Search results

The problems of achieving a successful interface between marketing science and marketing practice are numerous. Furthermore, they vary from subject to subject and from environment to environment. To avoid getting lost in this hall of mirrors, attention has been paid in this piece of research to four important subjects. First, a philosophical and organisational point of view is proposed about the proper role and funding structure for marketing research and marketing science activities. Next, some marketing science contributions to design issues are examined. In marketing, these are the ‘what kind’ questions about products, product lines, and associated market communications. Third, the ‘how much’ issue is discussed as it relates to total marketing expenditures and their allocations across the marketing mix. Having discussed some approaches to these ‘gut’ issues, the last section reviews in general terms the current state‐of‐the‐art in marketing science and some factors which may shape future developments. This synopsis deals mainly with the organisational problems of using marketing science.

The purpose of this article is to chronicle the publication events in the 1980s and 1990s that framed the development of the series of controversies in marketing that are known as the “philosophy debates”.

The article uses a participant’s retrospective approach.

The article finds that seven publication events are key to understanding marketing’s philosophy debates. The seven are the publication of the “little green book” by Grid, Inc. in 1976; the philosophy of science panel discussion held at the Winter American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference in 1982; the special issue of the Journal of Marketing on marketing theory in 1983; three articles on the “critical relativist perspective” by the Journal of Consumer Research in 1986 and 1988; the “blue book” by South-Western in 1991; a trilogy of articles on truth, positivism and objectivity in the Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Consumer Research in 1990-1993; and an article on “rethinking marketing” in the European Journal of Marketing in 1994.

Chronicling the key publication events enables readers to understand what the debates were about and provides readers a starting point for further investigating the issues in the debates.

The purpose of this paper is to present retrospective, current and prospective aspects of social marketing and systems science integration.

The paper uses a periodization methodology, based on turning points of conceptual integration between social marketing and systems science.

The paper identifies three periods of integration between social marketing and systems science: initialization of marketing and systems science integration; further conceptualization of the link between marketing and systems science, coupled by permeation of systems thinking into social marketing; and deep integration of social marketing with systems science. The latter period is ongoing and focuses on the origination of strategic systems-based theories and practices for sustainable social change.

The use of a periodization methodology might be biased by subjectivity, as chronological sequences of conceptualization-related events can be hard to decipher and can be reluctant to structural analysis. The necessity to examine the link between marketing and systems science, in so far as social marketing draws upon marketing theory regarding integration with systems science, has social marketing overshadowed by marketing at some points in time.

Historical research of social marketing and systems science integration provides a robust platform for large-scale practical manifestation of system-based strategic projects in social marketing.

This paper demonstrates that the permeation of systems thinking into the social marketing paradigm is gaining momentum and describes the trends, prospects and complexities associated with the accelerating integration.

Provides an introduction to the Special Issue by discussing the nature of marketing science in a postmodern world. Argues that science needs marketing more than marketing needs science. (Look folks, I didn’t want to include a review of my own book, but the regular journal editor insisted ‐ honest! ‐ and, anyway, Thompson was desperate for the publication. I’m just too soft, that’s my problem. Please excuse my unacademic behaviour. Pretty please.)

The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of marketing’s philosophical conversation over the past 120 years, focusing on the emergent meaning of the notion that marketing should become more “scientific”.

This paper focuses on the US academic marketing literature, primarily journal articles and books published in the first half of the 20th century.

The Aristotelian distinction between techné, epistemé and phronesis provides a rich basis for framing philosophical discussion in marketing, and should supplant the art-science debate and Anderson’s distinction between science₁ and science₂. Prior to 1959, the marketing journals provided a forum for phronesis, though this diminished as the academic marketing community largely abandoned the inductive, contextual approach in favour of a deductive, “scientific” methodology. The Ford Foundation played an important role in effecting this change.

The paper highlights the importance of forums where practitioners can reflect on the ethical and social implications of their practices and then work to enhance these practices for the greater social good.

Questions the value of distinctions between marketing theorists and practitioners and the consequential focus of marketing journals.

Advances the concept of phronesis in the marketing literature and distinguishes it from epistemé, which has dominated academic marketing discourse over the past 60 years.

Looks at the problems and advantages of the application of sociological and social psychological concepts to marketing science. Deals with the problem of selecting relevent concepts from the behavioural sciences, and discusses the explicative power of some of these concepts. Suggests guidelines for the selection of behavioural science ideas, which are both practically and educationally appropriate.

The purpose of this paper is to review the philosophy of science debates in the marketing literature and describe the current situation in marketing with respect to philosophy of science issues.

As a viewpoint/conceptual paper, the approach is largely a review of the literature with interspersed personal commentary.

The paper summarises the key contentions of opposing academics and attempt to convey the futility and pointlessness of such argumentation and describe a novel (to marketing) “attitude” to conducting marketing research.

Rather than argue one particular perspective, it is this paper's central thesis that no one philosophical perspective does or should have a monopoly on what constitutes making a useful contribution to our understanding of marketing phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight what the authors regard as serious problems with the continuing dominance of a “hard science” view of what constitutes “top quality” research, and to present evidence that a “softer” approach will yield work that more closely aligns with the everyday reality of marketing.

The authors use a contrast between the marketing discipline and chemistry to illustrate their concerns about the use of “hard science” in academic marketing. This was supplemented with analyses of academic marketing work already published to illustrate particular points.

The authors propose that academic marketers need to take a “horses for courses” approach and ground their research in the reality of the discipline. Different areas within the discipline of marketing are debated, and it is concluded that some areas may still respond well to scientific approaches, while others may benefit from a relaxation into interpretive approaches. The paper argues the need to concentrate more on reflecting a reality that is recognised by the wider marketing community, rather than getting wound up in methodological strait‐jackets. To illustrate these points, the lack of recent progress in research on market segmentation is considered, and a “typical hard science paper” is critiqued. The authors summarise the reasons why it is wrong to apply a “hard science” approach on a carte blanche basis and argue for a more pluralist critical realist approach.

The contention is that the over‐heavy trappings of science in much academic work have the effect of removing that work from practical norms. Therefore the practical implications of this paper are potentially significant.

The paper promotes the soft science stance as the most appropriate epistemology for mainstream academic marketing research.

This commentary argues that social marketing and the application of behavioural sciences to policy constitute two converging paths towards better policies. It highlights points of convergence and divergence between both disciplines and the potential benefits of further embedding social marketing principles and methods within the recent trend of applying behavioural sciences to policy.

The commentary relies on a review of the behavioural sciences and social marketing literatures and on an analysis of institutional reports reviewing cases of behaviourally informed policies.

Behavioural sciences are increasingly informing policies to promote societal well-being. Social marketing has seldom been explicitly considered as being part of this phenomenon, although it is de facto. Both disciplines share similar end-goals, inform similar policy applications and are rooted in behavioural analysis. They diverge in their theoretical frameworks, their relative emphasis on behaviour change and the span of interventions they generate. Several benefits of embedding social marketing principles and methods within the current way of applying behavioural sciences to policy are identified.

Scholars applying behavioural sciences to policy are encouraged, when appropriate, to use the insights and methods from social marketing. Social marketing can engage in a dialogue with behavioural sciences to explore how to pilot the convergence of both approaches in practice.

The novelty of this contribution lies in providing the first comparison of the application of behavioural sciences to policy with social marketing, and in using the policy-making cycle framework to map the contributions and complementarities of both disciplines.