SURVEYING THE IMPACT OF AUTHENTIC AND PRAGMATIC MARKETING BY PARADIGM SHIFT ON BRAND AUTHENTIC: A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED AZAD UNIVERSITIES (ANZALI, TEHRAN MATKAZ, TONEKABON)

 

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

2.1.          Theoretical background

            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).

2.2.          Authentic Marketing

            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).

2.3.          Pragmatic Marketing

            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).

2.4.          Paradigm shift

            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.

4.1.          Main Hypotheses

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

6.1.          Descriptive statistics

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

6.2.          External Model (Measurement Model)

            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.

Bi

Figure 2: External model of First-order hypothesis in the general standard state

Bi

Figure 3:  the external model of first-order hypotheses in general significance state

 

 

Bi

Figure 4:  the external model of second-order hypotheses in the general standard state

Bi

Figure 5:  External model of second-order hypotheses in the general significance state

6.3.          Internal model (structural model)

            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.

dar

Figure 6:  Internal model of first-order hypotheses in the general standard state

Dar

Figure 7: Internal models of first-order assumptions in general significance state

Dar

Figure 8: Internal model of second-order hypotheses in the general standard case

dar

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.

6.4.          Testing hypotheses

    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