Marketing Theories #3

Summary #3

What is, or Should Be, the Proper Domain of Marketing Theory?

This part touches the ‘boundaries of marketing’.

Kotler and Levy (1969) argued that every organization is involved in marketing whether or not these activities are recognized as involved in marketing whether or not these activities are recognized as such.

Kotler (1972a, p49) presented a generic concept of marketing, ‘Marketing is specifically concerned with how transactions are created, stimulated, facilitated, and valued.’ He attempted to focused on the importance of transaction where core concept of marketing is the transaction and there is an exchange of values between two parties. He argued that, a transaction can occur between any two parties – Pg 8.

Tucker (1974) presented the unresolved problems, ‘ The crux of the issue is this: is the identity of marketing determined by the subject matter dealt with or by the technology with which the subject is handled? Specifically, is marketing the application of certain functions, activities or techniques to the dissemination of economic goods and services, including the satisfaction they provide? Or is it the application of those techniques to the dissemination of any ideas, programs or causes – noneconomic as well as business’ (pp 74-75)

THREE questions with theoretical implications:

1. Is Service Marketing different from product marketing?

Uhl and Upah (1983) concluded 4 areas of differences:

a.      Tangibility

b.      Ability to stored (perishability)

c.       Ability to transport

d.      Ability to mass market

‘A service is any task (work) performed by another or the provision of any facility, product, or activity for another’s use and not ownership, which arises from an exchange transaction. It is intangible and incapable of being stored or transported. There may be an accompanying sale of a product (p. 236)’

Enis (1979) and Enis and Roering (1981) argued that goods and services share many common characteristics and that marketing of goods and marketing of services may appropriately call for similar strategies.

Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1985) identified some unique characteristics of services (intangibility, perishability, heterogeneity, inseparability of consumption and production). They also pointed out that differences exist among services as well as between services and goods. 

2. Is there a difference between consumer goods marketing and industrial goods marketing?

Fundamental differences between industrial and consumer marketing – Journal of Marketing:

‘Rational buying motives appear to predominate in the industrial field but their influence declines with the increase in product similarity. (p. 153)

Multiple-buying responsibility is common place in the industrial field in the purchase of major items of equipment and in the establishment of formulas for purchases of raw materials and component parts (p. 154)

The channels of distribution for industrial goods are likely to be shorter than channels for consumer goods. There are fewer middlemen in the industrial chain and a much larger percentage of industrial goods is sold direct to the buyer in industrial marketing than the percentage sold direct to the consumer in consumer marketing (p. 155)

Sheth (1979a) argued that there are greater variations in marketing methods within industrial marketing and consumer marketing than there is between these two types of marketing. E.g. house require direct marketing techniques while some industrial goods like solvent and lubricants may be mass-marketed. – p. 11 

3. Are domestic marketing and international marketing similar or dissimilar?

Advocates for standardization

·         Fatt in 1967 – some consumer needs are universal e.g. desire to be beautiful (p. 11)

·         Buzzell (1968) – obstacles and also tangible benefits to apply common marketing policies in different countries

·         Levitt (1983) – emergence of global markets for standardized consumer products on a previously unimagined scale of magnitude

Advocates for adaptation

·         Kotler (1986a) and Wind (1986) – diametrically opposed to Levitt’s hypothesis

·         Sheth (1986) suggests a contingency framework that identifies situations where standardization will be successful and other situations where customization is necessary

·         Dholakia, Firat and Bagiozzi (1980 – presented five points for discussion (p.25) – pg 12

o   Marketing concepts are a product of, and contextually bound to the American industrial system

o   This fact limits the spatial and temporal validity of marketing concepts

o   The context boundedness inhibits the emergence of a suniversal conception of the nature and scope of marketing

o   Specific biases and barriers are created in terms of theoretical development in the field

o   Efforts are needed to de-conceptualize, re-conceptualize and thereby universalize the analytical categories of marketing.

Conclusion:
When a scholar proposes a new theory, he or she must explicitly explain the domain to which this theory is relevant. Is it applicable to for-profit marketing, nonprofit marketing, social marketing, industrial goods marketing, or international marketing? P13