Ebook: Futurecast In Marketing : Findings From An Academic Think Tank

Capitalism versus communism, pure competition versus monopoly, globalisation versusdomestic competition, qualitative versus quantitative, positivistic versus interpretivistic . . .and so on. It is the very essence of debate and argument that we adopt diametrically opposedpositions despite the fact that invariably we find that polar opposites are the exception ratherthan the rule. Why then do we perpetuate an either/or, positive/negative, black or white, trueor false attitude to life? Pedagogically, stating and having to defend an extreme case or proposition requires us toidentify and explicate the essence of our argument; to spell out precisely what our position orbelief is and why it is to be preferred to any alternative position or explanation. The benefitsof precision and clarification are obvious. Once the intrinsic nature and characteristics of, say,perfect competition have been adumbrated then we can compare and contrast these with thepolar opposite of monopoly. The paradox is that, having defined the extreme points of aspectrum we then focus our attention on these rather than the spectrum that they anchor anddefine. Our tendency to do so is even more surprising when we consider that the greatmajority of phenomena are distributed normally such that 68 per cent of all occurrences willoccur within one standard deviation either side of the mean or mid point of the normaldistribution. At the extreme ends of a normal distribution, say six standard deviations, thelikelihood of an event occurring is infinitely small. Such frequency of occurrence hardlyjustifies the attention given to polar extremes once they have served their purpose of definingthe limits of an issue or topic in which we are interested. The problem becomes even moreacute when the claimed polarisation is more imaginary than real. The theme of the Academyof Marketing’s Annual Conference in 2000, ‘‘Bridging the divide’’, is a case in point.The perceived distinction between theory and practice existed long before the subject ofmarketing became accepted as an academic discipline in its own right. It is enshrined incliche´s to the effect that ‘‘Those who can, do: those who cannot, teach’’ and ‘‘It’s all very well intheory but, in practice . . .’’ Obviously, then, the marketing academy cannot be heldresponsible for the original perception of a ‘‘divide’’ between academic theorising and the ‘‘real’’ world of practice. It is responsible for allowing this generalised perception to extend tothe subject of marketing and endorsing it by taking it as the theme for a major conference.In offering this comment, I wish to make it clear that this is in no way a criticism of theorganisers of an excellent conference. It is a criticism of the marketing academy at large,including myself. An innovation at this year’s AM conference was a major debate on theproposition ‘‘This House believes that marketing academics should work to reduce thecurrent gap between academia and practice’’. After an excellent and most entertaining debate,the motion was carried by a small majority despite those proposing and opposing the motionagreeing that they really supported their opponent’s case! I abstained on the grounds thatneither side produced any evidence to support the existence of a real gap, despite compellingtheoretical evidence for its potential existence. Personally, I believe there is a gap between the worlds of academia and practice and I fearthat it may be growing wider rather than smaller. The reason why this may be so, in myopinion, is to be found in the fact that many who profess marketing are not really interested inits practice. It is merely a convenient conduit for their own theoretical interests.The growth of the marketing discipline has been driven by the demand for marketingcourses by well-qualified school-leavers who wished to pursue a career in business andeschewed the more traditional ‘‘academic’’ curriculum in favour of something more relevant tothis ambition. Initially, to cope with this demand, only the brave, or foolish, came out asteachers of marketing. But, as resources followed student demand from the more traditionalsocial sciences, such as economics and sociology, to business studies and marketing, soopportunities for academic careers in the former declined while they accelerated in the latter.The result has been that persons qualified in the core disciplines such as economics,psychology and sociology on which marketing is based have been recruited to the marketingacademy. Without doubt these academics bring much intellectual capital to the marketingdiscipline, but many are disinterested in the holistic nature of marketing and its professionalpractice. For them, marketing departments provide a better resource base for their researchinterests than are available elsewhere. Further, by applying research performance criteria asthe basis for recognition and promotion within academic institutions they help distort thedistribution of resources away from those who are equally or more concerned with practice. Ifit were otherwise, why is the writing of a major textbook with the potential to inform andenthuse thousands of students and future practitioners considered less important than apaper in the Journal of Marketing Obscurity which is only cited by subsequent contributors tothis same publication? If a gap exists I suspect it is not down to the members of the Academy of Marketing, to theparticipants in AM conferences, or contributors to this journal or the Journal of MarketingManagement; it is down to those who profess the subject but disdain these activities andpublications. So, unless you draw this commentary to their attention it is unlikely to have anyimpact. On the other hand, if we think strategically then a much better solution is to dissuadepractitioners of the mistaken impression that a gap exists between us and them. To do so weneed to make our research and ideas more accessible to them and not allow those at theextreme end of the marketing spectrum dominate the middle ground. In part this is being achieved as more professionally qualified students becomepractitioners and continue to read the marketing journals they encountered on their courses.With this in mind, Westburn Publishers has launched The Marketing Review. The journalwill offer the latest thinking and ideas of both academics and practitioners. Perhaps we candemonstrate that good theory and best practice are one and the same thing.Invitations were sent to a number of individuals, only one of whom was unableto accept – being editor of JAMS was taking up too much of his time! As youwould expect, given the authors’ interests and track records, the eight papersreceived reflect a rich diversity of wisdom and scholarship. Choosing a runningorder and offering a personal comment was not a simple task. It was, however,a most enjoyable and stimulating one, and I would like to thank my very goodfriends for giving me the opportunity. Where better to begin than with one of the founding fathers of the modernmarketing discipline, Sid Levy. As Levy points out, ‘‘Debate about theoryversus application arises continually among disciplines, often leading toschisms, organisational disruptions and splinter groups’’. Marketing is notalone in its search for a distinctive identity, nor are marketing scholars anydifferent from those in other disciplines in seeking to define their subject interms of their own preferences and prejudices.Levy explores the boundaries of marketing and confesses to his and PhilKotler’s territorial ambitions in penning ‘‘Broadening the concept of marketing’’,but asserts firmly ‘‘Observation, not value judgements, shows that marketing isthe core dynamic mechanism of the social system’’. That said, a long-termperspective clearly reveals that controversies about the relationship of theoryand practice, and the scope of the discipline, recur frequently, ‘‘But nothingfundamental has changed’’. He concludes that there is room for all and that ananalogy with a tree in which the roots are the research programs, the trunk ispostgraduate and post-experience education, and the foliage flowers and fruit arethe undergraduate programs, and service to the public demonstrates how eachgroup within themarketing academy has its role and purpose.The second paper, ‘‘Marketing as a profession: closing stakeholder gaps’’, is byanother doyen of the marketing academy, Shelby Hunt. The theme of this paperis that academe has different constituencies and needs to spell out itsrelationships and duties with each, thus independently confirming andreinforcing the points made by Levy. Noting that the issue of a divide or gapdates from the emergence of the marketing discipline, Hunt argues that thedebate would be better informed if it started from a ‘‘coherent, well-groundedconceptualisation’’. He suggests that at present it is a university disciplineaspiring to be a professional discipline with four responsibilities to its multiplestakeholders. These he conceives of as a duty to society, to students, tomarketing practice and to the academy, each of which has rather different needs.These are discussed in some detail and leads to the conclusion that the ‘‘gap’’debate should be broadened by marketing academe, acknowledging that it hasduties and responsibilities to stakeholders other thanmarketing practitioners.The third paper, ‘‘Vote, vote, vote for Philip Kotler’’, was penned by our veryown Stephen Brown while on sabbatical in the great man’s department at theKellogg Graduate School of Management. Given Stephen’s inimitable style, theEditor was grateful for the reassurance that Philip has both seen and approvedthis thought-provoking contribution!As Stephen reminds us, as if we needed reminding, Kotler is another of thefounding fathers of the modern marketing concept, standing alongside Levyand Levitt in the pantheon of giants. He is also the author of the world’sbest-selling marketing textbook, Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,Implementation and Control, now in its tenth edition. However, the ‘‘APIC’’model is seen by Brown as being as mistaken as the present concern for‘‘relationship marketing’’. In his view it is a book about sales management notmarketing – about what sellers can do to buyers not for them, which is theessence of the true marketing concept. In other words, Marketing Managementis about the management of marketing not the cultivation of customers. As a paid-up member of Stephen’s ‘‘gerontocracy of Emeritus Professors’’ Ienjoyed the Young Pretender’s typically thought-provoking paper. But, asBrown admits himself, he is a TEASE. Following Pascale’s observation that ‘‘Itis not certain that everything is uncertain’’, one should be very careful inassuming there is a single explanation of anything!As Evert Gummesson states pungently in the abstract to his paper, ‘‘Practicalvalue of adequate marketing management theory’’, ‘‘. . . marketing managementhas become stereotyped on a derelict foundation in commodity-like textbooks’’.Acknowledging that marketing still lacks a general theory that canaccommodate and embrace new developments, Gummesson believes thatrelationship marketing using relationships, networks and interaction offers thebest prospect for the development of such a theory. Meantime, topics such asthese are treated as special cases and their integration is frustrated by textbooksthat fail to address such issues and ‘‘are caught in reminiscences from the 1960sand patched like a pair of worn jeans, presenting fragments of theory, models,and research findings . . . ’’. While recognising the debt we owe our Americancolleagues, Gummesson deprecates their hegemony which encourages others toclone themselves on the US model and so fail, with some honourable exceptions,to enrichmarketing theorywith original knowledge fromtheir own cultures.As with earlier papers, this scholarly and thought-provoking critique andanalysis provides numerous insights and original ideas that resonate stronglywith the theme of this special issue. More importantly, the author does notcontent himself with analysis alone, he also provides ‘‘Guidelines for futuretheory generation’’ that should be required reading for all those withpretensions to undertake research in the domain of marketing. The next paper, ‘‘Research in marketing: teasing with trivia or riskingrelevance?’’ by Nigel Piercy, should also, in my view, be required reading foranyone considering an academic career in marketing. (I am assuming thatthose who have already embarked on such a career and are engaged in researchin marketing are already familiar with the general tenor of Nigel’s views asthese have been widely publicised, not least in earlier issues of this journal. Ifyou are not then consult the references given.) So that there should be no doubton the matter, I agree with him, although my own views are lacking on thecriterion of impact that he perceives as the acid test of relevance. Nontheless,they are hinted at in my commentary and were the subject of a keynote addressI gave on ‘‘Research myopia’’ at the 1994 AMA Winter Educators Conference.So what are the issues?Basically, they all centre on relevance and the implication that if the findingsof research are seen as useful by practitioners this calls into question the rigourwith which that research has been executed. Piercy disposes of this argumentin two sentences: If your research is not rigorous, then by definition it cannot be relevant, because no-one canrely on your results. If your research is not relevant, then by definition it cannot be rigorous,because it fails to meet the basic laws of science and metatheory pertaining to pragmatism. The corollary of this is that rigour lies in what he terms ‘‘methodologicalmadness’’, in which the deployment of complex techniques is seen as necessaryeven when the outcome defies common sense.Piercy confesses that his approach is polemical but it is polemicists thatdraw attention to real issues that need to be debated and addressed. Some havebeen offended by his trenchant and iconoclastic comments in the past and, nodoubt, a few will be by this paper. It is hoped that those who agree will makethemselves known and that those who do not will openly challenge what theyreject with reasoned evidence and argument. One of the ‘‘honourable exceptions’’ referred to earlier in commenting onGummesson’s paper is the Scandinavian School, one of whose leadingluminaries is Kjell Grønhaug. One of Europe’s most prolific and widelypublished marketing scholars, Kjell’s response to an invitation to contribute tothe debate is to pose the question, ‘‘Is marketing knowledge useful?’’.While, like most knowledge, marketing knowledge is generally believed tobe useful it is pointed out that what constitutes knowledge is ambiguous andsubject to multiple interpretations. Accordingly, Grønhaug sets out to definethe link between research and the creation of knowledge, particularly ‘‘usefulknowledge’’. In doing so, emphasis is given to knowledge as an abstraction andknowledge applied in context.In clarifying the nature of ‘‘knowledge’’ it is stressed that in business andmarketing ‘‘useful knowledge’’ is usually associated with its application or‘‘instrumental use’’. Important distinctions are observed between the ability ofstudents and practitioners to select and adjust knowledge to situation-specificissues and problems. Clearly, experience is important here. Given thatmarketing is something that people do, academicians have a responsibility toexplain the meaning of marketing knowledge and show how it may be used toinform and enhance practice. In doing so, Grønhaug endorses the notion of‘‘praxis’’ suggested by Aristotle, not ‘‘practice’’ in contrast to ‘‘theory’’, butuseful application guided by theory.The theme of marketing practice is continued is the next paper by JohnMurray and his Irish colleagues, Aidan O’Driscoll and Ann Torres –‘‘Discovering diversity in marketing practice’’. In the authors’ view ‘‘theprescriptive literature emphasises a universal view of practice, a ‘‘‘one-size-fitsall’view’’ that does not reflect the diversity that actually characterises thenature of competition. Based on an examination of the nature of diversity to befound in the literature of strategic management and organisation theory, theauthors detect a growing interest in the domain of marketing. This interest isexemplified and explored in a number of original case studies to establish howvariety evolves at industry level. If, as the authors claim, diversity in practice is the norm, then surely weshould have a theory ‘‘to make sense of what might otherwise seem random’’.The authors conclude by offering their own suggestions as to what such atheory might include. To conclude the issue, who better a person to address ‘‘the underlying natureof the problematic relationship between theory and practice’’ than Robin Wensleyof Warwick Business School. Taking the popular song, A Bridge over Troubled Water, as his theme, Robin echoes many of the themes introduced in earlierpapers. (While the editor advised invitees who else was being invited, to the bestof my knowledge none of the authors actually consulted other contributors andhad an entirely free hand in deciding how to address the issues suggested in myoriginal commentary. This being so, the consistency contained in the independentcontributions of some of the marketing academy’s leading scholars, drawn fromseveral different countries, suggests that this special issue represents animportant agenda for debate by all interested in the future ofmarketing.)To begin with there is the issue of the polarisation of argument, without whichthere would not be a debate in the first place! And, of course, ‘‘more of ourcolleagues should behave as we do’’. Second, a systems way of thinking impliesdiscrete activities that need to be linked and that if ‘‘gaps’’ really exist thenintermediaries will emerge to close them, only surviving if they add genuinevalue to the process. If this is so then perhaps the principle of task specialisationshould deter most academics from wanting to become practitioners, and viceversa. A third issue is the need to distinguish between the domain of marketingthat extends to areas that ‘‘might be termed ‘marketing not-management’’’. AsWensley observes, ‘‘Marketing is a ubiquitous phenomenon; we are allparticipants. The rhetoric of marketing, if not the practice, has privileged theconsumer and hence consumption. This raises a set of research issues outsidethe normal domain of marketing management but certainly central tomarketing as a whole . . .’’. In turn, Wensley follows Pettigrew and Fenton(2001) in identifying the ‘‘double hurdle’’ facing researchers of management ingeneral – the dual demand for academic rigour and practical relevance. Justwhat is useful knowledge and how can we develop theory? In addressing thesecentral issues we should not mistake them as defining the totality of issues thatdeserve attention. We need to look beyond the dichotomy of the theory/practicedimension and seek other orthogonal dimensions deserving of research andanalysis; in other words, we need to recognise the diversity in what we do.Editing this special issue has been a particular privilege for me. I would likeonce again to thank the distinguished friends who have made it possible. I haveenjoyed the stimulation of sharing their ideas and the wisdom that underliesthem. I only hope they will forgive me for my simplistic summary of some thepoints that resonated particularly strongly with me, but then they alreadyknow my abiding interest in the phenomenon of selective perception! You mustread the papers yourself and form your own conclusions. Michael J. Baker Previously published in: European Journal of Marketing, Volume 36, Number 3, 2002