zohreh
ali esmaeili
Anzali
International Unit, Iran
E-mail:
zohreh_esmaili23@yahoo.com
Bahram
Kheiry
Islamic
Azad Universities, Iran
E-mail:
bahramkheiri@gmail.com
Submission: 10/21/2019
Revision: 10/28/2019
Accept: 11/22/2019
ABSTRACT
The contextual changes of the present age have altered the former order of personal and social relations in such a way that the creation of a new order is accompanied by an epistemic crisis; the crisis of knowledge of new relationships has rendered past valuations inefficient and invalid. In this regard, Katler (1990) considers authenticity as the most influential element in this era of achieving sustainable development and customer Trust, and since the production of university knowledge is the key to sustainable development and today it is faced with quality Issues. This issues, this study aimed to investigate the effect of two marketing, namely authentic marketing and pragmatic marketing through paradigm shifts as a solution to the epistemic crisis of brand authenticity. The research method of this study is based on quantitative and descriptive-survey. The statistical population is Iranian students of Islamic Azad Universities (IAUs) stratified random sampling and sample size based on Morgan table were 385 people. Data were collected and distributed by questionnaire. Structural equation modeling technique with partial least squares approach and SmartPLS2 software were used for data analysis. The findings indicate that both authentic and pragmatic marketing are more effective on brand authenticity through paradigm shift.
Keywords: Authentic marketing, pragmatic marketing, Paradigm shift, Authentic brand
1.
INTRODUCTION
In 1965, Kotler considered the transaction as a "social exchange" process in a paper that describes the concept of marketing as a social exchange process. Accordingly, the purely economic viewpoint of marketing is a mistake of proximity and it hinders the development of marketing science (HAGIGHI et al., 2013).
Also, in his book entitled the third age of marketing, Katler calls marketing as the era of value creation, and marketing managers, instead of treating people as consumers, regard them as people with the brain, heart, and soul, marketing is not a process that only marketers follow in their relationship with the consumer(KATLER et al., 2010).
Consumers also use marketing in their daily communication. Third-age marketing sees customer as a human being, the human being has four basic elements, a body, a mind that has the ability to think and analyze independently, the heart that can feel the emotions and the spirit or philosophical center of the body, hence he considers authenticity or credibility as the most effective element of the new age in creating sustainable development (KATLER et al., 2010).
In a world full of complexity, customers are looking for companies that meet their deep needs for social, economic, and environmental justice in mission, vision and values. Not only do they seek to meet their functional and emotional needs in the products and services they choose, but also meeting spiritual needs is important for them. Third-age marketing moves the concept of marketing to ideals, values, and spiritualties, and believes that consumers are perfect people and their needs and expectations should not be ignored. Therefore, third-age marketing combines "emotional" marketing with "spiritual" marketing (KOTLER; KARTAJAYA; SETIAWAN, 2010).
In the book Evolution and
Evaluation, Jagdish Sheth et al. (2004). explains the evolution of marketing
concepts in two aspects of philosophy of science and the universe (2004).
Cultural marketing is the second most important marketing element of the third age.
Third-age marketing is an approach that does not overlook the concerns and
interests of global citizens. Marketers of the third age must understand the
problems of the community that are related to their business (KATLER et al.,
2010).
The concept of community interest is
considered in the new definition of the 2008 American Marketing Association.
According to this definition, marketing is a set of activities and processes
for establishing communication, supply and exchange of proposals that are valued
for consumers, clients, partners and society (KATLER, 2010).
How can companies create value in their business models? As a response to this fundamental question, Richard Barrett believes companies can look at levels of spirituality in their business models, like humans. He found that human level of spiritual motivation can be considered in the mission, vision and value of companies (BARRETT, 1998).
The warning of Iranian economists to the crisis of value created in Iranian consumer's desire to constantly buy foreign products, which includes types of products from low-level needs to social situations, makes it necessary to redefine and the creation of a new way of producing value in Iranian society (MALJOU, 2017). Various studies on Iranian universities highlight the existence of significant challenges and ambiguities in its brand validity. For example, investigating the attitude of faculty members, (OMRAN, 2006)
Salehi Omran found that one of the most important reasons for faculty members’ migration is driving factors such as low income, feeling of discrimination and inequality in society, dissatisfaction resulted from injustice, job insecurity and stressors are the causes of depression (OMRAN, 2006).
In an article entitled Structural Devices of Scientific Development in Iran, Ferasatkhah and Tofighi (2003) explored that If, prior to the Islamic Revolution, the problem with scientific development in Iran was that modernization was followed by a paradigm shift and the adoption of Western-ready patterns and formulas, the Western-style modernization paradigm was at least part of the religious, ideological, and decision-making system of the Islamic Republic after the Revolution, without another valid and efficient paradigm for scientific development is found and is rationally and nationally accepted.
In the realm of paradigms, scientific riddles are made or solved. Cowan says, as long as the service paradigm is sufficient to solve the riddle, but when you can no longer serve and the methods, concepts, metaphysics, tools, norms that constitute the paradigm lose their effectiveness, at this time, scientists are so unhappy with their scientific work that they envy the clowns, as the physicist Koven Wolfgang quotes. It is here that the paradigm is in crisis and the fields of paradigm rotation and the new scientific revolution are formed (FERASATKHAH, 2016).
Given today's customers' need for genuine values and the inefficiencies of existing paradigms to gain customer trust and producing sustainable value, the inefficiency of the paradigm in the Iranian higher education system in producing the original brand of this study examines two originality marketing, first authentic marketing in order to construct and deepen concepts through dialectics in language based on social platforms and the latter with pragmatic marketing in order to achieve authenticity in practice through the experience of theoretical reason in social or dialectical practice, which is examined by the mediating variable of paradigm shifts (from object-based ontology to phenomenology of existence) to their effect on the original brand.
2.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
According to the Oxford Dictionary, Authentic means " original and without a copy; genuine"(LEEDER, 2019). In marketing, it means the same, it means creating a dialogue between your brand and your audiences that are natural and real. It's not necessarily true or ethical, as many people believe, is a kind of strategy that you can use to build deeper communities based on trust and empathy. Authenticity is essential for a new business (GILMORE; PINE, 2007), which uses the Latin word 'authenticus' and the Greek word 'authentikos' meaning 'acceptability, credibility, trust, not imaginary, false, or imitation, and in accordance with the principle.' (CAPPANNELLI, 2004) This is what you share. The credibility is to believe in your character, writer, or company (PATEL, 2016).
The brand's position alone is not enough. Completion of this process requires a distinction between authenticity for the human soul, which creates a sustainable value in the economy, society and environment, hence it is the only elements that affect third-age of honesty, authenticity, credibility marketing (KATLER, 2010).
A new concept of consumer brand credibility suggests that a credible brand is trustworthy, cares for its consumers, helps them define and build their identity, and represents continuity from the past to the future. (MURHART et al., 2015). Because their credible brands are a meaningful source of identity building, they must have credible behaviors. (BORLAND; FARLEY, 2010).
Valid brands are real, reliable, and meaningful (GILMOURE; PINE, 2007) Credit is increasingly recognized as a desirable brand attribute. Brand originality refers to a brand that is honest and realistic (ALEXANDRE, 2009; GILMOURE; PINE, 2007), distinguishes its credible brand through intimacy, commitment to quality and relevance to its heritage (BORLAND, 2006; NEAPOLI et al., 2014). Valid brands can have the ability to have the ability to communicate with consumers at the emotional level through their quality symbols (ROSSKAA, 2007; MURHART et al., 2015).
A new concept of credible brand indicates that a credible branding brand for consumers is helping them define and build their identity and represent continuity from the past to the future (RAT et al., 2015. Valid consumption is suitable for a wide range of consumer objects and activities that have the potential to create meaning (BORLAND, 2005). Significant investments have been made in developing brand values and consistently favorable behavior over time (MURHART et al., 2015).
Since valid brands are defined as symbolic resources (BORLAND; FARLEY, 2015) that help consumers define the meaning of their lives (LEE et al., 2006), they benefit from them and have a competitive advantage in terms of building strong relationships with consumer brand (BORLAND, 2006; MURHART et al., 2015), the impact of brand originality on the emotional affiliation of a consumer is different in a variety of situations (MAURARD et al., 2015).
Despite high level of agreement in the correct relationship with consumer behavior and its relation to truth, integrity and transmission of meaning to consumers, literature is characterized by a diverse and divided approach, and the focus of attention is to be considered in an attempt to accept a generally accepted notion. Given this view, Burrland and Farley (2010) spelling issue that the nature of credit in consumption is debatable. "This challenge extends to the field of brand, while there is still a lack of a general definition of credit (Felicitas and Murhart, 2014).
The marketing and consumer research literature acknowledges that attempts to consume credible are due to the loss of traditional sources of meaning and personal identity linked to postmodernity (ARNOLD; PRICE, 2000; BORLAND; FREELY, 2010, THOMSON, 2006). Credibility, as an idea expressed in philosophy and literature, was created in Europe in the 18th century.
But moreover, there were a number of widespread and interwoven developments, all of which were related to modernity, which is a complete expression: the slow recession of belief in the cosmic order with the fixed and undeniable social roles, the idea of coping with the individual's autonomy (with his claim for inner depth, dignity, and self-responsible liberty), the emergence of capitalism, labor, wage and authority of science and enlightenment demand rationality(DAVIS, 2017).
The key point is that these aspects of modernity were prerequisites for stimulating ideal credibility. In other words, this originality was a product and a reaction against modern life. In this regard, authenticity is like Orthodox religion. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher and novelist of the eighteenth century, pointed out each of the original elements: (1) the concept is that we all have a unique and original principle (2) that exists within us ( 3) must be discovered by ourselves (often in terms of nature), and (4) what we want to express, even in (5) the negation of social agreements (DAVIS, 2017), for example, Halt (2004) ) explained that Adorno "sees the danger of this term in accepting it by those who continue to believe it and experience an imaginary reality that they share through the power of communication."
This
interest in "interconnectivity" requires that we, by choosing
interpretive methods, understand human behavior. Human science should not be a
model of natural science, but should find ways to understand and interpret
human communication. These paths must be “Hermeneutics "or"
Interpretational "(more like a conversation) (Hossein Gholipour, 2006).
Postmodern society is namely
characterized by fragmentation, confusion, emptiness, alienation and by a
crisis of morality and identity. Hence, people have become more concerned with
identity, meaning and values (COVA, 1999),
but also with nostalgia and history (GOULDING, 2000).
By conceiving authenticity as
constructed, thus as an experience or as a perception, constructivists overcame
some dilemmas based on the assumption that authenticity can be experienced and
judged only from the ‘outside’ – from a historical, cultural distance and with
intellectual proficiency (of anthropologists or curators in museums). This
discussion is obfuscated by another important question, namely to what
authenticity actually pertains (i.e. what can be authentic).
Here Wang (1999) draws a sharp
distinction between the authenticity of objects and existential authenticity
which can be entirely unrelated with each other. For him, existential
authenticity is not object-based but activity-based and can be divided into two
dimensions: intra-personal (bodily feelings) and interpersonal (self-making).
In a similar vein, Reisinger and Steiner (2006) claim that existential
authenticity and object-based authenticity are entirely different concepts and
cannot be explored concurrently.
Apart from introducing two basic
types of authenticity (i.e. object based and existential), these diverging
views also reflect the incommensurability of different epistemological and
philosophical positions that have a stake in the conceptualization of
authenticity. The ‘liberation’ of existential authenticity from object and
place namely relies on existentialist and phenomenological traditions (OLSEN,
2002).
Authentic marketing is a strategy for organizations to validate their business goals in a credible action, (ACKER, 2014). It seeks to increase brand's desirable characteristics, which requires sustainability of capital resources in developing brand value and extending this behavior over time (MORHART et al., 2015). Because the symbolic source is helping the consumer in his definition and the meaning of his life, so in this strong bond, the brand gains trust and growth (EGGERS et al., 2012).
In this study, authentic marketing will be surveyed in four dimensions: Authentic Marketing Paradigm, Authentic Value, Social Platform Development and Authentic Marketing Mix.
Companies
may derive their promise legitimacy from the interests of parties in
conversational relations, this is the concept of rhetoric in Heidegger's view (ZACKMAND,
2007).
Because of the interference of the interpretive mentality with the use of dialectics, truth may not be derived from method in philosophical hermeneutics, that is, through questionable answering to the issue at hand (GHARABAGH, 2008).
It is also possible to understand the meaning of interpretive approach through recognition of conceptual approach and phenomenology that are considered as interpretative approaches. The conceptual method of interpretive approach is an attempt to reveal meaning, there is no real starting point for achieving meaning, since each understanding contains the previous understanding (hermeneutic period) (SHIRODI, 2009).
Authentic values are the opposite of Maslow's pyramid. In fact, creative people have a strong belief in the Maslow's reverse pyramid. Spirituality are valuable aspects of immaterial life and enduring realities in creative communities, businesses that respond to their spiritual needs. The future value proposition of marketing is the supply of spirituality. Value-Added Business Modeling is the new infrastructure of third age marketing (KATLER, 2010).
One way for collective value creation appropriate to customer creativity is a business platform. Platforms create value through interaction, they create and shape interaction between external producers and external consumers. An important part of the role of the platform is to create the infrastructure for the formation of interactions and to determine the framework and rules governing these interactions (PARKER; VAN ALLISTON, 2009).
Social media is an online application, platform, or media that facilitates interactions, collaborative work or content sharing (RICHTER; KECH, 2007), interactions with social media fundamentally change the dynamics of brand and customer communication, as well as the motivation for developing user-generated content (UGC) on social media also changes (KAPLAN; HEINLEN, 2010).
Authentic marketing is a type of postmodern marketing that emphasizes the phenomenology of consumer existence. In postmodern marketing, customers pay for the symbolic meaning of the product, so the main marketing mix is product enrichment, price paradox, presence of sales and participation in product promotion. (YOUSEFINIA; FARAHBOD, 2010).
The word "pragmatism" in Farsi has been translated into "religion of originality of practice", "practical expediency", "pragmatism", "correction", "expediency" and "scientific aptitude". The word is derived from the Greek root Prassein meaning to do. Pragmatism is a method of solving or evaluating rational problems, as well as a theory of the kinds of identifications we are prone to acquire. Called pragmatism, or principle of action, this school considers the truth to be of practical benefit and, in other words, the meaning that the mind makes to achieve better and more practical results (NEJAD; POURSRASKANROOD, 2010).
Pragmatic marketing is examined in this research with four dimensions: Pragmatics, Problem-Based, Evolutionary Product, Strategic Management and Pragmatic Marketing. "Pragmatic-oriented" has a conceptual footprint: we provide practical and meaningful solutions to the problems that product managers face (FARMAND; PHILLIPS, 1999).
Pragmatic
marketing is a product development process, based on experience planning
adaptability, re-testing and re-adaptability as long if the final result, both
theoretically and practically, has evolved as a better product. The first step
in pragmatic marketing is to discover what the customer wants to buy. Pragmatic
marketing involves understanding market problems by conducting interviews with
customers as well as potential customers to understand their critical issues. This
measure is also important to understand why potential customers and clients
have evaluated a product in a particular way, and also includes an assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses of competition (VAMICHA, 2018).
The strategic management process of pragmatic marketing is a framework, this pragmatic marketing framework improves a standard language for one’s entire product team and provides an outline of the key activities needed for profitability, problem-oriented products to the market, which includes the following steps: market, focus, business, planning, empowerment and support (NUTINSKY, 2007).
The shit paradigm is reminiscent of Thomas Cowan and his famous book The Structure of the Scientific Revolution (COWAN, 2012). Paradigm is the epistemic and social horizon and space that provides the grand parachute rotational pattern. Basic concepts are important in every time paradigm. Every paradigm contains values and norms that tools become important to him and turns to insignificant tools.
The set of these tools, norms, assumptions, concepts, and habits are formed in a cyclical context called the paradigm, as Cowan puts it. The community of researchers and scientists breathe in a paradigm, and their science takes place in the paradigm (FERASATKHAH, 2016). The business paradigm is a set of rules that delineate boundaries and illustrate how to act and solve problems within it.
Inspired by the historiography of science, Jules Arthur Barker proposed a paradigm shift. With the paradigm shifting, the return to the zero point is happening and all competitors have to start the game off. Newcomers can seize opportunities to compete with industry players and win. The decline of Swiss watchmaking and the emergence of Japanese watchmaking is an example of this type of change (BAKKER, 1993; KHALEGHI; POUREZAT, 2011).
The growing trend of consumers working together has impacted businesses. Companies no longer have complete control over their brand because they are competing with the collective power of consumers. This growing consumer trend that restricts marketers' activity is what Vip Forrest has called brand theft (FORREST, 2005). Nowadays companies have to collaborate with their consumers. This starts when marketing managers listen to their consumers to understand their minds. When consumers play a key role in creating value through the co-creation of products and services, more advanced partnerships occur (CUTLER, 2010).
In today's age when word-of-mouth advertising has become a new medium and consumers are more trusted by strangers in their community than corporations, brands without authenticity have no chance of survival. There is also lies and deception on social media, but due to the collective wisdom of consumers, it will quickly be exposed (KATLER, 2010).
For over 60 decades, marketing concepts have been vertical. In order to regain trust, a consumer trust system must be designed and implemented. The new system of gaining consumer confidence is horizontal. The time has come for the end of the divide between marketers and consumers (KATLER, 2010). Consumer growth, out-of-structure changes that have limited the ability for consumers to control consumers and the new wave technology has made marketers face the crisis of responding efficiently to new relationships. Accordingly, the present study explores the effect of changing ontology from object-oriented to phenomenology of existence and changing ontology to dialectics in language and practice in the context of sustained customer interaction ( KOLAR; ZABKAR, 2010).
"Creating
originality in marketing" is partly seen as a paradox, "all human
economic entities are cognitively fraudulent - meaning within themselves
without credibility - and yet its output can be phenomenologically real, that
is, it is perceived as valid by the people who buy it" (GRENOBLE ECOLE, 2015.)
The existential phenomenological
paradigm has a contextual (context-centered) perspective in which experiences
emerge as a pattern out of context. Ontologically, the experience and the world
can be understood as a coherent unit that underlies the burden of social,
empirical, and interpersonal issues with the individuals or groups who see it.
Epistemologically, it has a subjective negotiating position.
That is, it is assumed that the
researcher and the subject are interacting in such a way that the findings are
interpolated and interpreted in the course of the research. In this active and
passive approach, cognition is one and knowledge is produced and reproduced in
an interactive, relational, and contingent process. The knowledge generated in
the interaction process has been evaluated and rethought, and as a
collaborative product, it has helped to explain and understand the social world
of the subjects.
The logic of the research is
explanation, interpretation and rethinking, meaning that the researcher seeks
to extract and understand the pattern that emerges from the context. It is a
holistic research strategy that relates the relevant descriptions of of
everyone’s experiences to the overall context of the world of life (THOMPSON,
1989; HOSSEINGHOLIPOUR et al., 2014).
The existo and existee verb in Latin
means leaving from appearing. The term is also common to being and ontology,
but it refers to being aware of a reality in the philosophies of
existentialism; in other words, existence refers to the particular way of human
existence and from existentialism to the authenticity of existence. Kant's and
Habermas’s knowledge entails adopting a "dialectical approach" that
emphasizes the unity and plurality of rational knowledge. In Kant's view, any
human knowledge, whether theoretical or practical, requires rational
justification and a passage of critique.
And he deduced the principles of
theoretical and practical reason in a transcendental way from within human
experience and cognition. These principles are in fact the general, necessary
and prior conditions of any possible experience (HEYDARI, 2014). The new
ecology of learning, in the face of its technological and technological practices,
reveals profound paradigm shifts that have broad dimensions of thought,
communication, behavior, and culture (REDDY; MANGULIKA, 2002; PETERS, 2000).
Previous conventional training has
been subject-oriented and cognitive-based, while new paradigms are
process-oriented and communication-based. Closed, elitist, and one-way teaching
patterns (one-way and vertical transfer of information from professor to
student) are transitioning to open, inclusive, two-way, and horizontal
interactive patterns of free information exchange. 84.2% of the respondents
perceive corporate culture as a threat to academic authenticity. (FERASATKHAH,
2006).
3.
MODEL
The conceptual model derived from
qualitative research is data-based that overlaps with in-depth interviews with
marketing experts and those in other fields (economics, philosophy, sociology,
psychology) overlapping concepts, as well as coding and analyzing modern day
articles and theories. Research model has been shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Authentic and Pragmatic Marketing
Process Model
Source:
Kheiri and Esmaili, (1989)
4.
HYPOTHESES
There are three views on the concept
of objective originality, constructive and existentialist objective perspective
refers to authenticity as an objectively measurable quality of an entity that
is evaluated by experts (TRILING, 1972). According to the constructivist view,
credibility is a prediction of consumer beliefs, expectations, and perspectives
on an entity (WANG, 1999), the existentialist perspective considers
authenticity as belonging to the self rather than to the external entity (GLOBE,
1995).
Zabkar and Clar (2010) examined it
as objective and existentialist approaches. The model of this study considers
the effect of two marketing of authenticity, the original marketing being a
postmodern marketing and the existentialist perspective of authenticity, and
pragmatic marketing which is a pragmatist marketing and takes the objective
view of authenticity which deals with language and practice through paradigm
shifts to phenomenology of existence with epistemology.
a) Authentic
marketing has a significant influence on the paradigm shift.
b) Pragmatic
marketing has a significant influence on the paradigm shift.
c) The
paradigm shift has a significant influence on the original brand.
d) Original
marketing has a significant influence on the original brand with the mediating
role of paradigm shift.
e) Pragmatic
marketing has a significant influence on the original brand with the mediating
role of paradigm shift.
5.
METHODS
The present study is a quantitative
research in terms of approach, in which the researcher collects data with
predetermined tools that result in the statistical data, and is of a
descriptive type. In descriptive research, the researcher seeks out how and
what he wants to know about the phenomenon or variable. In other words, this
study examines the status quo and systematically describes its current status,
explores its features and traits, and examines the relationship between variables
if necessary (HAFEZNIA, 2008).
Since the purpose of this study is
to describe the presentation of a native model for authentic marketing and
pragmatic marketing and their interaction and contrast, this research is
considered as a descriptive study.
Surveying is a way to obtain data
about the views, beliefs, opinions, behaviors or characteristics of a group of
members of a statistical community through research. More formally, Ross,
Wright, and Anderson define surveying as: "Surveying is a set of standardized
methods used to gather information about individuals, families, or larger
collections. Data is collected by asking people who are regularly selected and
grouped into sample groups” (WILCOX et al., 2007).
Therefore, this research is a survey
type. In the quantitative section, the descriptive-survey research method was
used to evaluate the described phenomenon. The statistical community can be
defined as: all elements and individuals that share one or more attributes on a
given geographic scale (global, regional, local, or spatial) (HAFEZNIA, 2014).
The statistical population of this study is students of selected Azad
universities (Anzali, Tehran center, Tonekabon).
Due to the extent of selected
universities, stratified random sampling method was used. In stratified
sampling, the units of the study population are grouped into categories that
are more homogeneously variable in order to minimize variations within groups.
Then, some samples are randomly selected from each class (Hafez NIA, 2009, p. 85).
Thus, the selected free universities
were divided into three classes, Anzali, Tehran center, Tonekabon, assuming
that the students of the free universities were homogeneous. Then, at each free
university, student consensus centers such as corridors, campus and classrooms
were selected and the researcher randomly referred to student consensus centers
and, after giving a brief explanation of the research topic, were asked to fill
out a questionnaire if they were university students. And the sample size calculated
385 people based on Morgan's Table.
Questionnaire was used for data
collection. The questionnaire contains Several questions about the variables
measured by the study population. These questions are constructed using
specific techniques as well as scales so that the desired information can be
gathered from the study population or sample (HAFEZNIA, 2007). The questions in
this section are also designed based on a 5-point Likert range.
6.
FINDING
Descriptive
statistics specifies the general characteristics of the population under study
and its general characteristics for other researchers. In addition, this
knowledge can be used to generalize the results to other communities, or to
design future research questions for other communities. The descriptive
statistics of the research are described in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Frequency distribution by age category
Age range |
Frequency |
Percentage |
18 - 28 years |
337 |
54.5 |
28 - 38 years |
159 |
25.7 |
38 - 48 years |
102 |
16.5 |
48 years and more |
20 |
3.2 |
Total |
618 |
100 |
Table 2: Frequency Distribution by Education Level
Education |
Frequency |
Percentage |
Bachelor’s degree |
197 |
31.9 |
Master’s degree |
351 |
56.8 |
Doctorate |
70 |
11.3 |
Total |
618 |
100 |
Are the questions for measuring variables properly selected? Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used for this purpose, such that the factor loading of each marker with its construct has a significant t value at 5% error level, that is to be outside the range of -1.96 and -1.96, and also the factor loading of each marker with its construct is greater than 0.5, this marker is then accurate enough to measure that structure or latent traits (Nanali & Bernstein, 1994). For this purpose, confirmatory factor analysis was performed on questionnaire items as described in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: Factor
loading and significance of questions (first order analysis)
Variable |
Question |
Factor loading |
Significance |
Authentic marketing |
AA1 |
0.5 |
13.49 |
AA2 |
0.54 |
14.92 |
|
AA3 |
0.62 |
17.46 |
|
AB1 |
0.76 |
39.49 |
|
AB3 |
0.51 |
11.94 |
|
AC1 |
0.80 |
45.69 |
|
AC2 |
0.86 |
66.21 |
|
AC3 |
0.85 |
66.48 |
|
AD1 |
0.88 |
93.13 |
|
AD2 |
0.76 |
37.11 |
|
AD3 |
0.73 |
33.22 |
|
Pragmatic marketing |
BA1 |
0.66 |
25.38 |
BA2 |
0.78 |
45.24 |
|
BB1 |
0.83 |
56.39 |
|
BB2 |
0.83 |
53.59 |
|
BB3 |
0.84 |
56.25 |
|
BC1 |
0.87 |
40.21 |
|
BC2 |
0.78 |
39.47 |
|
BC3 |
0.61 |
18.39 |
|
BD1 |
0.83 |
56.16 |
|
BD2 |
0.82 |
49.15 |
|
BD3 |
0.85 |
59.72 |
|
Paradigm shift |
CA1 |
0.65 |
22.56 |
CA2 |
0.58 |
16.89 |
|
CB1 |
0.74 |
31.63 |
|
CB2 |
0.72 |
28.76 |
|
CB3 |
0.72 |
30.01 |
|
CC1 |
0.79 |
51.00 |
|
CC2 |
0.75 |
38.53 |
|
CC3 |
0.76 |
48.10 |
|
CD1 |
0.79 |
47.48 |
|
CD2 |
0.83 |
67.33 |
|
CD3 |
0.76 |
34.55 |
|
Original brand |
D1 |
0.89 |
111.84 |
D2 |
0.90 |
96.34 |
|
D3 |
0.74 |
28.13 |
Table 4: Factor loading and significance of
questions (second-order analysis)
Variable |
Question |
Factor loading |
Significance |
Authentic marketing paradigm |
AA1 |
0.82 |
39.88 |
AA2 |
0.84 |
49.95 |
|
AA3 |
0.84 |
40.51 |
|
Making social platforms |
AB1 |
0.81 |
40.22 |
AB2 |
0.73 |
19.68 |
|
AB3 |
0.81 |
37.29 |
|
Authentic marketing mix |
AC1 |
0.88 |
80.91 |
AC2 |
0.93 |
139.68 |
|
AC3 |
0.87 |
50.75 |
|
Authentic values |
AD1 |
0.91 |
113.12 |
AD2 |
0.85 |
49.09 |
|
AD3 |
0.83 |
42.49 |
|
Pragmatism |
BA1 |
0.85 |
44.82 |
BA2 |
0.92 |
131.40 |
|
Problem-oriented |
BB1 |
0.93 |
125.46 |
BB2 |
0.91 |
84.94 |
|
BB3 |
0.92 |
104.45 |
|
Evolutionary product |
BC1 |
0.89 |
78.74 |
BC2 |
0.89 |
68.85 |
|
BC3 |
0.76 |
31.59 |
|
The process of strategic formulation
of pragmatic marketing |
BD1 |
0.88 |
78.98 |
BD2 |
0.92 |
102.04 |
|
BD3 |
0.93 |
108.89 |
|
Epistemological change |
CA1 |
0.91 |
89.58 |
CA2 |
0.88 |
56.23 |
|
Ontological change |
CB1 |
0.88 |
58.40 |
CB2 |
0.93 |
100.97 |
|
CB3 |
0.94 |
104.96 |
|
Consumer growth |
CC1 |
0.86 |
76.88 |
CC2 |
0.84 |
51.63 |
|
CC3 |
0.90 |
97.78 |
|
Out-of-structure changes |
CD1 |
0.83 |
49.37 |
CD2 |
0.90 |
118.03 |
|
CD3 |
0.85 |
59.01 |
The
measurement model of the research variables is presented in two levels of
significance and standard coefficients in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5.
Figure 2: External model of First-order hypothesis in the general standard state
Figure 3:
the external model of first-order hypotheses in general significance
state
Figure 4: the external model of second-order
hypotheses in the general standard state
Figure 5: External model of second-order
hypotheses in the general significance state
An intrinsic model (structural
model) describes the relationships between latent variables and determines how
much of the variance of a latent variable is explained by other latent
variables. Regular indices for testing are used to evaluate the model,
including R2, path coefficients and critical coefficients. In diagrams 6, 7, 8
and 9 below, the internal model of research for research hypotheses in both
standard and significant states can be observed.
Figure 6:
Internal model of first-order hypotheses in the general standard state
Figure 7: Internal models of first-order
assumptions in general significance state
Figure 8: Internal model of second-order hypotheses in the
general standard case
Figure 9: The internal model of second-order
hypotheses in the general significance state
R2, or coefficient of determination,
indicates the effect that exogenous variables have on an endogenous variable.
Chin (1998) identified three values of 0.19, 0.33, and 0.67 as the criterion
values for weak, medium, and strong values.
Watzels et al. (2009) identified
three values of 0.01, 0.25 and 0.36 as weak, moderate and strong values for
GoF. Tables 5 and 6 show the internal fitting of the model.
Table 5: Calculation of internal model fitting
(first order analysis)
Variable |
Communality |
R2 |
Authentic marketing |
0.52 |
0.00 |
Pragmatic marketing |
0.62 |
0.00 |
Paradigm shift |
0.55 |
0.55 |
Original brand |
0.72 |
0.59 |
Goodness of fit index |
0.59 |
Table 6: Calculating
the fit of the internal model of second-order hypotheses
Variable |
Communality |
R2 |
Authentic marketing variable |
0.69 |
0.00 |
Building social platforms |
0.62 |
0.00 |
Authentic marketing mix |
0.80 |
0.00 |
Authentic values |
0.75 |
0.00 |
Pragmatism |
0.79 |
0.00 |
Problem-oriented |
0.85 |
0.00 |
Evolutionary product |
0.72 |
0.00 |
The process of strategic formulation of
pragmatic marketing |
0.83 |
0.00 |
Epistemological change |
0.81 |
0.17 |
Ontological change |
0.84 |
0.53 |
Consumer growth |
0.75 |
0.43 |
Out-of-structure changes |
0.74 |
0.50 |
Original brand |
0.72 |
0.66 |
Goodness of fit index |
0.59 |
As you can be observed, the goodness of fit
index for all the hypotheses is in the strong range. That is, the internal
model is robust enough to test hypotheses and the test results can be
statistically reliable.
Based on the internal model obtained from
the research hypothesis test, the validation or rejection of the research
hypothesis will be examined. To confirm or reject the hypotheses, a significant
coefficient (t-statistic) is used, if the t-statistic is greater than -1.96 or
less than -1.96 (at 5% error level), the hypothesis is confirmed and a
significant relationship is obtained between the two hidden variables. The results
of the hypothesis analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7: results
of partial least squares analysis for first-order research hypotheses
Number of hypothesis |
Hypotheses |
Path coefficients |
Significance value |
Test result |
H1 |
Authentic marketing has a significant effect
on the paradigm shift. |
0.15 |
3.40 |
Confirmed |
H2 |
Pragmatic marketing has a significant effect
on the paradigm shift. |
0.63 |
15.35 |
Confirmed |
H3 |
The paradigm shift has a significant effect
on the original brand. |
0.77 |
46.92 |
Confirmed |
H4 |
Original marketing has a significant impact
on the original brand with the mediating role of paradigm shift. |
0.11 |
Confirmed |
|
H5 |
Pragmatic marketing has a significant impact
on the original brand with the mediating role of paradigm shift. |
0.48 |
Confirmed |
6.4.1. Hypothesis
1: Original marketing has a significant effect on paradigm shift.
·
H0: Original marketing has no significant effect on
paradigm shift.
·
H1: Original marketing has a significant effect on
the paradigm shift.
The path coefficient of the
authentic marketing effect on the paradigm shift is 0.15 and has a t value of
3.40. The t value for this parameter is calculated more than 2.58. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is rejected with 99% confidence. That is, there is a
significant relationship between the authentic marketing and the paradigm shift
and the authentic marketing is effective on the paradigm shift. Therefore, this
research hypothesis is accepted.
The significant impact of authentic
marketing on paradigm shifts is consistent with the results of Katler (2010)
and Mullard et al. (2015). The relationship between authenticity and spirit or
philosophical center of human and he phenomenal of originality are consistent
with the existence of the phenomenon, showing that authentic marketing of university
is effective on the community through changing paradigm shift and there is a
need for original marketing with a new ontology to offer genuine value, create
new concepts and enhance the quality of community spirituality.
6.4.2. Hypothesis
2: Pragmatic marketing has a significant effect on the paradigm shift.
· H0: Pragmatic marketing has no significant effect on the paradigm shift.
· H1:
Pragmatic marketing has a significant impact on the paradigm shift.
The path coefficient of the effect
of pragmatic marketing on the paradigm shift is 0.63 and has a t value of
15.35. The t value for this parameter is calculated more than 2.58. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is rejected with 99% confidence. That is, there is a
significant relationship between pragmatic marketing and paradigm shift and
pragmatic marketing is effective on the paradigm shift. Therefore, this
research hypothesis is accepted.
The Significant effect of pragmatic
marketing on the paradigm shifts is consistent with the research results of
James (1965), Douglas (1999), Jim Bell and Stephen (1990), Mayhewi et al.
(2013) who incorporated the practical attitude of pragmatic marketing to
confront the consequences of their beliefs, the problem solving process in the
social practice and the reinforcement of science and practice in an interactive
approach between university and industry and showed that universities will be
able to establish a sustainable interaction between philosophy and practice through a paradigm shift in pragmatic
marketing, leading to sustainable resource growth.
6.4.3. Hypothesis
3: The paradigm shift has a significant effect on the original brand.
· H0:
The paradigm shift has no significant effect on the original brand.
· H1:
The paradigm shift has a significant impact on the original brand
The path coefficient of the effect
of paradigm shift on the original brand is 0.77 and has a t value of 46.92. The
t value for this parameter is calculated more than 2.56. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected with 99% confidence. That is, there is a significant
relationship between the paradigm shift and the original brand and the paradigm
shift does not affect the original brand. Therefore, this research hypothesis
is accepted.
Significance of paradigm shift's
effect on original brand is consistent with research results of Cowan (2012),
Ferasatkhah (2015), on the need to change paradigm shift when relationship
regulation comes with epistemic crisis and it shows that changing the paradigm
shift of the selected universities can add to their brand authenticity and
contribute to their sustainable value creation.
6.4.4. Hypothesis
4: authentic marketing has a significant impact on the original brand with the
mediating role of paradigm shift.
· H0:
Original marketing does not have a significant impact on the original brand
with the mediating role of paradigm shift.
· H1:
Original marketing has a significant impact on the original brand with the
mediating role of paradigm shift.
Given
the confirmation of the first path, i.e. the effect of original marketing on
the paradigm shift, as well as the confirmation of the second path, i.e. the
effect of the paradigm shift on the original brand, all paths related to this
hypothesis have been confirmed; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected with
95% confidence. That is, authentic marketing has a significant impact on the
original brand with the mediating role of paradigm shift. Therefore, the
paradigm shift variable plays a mediating role here. Moreover, the effect of
original marketing with the mediating role of paradigm shift on the original
brand is 0.11.
The significant impact of authentic
marketing by shift paradigm on original brand is consistent with the research
results of Gharabagh (2005) and Shiroudi (2009) in relation to the
phenomenological effect of philosophical hermeneutics on deep understanding of
phenomena and their asymmetry in existence, the creation of transcendental
concepts based on the lived experience of each person, through hermeneutic
understanding of concepts in dialectics based on language. On this basis, the
selected universities can change their ontology to the phenomenology of
existence and dialectics in the concepts that are effective in shaping their original
brand content.
6.4.5. Hypothesis
5: Pragmatic marketing has a significant impact on the original brand with the
mediating role of paradigm shift.
· H0:
Pragmatic marketing does not have a significant impact on the original brand
with the mediating role of paradigm shift.
· H1:
Pragmatic marketing has a significant impact on the original brand with the
mediating role of paradigm shift.
Given the confirmation of the first
path, i.e. the impact of pragmatic marketing on the paradigm shift, and the
second path confirmation, i.e. the effect of the paradigm shift on the original
brand, all paths related to this hypothesis have been confirmed, so the null
hypothesis is rejected with 95% confidence. That is, pragmatic marketing has a
significant impact on the original brand with the mediating role of paradigm
shift. Therefore, the paradigm shift variable plays a mediating role here.
Therefore, the effect of pragmatic
marketing with the mediating role of paradigm shift on the original brand is
0.48. Significance of pragmatic marketing through paradigm shift of the
original brand is consistent with the research results of Heidari (2004),
Hatami Nejad and Poursraskanrood (2010), which considers the dialectical and
progressive view as a social, ever-changing and evolving phenomenon. They have
always been negative and replaced by positive, progressive and revolutionary
elements.
Universities can recognize the
negative practical consequences of the theories and target them to increase the
utility of society by shifting the paradigm shift to the phenomenology of
existence and the dialectics of science and practice between academia and
industry.
Table 8. Partial least squares analysis results
for second-order research hypotheses
Number of hypothesis |
hypotheses |
Path coefficient |
Significance value |
Test result |
H6 |
The authentic marketing paradigm has an
impact on the ontological change |
-0.12 |
2.48 |
Accepted |
H7 |
Building social platforms has an impact on
ontological change |
0.10 |
1.76 |
Rejected |
H8 |
The original marketing mix has an impact on
the ontological change |
0.02 |
0.27 |
Rejected |
H9 |
Authentic values has an effect on
epistemological change |
0.06 |
0.80 |
Rejected |
H10 |
Pragmatism has an effect on the
epistemological change |
-0.13 |
2.07 |
Accepted |
H11 |
Problem-centeredness has on effect on
epistemological change |
0.25 |
3.73 |
Accepted |
H12 |
The evolutionary product has an impact on
epistemological change |
0.16 |
2.43 |
Accepted |
H13 |
The process of strategic formulation of
pragmatic marketing has an impact on epistemological change |
0.06 |
0.68 |
Rejected |
H14 |
The original marketing paradigm has an impact
on ontology change |
0.10 |
2.48 |
Accepted |
H15 |
Building social platforms has an impact on
ontological change |
0.06 |
1.72 |
Rejected |
H16 |
The authentic marketing mix has an impact on
ontological change |
0.01 |
0.14 |
Rejected |
H17 |
Authentic values have an impact on
ontological change |
0.02 |
0.36 |
Rejected |
H18 |
Pragmatism has an effect on ontological
change |
-0.07 |
1.52 |
Rejected |
H19 |
Problem-centeredness has an effect on
ontological change |
0.13 |
2.37 |
Accepted |
H20 |
The evolutionary product has an effect on
ontological change |
0.19 |
3.40 |
Accepted |
H21 |
The process of strategic formulation of
pragmatic marketing has an effect on ontological change |
0.41 |
5.77 |
Accepted |
H22 |
The original marketing
paradigm has an impact on consumer growth |
-0.14 |
3.51 |
Accepted |
H23 |
Building social platforms has an impact on
consumer growth |
0.07 |
1.61 |
Rejected |
H24 |
Authentic marketing mix has an impact on
consumer growth. |
0.18 |
2.87 |
Accepted |
H25 |
Authentic values has an effect on consumer
growth |
-0.03 |
0.59 |
Rejected |
H26 |
Pragmatism has an impact on consumer growth |
0.16 |
3.22 |
Accepted |
H27 |
Problem-centeredness has an impact on
consumer growth |
0.12 |
2.19 |
Accepted |
H28 |
The evolutionary product has an impact on
consumer growth |
0.08 |
1.76 |
Rejected |
H29 |
The process of strategic formulation of
pragmatic marketing has an impact on consumer growth |
0.27 |
4.22 |
Accepted |
H30 |
The authentic marketing paradigm has an
effect on out-of-structure changes. |
-0.10 |
2.75 |
Accepted |
H31 |
Building social platforms has an effect on
out-of-structure changes. |
0.04 |
0.81 |
Rejected |
H32 |
Authentic marketing mix has an effect on
out-of-structure changes. |
0.05 |
0.89 |
Rejected |
H33 |
Authentic values has an effect on
out-of-structure changes. |
0.13 |
2.15 |
Accepted |
H34 |
Pragmatism has an effect on out-of-structure
changes. |
0.05 |
1.00 |
Rejected |
H35 |
Problem-centeredness has an effect on
out-of-structure changes. |
0.14 |
2.56 |
Accepted |
H36 |
Evolutionary product has an effect on
out-of-structure changes. |
0.09 |
1.98 |
Accepted |
H37 |
The process of strategic formulation of
pragmatic marketing has an effect on out-of-structure changes. |
0.38 |
6.14 |
Accepted |
H38 |
Epistemological change gas an effect on the
original brand. |
-0.02 |
0.86 |
Rejected |
H39 |
Ontology change has an effect on the original
brand. |
-0.02 |
0.56 |
Rejected |
H40 |
Consumer growth has an effect on the original
brand. |
0.39 |
9.47 |
Accepted |
H41 |
Out-of-structure changes has an effect on the
original brand. |
0.49 |
11.58 |
Accepted |
Commentary: The significance of Hypotheses 6, 14, 22، 24, 35, 30 is consistent with Borland's (2005) and Eckol's (2015)
research that the output of authenticity must be phenomenologically real and
internally valid, and with research findings of (KATLER, 2010), Forth (2005)
that consumers no longer want to consume alone and are themselves the creators
of new lifestyles, and also with research findings of (KATLER, 2010), Forth
(2005) that the creation of their consumers has entered the process of value
creation to solve social, cultural and economic problems and are no longer
passive and have become innovators seeking the spiritual and cultural world and
also with research results of Zahro Marshall's (2004), Davies (2002) and
Katler's (2010) as clergy and spirituality as valuable aspects of immaterial
life and sustainable realities in creative societies. Accordingly, it is
suggested that to validate their brand internally, selected universities can
use students' presence and creativity to produce new styles and innovations in
solving social, economic, and cultural issues by shifting the paradigm of
phenomenology to make their role as a spiritual and cultural institution in
society more desirable.
Commentary: Disapproval of Hypotheses 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 23, 25, 31, 32, 38, 39, with
Parker et.al’s research. (2018) and Sano (2014) and Dragon's (2012) research
that platform is a business. Platforms create value through interaction and new
social arrangements that develop concepts over time. It also does not
consistent with the research conducted by Yousefinia and Farahbod (2010) that
customers pay money for symbolic meanings in the postmodern marketing,
indicating that in the study community, building social platforms and making
meaningful products does not necessarily have a significant relationship with
paradigm shift. In addition, there is no significant relationship between
ontology and epistemology on brand originality in this society and further
research is needed in these cases.
Significance of hypotheses 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 37, 36, 35 is consistent with research
results obtained by Douglas (1999), Wamicha (2018) that pragmatic marketing
seeks to produce an evolutionary product based on social criticism. According
to the research results obtained by Poursareskanroud (2001) and Anderson
(1999), pragmatic marketing should address the problems of the community and
improve the current state of society. It also consistent with Nutenski
Pragmatic Marketing Strategic Marketing Planning Form (2007), the Pragmatic Institute
(1999). Similarly, selected universities can produce evolutionary products to
respond to economic, social, cultural problems by strategically planning
pragmatic marketing.
Rejecting the hypotheses 13,18،, 28, 34 does not consistent with the results of Anderson (1999),
Zandieh (1996), Pursrascanrod (2010). Pragmatism means theoretical reasoning
and suggests that pragmatism does not necessarily have ontological change in
the studied community. And social change as well as evolutionary product has no
significant relationship with consumer growth, in which case more research is
needed.
The significance of hypotheses 40,
41 with research results of Abdollahian (2003), Haghshenas (1393), Sarokhani
(1986), regarding the increase and interference of channels of
comprehensiveness in the new technology era that impose conditions of
out-of-structure changes on societies. Society faces multiple valuations that
disputes credits such as authenticity and disbelief. It also consistent with
research results obtained by Capstein (2008) and Zechariah (2009), (KATLER,
2010), in the current age when word of mouth has become a new medium and
consumers are more trusted by strangers in their community than corporations.
Businessmen without authenticity will have no chance of survival. On this
basis, it is recommended that selected universities plan to increase their
authenticity based on continuous and sustained interaction with the student in
order to gain more existence due to consumer growth in value sharing and increasing
conflict of value socialization channels.
7.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the customer trust in brands
has diminished and the validity of the value presented by the brand has been
decreased, achieving brand authenticity is essential to producing sustainable
value. And given that in the new technology era, vertical communication has
transformed marketers and customers into horizontal communications, and that
their creators and marketers have been competing with them, engaging more
customers in the value chain of the company and adding brand authenticity led
the organization to produce sustainable value.
Marketing with phenomenological
ontology is a kind of postmodern marketing and its methodology is a combination
of structured and semi-structured methods.
On the other hand, by reducing the
quality, increasing the orientation of the universities and the degree of
community orientation that results in the decrease of the level of culture and
the growth of the society, the purpose of this research is to show that in the
age of globalization, new generation technology and communication rationality,
universities To achieve brand authenticity, what can produce sustainable value
requires paradigm shifts in ontology and epistemology in their view of
students, and to be phenomenological rather than object and commodity, and seek
through sustained interaction With them to gain their inner creativity and
experience so that they can generate value and culture in the community have a
sustainable growth.
Elements of paradigm shift, namely
consumer growth and out-of-structure changes, affect brand authenticity, so
universities can create the atmosphere of emergence and emergence of students'
talent and their ongoing engagement with themselves, with industry, society,
culture. Until they can Manage the out-of-structure changes and guide it towards
social, cultural and spiritual alternatives.
The goal of changing ontological
view in university is to avoid considering the customer as an instrument,
getting internal experience, creativity and sustained customer interaction are
key to sustainable knowledge development. Sustainable value production is not
separate from economic growth, but it sustains growth, and this paradigm shift,
while developing the knowledge economy, affects the quality of
university-produced product, making it a prominent and authentic cultural
institution, because brand originality has content in social interaction.
REFERENCES
ABAZARI, Y.; SHARIATI, S.; FARAJI, M.
(2011) The Transcendence of Civilization or the Process of Civilizations?. A Reading of
culture-civilization problematic. Quarterly Journal of Cultural Research,
v. 4, n. 2, p. 19.
AKBARI, M. H. (2006) Democracy and Civil
Society. Journal of Social Sciences, n. 7.
ANDERSON, D. R. (1999) Business
ethics and the pragmatic attitude. A Companion to Business Ethics Edited by Robert E. Frederick, Blackwell:
Publishers Ltd.
ARANI, A. A.; NAJMEH, Z. M.; FATEMEH, M.
A. (2016) Comparative Study of Critical Education from the Viewpoint of Girou
and Habermas. Journal of Axiology in Education, n. 1.
ARNOULD, E. J.; PRICE, L. L. (2000)
Authenticating acts and authoritative performances. Questing for self and
community. In RATNESHWAR, S.; MICK, D. G.; HUFFMAN, C. (Eds.), the why of consumption.
ASGARI, D. (2013) The issue of value
creation for customer, Bank Ayandeh Bulletin, n. 2.
BARRETT-LENNARD, G. T. (1998) Carl Rogers’
helping system: Journey and substance. London: Sage.
BEVERLAND, M. B.; LINDGREEN, A.; VINK, M.
W. (2008) Projecting Authenticity through Advertising – Consumer Judgments of
Advertisers’ Claims, Journal of Advertising, v. 37, n.
1, p. 5–15.
BEVERLAND, M. B.; FARRELLY, F. J. (2010)
The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers‘purposive choice of
authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research,
v. 36, n. 5, p. 838-850.
BEVERLAND, M. B.; LINDGREEN, A.; VINK, M.
W. (2008) Projecting authenticity through advertising. Journal of Advertising, v. 37, n. 1, p. 5-15.
BELL J, BROWN S. (1990) Pragmatic
Perspectives in International Marketing Education. Journal of Management Development,
v. 9, n. 1, p. 39-50
BOUTANG,
Y. (2011) Cognitive Capitalism. Business
& Economics - 240 pages. Contemporary perspectives on
consumer motives, goals and desires (p. 140-163) London: Routledge.
CAPPANNELLI, G. (2004) Authenticity: Simple
Strategies for Greater Meaning and Purpose at
Work and at Home. Clerisy Press, Emmis Books.
DAVIS, J. L. (2017) Accomplishing authenticity in a labor-exposing space. Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
DRAGON, R. (2012) Social marketing improve your social media processes and get your
customer to stay forever, eBook.
EGGERS, F.; O‘DWYER, M.; KRAUS, S.;
VALLASTER, C.; GÜLDENBERG, S. (2013) The impact of brand authenticity on brand
trust and SME growth: A CEO perspective, Journal of World Business, v. 48,
n. 3, p. 340-348.
EMERSON, R. W. (2007) The Letters of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ed. Ralph L, Rusk, vs. 1_6 and
Eleanor M. Tilden, v.s 7_10. New York and London: Columbia University Press.
ESFAHANI, A.; SAEED, H. N.; ARASH, N. A.
M. (2012) BUSINESS ETHICS: THE INEVITABLE NEEDS OF TRADE ORGANIZATIONS, Opportunity
Quarterly, n. 2.
FARHANGI, A. A.; KARROUBI, M.; SADEGH V. F.
(2015) classic data-based theory, description of stages of theory of center
gravity identity.
FROSH, P. (2001) To thine own self be
true: The discourse of authenticity in mass cultural production. The
Communication Review, v. 4, p. 541-557.
FADHILA D. (2018) Authenticity and Transparency in Influencer Instagram Content in
Indonesia. Bachelor’s Thesis, International
Business.
FLORIDA, R. (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for
Talent . New York: HarpermBusiness.
GILMORE, J. H.; PINE, B. J. (2007) Authenticity: What consumers really
want?. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
GRAYSON, K.; SCHULMAN, D. (2000)
Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable possessions: A
semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 27,
p. 17-30.
GROHMANN, B. (2009) Gender dimensions of
brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, v.
46, n. 1, p. 105-119.
GUEVREMON, A.; GROHMANN, B. (2016) The
brand authenticity effect: situational and individual-level moderators. European
Journal of Marketing, v. 50, n. 3/4.
GHOLIPOUR, H. (2007) From Weber to
Habermas about Science and Values. Robert Hollinger, Humanities Psychology Magazine,
n. 48.
HABERMAS, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action. Translated by T. McCarthy.
Boston: Beacon Press. v. 1 and
2.
HAGHIGHI, M. K. M.; ELIYA, B. Z. (2013)
Customer's Trust to Large Store Personnel: A study in chain store clients.
Study in Chain stores in Shahrvand Tehran, Management Sciences Association, v.
8, n. 3.
HAKIMI, M. (1984) Compilation and editing
by Mahmoud Hakimi. Subject: History; Quotes. Ghalam Publishing, Tehran, 1984.
Iran Health Branding. Commercial Management Quarterly, v.
7, n. 1, p. 145-162.
HANDY, C. (1994) The age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard
Business school business School Press.
HANDLER, R.; SAXTON W. (1988)
Dyssimulation: Reflexivity, narrative, and the quest for authenticity in
―living history. Cultural Anthropology, v. 3, n. 3, p. 242-260.
HANNES, K.; STAES, F.; GOEDHUYS, J.;
AERTGEERTS, B. (2009) Obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based
physiotherapy in practice: a focus group-based study in Belgium (Flanders) Physiotherapy:
Theory and Practice, v. 25, n. 7, p. 476–488.
HATAMINEZHAD, H.; AKBARPOUR, S. M. (2011)
Pragmatism. Journal of Geographic Information, n. 79.
HE, M.; LI, J.; SHAO, B.; QIN, T.; REN,
CH. (2013) Transforming massive data to
pragmatic target marketing practice. IBM
Research – China.
HEIDARI, H. H. (2004) Habermas in the
battle with modern epistemic crisis, communicative rationality instead of
instrumental rationality. Institute for Humanities and Cultural
Studies, n. 33.
HOLLINGER, R. (2006) From Weber to
Habermas about Science and Values. Translated by Gholipour, Hussein, Tehran, Social Sciences: Methodology of Humanities, n. 48
(ISC)
HOLT, D. B. (2002) Why Do Brands Cause
Trouble?. A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding, Journal
of Consumer Research, v. 29, n. 1, p. 70–90.
HOLT, D. B. (2004) How brands become icons: The principles of cultural branding.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
HUNT, S. D. (2013) The Basics of Theorizing in Marketing. Mohammad Haghighi and Masoud
Karami, Tehran, Krtab Mehraban Publishing
Institute.
ILICIC,
J.
M.; WEBSTER,
C.
(2014) Eclipsing: When Celebrities
Overshadow the Brand, psychology
marketing, p. 1040-1050.
INGLEHART, R.; NORRIS PIPPA, N. (1999) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and
Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
JEANNERAT, H. (2013) Staging experience,
valuing authenticity: Towards a market perspective on territorial development, Published in European Urban and Regional
Studies, v. 20, n. 4, p. 370-384.
KATLER, F. (2015) Third Generation Marketing. Translated by Hormoz Mehran and Behzad
Shahrabi, Reza, Cultural Services
Institute Publishing.
KHAKI, G. R. (2011) Research Method with a Thesis Approach. Tehran: Baztab Publication.
KOLAR, T.;
ZABKAR,V. (2010) A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing?, Tourism Management,
v. 31, p. 652–664.
KOTLER, P.;
KARTAJAYA, H.; SETIAWAN,
I. (2010) Marketing
3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit. Publisher, John Wiley & Sons.
LEIGH, T. W.; PETERS, C.; SHELTON, J.
(2006) The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within
the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
v. 34, n. 4, p. 481–493.
MAHJOO, M. (1986) Perspective of the Iranian Economy. Iran Steel news station.
MAHBOUBI M. H. (2015) Value-based sociology by relying on order and security. Tehran, Military science university,
Second Edition.
MOHAMMADPOUR, A. (2013) Qualitative Research Method for Handling 1.
Tehran: Jameeshenasan Publications.
MANOUCHEHRI, A. (2007) Approach and Methods in Political Science.
Tehran, SAMT Publications.
MIRJALILI, S. H. (2002) The Study of the
Economic, Political, Social and Cultural Structure. Research Institute for
Humanities and Cultural Studies, n. 270.
MORHART, F.; MALAR, L.; GUEVREMONT, A.;
GIRARDIN, F.; GROHMANN, B. (2015) Brand authenticity: An integrative framework
and measurement scale, Journal of Consumer Psychology, v.
25, n. 2, p. 200-218.
MOULARD, J.; GARRITY, C.; RICE, D. (2015)
What Makes a Human Brand Authentic? Identifying the Antecedents of Celebrity
Authenticity. Psychology and Marketing, v. 32, n. 2, p. 173–186.
MOULAERT, F.; SEKIA, F. (2003) Territorial
innovation models: a critical survey. Regional Studies, v. 37, p. 289–302.
NAPOLI, J.; DICKINSON, S. J.; BEVERLAND,
M. B.; FARRELLY, F. (2014) Measuring consumerbased brand authenticity. Journal
of Business Research, v. 67, n. 6, p. 1090-1098.
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2019) Prepared by Leeder, K. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
PEIRCE, C. S. (1893) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, v. V and VI. Edited by
C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
RAHMANASRHSHT, H. (2007) Organization and Management Theories:
From Modernity to Renaissance Postures, v. II post-modernism era, Tehran, Douran Publishing.
RORTY, R. (1996) Fraternity: The case for a society based not on rights but on
unselfishness. New York Times
Magazine, p. 155–8.
ROTFELD, H. J. (2014) The pragmatic
importance of theory for marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, v. 31, n. 4 p. 322 – 327.
SCHMIDT, S.; HENNIGS, N.; ALBERTSEN, L.;
KARAMPOURNIOTI, E.; ROTHENSEE, M. A. (2017) The Dual Information Processing Effect of Pragmatic and Hedonic User
Experience on Brand.
SHETH, J. N.; SISODIA, R. S. (2006) Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh
Perspectives on the Future. USA, M.E.
Sharpe Inc.
SHIROUDI, M. (2009) The study and
methodology of political science. Journal of Religion and Politics,
n. 19-20. work and at Home , Clerisy Press, Emmis Books.
TAVASOLI, G. A.; MOUSAVI, M. (2005) The
concept of capital in new and classical theories with an emphasis on social
capital theories. Journal of Social Sciences, n.
26.
THOMPSON, C. J. (1997) Interpreting
Consumers: A Hermeneutical Framework for Deriving Marketing Insights from the Texts
of Consumers’ Consumption Stories. Journal of Marketing Research, v.
34, p. 438–5.
WHITE, T, J. (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA Genes for
phylogenetics, Publisher: Academic
Press, p.315-322.
ZADEH, F. H.; JAMAL, A. (2013) Proposal writing in Qualitative and
Combined Studies, Tehran:
Jameshenasan Publishing.
ZOHAR, D.; MARSHALL, I. (2004) Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live
By: (San Francisco: Barrett_Koehler
Publisher.
ZICKMUND, S. (2007) Deliberation,
phronesis and authenticity: Heidegger's
early conception of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, v. 40,
n. 4, p. 406-415.
APPENDIX
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
A.Authentic.marketing |
618 |
3/1874 |
0/71161 |
0/506 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
618 |
3/2292 |
0/77005 |
0/593 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
618 |
3/259 |
0/79428 |
0/631 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
618 |
2/5129 |
0/98882 |
0/978 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
618 |
3/4806 |
0/81212 |
0/66 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
618 |
3/2697 |
0/77919 |
0/607 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
618 |
2/9337 |
0/94439 |
0/892 |
AD.Authentic.values |
618 |
3/0658 |
0/94642 |
0/896 |
BA.Practical |
618 |
2/8172 |
0/93668 |
0/877 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
618 |
3/1958 |
0/90318 |
0/816 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
618 |
3/507 |
0/80116 |
0/642 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
618 |
3/397 |
0/89232 |
0/796 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
618 |
3/5469 |
0/99483 |
0/99 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
618 |
3/7665 |
0/82348 |
0/678 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
618 |
2/7044 |
1/01404 |
1/028 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
618 |
3/0183 |
1/00262 |
1/005 |
Valid N (listwise) |
618 |
|
|
|
|
N |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
A.Authentic.marketing |
618 |
0/01 |
0/098 |
-0/308 |
0/196 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
618 |
-0/319 |
0/098 |
0/146 |
0/196 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
618 |
-0/296 |
0/098 |
-0/019 |
0/196 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
618 |
0/331 |
0/098 |
-0/393 |
0/196 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
618 |
-0/376 |
0/098 |
-0/282 |
0/196 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
618 |
-0/073 |
0/098 |
-0/597 |
0/196 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
618 |
0/201 |
0/098 |
-0/537 |
0/196 |
AD.Authentic.values |
618 |
-0/088 |
0/098 |
-0/375 |
0/196 |
BA.Practical |
618 |
0/128 |
0/098 |
-0/572 |
0/196 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
618 |
-0/481 |
0/098 |
-0/117 |
0/196 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
618 |
-0/657 |
0/098 |
0/725 |
0/196 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
618 |
-0/465 |
0/098 |
-0/043 |
0/196 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
618 |
-0/798 |
0/098 |
0/212 |
0/196 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
618 |
-1/258 |
0/098 |
2/056 |
0/196 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
618 |
0/221 |
0/098 |
-0/546 |
0/196 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
618 |
-0/27 |
0/098 |
-0/507 |
0/196 |
Valid N (listwise) |
618 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-SSE/SSO |
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/523936 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/30778 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/298232 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/699001 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/629964 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/615912 |
BA.Practical |
0/517945 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/687462 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/529344 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/694588 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/298364 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/396259 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/50051 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/603307 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/62704 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/408561 |
|
1-SSE/SSO |
|
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/693312 |
|
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/62123 |
|
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/801955 |
|
AD.Authentic.values |
0/747614 |
|
BA.Practical |
0/792707 |
|
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/845949 |
|
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/718134 |
|
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/825698 |
|
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/140369 |
|
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/441413 |
|
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/323265 |
|
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/365367 |
|
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/449369 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-SSE/SSO |
|
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/449643 |
|
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/380103 |
|
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/24399 |
|
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/574251 |
|
AD.Authentic.values |
0/478237 |
|
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/544509 |
|
BA.Practical |
0/348354 |
|
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/648757 |
|
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/44114 |
|
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/613797 |
|
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/451046 |
|
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/371649 |
|
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/642325 |
|
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/487116 |
|
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/468669 |
|
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/434611 |
|
1-SSE/SSO |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/377527 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/255201 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/571548 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/478209 |
BA.Practical |
0/345724 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/647787 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/427883 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/61474 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/371489 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/641598 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/487504 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/465636 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/434153 |
|
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Mean (M) |
Standard Deviation
(STDEV) |
Standard Error
(STERR) |
T Statistics
(|O/STERR|) |
AA1 <-
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/804339 |
0/804767 |
0/02 |
0/02 |
40/815877 |
AA1 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/501311 |
0/500745 |
0/037 |
0/037 |
13/489169 |
AA2 <-
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/824816 |
0/823376 |
0/018 |
0/018 |
46/862896 |
AA2 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/538747 |
0/534958 |
0/036 |
0/036 |
14/921467 |
AA3 <-
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/867005 |
0/86684 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
68/901969 |
AA3 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/620313 |
0/618852 |
0/036 |
0/036 |
17/455669 |
AB1 <-
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/862637 |
0/863611 |
0/01 |
0/01 |
82/899968 |
AB1 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/763153 |
0/763006 |
0/019 |
0/019 |
39/494436 |
AB2 <- AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/68935 |
0/687123 |
0/041 |
0/041 |
16/646562 |
AB3 <-
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/780914 |
0/779353 |
0/027 |
0/027 |
29/175994 |
AB3 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/513709 |
0/514185 |
0/043 |
0/043 |
11/943296 |
AC1 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/863771 |
0/863411 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
65/551229 |
AC1 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/799713 |
0/799935 |
0/018 |
0/018 |
45/689055 |
AC2 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/932504 |
0/932399 |
0/007 |
0/007 |
140/284086 |
AC2 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/858334 |
0/858285 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
66/207558 |
AC3 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/890458 |
0/890573 |
0/012 |
0/012 |
77/397274 |
AC3 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/849271 |
0/849183 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
66/481346 |
AD1 <-
AD.Authentic.values |
0/911452 |
0/911741 |
0/007 |
0/007 |
123/5163 |
AD1 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/878778 |
0/87929 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
93/129102 |
AD2 <-
AD.Authentic.values |
0/841816 |
0/841854 |
0/016 |
0/016 |
52/270953 |
AD2 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/76353 |
0/763127 |
0/021 |
0/021 |
37/110093 |
AD3 <-
AD.Authentic.values |
0/839052 |
0/839622 |
0/016 |
0/016 |
51/495223 |
AD3 <-
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/73343 |
0/734113 |
0/022 |
0/022 |
33/215581 |
BA1 <-
BA.Practical |
0/872463 |
0/872215 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
66/908708 |
BA1 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/658428 |
0/658746 |
0/026 |
0/026 |
25/378864 |
BA2 <-
BA.Practical |
0/910635 |
0/910564 |
0/007 |
0/007 |
131/813824 |
BA2 <- B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/778681 |
0/778178 |
0/017 |
0/017 |
45/240017 |
BB1 <-
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/932371 |
0/932389 |
0/007 |
0/007 |
135/892547 |
BB1 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/8265 |
0/826749 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
56/391314 |
BB2 <-
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/909278 |
0/908676 |
0/011 |
0/011 |
85/938388 |
BB2 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/82521 |
0/824325 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
53/591254 |
BB3 <-
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/91754 |
0/917297 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
103/824262 |
BB3 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/83581 |
0/835723 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
56/25353 |
BC1 <-
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/906314 |
0/906054 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
106/364066 |
BC1 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/783175 |
0/782875 |
0/019 |
0/019 |
40/208566 |
BC2 <-
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/90424 |
0/904307 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
100/812573 |
BC2 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/775252 |
0/774951 |
0/02 |
0/02 |
39/468098 |
BC3 <- BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/720885 |
0/719324 |
0/032 |
0/032 |
22/856282 |
BC3 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/611381 |
0/610897 |
0/033 |
0/033 |
18/387129 |
BD1 <-
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/889993 |
0/890041 |
0/01 |
0/01 |
92/296428 |
BD1 <- B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/830916 |
0/831346 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
56/158446 |
BD2 <-
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/910449 |
0/910548 |
0/01 |
0/01 |
93/647935 |
BD2 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/822512 |
0/822924 |
0/017 |
0/017 |
49/152509 |
BD3 <- BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/925321 |
0/924736 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
103/484707 |
BD3 <-
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/846919 |
0/846742 |
0/014 |
0/014 |
59/722481 |
CA1 <-
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/911186 |
0/911182 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
102/356431 |
CA1 <- C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/650899 |
0/649068 |
0/029 |
0/029 |
22/5566 |
CA2 <-
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/885283 |
0/884623 |
0/013 |
0/013 |
66/319481 |
CA2 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/57664 |
0/574433 |
0/034 |
0/034 |
16/88849 |
CB1 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/882678 |
0/881409 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
59/34499 |
CB1 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/73631 |
0/734203 |
0/023 |
0/023 |
31/626648 |
CB2 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/930283 |
0/930116 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
99/662915 |
CB2 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/724125 |
0/723149 |
0/025 |
0/025 |
28/761617 |
CB3 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/939025 |
0/938875 |
0/008 |
0/008 |
116/700002 |
CB3 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/721426 |
0/72075 |
0/024 |
0/024 |
30/010614 |
CC1 <-
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/871945 |
0/871616 |
0/01 |
0/01 |
85/972517 |
CC1 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/788951 |
0/788196 |
0/015 |
0/015 |
51/002681 |
CC2 <-
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/841441 |
0/842032 |
0/016 |
0/016 |
53/715421 |
CC2 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/751156 |
0/752009 |
0/019 |
0/019 |
38/534551 |
CC3 <-
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/892036 |
0/89171 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
95/050533 |
CC3 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/757364 |
0/756921 |
0/016 |
0/016 |
48/095293 |
CD1 <- CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/853321 |
0/852446 |
0/014 |
0/014 |
62/583618 |
CD1 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/793515 |
0/792778 |
0/017 |
0/017 |
47/476377 |
CD2 <-
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/904459 |
0/904381 |
0/008 |
0/008 |
119/499772 |
CD2 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/832185 |
0/832509 |
0/012 |
0/012 |
67/327133 |
CD3 <-
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/825891 |
0/825129 |
0/019 |
0/019 |
42/65524 |
CD3 <-
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/758575 |
0/758648 |
0/022 |
0/022 |
34/546718 |
D1 <-
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/893323 |
0/893305 |
0/008 |
0/008 |
111/836571 |
D2 <- D.Authentic.Brand |
0/8972 |
0/89716 |
0/009 |
0/009 |
96/343665 |
D3 <-
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/738535 |
0/738116 |
0/026 |
0/026 |
28/126542 |
|
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Mean (M) |
Standard Deviation
(STDEV) |
Standard Error
(STERR) |
T Statistics
(|O/STERR|) |
AA1 <- AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/819771 |
0/820412 |
0/020555 |
0/020555 |
39/88231 |
AA2 <-
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/837101 |
0/836757 |
0/016758 |
0/016758 |
49/951534 |
AA3 <-
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/841072 |
0/840426 |
0/020764 |
0/020764 |
40/506618 |
AB1 <-
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/81481 |
0/814414 |
0/02026 |
0/02026 |
40/218343 |
AB2 <-
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/733072 |
0/733603 |
0/037253 |
0/037253 |
19/678272 |
AB3 <-
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/814511 |
0/813766 |
0/021841 |
0/021841 |
37/292133 |
AC1 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/882901 |
0/882269 |
0/010912 |
0/010912 |
80/908207 |
AC2 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/930973 |
0/931202 |
0/006665 |
0/006665 |
139/678848 |
AC3 <-
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/87153 |
0/870619 |
0/017173 |
0/017173 |
50/749431 |
AD1 <- AD.Authentic.values |
0/910916 |
0/910917 |
0/008052 |
0/008052 |
113/124359 |
AD2 <-
AD.Authentic.values |
0/849463 |
0/848514 |
0/017306 |
0/017306 |
49/085759 |
AD3 <-
AD.Authentic.values |
0/831383 |
0/831273 |
0/019565 |
0/019565 |
42/49298 |
BA1 <-
BA.Practical |
0/854861 |
0/853424 |
0/019072 |
0/019072 |
44/82183 |
BA2 <-
BA.Practical |
0/924512 |
0/924666 |
0/007036 |
0/007036 |
131/404682 |
BB1 <-
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/930728 |
0/930488 |
0/007418 |
0/007418 |
125/463311 |
BB2 <-
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/909307 |
0/908483 |
0/010705 |
0/010705 |
84/942277 |
BB3 <- BB.Problem.oriented |
0/9191 |
0/918354 |
0/008799 |
0/008799 |
104/451454 |
BC1 <-
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/890931 |
0/890467 |
0/011315 |
0/011315 |
78/736042 |
BC2 <-
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/887281 |
0/88651 |
0/012887 |
0/012887 |
68/851365 |
BC3 <-
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/757586 |
0/757024 |
0/023984 |
0/023984 |
31/586801 |
BD1 <-
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/881734 |
0/881301 |
0/011164 |
0/011164 |
78/979857 |
BD2 <-
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/915464 |
0/915384 |
0/008972 |
0/008972 |
102/040945 |
BD3 <-
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/928123 |
0/927859 |
0/008523 |
0/008523 |
108/890539 |
CA1 <-
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/913501 |
0/912995 |
0/010197 |
0/010197 |
89/582509 |
CA2 <-
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/882639 |
0/883157 |
0/015698 |
0/015698 |
56/227552 |
CB1 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/884279 |
0/883629 |
0/015143 |
0/015143 |
58/396739 |
CB2 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/930208 |
0/930226 |
0/009213 |
0/009213 |
100/968358 |
CB3 <-
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/937436 |
0/937701 |
0/008931 |
0/008931 |
104/961002 |
CC1 <- CC.consumer.Growth |
0/864512 |
0/864729 |
0/011245 |
0/011245 |
76/88027 |
CC2 <-
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/843455 |
0/843248 |
0/016337 |
0/016337 |
51/627378 |
CC3 <-
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/897425 |
0/897759 |
0/009178 |
0/009178 |
97/777169 |
CD1 <-
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/83239 |
0/833144 |
0/01686 |
0/01686 |
49/370004 |
CD2 <-
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/902899 |
0/903321 |
0/00765 |
0/00765 |
118/033622 |
CD3 <-
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/847023 |
0/847134 |
0/014354 |
0/014354 |
59/009862 |
D1 <-
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/887772 |
0/88805 |
0/008871 |
0/008871 |
100/071915 |
D2 <-
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/895059 |
0/895134 |
0/009376 |
0/009376 |
95/463396 |
D3 <-
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/7505 |
0/750747 |
0/024639 |
0/024639 |
30/459628 |
|
Cronbachs Alpha |
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/903279 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/778997 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/703505 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/876689 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/83091 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/936299 |
BA.Practical |
0/744165 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/908917 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/800207 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/894337 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/915435 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/761654 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/905823 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/837141 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/826032 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/803806 |
|
AVE |
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/52394 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/692993 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/609724 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/80286 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/747803 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/615901 |
BA.Practical |
0/795223 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/845993 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/719577 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/825741 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/545551 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/806993 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/842105 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/75468 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/742766 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/716142 |
|
Composite
Reliability |
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/921127 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/871219 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/822957 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/924274 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/898807 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/945898 |
BA.Practical |
0/885886 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/942785 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/883954 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/934263 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/929058 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/893169 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/941136 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/902187 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/896375 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/882505 |
|
communality |
A.Authentic.marketing |
0/52394 |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/692993 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/609723 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/80286 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/747803 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
0/615901 |
BA.Practical |
0/795223 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/845993 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/719577 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/825741 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/545551 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/806993 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/842105 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/75468 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/742766 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/716142 |
|
R Square |
A.Authentic.marketing |
|
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/44709 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/54959 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/871077 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/845305 |
B.Pragmatic.marketing |
|
BA.Practical |
0/65635 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/812833 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/735732 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/841504 |
C.Paradigmatic.shift |
0/55076 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/469512 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/628984 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/778087 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/851632 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/589519 |
|
Cronbachs Alpha |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/778997 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/703505 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/876689 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/83091 |
BA.Practical |
0/744165 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/908917 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/800207 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/894337 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/761654 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/905823 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/837141 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/826032 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/803806 |
|
AVE |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/693388 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/62158 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/80193 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/747518 |
BA.Practical |
0/792755 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/845946 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/718321 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/825647 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/806768 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/842008 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/754722 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/741849 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/717507 |
|
Composite
Reliability |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/871524 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/830966 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/923874 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/898665 |
BA.Practical |
0/884242 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/942766 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/883849 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/93421 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/893023 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/941099 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/9022 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/895946 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/883352 |
|
communality |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
0/693388 |
AB.Making.social.platforms |
0/621579 |
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
0/80193 |
AD.Authentic.values |
0/747518 |
BA.Practical |
0/792755 |
BB.Problem.oriented |
0/845946 |
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
0/718321 |
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
0/825647 |
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/806768 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/842008 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/754722 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/741849 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/717507 |
|
R Square |
AA.Paradigm.of.authentic.marketing |
|
AB.Making.social.platforms |
|
AC.Mixed.authentic.marketing |
|
AD.Authentic.values |
|
BA.Practical |
|
BB.Problem.oriented |
|
BC.Evolutionary.Product |
|
BD.Strategic.management.process.of.pragmatic.marketing |
|
CA.Epistemology.shift |
0/174067 |
CB.Ontology.shift |
0/529458 |
CC.consumer.Growth |
0/430638 |
CD.Out.of.structure.changes |
0/500208 |
D.Authentic.Brand |
0/657458 |