The Course simply acknowledges the state of market and social vulnerability that a variety of people experience—either temporarily or more steadily—for a plethora of reasons. It posits that our societies have developed an often-untold condition of economic citizenship, which is far from being democratically shared across consumers.
Participants will familiarize with the idea that market agents (e.g. associations, companies, consumers, media, policy makers), marketplaces (on-line and off-line exchange places), and goods (products, services, experiences as well as the way of consuming them) concur in the fragilization of certain individuals to the advantage of others. They will also sharpen understanding about the role of marketing decisions in the (de)construction of market vulnerability.
This Course aims at:
- Accounting for the interdependence of power, marketing decisions, personal/collective well-being, and social justice.
- Addressing specific types of market vulnerability, associated with specific consumer socio-demographic traits, life stages, and/or contextual factors.
- Exploring business opportunities and logics in targeting vulnerable consumers.
The Course is organized as follows:
PART I. FRAMING MARKET VULNERABILITY
Class 1 Consumer well-being
Class 2 Intersectional consumer vulnerability
Class 3 Power, representations, and market failures
Class 4 First in-class tutorship
PART II. DEMOGRAPHY AND MARKET VULNERABILITY
Class 5 Vulnerability and gender
Class 6 Vulnerability and sexual orientation
Class 7 Vulnerability, religion, (and ethnicity)
Class 8 Second in-class tutorship
PART III. LIFE STAGES AND MARKET VULNERABILITY
Class 9 Vulnerability and children
Class 10 Vulnerability and elderlies
Class 11 Third in-class tutorship
PART IV. CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS AND MARKET VULNERABILITY
Class 12 Poverty at the bottom of the pyramid
Class 13 Technological exclusion and risks
Class 14 Final presentations
Assessment is based on both an individual written exam (50% of the final grade) and group assignments (50%).
Detailed evaluation criteria are set at the beginning of the course.
Peer evaluation will be granted upon request.
- Barnhart, Michelle and Lisa Peñaloza (2013), Who are you calling old? Negotiating old age identity in the elderly consumption ensemble, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1133-1153.
- Bradley, Don E. and Charles F. Longino Jr. (2001), How older people think about images of aging in advertising and the media, Generations, XXV(3), 17-21.
- Butler, Judith (1988), Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory, Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519-531.
- Davis, Brennan, Julie Ozanne, and Ronald Paul Hill (2016), The Transformative Consumer Research movement, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 159-169.
- Dotson, Michael J. and Eva M. Hyatt (2005), Major influence factors in children’s consumer socialization, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(1), 35-42.
- Gilovic, Thomas, Amit Kumar, and Lily Jampol (2015), A wonderful life: Experiential consumption and the pursuit of happiness, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2581), 152-165.
- Gopaldas, Ahir (2013), Intersectionality 101, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (special issue), 90-94.
- Kozinets, Robert (2008), Technology/ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers’ technology narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 865-881.
- Kozinets, Robert, Anthony Patterson, and Rachel Ashman (2017), Networks of desire: How technology increases our passion to consume, Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 659-682.
- Kshetri, Nir and Nikhilesh Dholakia (2009), Global digital divide, Encycolpedia of Information Science and Technology, 1664-1670.
- Leung, Louis (2007), Stressful life events, motives for Internet use, and social support among digital kids, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 204-214.
- Light, Jennifer S. (2001), Rethinking the digital divide, Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 709-733.
- Martin, Kelly D. and Ronald Paul Hill (2012), Life satisfaction, self-determination, and consumption adequacy at the bottom of the pyramid, Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6): 1155-1168.
- Mathras, Daniele et al. (2016), The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298-311.
- Murray, Derek C. (2015), Notes to self: the visual culture of selfies in the age of social media, Consumption, Markets & Culture, 18(6), 490-516.
- Nölke,Ana-Isabel (2018),Making diversity conform? An intersectional, longitudinal analysis of LGBT-specific mainstream media advertisements,Journal of Homosexuality,65(2),224-255.
- Oakenfull, Gillian K. and Timothy B. Greenlee (2005), Queer eye for a gay guy: Using market-specific symbols in advertising to attract gay consumers without alienating the meanstream, Psychology & Marketing, 22(5), 421-439.
- Peñaloza, Lisa and Michelle Barnhart (2011), Living U.S. capitalism: The normalization of credit/debt, Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 743-762.
- Visconti, Luca M. (2008), Gays’ market and social behaviors in (de)constructing symbolic boundaries, Consumption, Markets & Culture, 11(2), 113-135.
- Hamilton, Kathy, Susan Dunnett, and Maria Piacentini (2016) (eds.), Consumer Vulnerability: Conditions, Contexts and Characteristics, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, chapters 1; 2; 3; 6; 7; 9; 10; 11; 14; 16.
- Hall, Stuart (2001), The spectacle of the other, in Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon Yates (eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, pp. 324-344.
- Visconti, Luca M., Pauline Maclaran, and Shona Bettany (2018), Gender(s), consumption, and markets, in Eric Arnould and Craig Thompson (eds.), Consumer Culture Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 180-205.