Guest editorial

Citation

Wooliscroft, B. (2012), "Guest editorial", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhrm.2012.41204aaa.001

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Volume 4, Issue 1

Welcome to the special issue of the journal. The theme of this issue is evolution of key terms in marketing. The editor’s expectation for this issue was a series of papers considering how key terms have changed over time, demonstrating the richness of marketing’s intellectual history and the development of marketing theory over time. The number and depth of papers submitted to this special issue indicates the health of interest in the history of marketing thought. I trust you will enjoy reading the nine papers in this issue, as I have.

Evolution is commonly thought of as absolute improvement over time, a comforting thought, that we are the apex of an evolutionary process. However, evolution is not only about improvement, it is about improving fit to the environment, and changes in that environment over time. Considering the evolution of marketing terms and concepts requires us to consider changes that accommodate the environment and changes in the environment that require a change in concepts. As such, the evolution of marketing thought has not simply improved in absolute terms over time, it has changed to fit the environment in which it is based. When the ENRON collapse occurred, many business schools and business academics turned to the matter of ethics. The change in the environment changed the topics at the forefront of marketing thought.

The papers in this issue cover the full range of activities in marketing, from the firm side to post-consumption impacts of marketing, and to changes in the nature of markets.

The historian is usually separated from their subjects by time and frequently by distance – piecing together evidence of the phenomena understudy. Some historians are fortunate enough to meet their subjects, or those who knew their subjects, bringing them closer to the phenomena of interest. Rarely do we see a central player in the development of marketing theory report on its development and the factors that influenced it. We are fortunate to have Shelby Hunt’s paper outlining how resource advantage theory (RAT) developed across time, the lead paper in this issue. The reviewers and I found it an important contribution to understanding RAT and its development.

Eight papers follow that take us through the marketing process. Shaw’s paper provides us with a framework for marketing strategy and much insight into the origins of marketing strategies that are taken for granted. Segmentation is central to our understanding of marketing and there follow two papers that consider the development of elements of segmentation. Fullerton’s paper considers the impact of changes in the environment, the invention and industrialisation of the printing press in the German book trade, and its implications for the practice of segmentation. The history of lifecycles, a common basis for segmentation follows in Bauer and Auer-Srnka’s paper. Segmentation is followed by sales and Witkowski’s paper on the impact of the environment, American cultural norms, on Polish salesmanship provides us with insight into the early non-English language marketing writing. In marketing we increasingly recognise that we sell brands and it is entirely appropriate that we are reminded of the origins of brands and their legal status, by Petty’s paper.

Patsiaouras and Fitchett’s paper on the evolution of conspicuous consumption takes us from the firm to the consumer as the focus. It is followed by Pancer and Handelman’s paper on the concept of consumer wellbeing, our expected outcome of the marketing system. Powers reminds us that as the environment changes, in this case the arrival of electronic markets, there are lessons available from the early marketing theorists that flow through the whole marketing system.

This issue would not have been possible without the many anonymous reviewers, who gave of their time and knowledge so freely. I would like to thank the reviewers and authors for the positive manner with which they have engaged to improve papers and make this special issue what it is. It would also not have been possible without the guidance of Brian Jones. I have come to appreciate the amount of work involved in editing an issue, and have every sympathy and much respect for editors faced with several issues a year. Brian, thank you for lending me your journal and thank you for taking it back.

Ben WooliscroftUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand