A Practitioner's Perspective of Marketing Theory Evolution

A Practitioner's Perspective of Marketing Theory Evolution

Pranav Kumar, Usha Seshadri
DOI: 10.4018/IJORIS.312231
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

The study seeks to explore the history of marketing as a practice and the development of marketing as an academic discipline. The research is set out to decide whether or not marketing theory empowers young marketing practitioners. This literature review and integrative synthesis study considers the impact that neoliberal modes of governance have had on the academic discipline of marketing. The literature synthesis revealed that marketing was built as a discipline at the turn of the 20th century when universities operated under an academic paradigm where faculty were given academic freedom and autonomy. These ideals helped form the professional identity of the academic prior to the shift toward neoliberalism. Marketing is moving toward defining its place in academics as a distinct discipline—and not as a branch of economics. Finally, with a new definition of marketing, the study concludes that marketing has not yet developed an overarching theory—nor has it been able to construct a definition that is not dynamically dependent on economic theory.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

Marketing is a relatively young academic discipline. The first lectures in this field were delivered at American universities in the 1890s; interest in the subject grew at the turn of the century when the discipline became established within the academy as evidenced by the introduction of the first marketing courses in 1902 (Plank & Canedy III, 1989; Baker & Saren, 2010; Berghoff et al., 2012). Also, the advancement of marketing as a formal academic discipline is predated by the study of marketing thought—which originated within firms in the late 1800s and was successfully practiced in the first branded goods markets by managers and marketing experts (many of them had no formal training) (Baker & Saren, 2010; Berghoff et al., 2012).

Pragmatic approaches dominated the academic discipline initially—with marketing “experts” coming from the practice— where intuition and experience were valued over theory— which was in many cases considered irrelevant (Carson & McCartan-Quinn, 1995). Many practitioners at the time viewed marketing as an “art” or “craft”. Veteran marketing practitioners often held the belief that experience, intuition, and common-sense— tools that developed through practice over time were the necessary components for successful marketing (Carson & McCartan-Quinn, 1995). Arons (2011) credits these early marketing practitioners working at large companies including Procter and Gamble, General Foods, and Unilever with bringing brand management to marketing; it was “brand managers” who were responsible to give a new product an identity—distinguishing it from similar offerings marketed by competitors. Branding was developed as a tactical response to the improved quality of products being made by less established firms seeking entry into the marketplace (Arons, 2011).

The fact that brands created during the heyday of Madison Avenue have endured and remained successful today—examples include, Tide, Kraft, Lipton, and Coca-Cola— are evidence of the power of branding (Arons, 2011). The formula for “winning” in the marketplace at the time, was to understand and target the consumer through getting the “brand mix” right; this involved positioning the brand in the market with the best logo, price, packaging, advertising, and promotions (Arons, 2011). The brand mix ensured that the brand offered more than just function; there was an emotional component associated with owning the item—marketing sold a feeling or belief that bonded the customer to the product, often inducing a sense of trust (Arons, 2011).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 2 Issues (2022)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing