Search results

The purpose of this article is to present an inside look at the history of a little‐known but interesting initiative in the marketing field, one that involved the infusion of marketing thought into public policy decision‐making in the USA. It aims to trace the interesting tale of how marketing academics came to be included in the activities of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) through the FTC's “Marketing Academic Consultancy Program” (MACP) during the 1970s. This story also aims to include descriptions of the contributions made by those marketing academics and how those scholars were later phased out of the FTC.

An autobiographical approach is used since each of the authors was personally involved in the MACP. As participants in the program and as scholars whose careers were thereafter tremendously affected by that participation, these personal accounts provide considerable insight into the impact on both FTC operations and on marketing academic thought itself.

Over the decade of the 1970s some 30 marketing academics participated in this program, with considerable impact on both FTC operations and on marketing academic thought itself. Reflecting positive impact within public policy, for example, was a massive increase in the FTC budget for marketing and consumer research activities – from essentially zero at the start of the program to some $ 1 million in 1978. Benefits also flowed back into academia, as this program formed a prime basis for the development of today's “Marketing and Society” research area.

Although there are histories of the FTC, this is an original, first‐hand account of a little‐known era during which marketing academics and public policy decision‐makers were given a unique opportunity to work together and learn from each other. It offers personal insights into the workings of this innovative program and the benefits that accrued for both the FTC and for the marketing discipline.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the development and application of marketing theory and practice over time and its current status. The terms “brickbats” and “bouquets” are used as metaphors to extend praise or criticism for marketing. In doing so, the authors draw upon the views of leading theorists over time and apply these in the current environmental context.

The approach adopted is discursive, critical and conceptual.

Following literature review, and drawing upon current examples, marketing as a discipline is subject to both kudos and criticisms. Nonetheless, it is concluded optimistically in that marketing can be an even greater source for societal good. That “goodness” is partly based upon the added impetus of social media adoption and use by consumers, the need for growth and accelerative innovation in the digital age coupled with the democratisation of consumption. Nonetheless, the authors offer the caveat that free competitive markets lead to market failures, and the need for market regulation by governments is becoming more evident.

The implications of the paper are profound. Academics should be concerned in and involved with marketing theory. Questions need to be raised concerning non-robust definitions of marketing and its application. The authors wait for a consumer-led approach to marketing to add depth to the marketing theory.

Marketers need to be made more accountable for their actions. Consumers need to become part of the marketing process. Marketing claims need to be verified by delivered benefits. Companies need to take steps to ensure that the marketing process does not end at purchase. Satisfaction needs to be made manifest. Likewise, dissatisfactions need to be managed well as part of the marketing process.

Too much marketing currently is relatively unregulated in the sense that there are so few opportunities to evade its myriad reach and – despite social media – little chance of changing marketing practice for the good of societies. Many criticisms of marketing practice are not being addressed in the literature.

Marketing is a vibrant force in all nations and markets. It is deeply rooted in business practice. It is contemporaneous and relevant. It is global and national. But, it is not entirely all good news. There are caveats and criticisms as well as kudos and praise. While both are addressed here, the topic needs to be considered for marketing and its accompanying theory and practice to change.

A high level of product involvement is typically assumed to accompany higher information search, a fewer number of acceptable alternatives, and a higher number of choice criteria than does low level of product involvement. Inferring the level of product involvement from these behavioral or evaluative characteristics is, however, potentially misleading. Two factors are identified as mediating the relationship between the high level of involvement and these characteristics: (1) product trial, and (2) the consumer learning stage. The results of the present study support this view. Even for high involving products, considerable variations exist in these characteristics, depending on product trialability and consumer learning stage. Several strategic marketing implications stemming from these results are offered.

This paper seeks to propose steps marketing stakeholders should and can take to facilitate increasing the speed at which marketing proceeds to evolve – toward the stars and beyond.

Drawing from the literature advanced by first‐tier scholars the confusion surrounding marketing's future is examined.

Marketing, in its various manifestations, has been, is, and will continue to be, of enormous human benefit.

This paper recommends that all marketers subscribe to the normative marketing stakeholders' model presented and the open‐minded exchange is prescribed.

A trend has been developing in the United States towards the use of vertical marketing systems. Of the many types of vertical marketing systems, franchising has become one of the most dominant. This is evidenced, in part, by the nearly one‐third of retail sales in 1973 that were through franchised retailers (US Department of Commerce, 1974). The success of the franchise form of distribution hinges upon franchisors and franchisees both contributing skills and resources, frequently however franchisees and franchisors become dissatisfied with the other's contributions and actions. This dis‐satisfaction in some cases leads to substantial friction. Although it is not clear that conflict (friction) will always decrease channel efficiency it is probably safe to assume that continued conflict would be dysfunctional in a franchise channel. It is therefore the purpose of this article to discuss and empirically test several propositions about the franchisee's satisfaction with his franchisor.