Marketing communication: principles and practice

Argument
When the process is mutual, each party strives to alter the other’s view while
maintaining his/her own
Dialogue
Each party seeks to share, perhaps only hypothetically, the other’s
appreciation and to open his/her own to the other’s persuasion with a view
to enlarging the approaching mutual understanding, if not shared
appreciation
Figure 4.3
Levels at which human communication may arise (Vickers, 1984)

---

of others. Such behaviour may be termed aggressive. In behaving this way,
we stand up for our own rights in such a way that we violate the rights of
other people. We ignore or dismiss the needs, wants, opinions, feelings, and
beliefs of other people. We express our own honest or dishonest needs, wants,
and opinions in inappropriate ways.
The other side of the competition-based stance on accomplishment and
benefits is submissive behaviour. This stance avoids conflict by taking the
needs and wants of others as more important than your own and assuming
that they have rights while you do not. Needs, wants, opinions, and feelings
are not expressed in an honest way, but in apologetic, diffident, and self-
effacing ways.
The alternative assertive behaviours aim to satisfy the needs and wants of
both parties to a situation, based on beliefs that each has needs to be satisfied
and is able to contribute. Rights are pursued without violation of those of
other people, while needs, wants, opinions, feelings, and beliefs are expressed
in direct, honest, and appropriate ways (Box 4.2).
The intended outcome of a communicative interaction is the driver for the
selection of a particular communication style (method). Communication
styles may conflict (Figure 4.4).
Marketing, we have suggested, is more constructive if premised on an
exchange concept. In a market exchange, it can be predicted that the loser
in a competitive situation will not wish to repeat the outcome and will
withdraw. Customers often defect to alternative suppliers in the hope of fairer
or more responsive treatment because they feel that they are losing out on
expected benefits while the supplier may be winning. Of course, it also works
the other way around. The shrewd marketing manager would not wish to
continue trading with a customer in a relationship that does not generate
benefits for the business (profit, profile, new knowledge, etc.). Of course, 
if one party is willing to be the loser, a submissive–aggressive system is
established in which one party is prepared to be controlled and the other 
is thus encouraged to reciprocate with control.
When both customer and supplier feel that they are losing, then it is 
highly unlikely that further interaction will occur. When both feel that 
they are benefiting from the relationship, then interaction is likely to increase
in quantity and frequency – the virtuous circle of escalating benefits. It is
clear that win-win outcomes result from exchange – the question is the extent