We are all familiar with television sport programs moderated by a journalist that never competed in any agonist event, filled with commentators who appear to be visibly unfit. This heterogeneous group of people displays a degree of expertise in leading opinions, moving critics to trainers, advancing recommendations to club managers and evaluating the performance of athletes. Yet, most of these experts couldn’t hit a football ball themselves. Why is this happening? Because “sport” is no longer synonym of physical activity or fitness. Sport has evolved to become a broader field, patrimony the entire society and not just of those who practice it, because it is connected with entertainment, financial capitals, people’s emotions, regional pride, and folklore. It is a wide multidisciplinary subject connected to various aspects of our society. The shared identity, however, comes with an identity loss. In fact, literature and media coverage of sport, as well as experts, may become of little help to someone who wants to actually train, practice sport, and compete in the Olympics.
We can draw a similarity with the evolution of marketing schools. As this document will describe, marketing schools were in their beginning closely related with business functions, however, as the discipline became capable of penetrating other disciplines, marketing evolved to become patrimony of society, afield borrowed and even owned by other disciplined who brought in their experts and commentators who had little or no experience in actual commerce or business management. Consumer behavior is an example of a marketing school expanded far beyond the spectrum of consumption and purchasing, becoming a hub for interdisciplinary exchange populated by “a substantial number of non-business researchers across the behavioral sciences, particularly psychology […mostly] not particularly interested in the managerial implications” (Shaw and Jones, 2005, p. 262).
A business manager who needs to develop his marketing abilities is, in my view, in a similar position as the aspirant athlete who may get inspiration, motivation and interesting analysis from sport literature and experts, yet he needs to find elsewhere a real trainer and professional coach to grow as a champion.
The following analysis focuses on the evolution of marketing schools through two lenses: the development of marketing as a multidisciplinary hub rooted in many aspect of society, and the value of marketing schools to the actual business practice.
Marketing functions school
This approach may be compared to the work of Euclid of Alexandria who in his Elements put the bases for geometry, starting by asking questions such as “what is a line”. Marketing functions addressed the definition of what the work of marketing is and catalogued the basic, and possibly universal, elements of the discipline. Besides providing order in the field, I would identify two other major achievements of this school that to date represent important lessons whenever we deal with marketing. First of all, a fundamental pillar of marketing was put in place by Weld’s recognition that “the final consumer performs part of the marketing functions” (1917, p. 306). Additionally, the analysis of functions highlighted how marketing affects a number of activities. On one side, the functions perspective attracted critics because it seemed to “squeeze a heterogeneous and non-consistent group of activities” in an “attempt to crowd [them] and into one class and label marketing functions” (McGarry, 1950, p. 264). On the other hand, this attempt holds a valuable lesson in modern organizations because it reminds us that marketing cannot be an isolated department but must be visible, connected and involved with other departments. In many organizations the marketing department is perceived as doing a niche activity, for example in my company very few departments ever interact with Marketing: they are as isolated and anonymous as specialized departments such as Engineering. However, marketing should be actively involved in every other organizational function, from risk assessment to finance, from selling to distribution.
Commodities school
As the name suggests, this school addressed the way different goods require different marketing strategies. I believe that this school had fundamental impact on the development of a new business model. For example, consider the fact that historically when a company accumulates wealth it is likely to enter into the production of different commodities. The commodity school diverged from the concept of the big magnate expanding his tentacles in as many commodities as possible while maintaining a single distinctive identity: for example an oil magnate who uses huge financial assets to expand towards agricultural, chemicals, food and automotive industries. Commodities school clearly highlighted the need to tailor marketing to specific commodities. This implies, in my view, the lesson that brands should be related to the commodity and not to the source: to the output and not to the origin.
This lesson is clearly taken into account by modern monopoles. For example, what do a Lacoste or Hugo Boss perfumes have in common with a Duracell battery, a Pampers baby diaper, the Pringle crisps and Mr. Muscle detergent? They are all manufactured and distributed by Proctor and Gamble. Same as Armani and Ralph Laurent perfumes are owned by Nestle’, the manufacturer of chocolate drink Nesquik, and of cat food Friskies. Clearly, branding and distribution channels have both successfully become very much commodity-oriented rather than simply reflecting a company identity.
Another practical lesson offered by the commodities school is the identification of emotional and cognitive implications related to different commodities, for example when Kaish (1967, p. 31) associated convenience goods with little mental cognitive dissonance and shopping goods with “high levels of pre-purchase anxiety”. Even in our days it is important for managers and marketing practitioners to reevaluate new products and services as different commodities that may require ad hoc marketing strategies divergent from the ones used for previous commodities.
Institutional school
The merit of this school has been to emphasize the economical implications of the route of a good towards its end consumers. I believe that consumer behavior, which has become a Pangea devoided of internal edges, does not offer sufficient resources to understand the economical and practical implications of marketing. The institutional school, however, researched connections between marketing and purely operational factors such as inventory, sorting and the classification of merchant versus functional middlemen, as well the implications in retailing versus wholesale. Nystrom (quoted by Shaw, 2005, p. 252) was concerned with the determination of the “most economical routes through which goods may be transferred from producers to consumers”. I believe that marketing, perhaps because of the influence of consumer behavior, is nowadays too much associated with persuasion techniques and social implication, whilst in fact a business manager is interested in marketing strategies that takes into account not just the “best” route but also the most economically wise. This is particularly important for marketing technological goods that are susceptible to risky stock dynamics and high innovation rates. Consumer behavior may accurately suggest persuasion strategies to attract consumers to a new television model, yet the perspective of the business management needs also to consider correlated factors such as the implications of overstocking or of the fact that in two months an upgraded model will come to market and be placed in the same retailer’s shelf.
Inter-regional trade school
This school is based on the analysis of variables such as size, population, distance and travelling time with regards to a trading area. It is questionable whether these notions still hold value in our days characterized by the so-called flattened world of Internet commerce, multiculturalism, high-speed logistics and outsourcing.
Marketing management school
This school is reach of implications in the evolution of the marketing discipline. First of all, it must be noted that, as per its name, this school fills an important gap in the subject, namely the perspective of executives, decision makers and managers, addressing “the managing functions of planning, organizing and controlling as applied to marketing” (Shaw and Jones, 2005, p. 257). The notion of marketing mix clearly suggested the role of the marketing manager in optimizing the combination of elements within the mix, such as distribution, channels, price, product planning, selling and advertising. It is evident how this approach links marketing to organizational, operational and financial skills, in a strategic context. Consumer behavior, with its broad approach often overlooking purchasing and market, lacks the necessary business orientation that marketing management provides to those acting on the field.
It is interesting to notice that the very school that enabled the embodiment of management into marketing established the premises for a paradigm broadening, that ultimately denaturized marketing from its pure business connotation. Lazer (1969, p. 3) proposed that “marketing must serve not only business but also the goals of society”, and Kotler (1972, p. 53) extended the marketer’s area of competence to encompass “understanding human wants and values”. How to interpret this paradigm broadening? In my view, this is the result of marketing having reached a level of practical efficacy, leaping from a role of semantics and categorization to a level of factual influence in both organizations and society. Whenever a discipline appears able to impact society, not just theoretically but factually, the gates are opened to other disciplines and the subject looses its specialist connotations. Referring back to the introduction, we may think of similar developments in other disciplines, such as sport, but also for example biology: once this science proved capable of influencing society (because of the implications of cloning or genetic manipulation) it lost its connotation of exotic white coat and has become a subject traversed by many other disciplines, from ethics and sociology, to law and politics.
A detrimental consequence of the paradigm broadening, however, occurs whenever the various disciplines that entered into the consumer behavior school attempt to deform the nature of marketing transforming it in an academic multidisciplinary hub that hosts so many disciplines without any business application. As Shaw and Jones (2005, p. 273) suggested: “it is time for the discipline to question the paradigm broadening and reconsider the conventional business domain as the conceptual foundation for contemporary marketing thought”. Like in a medical school, there is certainly space for complementary disciplines allowing to take a holistic approach to well being, however the focus must remain to educate physicians that can prescribe the right drugs, perform surgeries and make diagnoses. Clowning, ethics, multicultural notions, yoga and elements of communication skills: all these notions may have a place but ultimately they are corollaries of the main function of the surgeon, which is how to sue a scalpel. Similarly, marketing schools cannot be high jacked by other disciplines operating a de-contextualization from the business focus.
Macro-marketing school
The broad approach of macro-marketing focuses on issues such as the mutual impact of society and marketing system. Whilst I subscribe to the importance of researching the effects of marketing in society, and vice versa, I disagree with marketing should be conceived in broad terms of social benefit. First of all, because such notion is paradoxical. Society is influenced by a variety of factors, marketing being just one, therefore marketing may interpret and exploit needs, desires and perceptions of society. However, to assign to marketing the role of exercising an influence in society leads to the question: which influence? Decided by whom? Authorized by whom? Based on which principles? This is not only a cognitive short circuit but also a dangerous conflict of interests: business marketing is a function of private organizations devoted to create private profits: should we assign to them an official role of designing our society? Rather, it should be up to society, through other channels, to moderate the impact of marketing.
The short circuit can be described with some practical example. Whenever a company uses marketing to promote a positive social message, scandals arise because the company is exploiting social issues in order to increase sales. On the other hand if a company concentrates on pure persuasion without engaging in any benevolent social effort, the advertiser is blamed of being cynical and socially apathetic. Fashion firm Benetton made a point of advertising its brand by promoting messages related to AIDS, racism, war, and discrimination. The reaction? Some attacked the marketing strategy because of exploiting social issues. Others attacked it because they disagree with the message (i.e. certain cultures or religious groups). Yet, we hear plenty of complaints about advertising industry being shallow and socially disengaged. The solution? Let marketing remain a business function, free to engage or disengage from social issues, and if it does, let not be jealous of marketing adopting social issues that are patrimony of society, because marketing is part of it.
Exchange school
This school has also experience paradigm broadening, experiencing the substitution of the pair buying-selling with the general giving-receiving. The implications are that this substitution can lead to consider as marketing literally anything that happens in the universe, and beyond. Clearly such generalizations and ambiguity do not favor business managers who need marketing skills in order to generate value, to make choices, to deal with heavy consequences. As Steth and Garrett (1986, p. 773) highlighted: “marketing must limit itself to exchanges of economic values… [or] it is likely to be blurred with other disciplines”.
Conclusions
Having analyzed how the evolution of marketing schools increased its value in business but also determined the paradigm broadening, I openly advocated the need for increased focus of marketing into business settings. With this regard an issue remains open: who should lead this much-needed change of approach? I would suggest that change should come from business schools that have a higher degree of responsiveness than other academies. Many other universities offer degrees on business subjects, including marketing, yet their graduates join organizations in the real world without a real business preparation. It is time for companies to behave as consumers, forcing universities to wake up from the oneiric state while rewarding those business schools that really educate to business practice. Scholars recognize that a vast proportion of marketing literature has no place in the boardroom because “there is a widening gap between marketing theory and its corporate applicability” (Moller, 2007, p.36). It would be unwise for academies not to react to the evidence that their product doesn’t seem to fulfill the needs of their market.
Luis Miguel Battistella, MBA
Director, Audere Group
References
Kaish, S. (1967) ‘Cognitive Dissonance and the Classification of Consumer Goods’, Journal of Marketing 31 (October): 28–31.
Kotler, P. (1972) ‘A Generic Concept of Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 36 (April): 46–54.
Lazer, W. (1969) ‘Marketing’s Changing Social Relationships’, Journal of Marketing 33 (January): 3–9
McGarry, E.D. (1950) ‘Some Functions of Marketing Reconsidered’, in R. Cox and W. Alderson (eds) Theory in Marketing, pp. 263–79. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Sheth, J.N. and Garrett, D.E. (1986) Marketing Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Shaw, E.H. & Jones, D.G.B. (2005) ‘A history of schools of marketing thought’, Marketing Theory, 5 (3), pp.239-281, Sage Journals.
Weld, L.D.H. (1917) ‘Marketing Functions and Mercantile Organization’, American Economic Review (June): 306–18.
