Conceptual Ambiguity

Ethnic marketing research is hampered by different notions of ethnicity drawn from anthropology, ethnography, psychology, sociology and marketing (Weber, 1961; Cohen, 1978; Barth, 1998; Gjerde, 2014). Further discussion of these different notions and their implications will be discussed in Chapter 2. At this early stage of the discussion, we follow Weber’s (1961) view of ethnicity as

Applying this view of ethnicity can arguably delimit ethnic marketing and contributions identifiable as ethnic marketing research; however, ethnic marketing is a field where different views of ethnicity exist and ethnic marketing theory and practice often reflects these differences.

A lack of definitional clarity permits divergent claims to the field of study and in practice, allowing for disagreement on what a minority ethnic group is and on what is ethnic marketing research. As a consequence, the divergent claims also sustain varying estimates of market size and related assessments of the substantiality of a minority ethnic group, crucially complicating incremental learning about ethnic marketing and decisions about where its application is justified. Lack of definitional clarity is an important ethnic marketing concern. As acknowledged by Phinney (1990),

But the importance of definitional clarity has also been noted as a point of concern in marketing covering both the discipline in general and specific fields of research. Without agreed definitions, scientific discussion can descend into babble (Gilliam and Voss, 2013). In the context of social marketing, Andreasen (1994) lamented that the lack of consensus in the definition resulted in varied research agendas and in “talking at cross purposes”. Definitional differences caused disagreement about the particular domain of social marketing and how it differed from related fields, hindering its theoretical advancement by fuelling incorrect application by practitioners of research findings emerging under the social marketing heading, which justified the likely disaffection by practitioners with the findings of social marketing researchers. In the context of advertising, Richards and Curran (2002) argued the need for an agreed common definition to ensure general understanding and to delimit the profession.

What Is Ethnic Marketing? Definitional Differences

Currently, ethnic marketing has no agreed upon definition. What is asserted to be ethnic marketing varies widely in terms of both theory and practice, being very much dependent on users’ or practitioners’ understanding of ethnicity, of ethnic identity and of the role of acculturation, as well as on the need by practitioners to often be pragmatic in the application of any chosen definition. Further confusion arises from the use of terms other than ethnic marketing, apparently covering the same field.

We discuss these differences in terminology first, followed by an examination of differences in views about ethnic marketing. If ethnic marketing is referred to as marketing focussed on ethnic minority consumers or ethnic minorities (Jamal, 2003; Cui, 2001, 1997), competing terms include multicultural marketing, diaspora marketing, international marketing at home, domestic cross-cultural marketing, ethno-marketing and intercultural marketing. Each of these is briefly explained and their differences noted in the following paragraphs.

“Multicultural marketing” is a term widely used by theorists and practitioners to describe strategies developed to target consumers from different ethnic minority groups within a country. As cultural diversity within a country consists of more than its ethnic diversity, multicultural marketing’s scope is wider than addressing ethnic diversity through marketing strategies. This is reflected in Burton’s (2002) research, who interprets multiculturalism in a wide context of all possible subcultures within a country whether they be based on ethnic differences or not. Different variants of its practice will emerge dependent on political and social conditions. As such, ethnic marketing involves a narrower focus than multicultural marketing.

Cui and Choudhury (2002) provide a contrasting approach, using the term “Ethnic Marketing” in a generic way, to refer to marketing using distinctive marketing programs targeting an ethnic minority within a country, with “Multicultural Marketing” having a more specific meaning. Ethnic marketing embraces a framework of strategies to market to ethnic minorities that encompasses approaches with minimal adaptation (cross-cultural) to the needs of an ethnic minority to the development of specific tailored programs intended to build loyalty and long-term relationships with a minority ethnic group. Which strategy is applied will depend on both demand and supply conditions. In this case, multicultural marketing is more feasible in a country with many ethnic subcultures each requiring a “unique” marketing mix to realize the “sales potential” of that minority group. Multicultural marketing is distinguished from “ethnic niche marketing” by the degree of focus on cultural diversity within a country.

In the Cui and Choudhury schema, fewer ethnic groups enable more focus on their distinctive needs, with ethnic niche marketing potentially enabling marketers to develop a customized offer that can build loyalty and a long-term relationship. Clearly, multicultural marketing based on recognizing each subculture’s unique needs can achieve similar outcomes but the implications of a changed environment consisting of a greater number of diverse ethnic groups is that, for cost/benefit reasons, commonalities and adaptations across groups may be sought to reduce the cost of excessive differentiation. Of course, any behaviour that is ethnicity focused is not taken into account.

“Multicultural marketing” is also used interchangeably with the term “ethnic marketing” by Chan and Ahmed (2006), while Makgosa (2012)’s view of multicultural marketing as targeting and communicating with ethnic minority groups within culturally diverse societies could also be interchanged with ethnic marketing, which Makgosa does in the context of marketing to a particular ethnic minority.

Makgosa (2012) considers that heterogeneity within ethnic groups residing in the UK may require intra-group as well as between group differences in ethnic marketing strategies, adding another layer of complexity in terms of defining either multicultural or ethnic marketing. His study groups of African Blacks and Indians residing in the UK are broadly specified minorities, heterogeneous not only in terms of acculturation and strength of ethnic identity, but also in terms of key subculture elements such as language and religion. Effectively, Makgosa (2012) is embracing the concept of “panethnicity”, borrowed from the USA where multiple ethnicities have been labelled as Asian, Latino or African-American; the creation of pan ethnic groups for a variety of social and economic purposes is discussed by Okamoto and Mora (2014).

Other terms that capture to varying degrees the focus of ethnic marketing in marketing to ethnic minorities include “International Marketing at Home”, “Domestic Cross-Cultural marketing”, “Diaspora Marketing”, “Ethno-Marketing” and “Intercultural Marketing”. Diaspora marketing (Kumar and Steenkamp, 2013) is directed at targeting first generation immigrants in a host country based on meeting their home country developed preferences for particular brands. As such, it is similar to what has been called International Marketing at Home (Wilkinson and Cheng) and domestic cross-cultural marketing (Pires, 1999), all being narrower in their focus than most forms of ethnic marketing because they appear to ignore possible acculturation effects as well as subsequent generations that may still retain varying strengths of ethnic identity.

Ethno-marketing and Intercultural marketing appear more closely related to ethnic marketing in their specific focus and approach. Szillat and Betov (2015) use ethnic marketing and intercultural marketing interchangeably, both referring to the orientation of marketing activities towards target groups with particular ethnic characteristics. This similarity is evident in Ethno-marketing, defined by Waldeck and von Gosen (2006) as

Following Cui and Choudhury (2002), the term “Ethnic Marketing”, as currently used, can include a variety of approaches that need consideration. In their framework “Ethnic Marketing” may consist of “Ethnic Niche Marketing” if a culturally diverse country has only a few ethnic minority groups and each warrants a targeted approach. “Multicultural marketing” is used when a country has many ethnic minority groups and the heterogeneity encourages a targeted approach tempered by looking for commonalities.

For Makgosa (2012) ethnic marketing to an ethnic minority may require further segmentation and adjustments in marketing to that group depending on its heterogeneity, where the researcher’s focus is on differences arising from acculturation patterns and strength of ethnic identification rather than more traditional variables used to assess a group’s ethnic homogeneity.

A French view is offered by Blanchard (2003) who distinguishes different forms of “ethnic marketing”, ranging from the tokenistic use of iconic ethnic characters to attract attention, to what he describes as “hard line ethnic marketing” which recognizes differences between ethnic groups within France and the consequent need for targeting based on recognizing those differences. Multicultural marketing focusses on changing marketing communications to an ethnic group’s preferences, a more superficial approach to adaptation than that instituted through ethnic marketing.

Further insight into the focus of ethnic marketing and some key issues comes from interviews conducted by Pires with a panel of prominent marketing academics (Pires and Stanton, 2015). Four of the more detailed responses to the request for a definition of ethnic marketing elicited the following responses. The first two were chosen because of their focus on the ethnic group as well as the potential scope of ethnic marketing:

Ethnic marketing is target marketing based on ethnicity and more specifically, ethnic groups or communities distinguished by their differences from the mainstream or other groups. However, in both definitions, ethnic marketing is a response to differences, seeking to better communicate with, and understand the differences in order to improve the value offer. Ghose’s definition also draws attention to ethnic entrepreneurs as a part of the marketing system targeting ethnic communities, a neglected role in the marketing literature that is discussed in later chapters.

While the above quotes indicate the focus of ethnic marketing, the following two allude to the possible issues of implementation that can arise, reflected in the variants of ethnic marketing outlined earlier. The first reflects on how standardization encourages the seeking of commonalities in consumer behaviour across cultural and subcultural groups when developing marketing strategies and seeking to apply these common approaches across groups where possible, whereas ethnic marketing focusses on eliciting the differences between ethnic groups and assessing their significance for consumer decision-making. Many issues reflected in the heterogeneity of approaches in marketing to ethnic groups can be linked to the assessment of which differences between groups are of sufficient importance to the consumer decision-making process to warrant changes as seen through the lens of the marketer, with an eye on the benefits and costs of any changes. Drilling down the “T” into group differences can also reveal intra-group heterogeneity, such differences needing assessment as to their relevance for ethnic marketing strategies.

In essence, as the second quote suggests, the concept of ethnicity is not a straightforward matter of using demographics to identify a group, resting very much on the sociology of the group and the context of its existence with other subcultures. This is a dynamic relationship both for a particular group as well as for members within a group which suggests that ethnic marketing requires ongoing, in-depth research into ethnic groups in order to gain the necessary understanding to develop relevant marketing strategies.

Reconciliation of the various approaches to ethnic marketing is problematic but necessary if ethnic market is to develop as a coherent field of study. Figure 1.1 provides a snapshot of the complexity that surrounds ethnic marketing.

At a minimum, ethnic marketing requires a marketing focus on an ethnic minority. The basis for identifying an ethnic minority, the geographic and product scope of any focus and the depth of adaptation to meet the wants of an identified group, appear to vary considerably in terms of theory and practice. Using this minimalist approach, ethnic marketing, ethno-marketing and intercultural marketing (alternative names favoured by some European researchers) are interchangeable terms, while multi-cultural marketing focusses on subcultures of all kinds, rather than subcultures identified by their ethnicity differences. Terms such as diversity marketing and international marketing at home have a narrower subset than an ethnic minority as a whole, as well as more of a product orientation rather than a market orientation focus.

Bringing together the different viewpoints, ethnic marketing treats ethnic minority consumers (or the ethnic community they are a part of) as markets distinguishable from a broader, more heterogeneous market.

Figure 1.1 Different Definitions in a Two Country Context

(*) Multicultural Marketing—An aggregation of minority ethnic groups is involved, with one marketing strategy being deployed for all groups making up the aggregate. Several combinations may apply:

1. A multicultural marketing strategy independent of any one of the aggregated groups is devised and deployed to all minority ethnic groups in the aggregate—e.g. McDonald’s;
2. The group aggregate is profiled based on marketing significant similarities between the minority ethnic groups in the aggregate. A marketing strategy is devised based on the profile derived for the aggregate, subsequently deployed to aggregated groups;
3. As per point 2 above, but minimal adaptations are allowed to cater for particular uniqueness in particular constituent groups. For example, a Hispanic general store may reserve some shelf space for specific ethnic products demanded by one of the groups in the aggregate.

Recognizing and seeking to act on this distinctiveness requires using segmentation. Contrasting the then dominant approach of product differentiation with segmentation as a strategy, Smith (1956) wrote,

This focus can be incorporated into the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) definition of for marketing such that the definition of ethnic marketing conveyed in this book is:

Consistent with this definition, decisions and situations inherent to exchanges in the business to consumer (B2C), government to consumer (G2C), business-to-business (B2B) and consumer-to-consumer (C2C) environments are part of ethnic marketing.

Ethnic Marketing Issues

Differences in the conceptualization of ethnic marketing give rise to differences in practice. If a particular practice is not successful, the value of ethnic marketing as whole tends to be debased as that particular “form” of ethnic marketing is wound back. Some of the key issues challenging a common understanding of ethnic marketing include the following:

• Aggregation: Recurring observation of self-titled ethnic marketing strategy by practitioners, particularly in the USA, provides tangible evidence that cultural or ethnic groups are aggregated for marketing purposes. Ethnic marketing based on definitions of an individual groups’ unique characteristics (Engel, Fiorillo and Cayley, 1971) contrasts with different levels of aggregation of ethnic minority groups into aggregates such as Blacks and Whites, Hispanics, Latinos and Asians. In such broad categorizations, race, language, geographic origin and specific sets of cultural values may be conflated (incorrectly) with ethnicity. The aggregation of ethnic minority groups to achieve critical mass and economies of scale may prove advantageous for marketers (Pires and Stanton, 2005, p. 81) but challenge narrower concepts of ethnic marketing.
• Uncertainties and limitations in the universal application of a racial/ethnic segmentation and targeting approach suggest that it can become problematic over time (Makgosa, 2012; Koeman, Jaubin and Stesmans, 2010). Technologically empowered consumers may not conform to any one specific segment or category, either individually or as a group (Pires, Stanton and Rita, 2006; Jamal, 2003).
• A long held, dominant assumption that the acculturation process follows a linear pattern towards cultural assimilation has tended to be unchallenged until the 1980’s with growing recognition that acculturation may take various paths (O’Guinn, Lee and Faber, 1986). Luedicke (2011), reviewing research findings and shifts in thinking since then, argues consumer acculturation is a circular system of mutual observation and socio-cultural adaptation within complex networks. The assumption of a linear acculturation process can lead marketers to neglect ethnic groups long resident in a host country and to overlook within-group differences.
• Without excluding ethnic consumers’ identification with a minority ethnic group, ethnic consumers’ acculturation to a global consumer culture (cosmopolitanism) may also be important (Cleveland, Laroche and Hallab, 2013; Cleveland, Papadopoulos and Laroche, 2011; Cleveland and Laroche, 2007), although it can be questioned whether targeting ethnic consumers by their global dimension or affiliative identity (Jiménez, 2010) can/should be seen as ethnic marketing.
• Ethnic minority consumers, such as Mexicans in the USA, may resist the pulls of both the dominant and their minority ethnic group (Lerman, Maldonado and Luna, 2009; Peñaloza, 1994).
• An aggregate of consumers with diverse ethnicities who share particular preferences for the attributes of a product is sometimes identified as an ethnic marketing segment, although ethnicity is not the consumer behaviour determinant. For example, geographical proximity (e.g. the Portuguese and Spanish markets in Southern Europe) or language similarity (e.g. Portuguese and Brazilian) may provide sufficient critical mass and cost savings for marketing Corona beer in those countries, justifying the segmentation approach (Deshpandé, 2010). But the congruency of such an approach with ethnic marketing theory based on one ethnicity is difficult to establish.

Other Ethnic Marketing Issues Identified by Researchers

In pursuing the objective of understanding what is ethnic marketing and where it is headed, in-depth interviews with established marketing scholars were undertaken. Consistent with judgmental convenience sampling (Malhotra et al., 1996), the sampling frame first required selection for their expertise in the marketing discipline and then for their status as ethnic marketing specialists indicated by scholarly publications. It was important to include reputable marketing scholars who had no research interest in ethnic marketing. Including specialist and non-specialist academics reduces potential bias from a recognized shared interest in the topical area. An active ethnic marketing researcher is unlikely to advocate against the importance of this type of marketing. That is, ethnic marketing is allowed to be seen as unimportant in this research.

While the sample for this study is not large, it is sufficient to highlight principal schools of thought in ethnic marketing research. The geographical dispersion of the sample was not a consideration. Starting from a short list of potential participants with 16 names, an introductory email communication was then sent to the scholars, detailing the research purpose, providing an interview guide outlining the themes that could/would be raised, and inviting their participation in an in-depth interview. Five invited scholars (from China, England and Germany) were unable to take part in the interviews during the period of time allocated for data collection.

Eleven scholars¹ (from Canada, Finland, Hungary, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal and the USA) participated in a pre-arranged in-depth interview, conducted during 2013. Two interviews were conducted via Skype. All other interviews were conducted face-to-face. The duration of the interviews varied between 1 and 2 hours (seven interviews), between 2 and 3 hours (three interviews), with one interview involving more hours.

Each interview took place at the time and place agreed with interviewees. Upon restating the purpose of the study, each interviewee was first asked to define/explain the concept of ethnic marketing. This provided clarity on what was discussed and was particularly important given the lack of a universally accepted definition and its conceptualization. The interview guide sought to develop a conversation around the standing of ethnic marketing in terms of its scope and importance; ethnic marketing theory and its development over recent years; opportunities and issues for ethnic marketing in the scholar’s respective country of residence; globalization perspectives for ethnic marketing; and the future development of ethnic marketing.

All interviews were taped (voice and video or voice only) and transcribed by the researcher.² Comments made during the interviews that were unrelated to the topic were omitted. The transcripts were made available to the relevant interviewees for checking and endorsement. The transcripts were then processed using Nvivo (Veal, 2005), leading to the identification of recurring themes (see Table 1.1).

The 37 themes are wide-ranging, from the very general to the specific. In line with seeking better understanding of the interviewees’ perceived domain of ethnic marketing and their concerns, our approach was to classify the themes as to whether they were predominantly macro (of the wider economy and political/social environment) or micro (markets, firms or consumers); predominantly theory issues or practice issues; or theory related to practice.

Sixteen of the themes identified (numbered 1 to 15) are predominantly concerned with theory issues, many of which are closely linked to macro or economy—wide considerations, hence the need for more research to understand the effects of ethnic marketing. Understanding the causes and effects of acculturation and its various possible paths is a prominent concern while another is how the onward march of information-communication-distribution technologies and globalization may impact both on ethnic consumers and hence how ethnic marketing needs to be change.

Themes 16–27 pertain to the conditions or context for ethnic marketing to develop, as well as to the political, social and economic conditions

(the macro-environment), and to the potential negative effects arising from ethnic marketing practice. Themes 28–35 deal with the interrelationship of the theory with practice, while only two (36–37) are micro focused, direct practice issues.

Consistent with the noted definitional ambiguity, the interviewees articulated widely different views on the scope and domain of ethnic marketing. Their focus was predominantly on the “big picture” (the environment for ethnic marketing and the benefits and cost of ethnic marketing), on theoretical issues and, to a lesser extent, on theory related to practice issues. A micro and practitioner focus was generally absent, arguably supporting Baker’s (2001) observation of the lack of interest in practice.

While the vast majority of interviewees supported the continued development of a rigorous theory of ethnic marketing based on deductive and inductive principles, the desirability for practical utility advocated by Corley and Gioia (2011), or Brennan’s (2008) theory-in-use, was conspicuous for its omission.

The divide was largely explained in two ways, both of which focused more on practice capabilities and competencies. One was that current practices of focusing on aggregates of minority ethnic groups may be perceived by practitioners as having been successful to date, providing grounds for questioning the need to incur unnecessary and possibly unjustified risks related to focusing on narrowly defined minority ethnic groups. The other is that practitioners may face a lack of capabilities and competencies, including those related to knowledge about narrowly defined minority ethnic groups, also fueled by a continued lack of relevant and appropriate statistical reporting with many groups remaining invisible (Simon, 2008; Ghaill, 2000), an overall lack of strategic information making decision-making difficult and onerous.

More than any philosophical distance between ethnic marketing theory and practice, reconciliation appears to be impeded by what is perceived as possible and practical, given different interests and priorities by theorists and by practitioners (Kerin, 1996). One way to reduce the theory-practice divide is the adoption of a pragmatic approach to developing ethnic marketing sensitive theory and practice, as articulated below.

These examples suggest different reasons why ethnic marketing theory and practice have diverged. The challenge is to appraise the root causes of divergence and to reconcile the theoretical and practical perspectives, whilst recognizing the need for close interdependence between perspectives and the irrelevance of theory if it cannot explain, or is not applied in practice (Brownlie et al., 2008). Mostly untouched in the ethnic marketing context, this is a challenge that has arisen intermittently in various disciplines, the subsequent literature providing guidance as to the generic causes and possible solutions for the ethnic marketing context.

Causes of a Gap and Approaches to Reconciliation

Dewey (1904) addressed the relation of theory to practice in education, noting that:

Recognizing that differences in viewpoints of teachers and practitioners must be reconcilable (Coutant, 1938), special issues of highly ranked journals in marketing and management have devoted attention to a similar focus (Baker, 2001; Brownlie et al., 2008), while nursing (Baxter, 2007) and information technology (IT) (Martin, 2004) also appear concerned with such a gap.

In addressing the gap, the common approach is to question the relationship between theory and practice and to identify the possible causes for the gap, with some follow-up on how reconciliation can be achieved. The brief discussion below identifies general points of relevance that can be drawn relative to the gap in the ethnic marketing context.

On the Need for Pragmatism or Theory-in-Use

Focused on the gap between information technology (IT) theory and practice, Martin (2004) placed the reconciliation issues in general terms of how they interact with each other, theory learning from practice and vice-versa. Accordingly, by the nature of the learning, process gaps may be seen as inevitable and also variable, depending on the degree of interaction occurring between theorists and practitioners. Reviewing the cause of the gap in the discipline areas of nursing, economics and marketing, Brennan (2008) suggests that inefficient mechanisms and poor resourcing explain the slow introduction of best evidence-based practice into nursing theory; in the cases of economics and marketing, the gap is more about practitioners allegedly harbouring a perception of theory as irrelevant. Marketing attributes the generation of theory irrelevance to the promotional incentive structures for academic research, given research funding requirements that often fail to cater for the practical aspects of the research. This appears to echo the assertion that marketing academics are “not really interested in its practice” (Baker, 2001, p. 24).

Drawing from a small survey of academic researchers and interviews with ten practitioners and eight marketing academics in a business-to-business context, Brennan and Ankers (2004) posited that closer interaction depends on both imaginary and real impediments. The imagined impediments dwell on the perception of different communities, each with a different focus. The real impediments pertain to practitioners’ seemingly dismissive attitude of academic research and of its relevance to their practice. Arguably,

Hence, while differences may ensue from the incentive structures for academic research, the rationale supports Coutant (1938)’s view that the intention to bring theory and practice closer together is achievable, provided that is the intention of stakeholders.

Fendt, Kaminska-Labbé and Sachs (2008) also contest the notion that a gap between theory and practice is inevitable, arguing that the gap derives from the philosophical approach underlying much of management and, by extension given the close relationship, marketing research. Their claim is that dominant management theory follows ontological assumptions “similar to the natural sciences” (p. 477), a process that leads to generic theory remaining almost always in need of further refinement or extension, in order to be used by an organization. Their alternative, also espoused by Martin (2004), is to introduce pragmatism into theory building. Essentially, the argument in both cases is that scientific orthodoxy leads to irrelevant theory and to a divorce between theory and management practice, and that pragmatism is an approach that can achieve reconciliation.

An overview of the philosophy of pragmatism and a detailed advocacy of the need for pragmatism in Operations Research (OR) was provided by Ormerod (2006). On the premise that OR ought to be practical and instrumental, Ormerod offered 12 reasons why a pragmatic approach in OR theory should be attractive to practitioners by meeting their needs. Many of the reasons relate to beliefs underlying the pragmatic approach, but some have strong resonance with complaints about relevance raised by marketing practitioners (Brennan, 2008; Brennan and Ankers, 2004). Ormerod (2006) posits that pragmatism engenders a focus on the practical significance of a proposition; that it supports an empirical or evidence-based approach; that it recognizes science as fallible and subject to social contexts and associated uncertainty and change; that, because inquiry is social, it requires the whole of community of practice to be involved; and that “pragmatism places theory in the service of practice” (p. 906).

Pragmatism is a philosophical mindset that assists theorists in understanding the needs of practitioners and their views on the irrelevance of theory in various disciplines. Nevertheless, how to use pragmatism to make theory more relevant to practitioners is given less attention, being limited to possible connotations with action research and contingency theory. Perry and Gummesson (2004) draw together contributions to a special issue devoted to action research, suggesting that marketing action research needs to be complemented with case research so as to account for the importance of the diversity of customers and competitors to marketing management, and for the external environment of the marketplace. Fendt, Kaminska-Labbé and Sachs (2008) see this as converting action research into a research method compatible with pragmatism, because it is based on collaboration between researchers and research subjects. Arguably, extending action research to ethnic marketing may deliver theory suitable to the circumstances of practitioners targeting a particular group in one country, even if a universal approach or solution applicable to another group in that country or other countries is not possible.

A more general approach to addressing the theory-practice gap, arguably applicable to ethnic marketing research, is offered by Martin (2004, p. 31) in the IT context. Much of the gap results from the failure of theory to recognize changes over time that reduce its applicability (including local influence factors that restrict usefulness elsewhere), and pragmatic considerations considered important (presumably by practitioners) that are perceived (presumably by theorists) to add little to the theory’s value (and may in some cases reduce its value). To address these concerns Martin proposes a contingency theory approach, essentially adapting the environmental scanning tool of PESTLE analysis (Aguilar, 1967) to list and classify pragmatic considerations that contribute to the theory and practice gap. The specific aim is to acknowledge and, where possible, to include pragmatic considerations in the theory.

Pragmatism in Ethnic Marketing Theory

The possibly substantial implications of different scopes of ethnic marketing research and practice created by diverging definitions and conceptualizations early in this chapter can be explained, to some extent, by the recognition of the need to reconcile theory with practice.

Recommendations for using environmental scanning and contingency theory to deliver theory-in-use, rather than theories aiming at universal application (Martin, 2004), were followed by calls in the specialist literature for theory to recognize the place of pragmatism in theory building (Brennan, 2008), thus reducing the theory-practice divide.

Figure 1.2 Framework to Reduce the Theory-Practice Divide

Figure 1.2 offers a conceptual framework for a process that, arguably, can contribute to reducing the theory-practice divide. Since focus is on process and not on the development of any one particular strategy in a particular context, the problem of generalization may not be an issue that needs consideration.

The framework starts from the premise that the internal environment underpinning research, the researcher’s viewing lense, can be changed, such that ethnic marketing thinking can adopt a flexibility orientation. Flexibility refers to the degree to which a business has actual or potential procedures, and how fast those procedures can be implemented to increase management’s effective control of the outside environment (De Leeuw and Volberda, 1996). Adapted to ethnic marketing thinking, the flexibility philosophy is borrowed from the relational contracting literature (Noordewier, John and Nevin, 1990), whereby stakeholders accept to approach ethnic marketing problems from a perspective that is responsive to context (Ivens, 2005). Flexibility is considered in the management and IT literatures as giving “an organization the ability to control outside environments effectively” (Byrd and Turner, 2000, p. 170), hence to account for context.

Underpinned by PESTLE but reaching significantly further, context is deemed to be determined by four environmental conditions (the socioeconomic and political environment, the social media environment, the stakeholder behaviour environment, and the technology and innovation environment).

The socio-economic and political environments must be considered because they shape policy processes, allocation of resources, access to services and development outcomes. Social factors cover social, cultural and demographic factors of the external environment, affecting consumers’ state of mind and behaviour in a market. The political environment covers various forms of government interventions and political lobbying activities; it can, by itself, determine whether ethnic marketing activity such as the targeting of an ethnic minority is legal (Ho, 2014).

Technology and innovation include consideration of technology-related activities, technological infrastructures, technology incentives, and technological changes that affect the external environment. Supported by enhanced data storage and processing capabilities, the ease of data collection by electronic means enabled the development of new analytical and empirical methods (Kumar, 2015). Thus, technology innovation may play a crucial role in this analysis as it may afford the ability to capture data on minority ethnic groups and individual ethnic minority consumers, enabling the development of information that might otherwise be unavailable (Cravens and Piercy, 2008).

Changes in practitioner and consumer behaviour can occur frequently in turbulent markets (Cravens and Piercy, 2008) often related to the technology and innovation environment in a market determining connectivity and access, as well as which media may be appropriate for reaching particular consumer groups. Intertwining the effects of changes in consumers’ behaviour with technology and innovation determines the need for ethnic marketers to take social media into account. As noted by Kumar (2015), practitioners and consumers

While there appears to be no difference in the use of technology based on ethnicity (Schradie, 2012; Lenhart et al., 2010), this also reveals the importance of social media and social networks for ethnic marketing and for minority ethnic group resilience.

The external environments facing practitioners are subject to dynamic turbulence, explaining why theories that account for context may need to change over time. The implication here is that, in addition to flexibility, theories are needed that are either adaptive, with flexibility being assured by the theories themselves (Oppermann, 1994), or adaptable, requiring theories to be adapted by scholars (Hallen, Johanson and Seyed-Mohamed, 1991) and/or by practitioners in a co-creation process. This is shown in the framework (Figure 1.1) by the closer interface and cooperation between scholars and practitioners, necessarily guided by the perception of shared interests and priorities. This cooperation leads to new scholarly knowledge addressing practitioners’ concerns, which impacts both the stakeholders’ interface and the generation of rigorous but flexible ethnic marketing theory.

Overall, the framework to reduce the theory-practice divide does not offer either a prescription of concrete actions to be taken every time by researchers and practitioners, or a quick-fix solution for the divide, but reaches further than simply explaining the divide. The claim is that the pragmatization of ethnic marketing theory is supported by an adaptive and adaptable ethnicity-sensitive marketing strategy continuum whereby differences between theory and practice may exist concomitantly, depending on context and on the objective in hand. Rather than prescribing a theory to be applied to problem solving, focus needs to be in a gradual reduction of the gap.

Under a pragmatic orientation, understanding practitioners’ objections to adopting a theory leads to the formulation of theory-in-use, capable of contributing to the alleviation of ethnic marketing practitioners’ perceptions that ethnic marketing theory is irrelevant to ethnic marketing practice, motivating an adaptation effort by practitioners. The outcome is an improvement in the theory-practice gap that, nevertheless, needs to be seen as transient, as it becomes the starting point for further improvement on the theory and further adaptation, in a continuous co-creation process. While the theory-practice gap may persist over time, the closer cooperative interface underlining the co-creation process becomes the promoter of new knowledge and more applicable theory.

Summary

In the consideration of ethnic marketing theory and its relationship to practice, one perspective is that the alleged need for “adjustments for the real world” might be too big and may steer too far from ethnic marketing theory, for what is done by practitioners to be considered as ethnic marketing. But the view resulting from the extensive interviews with marketing experts purposely conducted for this research is that the greatest challenge is to promote an effective articulation between theory and practice. Hence, this chapter primarily advocates the need for agreement on the definition of ethnic marketing, and thus its research domain, as well as to take into account the identification of the type of stakeholder involved, including three main types: co-ethnic minority businesses, non-co-ethnic minority businesses, and mainstream businesses. Once this is done, the development or co-creation of culturally sensitive marketing strategies to make an effective connection between theory and practice can then follow.

Ethnic marketing needs to be refined/extended to be able to explain what is done in practice and who does it. Why marketers do what they do, and how this can be reconciled with ethnic marketing theory, is a required focus. A continuation of theory that fails to acknowledge and to take advantage of the practitioner requirements for pragmatic solutions to ethnic marketing problems is unlikely to bridge the theory-practice divide.

New awareness about how the workings of inner-group networks promote a group’s critical mass together with the much advanced targeting capabilities allowed by micro-targeting technologies (Kumar, 2015) can be expected to herald opportunities offered by targeting narrowly defined minority ethnic groups and, when justified, ethnic minority consumers.

This chapter identifies many areas for further research, many of which are listed in Table 1.1. A priority is to deepen researchers’ understanding of the difference between an aggregate of consumers involving a variety of ethnicities, and aggregates of consumers with one single shared ethnicity—the essence of ethnic marketing. There is also an opportunity to examine the need for researchers’ and practitioners’ ambidexterity, encompassing the skills of taking advantage of the sameness across groups, while focusing narrowly when this is justified by real differences. Under emerging evidence of bi-cultural behaviour, businesses considering targeting ethnic markets may need to develop ambidextrous tactical capabilities in ways that can recognize and take into account how to respond to both similarities and differences in distinct environments.