Having outlined the underlying theoretical perspective and set up the research focus of the book, in this chapter, I will discuss what it means to conduct an ethnography of a marketing organization. To do so, I first explore the methods used in existing ethnographic research and review some of the general methodological issues involved in studying contemporary marketing action ethnographically. I will then detail the ethnographic methods that I used and describe the site of my research.

Studying marketing

As discussed in the last two chapters, there are different ways of studying marketing. Ethnography has some unique advantages. Ethnography is primarily about observing what happens – not relying on people's accounts of what they do. It involves a researcher spectating and, possibly, participating in marketing action. As such, it has the potential to open up more realistic accounts than methods that rely on predefined ideas about what marketing is or rely on marketers’ own reflections of their activities. Ethnographic research can allow the researcher to see things that everyday participants take for granted.

Ethnography also allows researchers to document specific incidents and events. Ethnographic studies offer us moment- to- moment commentaries that go into ‘incredible detail’ and, from this, to provide ‘the backdrop for a developing understanding of what is going on’ (Neyland, 2008: 17). Ethnographers call such accounts ‘thick description’. This is a key element of the ethnographic method. It is typically traced to Geertz's (1973) account of betting in Bali. Geertz's idea, as I understand it, is that by providing as much detail as possible about a specific incident one may uncover something inherent not only to that specific incident but to the action in general. In other words, an ethnography of a night of betting, a health organization, a theatrical performance, or an advertising agency should not only tell us about the action in that setting but, through the detail they offer, also tell us something more profound about the ways that societies, organizations, industries, and individuals work together (Becker, 2007).

According to Braverman (1974), a foundational theorist in work sociology, ethnographic methods are particularly powerful for understanding work relations. He argues that we simply cannot get to grips with productive activities unless we go to work ourselves. Braverman explains that ‘active and interested parties’ offer interpretations that ‘are enriched by their efforts at practise’ (1974: 21).