Summary

In this paper an attempt has been made to reconcile the difference in opinions people have regarding role of marketers in influencing the consumers and the question boils down to the notion that whether marketers design their campaigns keeping in mind the well being of the end consumer or not. It is important to differentiate between satisfaction and well being according to Gibbs. Well being is more than cost benefit analysis and should in reality pertain to something that adds value to lives of consumers. Gibbs wants to replace satisfaction with well being and achieve fair distribution of marketing effort on all sections of society. According to Gibbs , inclusion or exclusion of satisfaction from definition of marketing has not much effect on strength of understanding marketing as a concept. There is difference between relief and satisfaction. Gibbs questions if marketing does not lead to well being for consumer how can it provide satisfaction. But he has confused in understanding usage of satisfaction in defining marketing. Even Kotler uses satisfaction in defining marketing opportunity and not marketing per se. We should regard American Marketing Associations definition of marketing i.e exchange is the core concept of marketing and hence exchange provides all the well being for a consumer. Satisfaction can only exist as a consequence of such exchanges. Well being is different from satisfaction and cant be used interchangeably as well being involves achieving distributive equity and achieving well being in diverse heterogeneous markets is cumbersome. It is important to consider role played by markets in satisfying and influencing a consumer something which is different form marketing. Gibbs is using marketing as a political concept to achieve fair distribution which is wrong in approach. There is also a need to protect society from market economy as it can destroy the moral fiber of a society. If Gibbs concept of distribution is adopted it would undermine role of the institutions which are currently working on these things. Hence in the end market economy is working efficiently and Gibbs has confused satisfaction with well being and the notion of fair distribution of marketing effort is a figment of imagination which seriously undermines current role of marketing economy.