APPENDIX 1.

A supporting model of behaviour:

The Paradigm of Survival

The "Paradigm of Survival" is used as basis for the understanding of buyer behaviour (Linn, C.E., Brand Dynamics, Atlanta 1998).

The understanding of human behavior has always been looked upon as a compulsory basis for practicing the discipline of marketing. So far, though, most economic and psychological models have failed to offer a complete understanding of the factors forming the basis for valuation. It is readily obvious that a reasonably reliable model for judging the seller's and the buyer's valuation of the objects of exchange in a business deal would be greeted with enthusiasm by all marketers.

Many attempts to explain human behavior and its underlying driving forces have been made over the years. In the last century alone, we have seen science produce many theories, in addition to the traditional religious ones, in an attempt to explain human behavior. Psychological theories covering a wide span, from the rather romantic ideas of psychologist Abraham Maslow to the stark, mechanistic views of behaviorism, have been used for understanding buying behavior.

The reasoning starts with the philosophical quest for the meaning of life as a foundation.

Maslow's contribution

Until recently, the psychologist Abraham Maslow's famous Hierarchy of Needs has been the dominating behavioral model used in the studies of marketing. Maslow's contribution was to offer a model for the behavior of normal human beings, in contrast to earlier psychology, which concentrated on the disturbances of the human psyche. The simple structure of Maslow's model made it seemingly easy to explain human behavior, which attracted early marketers. But, apart from it offering some general understanding of human behavior, application of the theory has shown that it does not equip marketers with much of a working tool.

A more concise understanding of human behavior, which is also better suited to the needs of marketing is offered by biology. This model is founded on an alternative definition of the meaning of life that has come out of the increasing interest in biological research in the last decade (e.g., Midgley 1978, deWaal 1996, Uddenberg 1998). According to biology, the meaning of life is to transport genes from our parents to our offspring.

When Nature has bestowed a living being with a task to be accomplished, it has also equipped that being with the necessary basic tools, or programs, to fulfil the task. No one has to teach us - or any other living being - the necessity of eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. These tasks are inbred, or imprinted in us instinctively. We instinctively know how to sleep in some basic, general terms, even if not in greater detail.

Our programming

Most living species in nature are made up of two sexes. The reason for "two" sexes lies in the idea that the result of the mating of two unique individuals is another unique individual. Diversity within a given population is best accomplished by a "two sexes" type mechanism for the passing of genetic information. Specifically, the ability to inherit one chromosome from the maternal parent, and one from the paternal parent. This type of reproduction creates the potential for a large number of unique offspring through genetic recombinations, vital to the survival of its own unique species. With the survival of the species as the ultimate goal, we are instinctively programmed to strive to mate with the member of the opposite sex who (in our own perceptions) will ensure us the best chance of survival and of producing healthy, viable offspring.

Now there is a question of logic, as to how exactly to establish the chain of conditions necessary in order to fulfil this task: the conditions which allow us not only to survive, but also that allow us to reproduce, thus, to make our own individual contribution towards the survival of our species. This chain of conditions, the basic program for our behavior, is illustrated by this "Paradigm of Survival."

The Paradigm of Survival (Linn, C.E. 1990)

First, to survive as individuals our needs include:

Our Physiological Needs: eating, drinking, sleeping, keeping warm, etc. and other things which are necessary for our bodily survival. These are needs characterized by Maslow as "basic needs."

Our Individual Safety and Security contains our need to take care of ourselves, and consequently to be afraid of dangers - heights, aggressive people, dangerous animals - and, in modern times, financial insecurity (again, all "basic needs").

The Delight factor means the nice, strictly personalized experiences that make life worth living, those which give pleasure to your life. Those as complex as the sense of freedom or comfort, or one that is more simply defined, such as the joy experienced by the warm sunlight against your face on a summer afternoon.

Second, to fulfil our social mission, our needs include:

Group's Welfare, our instinctive urge to care for not only ourselves (and our families) also encompasses our instinctive need to care for other people, including strangers. This concept of Group Welfare is vital to our survival. The logic being, if we merely protected our own, eventually we would have no genetic diversity within our population - in other words, no one with which we could mate. This factor is the subject of recent research, which has revealed a striving for ethical behaviors, even among higher developed animals (de Waal 1996).

Our Social Identity is the key to arrive at mating in the accepted way. No higher species demonstrates a rule to just mate at random. Lower species can be seen mimicking our own reproductive behaviors. Courting, fighting, and seduction: all are processes in the mating ritual which are evidenced in other species. In other species, however, these processes exist for the sole function of insuring a successful mating with the best avai-lable partner. Like most other species we seem to have to convey a sense of who we are in order for us to be appropriately judged by a potential partner. But we also need to be accepted by the group, and to be accepted by the most important individuals in the group.

This is, in fact, the marketing of ourselves. All of this is basically driven by instincts. The program runs in the background of our being for life. It is also not merely a set of programs that can be switched off once we have attained a desired or expected minimum goal. Our need for Social Identity should not be misinterpreted for sexuality but is a prerequisite for natural selection inherent in most species. Thus this instinctive programming remains part of our being: it remains regardless of 1) whether we at-tained the goal or 2) whether the goal was even attainable.

Thus a striving for Social Identity can be noticed as a normal feature also among affluent senior citizens, as well as among members the gay community. However, in the mind of the casual observer there is no direct correlation between the signs of our quest for Social Identity to our instinctive drive for reproduction. Many times these activities just seem normal, sometimes a bit odd, and sometimes they appear as boastful. But most frequently, they appear to have no relationship whatsoever with the desired end goal.

And then there is Mating. The task of our biologic selves.

Conform or differentiate?

It is obvious that all these factors in the Paradigm have some meaning in a commercial situation, for marketing. In the intense commercial competition of the affluent society, those factors attracting the most interest among marketers are Safety, Delight, and Social Identity. But it is obvious that the exploration of Social Identity still may offer more in the way of understanding buyer behavior, even if many suppliers (product developers, marketers, sales people, etc.) already exploit it with great success in practice.

The strategy to become the chosen partner lies in demonstrating one's attractiveness. The needs of the Social Identity are twofold. First, the individual wants to be accepted as a member of his/her group, or society (i.e., "all males wear trousers ...") and consequently conforms to its norms. Secondly, he/she wants to be paid attention to as a unique individual, to be differentiated from all other members in the society (i.e., "...but they wear different ties"). This also helps explain our conspicuous consumption (Veblen 1925) for items such as Mercedes Benz cars and Rolex watches. However, this idea can also serve to explain the preference given to having particular physical attributes, such as a great suntan. One person might value physical attributes as highly as another might value a high paid corporate position at a top company: the particular "thing" being valued will be unique to each person.

Luckily, human beings are bestowed with a wide range of strategies to crea-te the Social Identity that we instinctively need. Our Social Identity isn't founded just on physical attributes, great courage or strength, but also thrives on a keen intellect, a gentle manner with children, or just a fat wallet. Our social identity exists whether we chose to lead a rather plain life or whether we opt for an ostentatious lifestyle; or whether you chose to demonstrate your contempt of wealth and consumption by dressing down and driving an older car. It all is a question of how you want to be perceived by others, and how you perceive yourself.

Shopping for metavalue

Our instinct for Social Identity never sleeps. Recent research tells us that we always want to reassure ourselves of who we are, even when we are alone, which makes the emphasis on our behavior as buyers and consumers even stronger.

Depending on our personal strategy, we value different prospects differently. Rational needs taken care of, our Social Identity drives us to sell and buy to obtain the utilities that give us the most rewarding exchange for our transactions. Regardless if it gives us money or merchandise, we are looking for a personal benefit: the necessities for physical survival, the intangible reward of public acceptance or even the more subtle pleasure of contributing to charity. All is shopping for value - not the least meta values.

Professional behavior is no exception. It is well known that physicians prescription of medicines is based on their Social Identity as much as on their medicinal skill. The cautious physician sticks to prescribing the proven tried and true drugs; while the one who wants to be regarded as the more "informed" or "in the know" physician prefers to offer his patients those pharmaceuticals which are derived from the latest, cutting edge medical research and development.

Even business-to-business

In big business, buyers of computers have been seen buying inexplicably more powerful and complex equipment. Some have blatantly opted for the flashiest, fastest, latest and greatest technology. In sharp contrast, there are still buyers who prefer to go with the traditional, basic, everyday outfit, which may be a safer purchase decision.

The two most influential reasons for choosing a certain brand or product, apart from its objectively assessible functional utility, are the buyer's need for Security and Safety, and his/her aspiration for Social Identity. Which, of course, may also be seen negatively as efforts to avoid any psycho-social risks.

Marketing in itself cannot, contrary to popular belief, create any basic needs. It may, though, be instrumental in suggesting ways of fulfillment of the strivings which are already there, as shown in the Paradigm. Moral and ethical aspects cannot be put on the need structure of the Paradigm as such. The need for food is not immoral, but if it is satisfied by cannibalism, the consequences of the need may be considered as such. The decision to buy a big, fuel-wasting off-road vehicle for urban driving only is, biologically seen, just normal, but may be unethic when regarded from an environmental point of view.