 9(2): 132–40.
Holt, D.B. (2004) How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Levy, S.J. (1959) ‘Symbols for Sale’, Harvard Business Review 37(July–August): 117–24.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Tanniru, M. (2010) ‘Service, Value Networks, and Learning’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 38(1): 19–31.
Marx, K. (1962) Das Kapital. Kritik der Politischen O
¨konomie (abridged). Stuttgart, Germany: Alfred Kro¨ner
Verlag.
Karababa and Kjeldgaard 125
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of
the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods’, Journal of Consumer Research 13(1): 71–84.
Miller, D. (2008) ‘The Uses of Value’, Geoforum 39(3): 1122–32.
Ng, I.C.L. and Smith, L. (2012) ‘An Integrative Framework of Value’, Review of Marketing Research,
Special Issue Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Market and Marketing 9:
207–43.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008) ‘Managing the Co-creation of Value’, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 36(1): 83–96.
Pen
˜aloza, L. (2001) ‘Consuming the American West: Animating Cultural Meaning and Memory at a Stock
Show and Rodeo’, Journal of Consumer Research 28(3): 369–98.
Pen
˜aloza, L. and Mish, J. (2011) ‘The Nature and Processes of Market Co-creation in Triple Bottom Line
Firms: Leveraging Insights from Consumer Culture Theory and Service Dominant Logic’, Marketing
Theory 11(9): 9–34.
Pen
˜aloza, L. and Venkatesh, A. (2006) ‘Further Evolving the New Dominant Logic of Marketing: From
Services to Social Construction of Markets’, Marketing Theory 6(3): 299–316.
Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979) ‘Introduction’, in M. Rokeach (ed.) Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal, pp. 1–11. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Sahlins, M. (1972) Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sa´ nchez-Ferna´ndez, R. and A
´ngeles Iniesta-Bonillo, M. (2007), ‘The Concept of Perceived Value: A Systematic
Review of the Research’, Marketing Theory, 7(4): 427–51.
Schau, H.J., Mun
˜iz, A.M, Jr. and Arnould, E.J. (2009) ‘How Brand Community Practices Create Value’,
Journal of Marketing 73(5): 30–51.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991) ‘Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption
Values’, Journal of Business Research 22(2): 159–70.
Slater, D. (2002) ‘Capturing Markets from the Economists’, in P. Gay and M. Pryke (eds) Cultural Economy,
pp. 59–77. London, UK: Sage.
Thompson, C.J. and Tian, K. (2008) ‘Reconstructing the South: How Commercial Myths Compete for
Identity Value through the Ideological Shaping of Popular Memories and Countermemories’, Journal of
Consumer Research 34(5): 595–613.
Thompson, C.J. and Troester, M. (2002) ‘Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation:
The Case of the Natural Health Microculture’, Journal of Consumer Research 28(4): 550–71.
Tucker, R. (1978) The Marx-Engels Reader. New York, NY: Norton.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing
68(1): 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008) ‘On Value and Value Co-creation: A Service Systems and
Service Logic Perspective’, European Management Journal 26(3): 145–52.
Venkatesh, A. (1995) ‘Ethnoconsumerism: A New Paradigm to Study Cultural and Cross-Cultural Consumer
Behavior’, in J.A. Costa and G. Bamossy (eds) Marketing in a Multicultural World, pp. 26–67. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Venkatesh, A., Pen
˜aloza, L. and Firat, A.F. (2006) ‘Market as a Sign System and the Logic of the Market’, in
R.F. Lusch and S.L. Vargo (eds) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Direc-
tions, pp. 251–65. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Wallendorf, M. and Arnould, E.J. (1988) ‘‘‘My Favorite Things’’: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object
Attachment, Possesiveness and Social Lineage’, Journal of Consumer Research 14(4): 531–547
Wedel, M. and Kamakura, W.A. (2003) Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Yip, N.K.T. (2012) ‘Making Qualitative Decisions from Quantitative Cues: Understanding the Customers’
Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 11(5): 562–6.
126 Marketing Theory 14(1)
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synth-
esis of Evidence’, Journal of Marketing 52(3): 2–22.
Eminegu¨ l Karababa is an assistant professor of marketing in the Department of Business Administration at
the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Her research interests include the historical develop-
ment of markets and consumer cultures; the role of technology on the shaping of marketing and consumption
practices; and historical research methods. Her research is published in the Journal of Consumer Research,
Economic History Review,Consumption Markets and Culture, and Advances in Consumer Research.
Address: Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Middle
East Technical University, U
¨niversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupinar Bulvari, No:1, 06800 Ankara, Turkey.
[email: eminegul@metu.edu.tr]
Dannie Kjeldgaard is a professor of marketing at the University of Southern Denmark. Published in numer-
ous international journals and books, Dannie’s work analyses change processes of market-based glocalization
in domains such as place branding, branding, media and identity construction, global consumer segments, eth-
nicity, and qualitative methodology. His research is published in the Journal of Consumer Research,Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Consumption, Markets and Culture,Marketing Theory,Journal of Macromarketing,
and in several anthologies. Address: Department of Marketing and Management, University of Southern Den-
mark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark, Tel: þ45 65503228. [email dkj@sam.sdu.dk]
Karababa and Kjeldgaard 127
at Middle East Technical Univ on February 20, 2014mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
