Christophe wrote:Given that in "econology" you have savings, the notion of marketing is necessarily a little induced right? For me, the concept of marketing does not only include aggressive marketing which consists in selling kkchoz that you do not necessarily need ... thus creating overconsumption.
Marketing is also (well, I think) all that is to speak and present a product, right?
So on this forum, we are all doing "marketing" for less dirty development ... am I wrong?
In the term "econology", I would take the notion of economy as that of finding economically viable and acceptable solutions.
One can have aggressive marketing which consists in forcing people to buy or to over-consume. We can also have marketing that encourages people to buy by presenting the right arguments.
In my opinion, if we try to encourage ordinary people to use green energies only on the aspect "it's good for the planet", that will not be enough. We need other arguments, especially economic ones. For example, marketing arguments that justify the replacement of an oil boiler by a pellet boiler.
Christophe wrote:If not to return to our fellow, he promised me (in MP) that I would not have used any robot (and his answer already proves that he himself is not a robot ...) ...
I received neither MP nor email with his request and as the address of the questionnaire was censored
, I can't even read the questions! Difficult to form an opinion
Finally, the title of his thesis is
"What are the real motivations of consumers to choose green energy?"
and not "How do you force people to buy green energy?"
Isn't that the difference between econological marketing and aggressive marketing?
In any case, if someone can send me the address of the questionnaire in PM, I'm interested? I'm curious about the results of the survey ...
I would not have said that, but exactly the opposite.
