Marketer E. Jerome McCarthy proposed a classification of four Ps (product, price, promotion, location) in 1960, which has since been used by marketers around the world. [37] In 1990, Robert F. Lauterborn proposed a four-C classification (consumer, price, advertising, location), a more consumer-focused version of the four Ps that seeks to better shape the shift from mass marketing to niche marketing. [38] Koichi Shimizu proposed a 7Cs compass model (company, raw material, cost, communication, channel, consumers, circumstances) to get a more complete picture of the nature of marketing in 1981. So, in the introduction, we called kula a ”form of trade,” and we passed it alongside other barter systems. It is quite right that we interpret the word ”trade” broadly enough to refer to any exchange of goods. But the word ”trade” is used in current ethnography and economic literature with so many different implications that many misleading and preconceived notions must be set aside to properly grasp the facts. Thus, the current a priori idea of primitive trade would be that of an exchange of indispensable or useful objects, carried out without much ceremony or regulation, under the accent of lack or need, at convulsive and irregular intervals – and this is through direct barter, in which everyone looks abruptly outwards so as not to be made of his right, or, if the savages were too timid and suspicious to confront each other, through a customary agreement that ensures compliance with commitments made or imposed through heavy penalties.* If we renounce for the moment the question of to what extent this view is generally valid or not – in my opinion, it is quite misleading – we must clearly acknowledge that the kula in almost every point of the above definition of ”wild trade” contradicts. He shows us primitive exchange in a completely different light. Kula is not a form of secret and precarious exchange. On the contrary, it is rooted in myth, is supported by traditional law and is surrounded by magical rites. All major transactions are public and ceremonial and are carried out according to certain rules.
It does not occur spontaneously, but at regular intervals, on predetermined dates, and it continues on certain trade routes that must lead to fixed test sites. Sociologically, although it is established between tribes that differ in language, culture and probably even race, it is based on a fixed and permanent status, on a partnership that binds a few thousand individuals in pairs. This partnership is a lifelong relationship, it involves various mutual duties and privileges and represents a kind of tribal relationship of enormous proportions. As for the economic mechanism of transactions, it is based on a certain form of credit that implies a high degree of mutual trust and commercial honor – and this also refers to the subsidiary, the small business that accompanies the real kula. After all, kula is not performed under the stress of necessity, since its main purpose is to exchange items that have no practical use. These are common themes in the interpretative social sciences, cultural studies, and poststructuralism. However, as Timothy Mitchell points out, this way of thinking tends to set aside the real, the natural and the non-human: the idea that a universal process such as modernity, capitalism and globalization exists should not be taken for granted. [46] An emerging theme is the interrelationship, penetration and variations of concepts of people, commodities and types of exchanges under certain market formations.
This is particularly pronounced in the recent movement towards poststructuralist theorization, which builds on Michel Foucault and the theory of networks of actors and emphasizes the relational aspects of personality as well as dependence and integration into networks and practical systems. Commodity network approaches deconstruct and show alternatives to the concept of a commodity market model. [47] The term financial market refers to any place where securities, currencies, bonds and other securities are traded between two parties. These markets are the basis of capitalist societies and provide capital formation and liquidity to corporations. They can be physical or virtual. In practical life, a market is understood as a place where goods are bought and sold at retail or wholesale prices, but in economics, the ”market” does not refer to a particular place as such, but to a market for one or more commodities, that is, a wheat market, a tea market or a gold market, etc. Outside of black markets, most markets are subject to rules and regulations established by a regional or governing body that determines the nature of the market. This may be the case if the regulation is as extensive and widely recognised as an international trade agreement, or as locally and temporarily as a pop-up street market where sellers self-regulate through market forces. There is a widespread idea, especially among economists, that free markets have a perfect competitive structure. [Citation needed] The logic behind this idea is that market failures are caused by other exogenous systems, and after eliminating these exogenous systems (”liberating” markets), free markets could function without market failures. [Citation needed] For a market to be competitive, there must be more than one buyer or seller.
It has been suggested that two people can trade, but it takes at least three people to have a market, so there is competition in at least one of its two parts. [12] However, competitive markets – as understood in formal economic theory – rely on a much larger number of buyers and sellers. A market with a single seller and several buyers is a monopoly. A market with a single buyer and several sellers is a mummy. They are ”the polar opposites of perfect competition.” [13] As an argument against such a logic, there is a second view suggesting that the cause of market failure lies in the market system itself, so that the elimination of other disruptive systems would not lead to markets with a perfect competitive structure. By analogy, such an argument might suggest that capitalists do not want to improve the structure of markets, just as a coach of a football team would influence referees or break the rules if he could, while pursuing his goal of winning the game. Thus, according to this view, capitalists do not improve the balance of their team vis-à-vis the team of consumer workers, so the market system needs an external ”arbiter” to balance the game. In this second context, the role of ”arbiter” of the market system must generally be entrusted to a democratic government. Rebranding is the process of changing an organization`s brand image. It is a market strategy to give an already established brand a new name, symbol or design change.
The idea behind rebranding is to create a different identity for a brand than its competitors in the market. Description: There are several reasons why a company chooses to change its brand. A remarkable factor is that economic anthropology is a scientific field that seeks to explain human economic behavior in its broadest historical, geographical, and cultural field. Its origins as a branch of anthropology begin with the Polish-British founder of anthropology, Bronisław Malinowski, and his fellow Frenchman Marcel Mauss on the nature of gift exchange (or reciprocity) as an alternative to market exchange. Studies in economic anthropology mostly focus on exchange, but they have a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is very critical:[53] For example, the Trobiander described by Malinowski departs from the rational egoistic individual. [54] In a monopoly market, the seller decides the price of the product or service and can change it himself. Financial markets facilitate the exchange of liquid funds. Most investors prefer to invest in two markets: integration expresses the idea that the economy is not autonomous, but subordinate to politics, religion and social relations. Polanyi`s use of the term suggests the idea known today that transactions in the market depend on trust, mutual understanding, and the legal application of contracts. [44] Michel Callon`s concept of framing provides a useful schema: each economic action or transaction occurs against, integrates and re-executes a geographically and culturally specific complex of social histories, institutional arrangements, rules and connections. These network relationships are in parentheses at the same time, so people and transactions can be decoupled from thick social ties.
Predictability is imposed on agents when they work in contracts and are ”formatted” into calculation agencies. Market exchanges contain a history of struggle and confrontation that has produced actors predisposed to trade under certain sets of rules. Therefore, for Challon, transactions in the market can never be separated from social and geographical relations, and it makes no sense to talk about stages of integration and unblocking. [45] During the 20th century. In the nineteenth century, two common forms of criticism were formulated: market concentration is used when small enterprises represent a significant percentage of the total market. .
