Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Behavioral Scientist
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RINGOLD, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Social Criticisms of Target Marketing

Process or Product?

DEBRA JONES RINGOLD

Willamette University

The social acceptability of targeting is largely a function of judgments about particular consumers and specific products. Targeting that involves consumers who are viewed as essentially "equal participants" in transactions is typically regarded as acceptable. Transactions involving "acceptable" or "socially desirable" products are generally evaluated as beneficial. Objections are almost certain if targeting entails "disadvantaged" or "vulnerable" consumers participating in transactions involving products such as alcohol and cigarettes. Although some members of all groups are less well equipped to navigate the marketplace, there is no empirical basis on which to characterize women and minorities as vulnerable consumers. On the contrary, consumers appreciate the various roles played by advertising and the health consequences of tobacco and alcohol consumption regardless of gender or race. Choices at variance with those prescribed by critics of tobacco or alcohol do not constitute a reasonable definition of vulnerability or a justification for further regulation.

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 4, 578-592 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764295038004008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of MacromarketingHome page
S. Commuri and A. Ekici
An Enlargement of the Notion of Consumer Vulnerability
Journal of Macromarketing, June 1, 2008; 28(2): 183 - 186.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of MacromarketingHome page
S. M. Baker, J. W. Gentry, and T. L. Rittenburg
Building Understanding of the Domain of Consumer Vulnerability
Journal of Macromarketing, December 1, 2005; 25(2): 128 - 139.
[Abstract] [PDF]