text:
From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing
Although consumers typically expect organizations to profit from marketing goods and services, they also believe that certain organizations, like those that focus on religion and health, should prioritize communal obligations. Indeed, consumers may find it morally distressing when communally focused organizations use overtly commercial marketing strategies like rebranding or value-based pricing. We demonstrate how moral distress and consumer backlash result from such taboo trade-offs and investigate when communal-sharing rhetoric for religious and pharmaceutical marketing reduces distress. Communal justifications used by communally focused organizations are particularly effective when consumers are not closely monitoring the motives of the organization or when the product is need-based. However, communal justifications become less effective and market-pricing justifications become more effective when consumers are attuned to the persuasive intentions of the organization. Implications for consumer goals are discussed.
Although consumers expect organizations to profit from marketing goods and services, they prefer that certain types of organizations abide by communal obligations. Consumers should therefore perceive a normative breach, or a taboo trade-off, when organizations operating within communally focused domains, like religion and health care, rely on commercial marketing strategies like rebranding or value-based pricing. Commercial marketing that is especially transparent may anger consumers and cause backlash against the organization. We use religious and pharmaceutical marketing as case studies to examine negative response to commercial marketing in communally focused domains. We also test the efficacy of rhetorical justifications, which highlight communal aspects of organizational practices, to assuage distress and reduce backlash.
Religious organizations are using commercial marketing techniques to compete with the secular world for the allegiance of worshipers. Because congregants generally believe that a church's purpose is to promote communal endeavors (and not simply recruit paying members), we question whether these strategies undermine the perceived sanctity of religious organizations and gauge the extent to which communally focused justifications restore that sanctity. Likewise, in the domain of health care, consumers tend to favor a communal focus and often endorse the view that medical care should be provided as needed, rather than on the ability or willingness to pay. As with religious consumers, health care consumers should be distressed by transparent commercial strategies that signal a market approach to patient care. This seems particularly salient for pharmaceuticals and the value-based pricing of lifesaving drugs (Gregson et al. 2005). What both types of organizations have in common is that they may successfully justify their behavior by shifting perceptions to communal responsibilities.
The use of commercial marketing strategies in communal domains has important implications for consumer goals and well-being. Successful commercial marketing strategies may benefit consumers by encouraging religious participation and medication adherence, both of which have been associated with better health and longer life (McCullough and Willoughby 2009). However, if commercial strategies suggest a conspicuous market approach to religion and health care, then consumers may be alienated and either disengage or lash out.
In what follows, we present a model that predicts the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that result when commercial marketing strategies appear in communally focused domains. We then examine the processes by which consumer distress may be rhetorically mitigated.
Fiske's Theory of Social Relations and Taboo Trade-offs by Organizations
Fiske's (1991, 1992) social relational theory documents four extensively validated categories of norms that organize our social world (Haslam 2004): communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. Our inquiry focuses on the individualist and collectivist end points of Fiske's continuum:
Market pricing (MP): People give and take according to a value or utility metric, typically money, which group members can freely exchange based on cost-benefit analysis of consumer value. The structure underlies capitalism and business transactions.
Communal sharing (CS): People give as they can and take as they need. Group members are treated as a community and share rights and responsibilities designated by their ability and needs. The structure underlies sharing a commons (e.g., kibbutzim or co-op), family, or other close (e.g., agapic) relationships.
We extend the theory to address interactions of consumers with organizations (March 1994). Although most organizations (profit and nonprofit) rely on a market-pricing approach, consumers sometimes believe that organizations ought to be subject to communal-sharing obligations. Prior research shows that organizations can be viewed in nonmarket terms; a bank, for example, can elicit communal expectations based on past communal behavior (Aggarwal 2004), and consumers can view service relationships with restaurants and travel agencies as a friendship (Wan, Hui, and Wyer 2011). These expectations arise because consumers can develop relationships with companies that parallel interpersonal relationships (Fournier 1998).
We explore what happens when consumers desire (and even expect) communal-sharing behavior from an organization but receive market-pricing behavior instead. Actions that extend market-pricing norms into spheres traditionally regulated by communal-sharing norms constitute a taboo trade-off (Fiske and Tetlock 1997; McGraw, Tetlock, and Kristel 2003). Empirical evidence identifies two reactions to taboo trade-offs (Rai and Fiske 2011; Tetlock et al. 2000): moral outrage and moral cleansing.
Moral Outrage
The sacred-value protection model (Tetlock 2002) suggests that taboo trade-offs are disturbing because they reduce sacred values that are meant to be infinitely important, such as faith, dignity, or life, to finite monetary values (Baron and Spranca 1997; Tetlock, Peterson, and Lerner 1996). People are quick to criticize those who create taboo trade-offs. For instance, the public was outraged when they found that the Clinton administration provided major campaign contributors a night's stay in the Lincoln bedroom (McGraw and Tetlock 2005). Consumers become similarly distressed when companies that foster a communal relationship revert to market pricing, such as charging fees for simple requests (Aggarwal 2004).
Moral Cleansing
Merely contemplating taboo trade-offs can threaten one's moral identity (Tetlock 2002; Tetlock et al. 2000) and elicit feelings of disgust (Haidt and Algoe 2004). These feelings, in turn, motivate people to morally "cleanse" themselves. For example, people were more likely to volunteer for an organ donation campaign after reading about an administrator's choice between funding a lifesaving operation for a boy and purchasing hospital beds (Tetlock et al. 2000). Other moral cleansing acts take the form of backlash—such as boycotts, political lobbying, or negative word of mouth—in an effort to punish communal organizations that adopt commercial strategies. For example, doctors called for a boycott of Abbott Laboratories after finding out about the company's 400% price increase for a particular drug, which was designed to steer patients to a new HIV drug (Harris 2004).
Relational Framing by Organizations
Taboo trade-offs are cognitively taxing and emotionally unpleasant; they are aversive states that people prefer to avoid (Ehrich and Irwin 2005; Gross 1998, 2002; Luce, Bettman, and Payne 1997; Nowlis, Kahn, and Dhar 2002). Thus, consumers who are offered justifications that reframe taboo trade-offs into something less distressing may forgive companies that transgress (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; McGraw and Tetlock 2005).
In our inquiry, we explore how organizations reframe their market-pricing strategies into communal-sharing behavior (e.g., "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there"). Previous research supports our notion that relational framing can assuage distress over market-pricing strategies (Tuk et al. 2009). For instance, the Clinton administration effectively justified granting favors to campaign donors by invoking the norm of reciprocity: friends (Clinton) returning a favor to friends (donor; Cialdini 2001; McGraw and Tetlock 2005). Similarly, we examine how organizations in religion and health care can use communal rhetoric to neutralize negative reactions to commercial marketing strategies.
Organizations offering justifications may successfully manage consumer impressions because consumers' default cognitive reaction is to readily accept justifications, particularly when it is difficult to process information and weigh the credibility of claims (Gilbert, Krull, and Malone 1990; Kunda 1990; Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Tetlock 2002; Tuk et al. 2009). Insofar as the public is not invested in monitoring church or corporate misconduct, churches and corporations may have considerable latitude in assuaging reactions to apparent norm violations.
Religious Marketing Studies
Religious organizations are increasingly meeting congregant needs with secular marketing techniques (Kenneson and Street 1997; Symonds 2005). The strategic benefits of religious marketing are well documented (Drucker 1989; Schlesinger and Mellado 1991; Shawchuck et al. 1992). Megachurches, such as the 20,000 member Willow Creek Church, have revamped their offerings based on market-research surveys asking why people do not attend church (Schlesinger and Mellado 1991; Symonds 2005). Some churches employ MBAs or consulting agencies to create strategic marketing plans that address recruiting, atmospherics, and customer service, and some synagogues are sending volunteers to supermarkets for Passover outreach and throwing cocktail recruiting parties (Luo 2006).
Successful religious marketing diverges from deeply rooted sentiments—dating back to Martin Luther's campaign against selling indulgences—that the faithful should defend religious principles against secular intrusions (Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989). Anecdotal evidence also indicates that consumers view religious marketing as a secular-sacred breach. The website "Churchmarketingsucks.com," for example, presents conspicuous forms of religious marketing: churches raffling Hummer SUVs to promote winter retreats (Graham 2005) or distributing free gasoline vouchers to first-time visitors (Beattie 2005). The academic literature also finds that religious advertising upsets consumers (McDaniel 1986), and the practitioner literature warns that marketing may undermine the sanctity of the church (e.g., Shawchuck et al. 1992).
How can the apparent effectiveness of religious marketing be reconciled with its potential for denunciation? Our framework proposes that the degree of distress caused by marketing hinges on the congruence between the relational norm ascribed to the organization and the norm ascribed to the strategy. Negative reactions should occur for religious organizations that use commercial marketing (i.e., market pricing) but not community-based marketing (i.e., communal sharing). Still, even when strategies have an underlying market focus, organizations may successfully assuage distress by communally reframing the strategy.
Study 1: Religious Marketing Strategies
Is all religious marketing created equal? We examined whether the acceptability of religious marketing strategies depends on the underlying market pricing or communal-sharing norms. As a point of comparison, we contrasted the acceptability of strategies intended for a church with those intended for a credit union, a traditionally commercial enterprise.
Prior to the study, we surveyed whether people expected a communal-sharing focus from a church (N = 20). All participants endorsed this focus, in which "priorities and offerings [are] based on cooperative and relationship-building principles," over a market focus, in which "priorities and offerings [are] based on business and economic principles." In contrast, only 15% endorsed a community-based rule for the credit union.
Thirty-two undergraduates, participating for partial course credit, were randomly assigned to either the church or credit union condition and told that the organization was considering a variety of marketing strategies "to better serve, recruit, and retain members." Nine broad strategies were presented that could be viewed as either communal sharing (e.g., establishing child care services) or market pricing (e.g., rebranding; see table 1). Respondents were asked to judge how acceptable or unacceptable each strategy was from an "ethical, moral, or principled standpoint."
As a manipulation check, 16 participants were randomly selected from the same population to judge the strategies' relational focus and were told that an organization was considering using the strategies (church or credit union not mentioned). Respondents judged whether each strategy was communal (based on cooperative and relationship-building principles) or market focused (based on business and economic principles) on an 8-point scale, with end points "community focused" and "market focused."
We first examined the perceived focus (communal sharing vs. market pricing) of the strategies. An inspection of the ratings revealed three categories of responses: three were market-pricing focused (M = 6.31–6.75), three were communal-sharing focused (M = 2.06–2.81), and three were at the midpoint (M= 3.69–4.44; table 1).
We created a hierarchical regression model to test the effects of relational strategy on judgments of acceptability within participants. We first regressed acceptability judgments on the mean focus of the marketing strategy. For each participant, we calculated an unstandardized beta weight for the effect of the strategy on acceptability. We then regressed these beta weights on the condition factor (church or credit union). The model was significant (F(1, 31) = 10.9; p <.01). Although there was no difference in acceptability between the church and credit union conditions (t(31) = 0.8, NS), there was a significant effect of condition on the slope (t(31) = 3.3, p <.01), indicating that the strategy's relational focus influenced acceptability judgments for the church but not the credit union. Judgments of acceptability were also collapsed into three relational-focus categories (see fig. 1). A mixed-model ANOVA using the three categorized means for each subject confirmed the hierarchical analysis. The effect of strategy type was significant: communal-sharing strategies were judged as more acceptable than market-pricing strategies (F(2, 60) = 14.9, p <.001; η2 =.32). Respondents also rated the strategies as more acceptable for the credit union than the church, although the effect was not significant (F(1, 30) = 2.3; p <.14; η2=.07). The main effects, however, were qualified by a significant two-way interaction (F(2, 60) = 4.9, p <.01; η2 =.19).
The relational focus of a marketing strategy and the nature of the enacting organization interact to affect the strategy's level of acceptance. Although consumers are reluctant to accept commercial strategies, such as religious advertising (McDaniel 1986), we show that consumers approve of marketing when it is congruent with a communal nature. The relational focus of the strategy, however, had little effect on evaluations of the credit union, an organization with a clear commercial focus. Consistent with previous work, participants resisted market pricing in the communal domain but accepted it elsewhere (Fiske and Tetlock 1997; McGraw et al. 2003).
Behavioral Intentions and Mediation
The use of commercial-marketing strategies by religious organizations may have negative implications for the organization as well as worshippers. We conducted a brief follow-up study to examine whether perceptions of religious marketing influence willingness to join an organization. Fifty-three undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of the two most disparate marketing strategies in table 1: providing child care to members (CS) or rebranding (MP). After reading about the church's consideration of the strategy, participants indicated their agreement with the statement, "I would find it bothersome if the church would engage in such a practice" on a 7-point scale labeled "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Respondents also judged, on a 7-point scale labeled "very likely" to "very unlikely," their willingness to join such an organization.
Respondents were more bothered by the market-pricing strategy (M = 4.21) than the communal-sharing strategy (M = 2.21; t(51)=4.0, p <.001; Cohen's d = 1.18) and less willing to join a religious organization that used the market-pricing strategy (M = 5.82) than the communal-sharing strategy (M = 4.76; t(51) = 2.2, p <.05; d =.58). The degree to which respondents were bothered by the strategy mediated the effect on willingness to join the organizations (a × b =.82, 95% CI =.22–1.51). The direct effect of marketing strategy became nonsignificant (c = 1.05, t = 2.20; c =.22, t =.44, p >.65), signaling indirect only mediation (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010).
Study 2: Outsourcing Prayer
We next examine reactions to a specific religious marketing strategy—outsourcing prayer—and tested the effectiveness of communal justifications to assuage distress. Although marketing is more commonly employed by nondenominational churches, traditional churches also use religious marketing. Many Catholic churches in the United States are unable to fulfill requests for Mass intentions (i.e., request a Mass to be celebrated for a friend or loved one) in a timely manner and have been outsourcing prayer requests to priests in India (Rai 2004). The practice serves the needs of the congregation with a market-pricing solution: matching supply with demand. The congregation can fulfill prayer requests quickly, and poorly funded Indian churches receive a portion of the donation. We suspect that the explicit connection to the well-known market-pricing practice of outsourcing will distress consumers, but that communally justifying the practice will attenuate those reactions.
One hundred one undergraduates participated in the study for partial course credit. They learned about the Catholic Church's decision to send Mass (i.e., prayer) requests to a congregation in rural India because local congregations could not keep up with demand. The materials outlined the practice and discussed some of the benefits to both congregations and the congregants (see app. A). Within the description of the practice was one of three randomly assigned manipulations. Respondents were presented with a communal-sharing justification, a market-pricing justification, or no justification. The communal-sharing justification was:
From the perspective of the Catholic Church everyone is part of God's community. It does not matter to God who says the Mass. Priests, and their congregations for that matter, are undifferentiated in God's eyes.
To test whether a market-pricing justification would influence feelings about the outsourcing prayer policy (Langer, Blank, and Chanowitz 1978), we included the following:
From the perspective of the Catholic Church, it is a simple matter of matching supply and demand in the market for prayer services—and thus maximizing prayers and revenue generation on a worldwide basis.
Respondents then expressed their agreement with two statements measuring their reaction to the policy: (1) "I find it bothersome that the Church would engage in such a practice," and (2) "The Church is not justified to enact such a policy." The anchors of the 7-point scales were labeled, "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree."
One criticism of the evidence for taboo trade-offs is that judgments are subject to socially desirable responding (Johar 2005; Kahn 2005). To determine whether outsourcing prayer creates real distress, we examine whether consumers react as if they are tainted by taboo trade-offs (Tetlock 2002). One such response to unethical deeds is to seek out physical cleansing opportunities (Zhong and Liljenquist 2006). To examine physical cleansing due to viewing outsourcing prayer in market-pricing terms, we included an ostensibly unrelated product preference survey for various cleansing products (Dove shower soap, Windex cleaner, Crest toothpaste, and Tide laundry detergent) and noncleansing products (Sony CD cases, Post-It notes, Nantucket Nectars juice, and Energizer batteries; Zhong and Liljenquist 2006). Product preferences were measured on a 7-point scale, with the end points, "completely undesirable" and "completely desirable."
The two measures of distress were coded 1 through 7, where higher numbers indicated greater distress with the policy. The correlated (r =.67; p <.001) measures were averaged to form a composite measure. Reactions to the market-pricing justification condition (M = 3.78) were not significantly different from the no-justification condition (M = 4.00), but reactions to each condition were significantly more distressing than reactions to the communal-sharing justification (M = 2.81; t(66) = 3.4, p <.01; d =.83, and t(65) = 2.6, p <.05; d =.67; p <.05, respectively). An ANOVA test of the relational frame manipulation was significant (F(1, 100) = 6.2, p <.001; η2 =.11).
We calculated a difference score of the average ratings of the cleansing and noncleansing products; higher numbers indicated a greater preference for the cleansing products. Because there were no differences in preferences in the market-pricing and no-justification conditions, we pooled those responses and compared them to responses in the communal-sharing condition. Consistent with explicit ratings, respondents in the market-pricing and no-justification conditions had larger difference scores than those in the communal-sharing justification condition (M = 0.83 vs. M = 0.35, respectively; t(99) = 2.0, p <.05; d =.43).
Negative reactions to the Catholic Church's use of outsourcing prayer, a market-pricing practice, were assuaged by a communal-sharing justification. A market-pricing justification had no effect on default perceptions of the practice; moral distress with a description of outsourcing that contained no justification was no different from distress after a market-pricing justification. Furthermore, evidence of moral cleansing among consumers exposed to taboo trade-offs suggests they are not simply responding in socially desirable ways but are indeed morally distressed by the practice of outsourcing prayers.
Study 3: Exacerbating Relational Justification Effects
In order to examine the cognitive processes that underlie the effectiveness of communal justifications, we examined reactions to justifications for outsourcing prayer when processing is impaired. We expected that the justification effects shown in the previous study would be more pronounced when consumers are cognitively busy because they will be inclined to rely on their initial reaction to the rationale (Gilbert et al. 1990).
One hundred ninety-three undergraduates participated in the study for partial course credit. They were presented an abbreviated version of the outsourcing stimuli from study 2 (see app. B). Respondents were randomly assigned to either the communal-sharing justification or the market-pricing justification.
Prior to reading the scenario, participants were also randomly assigned to a low or high cognitive load condition. The low-load condition featured an eight-digit string of the same number, whereas the high-load condition featured an eight-digit string of different numbers (Gilbert and Hixon 1991; Krull 1993).
We assessed participants' reactions to the policy. We presented respondents with three statements designed to tap into potential feelings of outrage: (1) "It is outrageous for the Church to send prayers to India." (2) "It distresses me that a religious organization would engage in such a practice." (3) "It angers me that the Church would use this practice instead of finding another solution." Respondents indicated their agreement with the statement on a 7-point scale with anchors labeled "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree."
Responses to the three distress-related measures were highly correlated (α =.91), so we formed a composite measure of distress by averaging participants' responses. Replicating study 2, the low-load condition analysis revealed an effect of justification; participants in the communal-sharing justification condition were less distressed (M = 3.08) than those in the market-pricing condition (M = 3.69; t(96) = 1.96, p <.05; d =.40; fig. 2). The difference in judgments, however, became more pronounced when participants were under a higher load (MCS = 2.63 vs. MMP = 4.13; the interaction of justification and load was significant; F(1, 192) = 4.1, p <.001; η2 =.02).
The study replicates the effectiveness of a communal-sharing justification of a commercial-marketing strategy. Importantly, the study also shows the justification to become even more effective when consumers lack the cognitive resources to attend to the situation.
General Discussion about Religious Marketing
Both religious organizations and consumers can benefit from marketing. Our studies indicate, however, that not every religious marketing strategy is equally acceptable; religious marketing may backfire if its market-pricing nature is overly transparent. A compelling demonstration of this effect is the use of a classic market-pricing strategy, outsourcing, to accommodate Mass requests. Outsourcing prayer solves a real problem: the church's inability to cater to all of their members. Because outsourcing prayer is also associated with corporate market-pricing practices, it challenges the church to communally reframe perceptions—a strategy that is especially effective when consumers are less apt to question the church's motives.
Pharmaceutical Marketing
Although taboo trade-offs may threaten religious organizations (which have clear communal goals and operate in a sacred world that consumers distinguish from the marketplace; Belk 2005; Belk et al. 1989; Miller 2004), we investigate whether the same effect occurs in the highly lucrative, unquestionably for-profit, enterprise of pharmaceutical marketing (Claxton et al. 2007; Lueck 2003). We focus on pharmaceutical pricing because many people believe that "drug companies put profits ahead of people" (Kaiser Report 2005), a sentiment that is at odds with consumers' preference for health-related endeavors to operate with sensitivity to communal norms. For instance, 85% of undergraduates (N = 40) judged a communal focus more appropriate than a market-pricing focus to guide a pharmaceutical company's business plan; only 20%, however, made the same judgment for a software company.
Pharmaceutical pricing justifications provide a timely, real-world investigation of relational framing. Indeed, the industry is highly motivated to reduce the tension between how the industry operates and how consumers believe it ought to operate (Angell 2004). Consumers are often asked to accept higher prices to generate revenue to fund research and development—implicit cooperation that satisfies the communal goal of improved public health and well-being. Abbot Laboratories, for example, warded off boycott threats by justifying price increases as necessary to fund new drug research (Harris 2004). Genentech, alternatively, was rebuked for the $100,000 price tag of its blockbuster cancer drug, Avastin, when a company executive acknowledged that the price was based on the "value of innovation and the value of new therapies" (Berenson 2006). Thus, we expect that pricing justifications that highlight a company's profit goals, in the communally preferred domain of health, should be distressing to consumers—except when a communal-sharing justification is offered.
Study 4: Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies
Similar to study 1, we expected that reactions to pharmaceutical marketing strategies would depend on their underlying relational norm. We contrasted judgments about the acceptability of strategies, which were either market pricing or communal sharing in nature, with judgments made for a software company, which consumers expect to act as a for-profit business. Both pharmaceuticals and software are otherwise similar industries: high research and development costs, low manufacturing and distribution costs, limited patent protection, and heavy demand to develop new technology. In an analysis of blue-chip stocks, Microsoft was second only to Pfizer with the highest percentage of capital invested in R&D (Halperin 2006).
We surveyed an adult sample (N = 1975; 61% female; median age = 49 years) to confirm our assertion that consumers believe the pricing of medicine should be based on communal sharing rather than market-pricing principles. A greater proportion of respondents believed that medication should be priced according to need, compared to software (86% vs. 56%, respectively; χ2 = 670.5; p <.001).
Eighty-nine undergraduates participated in the study for partial course credit. They were randomly assigned to either a pharmaceutical or software condition and told that the company is considering a variety of marketing strategies to "serve, recruit, and retain customers." The six marketing strategies are listed in table 2. We included two pricing-related strategies in the material: the market-pricing strategy was labeled "value-based pricing" and was described, in part, as "selling prices based on the perceived value to the customer, instead of on other traditional factors like production costs or competitor's prices." The communal-sharing strategy was labeled "ensure access for customers in need," and was described, in part, as "create a special pricing program in which low-income customers can apply for and receive the company's product at a lower cost." Respondents judged how unacceptable or acceptable each strategy was from an "ethical, moral, or principled standpoint" on a 7-point scale with the end points labeled, "completely unacceptable" and "completely acceptable."
As a manipulation check, 23 participants were randomly selected from the same population to judge the strategies' relational focus. They were told that an organization was considering using the strategies (pharmaceutical or software not mentioned). Respondents judged whether each strategy was communal (based on cooperative and relationship-building principles) or market focused (based on business and economic principles) on an 8-point scale, with end points "community focused" and "market focused."
We first examined the perceived focus (communal sharing vs. market pricing) of the strategies on the 8-point response scale (coded 1 through 8), with higher numbers indicating greater market focus. Three means indicated a market-pricing focus (M = 6.13–6.65) and three indicated a communal-sharing focus (M = 2.48–2.78; table 2).
Judgments of acceptability for the six strategies were coded 1 through 7, with higher numbers indicating greater acceptance. We created a hierarchical regression model to test the effects of the underlying relational strategy on judgments of acceptability within participants. We first regressed acceptability judgments on the mean focus of the marketing strategy. For each participant, we calculated an unstandardized beta weight for the effect of the strategy on judged acceptability. We then regressed these beta weights on the condition factor (pharmaceutical or software). The model was significant (F(1, 87) = 9.5; p <.001). There was no effect of condition on the intercept (t(85) = 0.1, NS), which indicated no difference in acceptability between the pharmaceutical and software conditions. However, there was a significant effect of condition on the slope (t(87) = 3.1; p <.01), which indicated that the strategy's relational focus had little effect on acceptability judgments for the software company but a significant effect for the pharmaceutical company. Figure 3A shows the data collapsed into the two relational-focus categories. A mixed-model ANOVA using the two categorized means for each subject confirmed the analysis. The effect of strategy type was significant; communal-sharing strategies were judged more acceptable than market-pricing strategies (F(1, 87)=33.5, p <.001; η2=.28). Respondents also judged the strategies to be more acceptable for a software than a pharmaceutical company (F(1, 87)=10.9, p <.001; η2=.11). The main effects, however, were qualified by a significant two-way interaction (F(1, 87)=9.4, p <.01; η2=10).
The two marketing strategies that referred to pricing decisions are the focus of our subsequent studies. We examined the interaction of "value pricing" and "ensuring access" depending on the type of company (see fig. 3B; F(1, 87) = 11.0, p <. 001; η2 =.11). The value-pricing strategy was judged more acceptable for a software company than for a pharmaceutical company (t(87) = 2.8, p <.01; d =.58), but the reverse occurred for ensuring access to customers (t(87) = 1.9, p <.06; d =.38).
Our proposed taboo trade-off effect holds in the for-profit context of health care. The communal-sharing or market-pricing nature of a marketing strategy had little effect on judgments of acceptability for a software company but a substantial effect for a pharmaceutical company.
Behavioral Intentions
Pharmaceutical pricing decisions showed the largest differences in acceptance due to the strategy's relational focus. Thus, we conducted a brief follow-up study to examine consumer backlash against market-pricing versus communal-sharing pricing strategies. Eight hundred sixty-three adults (54% female; median age = 56 years) were randomly assigned to one of the two pricing strategies from table 2: value-based pricing (market pricing) or ensuring accessibility to patients (communal sharing). After reading about a pharmaceutical company that is considering using the (randomly assigned) strategy, participants indicated their agreement to the statement, "I would find it bothersome if the company would engage in such a practice," on a 7-point scale labeled "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree." Respondents also judged on a 7-point scale, labeled "extremely unlikely" and "extremely likely," how likely they were to engage in behaviors due to the company's actions. Items were as follows: (1) Complain to a family member, friend, or coworker about this pharmaceutical company, (2) Ask your doctor to prescribe a generic drug instead of a drug from this company the next time you are sick, and (3) Volunteer for a letter-writing campaign that encourages the government to allow more than one company to produce patented drugs in order to increase competition and lower prices.
The measure of distress was coded 1 through 7, where higher numbers indicated greater agreement. Respondents were more bothered by the market-pricing strategy (M = 4.97) than the communal-sharing strategy (M = 2.65; t(861) = 17.9, p <.001; d = 1.26). The measures of behavioral intentions were coded 1 through 7, where higher numbers indicated higher reported intentions to engage in behaviors detrimental to the company. Respondents were more likely to report that they would complain (M = 5.23 vs. 3.05; t(861) = 16.6, p <.001; d = 1.10), ask for generic drugs (M = 3.98 vs. 2.26; t(861) = 12.8, p <.001; d =.87), and volunteer for a letter-writing campaign (M = 4.56 vs. 3.77; t(861) = 5.5, p <.01; d =.38) when the value-based pricing strategy was employed.
Study 5: Justifying Pricing Decisions
We have shown that reactions to pricing decisions differ between the pharmaceutical industry and the software industry. Next, we test whether relationally reframing market-pricing actions with communal-sharing justifications influences consumer distress in the two industries. Although we expect an effect of communal-sharing justification in the pharmaceutical domain, we suspect that the justification will not be as influential in the software domain because the market-pricing goals of the industry are already known and accepted. We use a common justification for the pharmaceutical industry based on findings by Kahneman, Knestch, and Thaler (1986a, 1986b), showing that price increases as the result of pass-through costs (such as research and development) were deemed considered more fair than those based on market considerations (e.g., increased demand).
Two hundred forty-two adult participants (57% female; median age = 46 years) participated in a paid web-based survey. They were randomly assigned to review statements from either a pharmaceutical or software company that lost $50 million developing a new product (drug or software program, respectively). The company was considering raising the price of a popular product to make up for the losses (see app. C). Participants were randomly presented a communal-sharing justification ("in order to continue their ground-breaking research and development of medicines that benefit everyone") or a market-pricing justification ("in order to continue record-breaking profits that benefit investors"). Participants were then presented the statements: "This is a fair pricing strategy" and "I support the use of this pricing strategy," and responded on a 7-point scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."
Responses were coded 1 through 7, where higher numbers indicated greater disagreement. The measures were highly correlated (r =.90; p <.001), so we computed a composite variable of distress by averaging responses. Figure 4A shows the mean distress rating by relational justification and company type. The results show a main effect of industry where respondents were more distressed with raising drug prices than software prices (F(1, 238) = 7.74, p <.001; η2 =.03). There was also a main effect of relational frame (F(1, 238) = 5.5, p <.05; η2 =.02), where respondents were more distressed with the market-pricing justification than with the communal-sharing justification. The main effects were qualified by a significant company by relational-frame interaction (F(1, 238) = 5.4, p <.05; η2 =.02), showing that although communal-sharing justifications reduce consumer distress over price increases for drugs (MMP = 5.56 vs. MCS = 4.61; t(121) = 3.2, p <.01; d =.58), the same pattern does not hold true for software (MMP = 4.53 vs. MCS = 4.53; NS). Regardless of how the price increase was justified for the software, participants experienced less distress.
Consumers are averse to market-pricing justifications for goods that they feel should be governed by communal rules. Moreover, communal-sharing justifications mitigate distress by making consumers feel that costs are necessary for community well-being. Communally reframed pharmaceutical pricing strategies, furthermore, reduce distress to levels associated with pricing strategies used by the software industry.
Study 6: Need-Based versus Value-Based Drugs
A substantial literature examines the fairness of various pricing strategies as perceived by consumers and finds that fairness is influenced by the product type and the harm caused by high prices (Bolton, Warlop, and Alba 2003; Campbell 1999; Kahneman et al. 1986a, 1986b). For instance, the failure of a firm to reduce prices when costs go down is judged to be more unfair when the product is a drug than when it is furniture (Campbell 2008).
We suspect that the necessity and potentially lifesaving properties of medicine lead consumers to believe that health care companies should have a strong communal focus. Next, we set out to test differences in perceptions of value-based pricing strategies for drugs that the public believes should subject to communal or market rules. Only when consumers believe that the drug price should be governed by communal rules should communal-sharing justifications be necessary and effective.
Before the study, we confirmed that consumers believe that the pricing of lifesaving drugs as opposed to life-enhancing drugs should be based on communal-sharing principles. We asked undergraduates (N = 81) how a cholesterol-lowering drug or an antiwrinkle drug should be priced. A majority (62%) indicated that an anticholesterol drug should be priced according to the needs and means of the patient rather than according to the demands of the marketplace. In contrast, only 28% made the same judgment for an antiwrinkle drug.
Two hundred thirty-seven undergraduates were entered into a lottery in exchange for completing a web survey. They reviewed statements from the CEO of a pharmaceutical company who is considering raising prices on a popular drug to make up for R&D losses on another drug. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition where the price of either an anticholesterol or antiwrinkle drug was raised because of losses on another similar drug. They were also randomly assigned to a condition in which the price increase was accompanied by a communal justification ("continue researching and developing drugs that benefit everyone") or a market-pricing justification ("ensure revenues and profits for a healthy bottom line"; seeapp. D). Participants were then presented the statements: "This is a fair pricing strategy" and "I support the use of this pricing strategy," and responded on a 7-point scale labeled "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."
Responses to the measures were coded as in study 6 and were highly correlated (r =.88; p <.001), so we computed a distress variable by averaging responses. Figure 4B shows mean distress rating by justification and medication type. The results show a main effect of medication type (F(1, 233) = 18.9, p <.001, η2 =.08), in which participants were more distressed at the suggested price increase for the cholesterol drug than for the antiwrinkle drug. There was also a main effect of relational frame (F(1, 233) = 4.9, p <.05; η2 =.02), indicating that respondents were more distressed by market-pricing justifications than communal-sharing justifications. Consistent with our predictions, the main effects were qualified by a relational frame by drug-type interaction in which the communal-sharing justification reduced discomfort for the cholesterol drug (MMP = 4.53 vs. MCS = 3.47; t(125) = 3.0, p <.05; d =.70) but not for the antiwrinkle drug (MMP = 3.0 vs. MCS = 32.95; t(109) =.3; NS). Regardless of how the price increase was justified for the antiwrinkle drug, participants experienced identical levels of distress.
Communal-sharing justifications do not reduce distress for just any drug—consumers need to believe the drug is truly essential. Relative to a market-pricing justification, the communal-sharing justification assuaged consumer distress due to a price increase of a lifesaving drug but had no effect over the same price increase on a cosmetic drug.
Study 7: Attenuating Relational Justification Effects
In our final study, we investigate how the differential effectiveness of communal and market justifications might be decreased. Our studies demonstrate that communal justifications are typically preferred over market justifications for increases in drug price. However, when explicitly asked, most consumers acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry is profit-driven (Kaiser Report 2005). Given the tension between what consumers want and their recognition of reality, we examine what occurs when consumers consider the intentions of organizations. To do so, we use a persuasion-knowledge priming procedure, which should encourage consumers to probe the veracity of the organization's claims (Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Friestad and Wright 1995). We suspect that when consumers consider the organization's intentions, the market-pricing justification will be viewed less negatively because the pharmaceutical company is at least honest about its financial obligations. The effectiveness of the communal-sharing justification, by contrast, may in turn decline because it now conflicts with the company's market-pricing obligations.
One hundred fifty-eight participants (55% female; median age = 46.5 years) participated in a paid web-based survey. The study was presented in two seemingly unrelated sections. Participants were randomly assigned to condition based on Campbell and Kirmani (2000). In the condition where participants are primed with persuasion knowledge, participants are asked to write about how they will persuade a friend to help on a seemingly unpleasant task:
We would like you to make plans. Imagine that you have to bring a task home from work. The task is so big that you are going to need to work on it for most of the weekend—and you still might not get it done. It would be helpful if you can get a friend of yours who is good at the task to help you. The friend, however, is very busy, and so you need to persuade him to help. Please list the (several) ways that you would use to make sure that the friend assists you.
In the no-prime condition, the planning task did not involve a persuasion attempt:
We would like you to make plans. Imagine that you have a friend staying with you. He is in town for business and is working on a big task over the weekend. The task is so big that he is going to need to work on it for most of the weekend—and he still might not get it done. You know that you should not disturb him while he is working and so you need to figure out how to do that. Please list the (several) ways that you would use to make sure that you did not disturb your friend while he works.
Participants were thanked for their participation and told they were moving on to a new study (which was presented in a different font and format). Participants then reviewed the pricing strategy scenario from study 5 and were randomly assigned to either the communal-sharing or market-pricing justifications (see app. C). Respondents expressed their agreement with three statements designed to measure reaction to the policy: (1) "This is a fair pricing strategy." (2) "I support the use of this pricing strategy." (3) "I am upset by this pricing strategy." The anchors of the 7-point scales were labeled "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree." In the no-prime condition we expected to replicate the previous relational framing effect, but when the prime was present, the difference in reactions to the two justifications would be reduced.
The measures were highly correlated (α =.81) and averaged into a composite of consumer distress (reverse coding the ratings of how upset respondents were). Overall, neither main effect of justification nor that of the request was significant; however, an ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 514) = 4.2, p <.05; η2 =.03; see fig. 4C). Although communal-sharing justifications reduce distress over price increases for drugs (MMP = 5.86 vs. MCS = 4.97; t(77) = 2.6, p <.05; d =.60), the same pattern did not hold true when persuasion knowledge was primed (MMP = 5.21 vs. MCS = 5.29; NS). Regardless of how the price increase was justified, participants experienced the same amount of distress when primed with persuasion knowledge.
Communal-sharing justifications do not always reduce pricing distress, nor do market-pricing justifications always increase pricing distress. However, we find a predictable and robust pattern showing that these justifications are polarizing, particularly when consumers are unmotivated to consider an organization's goals. As discussed previously, consumers understand that pharmaceutical companies operate in a for-profit manner but prefer a communal approach. When suspicions are aroused, however, acknowledging a market-pricing orientation may in some ways benefit the organization.
General Discussion of Pharmaceutical Pricing
We tested the effectiveness of relational framing in the domain of health care, where market pricing is often considered a taboo trade-off. Consumers feel greater distress when a pharmaceutical (as opposed to a software) company used commercial marketing. The effect occurs because consumers are more inclined to think that the pharmaceutical industry has a communal obligation to promote well-being. Thus, pharmaceutical industry appeals to accept higher prices for communal benefits are more effective at reducing outrage than software industry appeals. This pattern is limited, however, to drugs that serve lifesaving or extending functions, and not to those that serve a cosmetic function. We thus see converging evidence that consumers are sensitive to trade-offs in a predictable way. Consumers react strongly when a taboo trade-off has been committed but can be assuaged if convinced that their money benefits the greater good. Still, when consumers are encouraged to question the organization's motives, the advantage the communal justification has over the market pricing is eliminated.
General Discussion
Marketing commonly adds value to consumer experience and builds brand relationships. However, certain tactics are distressing when consumers believe that organizations, like churches or pharmaceutical companies, ought to act in communal ways. Indeed, religious advertising is often considered unacceptable (McDaniel 1986). For example, pastors are criticized for recruiting youngsters by hosting violent video game nights (Richtel 2007), and consumers are upset by the value-based pricing of lifesaving drugs (Berenson 2006).
We draw on Fiske's relational theory (1991, 1992) as a framework that delineates rules governing interpersonal and organizational exchanges and contrast the two most dissonant normative categories: market pricing and communal sharing (McGraw et al. 2003). Communal-sharing rules are grounded in deontic principles, whereas market-pricing rules are grounded in utilitarianism. Consumers become upset and can even lash out when organizations use market pricing in communal domains because they see an organization placing profits over people. Consumers, however, do not see taboo trade-offs when market pricing occurs in secular domains, such as credit unions, software companies, and drug companies selling cosmetic drugs.
Relational Framing
People intuitively grasp relationship norms and view their misapplication as taboo (Fiske and Tetlock 1997). We investigated the effect of disguising taboo trade-offs by relationally framing commercial-marketing strategies as communally beneficial (McGraw and Tetlock 2005). When a religious or health care organization uses a communally focused relational justification, consumers are less likely to turn against it.
What influences the effectiveness of relational framing? We began with the assumption that people are motivated to avoid distress and that uncovering taboo trade-offs is effortful and upsetting (Erhlich and Irwin 2005). Of special relevance to relational framing is the tendency to reinterpret situations so that they are not emotionally disruptive (Gross 1998, 2002). Relational framing facilitates the emotion regulation process that, we suspect, will be especially effective when consumers are motivated to accept an organization's justifications. Sympathizers should engage in motivated reasoning that plays up the credibility and moral force of justifications (Kunda 1990; McGraw 2001). Conversely, critics should generate more counterarguments to neutralize industry-offered justifications (Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). In a pilot for the outsourcing prayer study, for example, we found that certain consumers were more influenced by communal justifications (Attaway, Boles, and Singley 1997; McDaniel and Burnett 1990). Participants (N = 106) read about a church outsourcing prayer to Indian priests and were randomly assigned to the communal-sharing or market-pricing justification. Religious service attendance moderated the effect of communal-sharing justifications but not market-pricing justifications. That is, respondents who endorsed attending services regularly or occasionally (i.e., the "churched") were more assuaged by the communal-sharing justification than those who endorsed never or rarely attending (i.e., the "unchurched"), suggesting that those who care more about the church were better persuaded by the justification.
There are good reasons for suspecting that organizations will often succeed in reframing their taboo trade-offs. Organizations typically have a much stronger interest in concealing taboo trade-offs than individuals have in uncovering them. Organizations also have substantial resources—personnel, capital, and access to media—to craft and communicate effective reframing messages. The results of our studies indicate that, insofar as most of the public is not concerned with monitoring church or corporate misconduct at any given moment (most people have more pressing priorities; Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Tuk et al. 2009), organizations have considerable public-relations latitude to justify norm violations. Our findings are also consistent with (1) Gilbert et al.'s (1990) Spinozan hypothesis that our first reaction to new information is to believe it and that disbelieving requires greater cognitive effort, (2) Langer et al.'s (1978) demonstration that even vacuous accounts are effective in justifying norm violations as long as the timing and context is right, and (3) Tetlock's (1981) demonstration that the self-flattering content of justifications is a more powerful predictor of their efficacy than their plausibility.
Sacred Values
The reactions to taboo trade-offs due to commercial marketing are consistent with moral psychology research that documents outrage reactions to pitting secular against sacred values (Baron and Spranca 1997; Haidt 2001; Rai and Fiske 2011; Rozin et al. 1999; Tetlock et al. 2000). Most people, atheists included, insist that certain values are sacred and that it is unacceptable to mix them with secular values like money (Durkheim 1925). Sacredness qualifies as a distinct normative standard of conduct, despite the variation in what things various groups hold sacred and how they uphold their values (Aberle et al. 1950; Belk et al. 1989).
A deep tension exists between what people consider ideologically off-limits and the reality that we live in a world of finite resources in which dispassionately making trade-offs is a defining feature of rationality (Bartels 2008). There are strong cases for expanding market mechanisms into domains where many feel they do not belong: organs (Barnett, Blair, and Kaserman 1992), adoptions (Landes and Posner 1978), pollution credits (Hahn 1989), and prediction markets for terrorism futures (Weber and Tetlock 2003). These arguments lead to anxiety about the legitimacy of institutions (Shiller, Boycko, and Korobov 1991; Sondak and Tyler 2007) and a desire to escape markets (Kozinets 2002). Our results identify one method of justifying the expansion of market pricing into new domains, a method that can, of course, be achieved by invoking the "greater good."
Limitations and Future Directions
Churches and pharmaceutical companies are compelling case studies because of widespread anecdotal evidence that their commercial marketing is distressing to consumers. Future research should examine our effects in other domains. For example, companies that provide strong need-based products and services with inelastic demand (e.g., utilities, hospitals, oil companies) should be subject to backlash from commercial marketing—and may already be experimenting with ways to reframe their inherent taboo trade-offs.
At the outset we suggested that commercial marketing and communal justifications have important implications for consumer goals. Although we find evidence of shifting intentions to disengage from religious activities (study 1) and to lobby against patent restrictions (study 4), future work would benefit from tests of behavioral follow-through.
Although our studies use relational justifications inspired by naturally occurring cases in the marketplace, our studies could be criticized from a stimulus sampling perspective: our effects may have been overly influenced by the particular justifications that we selected. Communal justifications may have other mediators besides moral distress that are worthy of future investigation. For instance, communal-sharing justifications may signal an organization that is warm and caring, which could drive the justification's impact (Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner 2010). We can partially dismiss this explanation by pointing to the interaction in study 5, in which communal-sharing justifications had no effect for a software company.
The use of hybrid justifications is a particularly interesting area to examine, especially given the results of study 7 and research on the effectiveness of two-sided arguments in checking counterarguing (Lumsdaine and Janis 1953). Consider this quote from Billy Tauzin, president of PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry lobbying organization (http://www.phrma.org):
Truth is that we are—as an industry—focused on one thing: the patient. Granted, we're a business—a pretty darn big business. But we're a business OF people working FOR people. We make lives better through better health. (Emphasis original)
Research should explore whether these sorts of complex justifications, which highlight both the market-pricing means and the communal objectives of the organization, are effective even when consumers have been alerted to persuasive intent. Indeed, if anyone has rightly identified the right formula, it is likely to be a lobbying organization.
Appendix A Stimulus Materials Presented to Respondents in Study 2
The Catholic Church has a long-standing practice that allows for a Mass to be said in honor of someone who has died, is ill, or has some other special need. The person requesting the Mass customarily offers about $20 as a donation for each Mass.
Note: A Mass is a Catholic service where there are Biblical readings, sermons, and offerings. A Mass may or may not be attended by members of the congregation or by the person requesting it.
The Catholic Church in the United States cannot always keep up with requests for Masses by their local congregations. Demand is too high, and the supply of priests is too low. Because a single Mass is dedicated to a single individual, there is often a long waiting list to have a requested Mass said.
Suppose the Catholic Church, however, has many priests available to fulfill this need in rural congregations in India, and these Masses can be conducted rather quickly. Consequently, the Catholic Church in the United States has been sending prayer requests to these other churches.
The practice is mutually beneficial to both churches. The local congregation keeps some of the donation and is able to fulfill the needs of its congregation, and the church receiving the prayer request keeps the remainder of the donation to help with expenses.
Appendix B Stimulus Materials Presented to Respondents in Study 3
The Catholic Church allows for a Mass to be dedicated to someone in need. The person requesting the Mass customarily offers a donation (about $20) with the request.
Note: A Mass is a Catholic service where there are Biblical readings, sermons, offerings, and prayer. The requested Mass may or may not be attended by members of the congregation or by the person requesting it.
The Catholic Church in the United States cannot always keep up with Mass requests by their local congregations. However, the Church has many priests in India who are available to fulfill the requests in a timely manner. Consequently, the Catholic Church in the United States has been sending these prayer requests to India. The U.S. church keeps some of the donation and sends a portion to the church in India.
Appendix C Stimulus Materials Presented to Respondents in Studies 5 and 7
Pharmaceutical Company/Communal-Sharing Justification. A small promising pharmaceutical company suffers a $50 million loss developing a new drug. In order to continue their ground-breaking research and development of medicines that benefit everyone, the company is considering making up for the loss by raising the price of a popular medication.
Pharmaceutical Company/Market-Pricing Justification. A small promising pharmaceutical company suffers a $50 million loss developing a new drug. In order to continue achieving record-breaking profits and revenues that benefit investors, the company is considering making up for the loss by raising the price of a popular medication.
Software Company/Communal-Sharing Justification. A small promising software company suffers a $50 million loss developing a new software program. In order to continue their ground-breaking research and development of software that benefits everyone, the company is considering making up for the loss by raising the price of a popular software program.
Software Company/Market-Pricing Justification. A small promising software company suffers a $50 million loss developing a new software program. In order to continue achieving record-breaking profits and revenues that benefit investors, the company is considering making up for the loss by raising the price of a popular software program.
Appendix D Stimulus Materials Presented to Respondents in Study 6
Communal-Sharing Justification. A large pharmaceutical company reports a $50 million loss on the research and development of a new cholesterol-lowering medication. The loss occurred because a rival drug company has just received approval for their [antiwrinkle drug/cholesterol-lowering drug], which is both more effective and has fewer side effects than the other drug. A $50 million loss is not uncommon during research and development, but in order to continue bringing safe and effective drugs to the public, such losses must be made up for elsewhere. The CEO of the company thinks that one way to minimize the loss is to raise prices on a drug that is in high demand. Specifically, his company can recoup their $50 million loss by raising the price of their highly successful and popular [cholesterol-lowering medication/antiwrinkle treatment]. In doing that the company ensures that research and development continues for drugs that benefit everyone.
Market-Pricing Justification. A large pharmaceutical company reports a $50 million loss on the research and development of a new [antiwrinkle treatment/cholesterol-lowering medication]. The loss occurred because a rival drug company has just received approval for their [antiwrinkle drug/cholesterol-lowering drug], which is both more effective and has fewer side effects than the other drug. A $50 million loss is not uncommon during research and development, but in order to continue bringing safe and effective drugs to the public, such losses must be made up for elsewhere. The CEO of the company thinks that one way to minimize the loss is to raise prices on a drug that is in high demand. Specifically, his company can recoup their $50 million loss by raising the price of their highly successful and popular [cholesterol-lowering medication/antiwrinkle treatment]. In doing that the company ensures revenues and profits for a healthy bottom line.
- © 2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc.


text:
These are all the News & Announcements posted in October, 2013.
«-Previous Page 1 2 3 4
Tuesday, 1
New Titles: September
Each month the Logan Library publishes a list of books, DVDs, games and CDs that were added to our collection in the previous month. You can browse these lists by age level and type of item, and you can place a hold on anything you would like to read or watch.
View items added to our collection in September or in other months.
Posted By Logan Library at 8:47 AM / Category:New Titles
«-Previous Page 1 2 3 4
The Latest News!
Sep 26, 2016
» Banned Books Week 2016 Sep 19, 2016
» New Book A Librarian Service Sep 14, 2016
» Hispanic Heritage Month / Mes de la Herencia Hispana

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Subscribe To
Receive the latest in Footwear, Fashion, Music and Creativity in our newsletters.
Explore and be inspired by the latest women's fashion news and trends.
Enjoy HYPETRAK's updates, features, and editorials on the dynamic world of music.
The modular lifestyle found in minimal housing isn't for everyone, but that hasn't made the concept any less popular. However, t...


text:
- Home
- Cambridge English
- Catalog
- Cambridge English Exams & IELTS
- Cambridge Vocabulary for PET
Cambridge Vocabulary for PET
Edition without answers
In stock
Average user rating(1 user review)
Part of
Date Published
CEF Level
Product description
This book covers the vocabulary needed for the PET Exam and provides students with practice of exam tasks from each paper. It includes common learner error warnings and exam tips to help students improve their exam performance.
This book covers the vocabulary needed for the PET exam. It provides students with practice of exam tasks from the Reading, Writing and Listening papers.
It includes useful tips on how to approach exams tasks and learn vocabulary. It is informed by the Cambridge International Corpus and the Cambridge Learner Corpus to ensure that the vocabulary is presented in genuine contexts and covers real learner errors.
Key features
- Covers all the vocabulary needed for the PET exam with exam practice of all papers.
- Informed by the Cambridge International Corpus, including the Cambridge Learner Corpus ensuring vocabulary is presented in genuine contexts, and covers the errors that students really make.
- Common learner error warnings help students be aware of and avoid making common mistakes.
- Regular progress tests allow students to consolidate their learning and chart their progress.
- Tips on how to approach exam tasks practised in the book and how to learn vocabulary are ideal for the self-study student.
- Appendix containing key word lists, including collocations and phrasal verbs provides a useful checklist and revision resource for students.
- The topic-based unit approach means the material can easily be used to supplement an exam coursebook.
User reviews
By binbin
Part-time teacher
it is a good book i have ever seen. thank you so much
Also in this subject
View product
English Vocabulary in Use Elementary
An updated edition of the best-selling vocabulary practice book.Authors: Michael McCarthy, Felicity O'DellEnglish Type: British EnglishCEF Level: A1 Beginner/Basic - A2 Low IntermediatePublication date: October 2010
Sign In
Please sign in to access your account
Not already registered? Create an account now. ×
Thank you for your feedback which will help us improve our service.
If you requested a response, we will make sure to get back to you shortly.×


text:
Welcome to Glock Talk
Why should YOU join our Glock forum?
- Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
- Learn about the latest hunting products
- Becoming a member is FREE and EASY
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Every question and answer on a gun forum
Discussion in '1911 Forums' started by gomerpyle, Dec 17, 2010.


text:
Ready to watch this entire course?
Become a member and get unlimited access to the entire skills library of over 4,987 courses, including more Design and personalized recommendations.Start Your Free Trial Now
- Overview
- Transcript
- View Offline
There are several novel variants within the F-X category, and I urge you to take a look at all of them. But I have selected one for improvement that I feel has the most broad usage. It's the Fairy Dust variant. There are many types of imagery, where the addition of a mystical, magical quality is desired, and Fairy Dust is perfect for sprinkling into these situations. Let's see how we can improve this variant. The first thing I am going to do is that we want an image to work on in this case. So I am going to bring up the image we have been using throughout this chapter, our autumn image.
And I want this to be more of a twilight or early evening image, so we are just going to do a quick adjustment here. I am going to take some Brightness/ Contrast and just push it all the way down, so we get an image that seems to be later in the day. Let's go to the F-X category and we are going to work with, as I said, Fairy Dust. Now, this can work on a layer, so I am also going to do that just so I am not actually applying pixels to the actual image itself. Let's just see what this currently does.
Now, it is based on color, so what we are going to get is a set of little highlight blips that appear to be little sprites within the image. You can play around and color them as well, but I think we can improve on this particular look. The first thing I want to take a look at here, just do it right down here in a corner, maybe let's do it with some white. If we go up and look at this up close, you will see that these little pings of light are-- it's actually one captured dab element, but it's rotating to be at a different angle every time, which in some cases would work well.
But I think in this case, I want this to actually always be consistent, because I want it to look somewhat photographic, and what happens with little highlights in photography is the little radiant arcs that you get off of the highlights will always be exactly the same. So we want to correct that. If we go in and take a look at the Brush Controls, let's go to the Angle palette here and we will see right now that dab is being randomly rotated around. I am going to change it so that it's None and what will happen now is now every one of those is exactly the same.
It's subtle, but it does kind of connect with the brain for being a little bit more of a photographic style highlight, like you would see whenever we all go out and see fairy dust. It does look somewhat like this. So that takes care of one aspect of how I want this to look. The other thing that's sort of problematic right now is it's just all too bright in the scene and so I want to correct that. And randomness is a good thing, but maybe the place we want to take advantage of it is in the Opacity.
So I am going to go ahead and say I want my Opacity to be Random, and now you will see now I get nice differences in the apparent brightness of these. If we Select All, Delete, and do a little bit here, you will see what happens is that apparent brightness fools the eye into thinking it's seeing these objects closer and farther away in the scene. So it actually integrates in with the scene even a little bit better here, because we now have the feeling that these are floating in a 3D space, as opposed to the way they looked before. They were just flat in one plane and it defied the look of 3D here.
So we have got that going for us. The other thing is I can change the individual color, but what if these could be different colors themselves? And we can do that by going to Color Variability. I am just going crank up the Hue Variability, and let's try that a little bit. Now you can see it's starting to get different colors within each one of those little highlights. I can now control the Saturation value of those, just by where I place my cursor within the Color palette.
So let's go ahead and delete all this one more time and we can get rid of this now. Now I am just going to paint in here a bit, just so we have got some of this kind of floating around in this environment. I could even go back with my Eraser here quickly and just if I want some of this to look like it's more behind some of these elements, I can just erase them so that they are in the foreground, but they seem to be going back into the scene a little bit more. The other thing we could do is even add a second layer and go back and paint some more.
I can take this layer and just by reducing its Opacity a bit, you can see I can season to taste here, now where they seen more back into the scene a bit. I will go to this one, this layer, and also maybe make my brush just a little bit larger. So this will have the effect of making these seem even more closer to the foreground, and I can see what I could do here. I am going to undo those. I am going to turn my Opacity up to 100%, so that will increase their brightness just a little bit.
So now we have got some of these that seem to be actually floating closer to the camera. So this is a rather fanciful usage of Fairy Dust, as if there were actual real world situations you would use it in. But the idea here is that this brush has been taken from,what was a good brush, and in this particular case we have actually enhanced it and made it a really good brush for the kind of look that we want. So by making selective adjustments, as I said, you can take a good variant and make it into a great one.
This selective adjustment is mainly what I call "season to taste." The decisions are up to the individual making the adjustments. Painter is full of variants just waiting to be adjusted to suit your tastes. Go forth and adjust.
- Comparing real-world brush behavior with brushes in Painter
- Saving a brush variant for future use
- Using loaded brushes
- Using sponges and modifying captured dabs
- Drawing with pastels and chalk
- Painting with the traditional watercolor brushes
- Packaging brushes for distribution


text:
We've designed The Westin Stonebriar Hotel & Golf Club to make business a pleasure. You'll find all of the technology and amenities of the best business hotel, wrapped in the elegant comfort of a world-class hotel. With these facilities and resources, your event is in good hands, allowing you to focus on being your best.
Our 24,000 square feet of flexible meeting space ensures access to the ideal setting for your meeting, from a small board session or reception to a major sales function. Choose from 12 uncluttered, multi-function conference rooms or spread out in one of our three spacious ballrooms. All of our indoor meeting facilities feature wired and wireless High Speed Internet Access, videoconferencing capabilities, satellite and T-1 line connections, and the support of our superb on-site audiovisual staff. Outside, our spectacular three-tiered Garden Terrace and pool deck are perfect for outdoor receptions and events.
Our professional meeting planners and executive chefs will handle every detail, energizing your attendees and keeping heads clear with superb nourishment while you relax and get down to business.
Find a special offer that will transform your meeting or event.
|Nombre de chambres:
|Nombre d'espaces de réunion:
|L'espace de réunion le plus vaste:
|6,200 sq ft (576 mètres carrés)
Streamline your work experience with smart technology and intuitive design that helps you connect with colleagues around the table or across the globe. Available by the hour for groups of up to four, Tangent allows you to perform at your best. Voir plus >
Earn Starpoints® and eligible nights toward SPG elite status on your next meeting or event. Voir plus >
Let our specialists create a wedding experience that's tailored to your personal style. With unparalleled venue options and superb catering, you'll discover elegance and scale that create the perfect setting for an unforgettable day. Voir plus >
The hotel boasts some 24,000 square feet of function space, comprising different venues and including three ballrooms, eight meeting rooms, and a spectacular three-tiered Garden Terrace popular for outdoor social affairs. Voir plus >
On-site, state-of-the-art audiovisual and planning resources allow meeting planners to execute a perfect, seamless event. Our catering and audiovisual teams can service meetings of all sizes, and our menus reveal a flare that is second to none. Voir plus >
Qu'il s'agisse d'évènements en petit comité ou de réunions d'entreprise, nous vous fournissons tout ce dont vous avez besoin pour organiser des réunions parfaites.
Pour profiter pleinement de votre navigation sur lemeridien.com, vous devez avoir le lecteur Flash Player version 6.39 ou supérieure. Cliquez ici pour la télécharger gratuitement. Sinon, vous pouvez également cliquer ici pour découvrir la version non Flash du site lemeridien.com. Bonne navigation


text:
Skip to main content
Contact Us
NCR Launches Mobile Business Banking Application for Financial Institutions' SMB Customers
Launch extends Business Banking capabilities to iPhone, iPad and Android devices
RT @AlbeZakes "Celebrating the 100,000th #ATM installed by @NCRCorporation in #India article from @ET_Marketing @ET https://t.co/M11tEc1tiS
Apple Pay and the banks - can they work together?
Apple Pay has been around for a while now, and for many consumers, it's become a great option for making everyday payments.
Over 800,000 of the world's 3 million ATMs are NCR machines.


text:
Traditions Buck Stalker Rifle .50 Nickel/black Synthetic - $194 (Free S/H on Firearms)
|Submitted by on Tue, 2010-06-15 17:15
@Buds Gun Shop
If price is higher, try submitting a price match request if available - Details TRADITIONS BUCK STALKER RIFLE .50CAL NICKEL/BLACK SYNTHETIC Additional Information Manufacturer Traditions 1375 Boston Post Road P.O. Box 776 Old Saybrook, CT 06475 860-388-4656 www.traditionsfirearms.com Manufacturer Part Number R72103570 Item Number R72103570 UPC 040589015040 ACTION TYPE BREAK ACTION IN-LINE BARREL LENGTH IN INCHES 24 BARREL TYPE ROUND CALIBER .50 CALIBER DRILLED AND TAPPED Y HARDWARE FINISH BLUED HARDWARE MATERIAL STEEL METAL FINISH NICKLE OVERALL LENGTH IN INCHES 40 PATCHBOX N RATE OF TWIST 1:28" RECOIL PAD Y SIGHT TYPE ADJUSTABLE FIBER OPTIC STOCK FINISH BLACK MATTE STOCK MATERIAL SYNTHETIC SWIVELS INCL Y TRIGGER TYPE SINGLE
Manufacturer: Traditions Inc
Manufacturer part number: R72103570
0 votes
0 votes
|Comments (0)
|Views (345)
|Create alert for this product
|Compare Prices
|Shipping rate
|Wholesale Hunter
|In Stock
|Out Of Stock
All prices on BudsGunShop.com are cash-discounted prices. Add 3% for credit/debit cards. 6% Sales Tax applies for KY residents. To avoid the additional 3% fee use one of the following payment methods: Money Order, Certified Check, Personal Checks including online bill payments (orders held for 5 business days for check to clear), E-Check / ACH (orders held for 5-6 business days to allow funds to clear our bank).
For more info on Bud's VIP Click Here.
One Year Cost: $24.95 (for non-VIP members)
Multiple Year Cost: $19.95 (best value)
Bottom Left 300x250
- also no handguard! Title is
5 min 54 sec ago
- Nearly $17 to ship 5 boxes?
47 min 15 sec ago
- This is the b6p. There's two
1 hour 17 min ago
- I've purchased two of their
2 hours 24 min ago
- 2 quote bugs bunny "ungabunga
2 hours 29 min ago
- Is this over 16" ?
Does it
3 hours 28 min ago
- I suggest buyers do not wait,
3 hours 33 min ago
- I have about a 75% failure to
4 hours 16 min ago
- This price is 10 dollars less
4 hours 19 min ago
- How long will this deal go on
4 hours 29 min ago


text:
Yesterday I had lunch with Chef Kastuji Tanabe, the Japanese-Mexican-Catholic chef at Shilo's Steak House, a fine dining kosher restaurant in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood. I hadn't been to Shilo's for years—the last time I went was Christmas, 2007—and it was expensive, bland,...
Tag: Kosher Blue Cheese Burger
View the most popular tags overall?
Shilo's Steak and Kosher Taco
August 26, 2010 | 5:10 pm


text:
- Enterprise
- •
- Blog
- •
- Privacy Policy
- •
- Terms of Service
- © 2015 RebelMouse
"The long-term goal is for more students with unique learning needs to be able to receive services at their neighborhood schools," he said. But the district has kept ... Bittner said CPS would make sure schools have enough staff to work with special needs students and will absolutely meet all students' IEP requirements, as outlined by law. She said the ... The Common Core has much more rigorous expectations of student learning than previous state standards. As such ...
I liked a @YouTube video from @mindovermunch youtu.be/MFUIY9MHDjk?a 3 Affordable Vegan Lunch Recipes – Collab with Fablunch! Mind
By law, an IEP must include: The student's current levels of performance; Annual goals for growth and performance; How the student's progress will be measured in relation to those goals; Description of the special services to be provided; Schedule of those services; Detailed outline of ... The Common Core State Standards, for example, give a personality trait portrait of students who are college and career ready as an introduction to the standards themselves.


text:
Warren Moon acknowledges the rest of the Class of 2006 during his enshrinement into the Pro Football Hall of Fame Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006, in Canton, Ohio. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan) ORG XMIT: OHMD116
Golf 6m ago
Bill Murray shares heartwarming story about Arnold Palmer
Bill Murray is at the Ryder Cup this week — cheering on Team USA, presumably — and while signing a few autographs for fans, (…)
Not Sports But Whatever 48m ago
Elon Musk explains his mind-blowing plans for a space colony on mars
He hopes to get the cost down to $200,000. The trip will take about 80 days.
Golf 1hr ago
Tom Brady's Team USA hype video will get you amped for the Ryder Cup
Tom Brady has a lot of time to wile away during his four-game suspension. But being a big golfer, he's found the perfect way (…)
NFL 2hr ago
NFL QB power rankings: Why Dak Prescott has been better than Carson Wentz
And a new QB takes the top spot.
NFL 2hr ago
VP Joe Biden loves Carson Wentz's 'heart, guts and poise' in excited tweet at Eagles QB
Maybe President Obama will jump on the "Wentz wagon" now. With rookie QB Carson Wentz leading the Philadelphia Eagles to a 3-0 (…)
NBA 2hr ago
13 pro athletes who look super weird without facial hair
This wasn't exactly a widespread secret, but facial hair can be a really big factor in how you look. It's why people grow them (…)


text:
- blog n.
- Website on which an individual or group of users produces an ongoing narrative.
21 10/2014 Brown Brothers Engineers New Zealand
December 2013 saw the launch of a new Brown Brothers Engineers Australia website. October 2014 sees the turn of New Zealand parent company Brown Brothers Engineers.
24 09/2014 Propeller Joins ExpressionEngine Pro Network
Following our earlier announcement of being appointed ExpressionEngine Development Partners with Detroit-based Nexcess Hosting we are delighted to have been inducted as one of only a handful of Australia-based developers in the ExpressionEngine Pro Network.
08 09/2014 Your next CMS should be Craft or ExpressionEngine
Propeller have been working with the ExpressionEngine CMS for over 3 years, most recently re-building the RedFest website. Given the level of praise being heaped upon it in developer circles, Propeller will soon be embarking on adding CraftCMS to our stable of products.
23 08/2014 Propeller appointed as Nexcess ExpressionEngine Development Partners
Given our positive experience with Nexcess and the overwhelmingly great feedback from clients Propeller are delighted to be appointed as Australia's only ExpressionEngine Development Partners with Nexcess.
23 08/2014 RedFest 2014
Read about Propeller's 2014 responsive reboot of the RedFest website.
26 03/2014 Lamplighter - shining a light on your website
Propeller introduced monthly maintenance plans in the second half of 2013 providing backup, upgrade and priority technical support for Propeller website owners. Following a trial period we have now added Lamplighter support to the list of features included in ExpressionEngine maintenance at no additional cost.
06 12/2013 Brown Brothers Engineers
Our final website launch of 2013 brings Brown Brothers Engineers to life. Established in New Zealand in 1908 initially specialising in electrical engineering and later diversifying into pump manufacture for domestic and commercial use, Brown Brothers Engineers today employs 140 people in 13 locations throughout Australia and New Zealand.
15 04/2013 The Deaf Society of NSW
Propeller are proud to announce the launch of the new Deaf Society of NSW website.
03 12/2012 homeav.com.au
Proudly presenting our final new website launch for 2012 and its a biggie. Homeav.com.au is one of Australia's most sophisticated online stores offering a vast range of audio, networking, tv and home theatre products.
09 11/2012 Australian Architectural Fire Doors
AAFD's new website details Australian Architectural Fire Doors proud history and service in the domestic and commercial markets, details their product range and features a portfolio of some of the major commercial products they have serviced and supplied.


text:
Recent Posts
- 500 Miles by Bike from Brooklyn to Goddard: Dan Kaminsky
- Karla Haas-Moskowitz, Commencement Speaker: Remember Your Lights
- GGI Grads in the News: Seema Reza and Taina Asili
- Graduating Student Workshops at the Fall 2016 Residency
- Visiting Scholars Claudia Guerra on Mapping for Social Justice and Cultural Sustainability, and Yvette Hyater-Adams on Transforming Narratives
- Collaborative Thresholds: Group Openings at the Fall 2016 Residency Opening
- A Cornucopia of Workshops for Change-makers, Visionaries, Pilgrims, and Activists: Faculty Workshops at the Fall 2016 Residency
- "Restoring the Soul After War": Student Shomriel Sherman Writes of Sharing the Burden and Finding the Sacred
Engaged Learning, Research & Practice for a Changing WorldThis blog is a project of Goddard College's Individualized MA, SIS and HAS programs, featuring the work, research, studies and arts of students, faculty and alumni as they create worlds of change in their communities and beyond.
Goddard Links
Goddard College's Health Arts and Sciences MA Program
Goddard College's Social Innovation and Sustainability Program
Goddard College's Individualized MA Program
Concentrations in IMA, SIS and HAS available in:
Consciousness Studies
Goddard in Action
Worlds of Change
- 500 Miles by Bike from Brooklyn to Goddard: Dan Kaminsky August 31, 2016
- Karla Haas-Moskowitz, Commencement Speaker: Remember Your Lights August 20, 2016
- GGI Grads in the News: Seema Reza and Taina Asili August 17, 2016
Blog Stats
- 39,060 hits
- Activism Anthropology Arts-Based Inquiry Child & Human Development Coaching Community Building Consciousness Studies/Transpersonal Psychology Creative Writing Creativity & Imagination Cultural & Cross-Cultural Studies Deep Ecology & Bioregionalism Embodiment Studies & Body Image Environmental, Sustainability & Place Studies Epistemology (how we know what we know) Faculty Feminism, Women's & Gender Studies Global Studies Graduation History & Political Science Identity Memoir, Life Writing & Autobiography Multiculturalism & Diversity Studies Music Mythology & the Oral Tradition Narrative Medicine Narrative Therapy Philosophy & Neurophilosophy Poetry Progressive Education Residencies Right Livelihood/ Making a Living Sexuality & Erotic Studies Social Innovation Spirituality & Religion Sustainability Sustainable Businesses and Communities Transformative Language Arts Transforming Trauma Uncategorized Workshops
Category Archives: Transformative Language Arts
GGI Grads in the News: Seema Reza and Taina Asili
In the last day, two GGI grads have been sharing their strongest words about the work we do in the world and how to do it better. Seema Reza's article — "The Work of Waking Up the Sleeping in a … Continue reading
Posted in African-American Studies, Creative Non-Fiction, Creative Writing, Creativity & Imagination, Cultural & Cross-Cultural Studies, Environmental Justice, Feminism, Women's & Gender Studies, Goddard Graduate Institute, Graduation, Memoir, Life Writing & Autobiography, Multiculturalism & Diversity Studies, Sustainability, Transformative Language Arts Tagged Seema Reza, Taina Asili, The Feminist Wire, Yes Magazine Leave a comment
"Restoring the Soul After War": Student Shomriel Sherman Writes of Sharing the Burden and Finding the Sacred
Shomriel Sherman, a current student in Transformative Language Arts, has been studying the intersection between the trauma of war and the trauma of illness as well as ways to work with such pain. This is her report of attending several … Continue reading
Celebrating the Life and Art of Maceo Leatherwood Through His Daughter, the Poet Vanita Leatherwood
Vanita Leatherwood, a graduate of the Transformative Language Arts concentration in the Individualized MA program, is thrilled to be moderating a special retrospective of the life and art of her father, the artist Maceo Leatherwood, "a dedicated and disciplined explorer … Continue reading
Seema Reza on "This Is Our Work": Commencement Spring 2016 Talk
Seema Reza, graduating student in the IMA program and Transformative Language Arts concentration, was the Spring of 2016's commencement speaker. Her luminous talk touched on the world before and within us, our capacity for change, facing the mythic demon child, … Continue reading
Taina Asili Pens Song for Black Lives Matter
Taina Asili, a long-time Transformative Language Artist and activist singer-songwriter, just wrote and recorded a powerful anthem for the Black Lives Matter movement. Featured in the online news source mic.com, Taina shares a video of her song "Freedom." She writes … Continue reading


text:
Book online or call 800-246-8357This call is free. 24 hours a day; 7 days a week.
Hotels near Kurhaus, Merano
Hotels near Merano Hippodrome, Merano
Hotels near Merano Thermal Baths, Merano
Hotels near Trauttmansdorff Castle Gardens, Merano
Hotels In Merano Alto Adige South Tyrol Area Italy
Hotels Near Merano Maia Bassa Station Marlengo Italy
Hotels Near Merano Meran Station Merano Italy
Sign up for our latest offers
Download the app and book on the go
Join now to collect 10 nights, get 1 free*
© 2016 Hotels.com, L.P. All rights reserved.
Hotels.com and the Hotels.com logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Hotels.com, LP in the U.S. and/or other countries. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
* Learn more about Hotels.com® Rewards


text: J Cole- "Forest Hills Drive Live" Jan 27, 2016 by RECOGNIZZE in MUSIC J. Cole will be releasing a surprise album on his birthday "Forest Hills Drive Live." This will include the 13 tracks from the original album recorded at his Homecoming in Fayetteville, North Carolina last fall. In addition to these tracks there is also a medley including his older hits, "Lights Please," "In The Morning," and "Nobody's Perfect." Today four fans were given the pleasant surprise of receiving the full album a day ahead of it's official release. Make sure to go out and cop this album as a Happy Birthday to J. Cole "Check your birthdate nigga, you ain't the God. Nah you ain't the God, nigga Cole the God. January 28th." Tagged with: By DThack, J. Cole


text:
Top Definition
the little tilt inward on the top of one's asshole, not to be confused with the grundle, this tight skin must be broken for full anal penetration.
i snorted coke right off that bitches cleft, then fucking ripped that shit open, and preceeded to rip her oring, wide the fuck open.
chris/josh tarafından 1 Mayıs 2005, Pazar
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?


text:
"It could broaden their investment channels as they could engage in business that is currently unavailable in domestic market such as trading of financial derivatives."
Related quotes
"If tobacco suddenly were unavailable and was as expensive as heroin and cocaine, I think that you would find that the behavior of some tobacco addicts would be very much like the behavior of some addicts of heroin and cocaine,"
"will be unavailable for interviews or appearances until the release of his next novel. No release date is yet scheduled."
"I am extremely disappointed at having to declare myself unavailable for the tour. The questions sent from Delhi were very similar to those I answered four years ago. I have served my ban and in the process learnt a very hard lesson."
"[If you are high enough in your organization, you can simply choose when to make yourself unavailable. Bryan, one of McKinsey's top consultants, says he has given up cell phones and computers, letting others handle his communications.] I never had time to think, ... It's amazing how much you can get done if you don't spend all your time interacting."
"It was shocking to learn that a prominent city official was gagged, which made her unavailable during the so-called investigation. When she complies with the gag order, she's fired."
"It would be a tragedy for the First Amendment and for this country if valuable speech about sex were unavailable to adults and minors throughout this country and that would be the effect if this law goes into effect."


text:
50 years of experience
Accepting new patients
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Phone number & directions
A medical license is required for a doctor to practice medicine in a particular state. Requirements vary by state but most require, at a minimum, post-graduate training in the doctor's specific specialty. An NPI number is a national identifier unique to an individual health care provider and is managed by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Learn more about Dr. Alexander Haas:
View the full profile to get information on:
- Qualifications
- What's important to you
View full profile
Patient Reviews
Write a Review
Prepare before visiting Dr. Haas
Metastatic Melanoma Patient Education Learn all about metastatic melanoma symptoms and treatments by reading Vitals patient education guide.Before Visiting Dr. Haas Learn More
|More Patient Guides & Topics
Skin Cancer
Breast Cancer
Hodgkins Lymphoma
Prostate Cancer
Pulmonary Embolism
Specialties & Research
Dr. Alexander Haas, MD is board certified in Therapeutic Radiology.
- He has special expertise in 4 areas:
- Breast Cancer
- Cancer
- Metastatic Breast Cancer
- Prostate Cancer (Prostatic Neoplasm)
Education & Awards
Dr. Haas graduated from University Of Zagreb.
Dr. Haas has 5 hospital affiliations:
- Saint Peter's University Hospital
- Virtua Memorial Hospital Of Burlington County
- Croatian
Similar doctors nearby
Dr. Joseph Morgan
Dr. Gopal Desai
Dr. Alan Katz
Dr. Salma Jabbour
Dr. Molly Gabel
Dr. Atif Khan
- Additional Information
- Dr. Alexander Z Haas MD is a male Radiation Oncologist, has 50 years of experience and practices in Therapeutic Radiology and Radiation Oncology.
- Where does Dr. Alexander Z. Haas practice?
- Dr. Alexander Haas has 1 office location.
Dr. Alexander Haas practices Therapeutic Radiology and Radiation Oncology near New Brunswick, NJ.
See New Brunswick Radiologists and New Brunswick Radiation Oncologists.


text:
Funding Unsuccessful
This project's funding goal was not reached on May 11, 2012.
Make a stand with immigrant students from Tibet, China, Mexico, Cape Verde, Haiti and elsewhere as they break language barrier in CT.
This project's funding goal was not reached on May 11, 2012.
IGNORE THE ODDS: If you only knew that you were just one of hundreds to become aware of this project. In fact, more than 100 people have "liked " this page in the last 24 hours. So don't worry about what seems like an impossible goal and make a pledge of even just $1. In the end, no one loses and we have lots to gain!
Breaking the Barrier: "A Voice to be Heard" is a unique documentary and web project that tells the inspiring and powerful story of immigrant students in Eastern Connecticut as they face one of their first obstacles upon arriving in America — learning English. In the shadow of North America's two largest casinos, families from China, Tibet, Haiti, Mexico, Cape Verde, Peru and elsewhere are making their home here, prompting an explosion in the number of languages spoken in the region. The words immigrants hear when they first arrive to the United States are more than just vocabulary. They add up to the overall message of this nation, signaling to newcomers who to become and who we are. This project goes beyond the simple phrase, "Learn English," and discovers a beauty in language and power in words. Your support will help raise awareness, appreciation and respect of this coming-of-age experience during screenings at schools, universities, cultural groups and community meetings. The trailer below features key facts behind the story:
All or Nothing: Our Kickstarter fundraising goal goes toward production costs, which we are eager and prepared to begin in May. When you make a pledge, no financial transaction is actually made unless we meet our goal. If we don't, your pledge evaporates and no money is transferred. Obviously, the more money we get above our goal, the better. For example, it's helpful to have additional crew for each shooting day depending on the circumstances.
A Special Word to Montville, Norwich and rest of region: In 15 years as a reporter and editor at the Norwich Bulletin, I was most amazed at the evolving story of immigration and cultural diversity that swept our neighborhoods, schools, jobs and churches. This film goes deep into the heart of a universal story — that of migration — and into the heart of a familiar but beloved story of America. Still, this is our story, and it remains full of surprises. After all, one of the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was it prompted a wave of Chinese immigrants who lost their garment factory jobs to leave New York for Norwich and nearby casino jobs. I'm asking for your support, however small, as a tribute to this new, historic wave of immigration. Help support a film that ultimately celebrates what is among our region's greatest strengths and shows we are a welcoming community of all races and nationalities. Go to www.voicetobeheard.org for more information.
Our Awesome Advisors: In addition to Dustin Schultz, director of photography and creative director of Union Productions in Connecticut, this project benefits from the guidance of top-notch advisors. Here they are:
Have a question? If the info above doesn't help, you can ask the project creator directly.
- (31 days)


text:
French Translation of English Website
This project was awarded to anomakit for $200 USD.Get free quotes for a project like this
Awarded to:
Skills Required
Project BudgetN/A
Total Bids17
Project Description
We have just launched a website in English and need a complete duplicate of the website in French.
This is a project for a native French person - only people actually resident in France and with a demonstrable track record of translation work will be considered.
Please show that you have some understanding of meta tags and keywords.
The English version of the website is still being developed but you can see the current version here:
www dot shadesailsfrance dot com
Translation will cover all of the product pages, privacy policy, delivery, customer reviews etc.
A track record of website translation will be a benefit.
We estimate we are looking for 5 - 10,000 words of translation.
Please quote for 5,000 words and payment will be made pro-rata based on the actual number of words translated.
Looking to make some money?
- Set your budget and the timeframe
- Outline your proposal
- Get paid for your work
Hire Freelancers who also bid on this project
Looking for work?
Work on projects like this and make money from home!Sign Up Now
- Forbes
- The New York Times
- Time
- Wall Street Journal
- Times Online