The stupidity of peer review

John Desmond and I were invited to write a piece for the Journal of Marketing Management on psychoanalytic approaches in marketing.  We did.  Here’s one of the reviewer’s primary criticisms (there were others, I should add):

“You are not engaging with the marketing scholarship that is pscyhoanalytic. For example, what of John Desmond’s book Hearts of Darkness, which specifically provides a psychoanalytic exploration of literature into consumer behaviour? Other literature is also overlooked, such as Dunne & Cluley’s recent piece From Commodity Fetishism to Commodity Narcissism published in Marketing Theory and straight through to some of Holbrook’s own engagements with psychoanalysis (his chapter that responds to the Consumer Odyssey in Introspective Essays on Consumer Research), to name but a few. It is unfortunate to say that the author is overlooking work and hence the argument runs flat”.

I would love to congratulate the reviewer for their insight.  



Perfect but paradoxical targeting

I was just reading this page on the Guardian about young people being burdened with debt. Guess what adverts I was served?  A list of best buy credit cards, a loan, a bankruptcy report, a PFI claim and walk in showers (no algorithm is perfect I guess).  Given the article seems to warn against the sustainability and unfairness of this debt burden and the adds are for more debt: I’ve no idea what to think!

Perfect but paradoxical targeting
Perfect but paradoxical targeting