BEBR [ACULTY WORKDNG PAPER WO. 857 College of Comezce and Business Adninistratton University of Illinois at Urbans-Chaspatgn March 1982 Ristory of Marketing Thought: An Update Jagdish N. shech, Professor Departneat of Business Adsinietration David M. Gerdser, Professor Departnent of Business Administration‘Traditional marketing thought steamed from two axioms: 1) that marketing vas essentially an economic activity and therefore was & subset of the discipline of econoaise and 2) thet the initiator of narketing activities and prograne was the marketer and not the consumer 4a the market place. Six new schools of thought have emerged since the 1960's these co fundamental axioms were questioned.ISTORY OF mARKETTNG THOUCNT: Ax UPDATE ‘uwraoouctron Since Bactols' classic summary of Metory of marketing chousht ia the early sixties (Bartels 1962), it 10 sonevbet surprising to tind that there 18 no update of marketing thought even though seversl new schools of marketing thought have euerged in the past quarter of 4 ceatury. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper 2 to identity various ow schools of marketing thought, examine thefr assoctated causal factor ‘hetr contributions covard enriching marketing theory. Bertets (1965) provided an elegant account of the developeent of marketing theory in terns of the periods of discovery (1900-1910), conceptualtzation (1910-1920), integration (1920-1930), developnent (1930-2940), reappraisal (1940-1950), and finally reconceptualtzation (2950-1960), During these periods, early ploneers aade sunerous con sctous efforts to evaluate marketing above selling and dlatetbutt ‘Mk marketing as an {dea rather than a group of activities 4o chat it could be recogatzed as a planning function and to generate several principles of marketing so chat {t could be labeled ae a science rather ‘than an art, The cutcone of these pioneering efforts was the develop- ‘ent end eventual integration of the functional, the comodity and the Anstitutional schools of macketing thought. These conventional concepts of marketing functions, chancels and ‘Hoods were questioned by a umber of scholars (Breyer 1934, Alexander, Surface, Elder and Alderson 1940, crather 1969, Duddy and Ravean 1947, lato and Corbin 1961, Novard 1957, Alderson and ox 1948, Baztels 1946).Je resulted in respprataing marketing thought avty frou the functions, Anstitutions and products and toward woce managerial and envtronaneel ortentation, A closer look at the history of marketing thought including its developaent, integration and reapprateal during the first half of the ‘eweatteth century, however, Andicat that tvo fundamental axtone seemed £0 dominate ost thinking despite divergence of vievpotat. The fret axon of consensus atemed fron the bellef chat aacketing wan eaneatialty an econoate activity, and that 1¢ was a subset of the tecipline of econontes, Therefore, marketing concepts (tnstttuttone, fonctions, products, managerial and environmental perspectives) were Ficted to economic behavior of people and associated institutions. Marketing was not considered appropriate for such sonsconoaic domains of Jnunan behavior as fine arte, religton, politics, public services, and buch intangibles as idea The second axiom of consensus stemmed fron the belief that the Anlthator of murketing actives nd prograns was the marketer and not the consumer fn che market place. While ie was recognized that under standing custoaer behavior through market research vas dastcable and ‘eved essential, tt was primarily regarded an an faput to the design of ‘arketiog programa and activities eo that the aarketer can influence, Imenipalate and control market behavior with greater effectiveness through his professional stilts of organtzntton and aanagenent. Te would appear to ua that the ge 48 of sore receat schools of ‘hough since the sixties cones from questioning those two fundamental atons of marketing thought and replacing thea vich aore conprehenaiveFor exanple, replacement of the exten of ecosontc exchange with the axiom of exchange of values by several scholars (Drucker 1974, Kotler snd Levy 1969, Kotler 1972, Levy and Zaltaan 1975, Bagozet 1875, caiman 1980) Literally broadened the marketing horizons to che ontradittonal of human behavior including religion, politics, public Sintlariy, other scholars and practitioners (Kats and Kahn 2955, Hovaré 1963, cyere and March 1958, Katona 1960, Rogers 1963, Steon 1957, Mekicerick 1959, Mayer 1958, Starch 1958, Dichter 1964), expltctely questioned the futility of marketer as the initiator of sarketing progrens by suggesting chat the consumer wes nore povesful than the ‘marketer, chat many other factors such a8 personel influences were wore Fesponstble for Mis dectstons, and chat te was best for the marketer to ‘ederstand the psychology of the consunar and work backvards from the ‘market £0 the factory to achteve more productivity and effectiveness out of marketing resources, Tn ahort, these acholars and practitioners en ‘couraged behavioral perspectives in place of econoate perspectives to develop a sore realistic marketing eheory. The broadening of the marketing concept by the axiom of exchange of value seens co have ertagered three distinct although related achools of ‘arketing thought, all of them dealing with the tasues of pervasiveness fof marketing {x the society. The fLret school of thought comonly re ferred to as gacromarkoting, for example, has attempted to focis on the potential and problems of aacketing activities and programe fron a nore ‘tcvo or societal perspective rather chan froa a nore wlcro fra Peropective, The second school of thought, mote cousonly referred to asaa sensuserion, emerged to provide an advocacy position tn eras of developing and protecting the rights of the consuuers. The third echool ‘of tought, comonly referred to as systems approsch provided frame~ Work for ‘ntegrating both the supply and the donand factor nn stogle boltetic theory. It argued that a an exchange of values, the ‘custoner has a sore fundanental choice of aelf-aaking as « production uunte, bartering 4t with other customers or buying tn the market place hich must be incorporated in any marketing thisking. Similarly, the axiom of balance of pover seena responsible for ‘Sriguertag another set of theory in marketing. The first and probably the soot influential achool of thought {9 comonly referred to as Buyer Behavior, which has tried to generate a behavioral theory of tuying. Tt Literally dominated the fleld of marketing ranging frou theory to market esearch and practice, The second school of thought wore comoaly ered to as Behavioral Organizations, has focused on the behavioral aspects auch as power, conflict, and interdependence among organizations sud particularly anong channels of distrtbutton. The third school of ‘hought, more comonly referred to as Strategic Planning, has focused on the balance of power issues between external envizcnsental factors such ‘44 market values, competition, technology, resources and regulation, and ‘the internal resource factors such as products, services, dtstributtos he ene of the paper will provide a brief historical perspective on each of the six nev schools of thought and at the end ass ehetr ‘contrtbutton to marketing theory.‘TRE ACRONARNETING ScHOOL With the exception of the managerial school of thought put forth 4a the atxtles, Little if any consideration had been given to exogenous variables by aarketing theoriste, While the minagertal school of thought recognie ‘exogenous variables, the emphasis war focused on naneging che ‘serketing organization to plan for uncontrollable vartables vhile ‘manipulating those that were controllable. The genesis of macronarheting thought 4a closely Liaked with the developing concern of the role of business in soctety. The negative conotations tovard the “atlitery-industrtal” complex and the ble ‘brother philosophy generated considerable early attention and interest by aarketing scholars to eystenstically exantine the role of aarketiog Fron 2 soctet ceive of the perspective rather than fron the persy Profi ontented firm, For the first tine, Lf wae appropriate co qestion that the end all and be all of anckettag ts company's profit ‘aexintzation, Tt vat the mcrouarketing school of thought whieh Hterally elevated the discussion of short term vs. long tera profit ‘exintzatfon to 4 higher level of corporate vt. soctetel goals asso~ elated wich marketing practice. ‘Te topic was of such coatenporary concern that {t simultaneously ‘attracted the attention of knovledge genaratore (acholars) and knowledge ates tors (popular pret Watle a ausber of schote helped ploneer this school of thought, two are of particular interest. Robert Holloway, in essoctation with Robert Hancock, visualized aarketing at an activity of soctety and consoquentiy sav aarketing as both being influenced by and influencing- ‘he soctety. A “rough schona” was developed ind the broad exogenous covironmantal variables of sociological, anthropological, peychological, sconoatc, legel, ethical, competitive, economic and cechaological (WoLlovay and Hancock 1966). Hollovay was also instrusental 1a pub ishing textbook intended to give 4 clear chotce to those who desired 4 sore macro view of marketing (Hollovay and Hancock 1968). Tn his sward vinning article with Grether, Holloway mide a clear call for studtes of the tapact of goverasental regulation on managerial dactston saking and che effect of regulation on the functioning of the market sayaten (Grether and Hollovay 1967). George Fisk, heavily influenced by Hroe Aldesson, brought « general syotens perspective to the study of marketing, Wis plonearing work made ‘the distinction betveen sterosysteas and mcrosystens (Fisk 1967, p. 77). Tats dichotoay was a springboard for his focus on soctal mar Keting, lls merous papers have shaped the present school of atcro~ sarketing thought. Other signittcant contributions have been made by Joba Vesting (1967), Richard Begosri (1977), Janes Carman (1980) and Pobert Bartels a9e2). other selier, Dut sore popular vorks ware contributed by Sethi with his Up Against che Corporate Wall (Seek 1965). Fortunately, the early eaphasis on brosd environmental issues bas Fecently given vay to a more enduring iaave of how asrkating can become 4 seane £0 achteving national gosis such a6 econonte developuent, Population control, and redistributfon of national income and wealth. 1m the proce Af Ae generating excellent conceptual thinking (Bagozet 1977, Shawyer and Prench 1978). Simultaneousty, any soctetal probleas‘uch a energy conservation, education, health care, population costrol ‘econcate development are pr tly making use of marketing theory and practice (Kotler 1973). The focus of this new chrust wae first centered in a series of acroarketing sontnar The fret seninar waa held in Boulder, Colorado tn 1976 with charles Slater as its organizer. These saninars, held eveey year stnce 1976 have greatly shaped ehte achool of thought. ut as one follows these seminars, the one issue that still renaiae open 4s the toundartas of thts school of thought. Out of these seninars grev the realization, hovever, that the achool. of macronerketing thought was broad enough and untque enough to support 4 Journal of macronarketing. Tate journal, under the editorship of George Fisk, has the opportunity e9 have a major tupact on marketing ‘theory Sn the next decade, Te ds clear chat the uscronarketing achoo! of thought has made stgntttcant contributions to marketing theory. Whtle the exact direc Hons of sts future are not clear, 4¢ 4 clear that applications to warketing practice will be ipacted. THE CONSUMERISM SCHOOL Tata school of chought energed as marketing scholars observed sone ‘obvious problens in che market place, These problens vere dramatically Alluscrated by Eaiph Mader 45 hs book, Unsafe at Any Speed. tovever, 4 must be recognized that the foundation of consuner protection really rests in the concepts of welfare econoates propagated by such sreat economiars as Schumpeter, Keysea, Hlouthaker and todigitant. And, $2o ‘should be reneabered that Consumer Reports as an advocacy magazine redates Ralph Nader by at least two decades, The early writings on consunerisn sumarized in reading books (Asker ‘and Day 1971, Gaedeka and Btcheson 1972) cle ly reflect the activist ‘thinking commonly associated with paople concerned vith epecifte cause OF, social problen. Both research and theory in the area ended to be Iighly ad hoc and specific to problens associated with asrketiag Practice from the advocacy perspective of the individual consuser. It included areas of research such ae deceptive advertising, high presture ‘sales tactics, product safety, and disclosure of tnformstion, Tt Presuned that the average consumer was both educationally Sgnorant and echatcally incompetent to make rational choices which are good for him. Hence, the eed for government regulation and for woluntery organtzation dedicated to the protection of consuser welfare. Such elittet attitudes ‘ey be more responsible for the recent decline in the sovenent than aay other factor. Fortunately, consuserien as a cause has given way to more aystenstic fnd fundamental research and chisking in the area, This ts manifested by che recs drive to understand and davelop a theory of coaguser faction (Andreasen 1977, Day and Rodur 1977, Want 1977). Stat~ larly, more comprehensive enpittcal research 12 undertaken to understand consunar complaining behavior ax well as behavior of spectalized Seguenta such as che Blacks, che Rtepasica, the handicapped, and the ‘untgrants, A conspicuous absence of this ney research trend 4 the ack of emotionally charged and value Laden research which serely ‘endorses prior judguents rather than tecone the beets for asking those Sedmments.~ Tale school of thought tends to overlap with both the buyer behavior ‘and mecronatketing schools. It overlaps with the buyer behavior school Ain thet che research will often tavolve buyers. In that cease, the boundary between buyer behavior and consunerien is very furzy. Por ‘snatanca, the work of BELL Vilkte, aponsored by che Mettonsl Science Foundation on Consumer Information Processing (Wilkie 1975) was cleerly sn application of well knom buyer behavior research to the market place problem of contuner information. ‘This school overlaps with the macronarkating school tn that {t tends to deal with broader, more aucro ‘asues, If oten focuses on ragulatios Iatket structure, education, competition and ethice. Toe future of consunerisn, hovever, te far more uncertain than ‘sacronarketing, On the one hand, there {8 the exergence of conservative octal and political values which believes ia less regulation and more persoaal intttativer on the other hand, the sore fundanental problens iafaction are getting tntegrated with the buyer Dehavior theory and marketing feedback mechaateas, It 48, therefor very Likely chat consumers my not be able to survive « separate Adeneity 9 marketiog. ‘THE srsTeAs APeROACH Marketing scholars with strong quastétetive interest in the early 1960s were able to bring to marketing the beginnings of « forest wentitative structure for defining and analyzing marketing problens. ‘The nergence of the eystens approsch can be directly idouttfted with the more recent econonie concepts of attribute uttiiey (Lancastera1 1971) and tine as the scarce resource (Becher 1965). In marketing, carly efforts vere manifested a highly couplex similation aodels of ‘arkoting VAich were highly interdependent between the demand und che spply factors (Anstuts 1967, Kuehn and Uanburger 1963, Forsester 1959). These wore replaced by more tateractive modeling efforts based on the concept of adaptive control ploneered by Little (1966). The latter Models extsplified by names such Denon, Sprinter, Hendry aodet, Adbudg and Yodiac exphasized che need to incorporate a set of demand charactertatics sanifested in the generic concepts of elasticity and marginal utsitty. ‘Amore receat effort, hovever, 1s focused on the more fundanental tions available to the consumers. These include taking upon them selves the role of producers rather than buyers tn the market place, aa well a8 entering into barter exchange snong thesselves (Sheth 1961). ta the process, it has generated concepts auch as househotd as a production unit (Etger 1978) and econoale theory of consuaption behavior (Ratchford 1975). 1 sppears that the ayatens approach to marketing theory is Likely 9 grow in the near future for several reasons. First of all, te Fepresonte « wore realistic uttltsation of the exon of exchenge of value. Second, today more than ever, we have the coaputertsed cape~ bunees mize, £0 sodel and simulate more complex interdependencie the systems approsch ts closer to marketing theory and practice than ‘stther the buyer behavior cheory oF the consunériaa aoveaent. As such, A As Likely eo sustate tee grovth and separate identity.BUYER AEEAVIOR THEORY No other ares in matketing has had a greater dominance for auch « ong tine period as buyer behavior. While ic seeus to have peaked ia Fecent years, {¢ is still the met douinant area of research and theory 4 marketing. A ouaber of sacketing scholars and their contributions can be Adeneitted as having ede a asjor tapact on this echool (Bouer 1967, Howaed 1963, Novard and sheth 1969, 814 1963, Brice 1966, Bagel, Blackwell and KoLlat 1968, Nicosia 1966). While each take a different spproach, the connon denoutnator underlying thetr thinking was the applications of behavioral (psychological) principles to consuser ‘behavior, This is clearly tn sharp’ contrast to the descriptive ayprosch of previous eras which vas largely deaographtcs and market size sta~ tieties, Ie ts also tn sharp contrast to attempts to explain buyer havior by mezely applying ros ich Findings from sociology (Marttacas 1958, Levy 1963, Rogers 1955). Tt 4a the dominance of peychology wich 4s lasgely responsible for bringing about a Aigh Level of scientific esearch traditions. I¢ te ao exaggeration co state that no other area of sarketing has dove so mich to elevate marketing discipline from the status of prof onal practice to the statue of ectentifte tnqutzy. Watle the early buyer bebavior plonsers were more saterested tn senoretiag a gra theory of buyer behavior, several recent efforts have concentrated on sclentific research and develomment of specific con structs of buyer behavior. These include brand loyalty, eteieud ntentious and infornation processing. At the saae tine, there has been ‘Ancreasing snterest in understanding family buying dectatons (Sheth2. 1974, Davis 1971) and industrtat buying tehevior (Sheth 1973, sheth 1977, Webster and Wind 1972). Stntlarly, considerable degree of ‘wantification of rhe aren 18 also prevalent eapectally in eras of application of several mathematical models of choice Sehaviot (NeALister 1982). ‘At the sane tine, however, buyer behavior theory has cone snder soo ‘criticism (Sheth 1979, Robertaon and Zelinksi 1962, Kassarjian 1982). Te 4s criticized for the overenphasis of individual cognitive paychology ad eepectally the use of muictattribute models, tn our eattastion, the fsture research {a buyer behavior {a Likely to eaergs from aoncomttive perspectives as well as fron sore aacro ctological perspective ‘BBUVTORAL oRcaNTzATION Concurrently with scholars tn other business disciplines, marketing ‘scholars began to aee chat behavioral principles that hed previously Deen prisartly Adentified with human group behavior, could be sed to ‘explain the behavior of organizations. In particular, drawing upos energing thinking in management of organizations with a stroag socio logical perspective (Btstont 1961, Kats and Kaha 1966, Thompson 1967, Mars and Simon 1958, Cyert and March 1963) saveral marketing scholars applied this perapective to marketing chennels. They vere al afte enced by several ensrging social peychology theories (French and Raven 1960, Thibaut and Kelley 1959). The chanel of dteeetbutton cane to be viewed as an organtsation with behavioral patteras favolving all the ‘otgsatzations in any way dependent on @ channel. A Large part of research in ehe area ds clearly idencifted vith Stera (1969) and Stern and El-Aneary (1977), while a fev others havea ‘recently contrtbuted to che area (Seger 1976, Frasier 1981) relatively few marketing scholars have msde significant contributions. Two reasons Probably explain thts lack of participation, iret ts che great dttti- culty tm obtatning data, In addition to the dittteuity of obtataing hard data on sctual selattonshty ost of che relationships ate heavily influenced by perceptions of pover. In addition, these relationships ‘re dyoante, Secondiy, mich of the existing work tn orgentzational behavior tends to focus on the workings of a given organization hich offers ttle tn the way of a conceptual base for studying inter ‘organtrattonal debavior. A notable exception fa the mich acclaised work of Peeffer and Salanctk watch stresses and offers conceptual foundations for the study of relationships with other organizations (Bfeffer and Selaneth 1978). The Aaportance of this achool of marketing thought 12 almost cer als to not only incresse, tut attract aore researchers roa orgaai~ ‘zation behavior ares who are fascinated by the dynanics of the complexi= ties of channels of dtetrtbution, STRATEGIC PLANING Planning a8 an activity of the firm {2 well established. However, 4m recent years, planning has aoved fom just another of # List of sctivitées to one of the moat {aportant. Furthermore, strategie Planning, with ses two fold eaphasts on analysis of che dynante environ aad dynamic adaptation, hae generally had the net tepact of strongthentag snrketiag planning. This ts particularly true for firms ‘hat have separated corporate planning from strategic business uate planasngsTats, the newest school of marketing thought, seems to be currently suffering from che umval confusion assocta Ith mat new schools of thought. Turchersore, it 1s beset by ovo additional difficulties. The ‘tear fe that the majority of couertbutions to this school have cone ‘from consulting fires snd their elteate, The names of the Boston Consulting Group, Stanford Research Institute, and General Electric, for example, are fantliar to sost marketing scholars a# proponents and contributors to strategic planning. Bus the second difficulty may be fore troublesoue. The most well publicised approaches, for the most ert, are based on either an inplictt cash flow maxiatzation basts or sone form of capital sae pricing aodel. By thet very nature then, they ate not very useful for marketplace decisions, kather they are font useful for corporate dectatons. So whtle we sceningly Inov auch about strategic plenaing, we are aot ‘sure how mich ve know about strategie market planning. In fact, we tack ‘compat ing conceptual frameworks that can be used co guide re cheory developaent in this area. Wonetheless, ve do have the beginnings of a school of chought. Thege beginnings fall dato several overlapping categories. The free sare chose contributions that explicttly desl with one aspect of macket~ Ang strategy, but with a strategic reference point (Wiad 1978, Pessenetr 1982, Thorellt 1977). Several texts have aleo appeared with a strategie Focus (ugh 1978, Constantia, Evane and Yorris 1976, Lack and Ferrell 3979, Jain 1981, Cravens 1982) plus a readings book (Keria and Petersoa 2960) 0 addition to two monographs with strong aarkettag strategy ‘uplications (Hofer and Scheodel 1978, Porter 1960). hile these and‘other contributions give clear evidence that a school of thought ts feserging, the real istues of vhat atrategte marketing 1s and 1 aot and What are its ceatral concepts have aot been definitely dealt with. one ftuthor, hovever, suggests that fine contrtbutions will be an important PATE of any future List of central concepts of strategie marketing (Biggadtke 1981). We Liste then as the marketing concept, asrket seguentation, positioning, mapping and the product life cycle. 4m our opfnion, strategic plansing is Likely to contique gensrating ddssional knowledge for sarkating theory for yveral reasons. First, sarketing has Decome more competition oriented rather than ether ‘echnotogy o market ort sd (Rotter 1980), Second, environmental factors are changing at an ever tncieesing pace forcing compentes to dents rly warning aystens, Finelly, foretgn competition espectally ‘roa Japan and Europe has generated greater eaphasts on planned approach 0 organtsing marketing resource CONTRIBUTIONS To MARKETING THEORY Bach of che ate new schoots of chought has made unique contributions £0 the developaent of marketing theory. At the sane time, 4€ would appear that sone of the never schools of thought may have disected alent and effort away fron i. We vill briefly assess each school” contribution ta ete sections ‘The single Biggest contribution to ateromarketing school has bees to redefine marketing objectives. Tt has clearly indteated why the wat inenstonal objections of profit maxintsation my not be appropciate for ‘he organization, Tastead, it has atteapted to provide s milttobjective function for marketing effort. In addition, the ascromarketing schoola6 hee cone sontly enphasized the reality of constrained opttatzation of marketing objectives, These constraints relate aatsly to the side effects of marketing practice from a wore macro eoctetal perspective. ‘A second major contribution of the ascromirketing school has to do with increasing the taportance and Legitimacy of marketing objectives ia oneconomte behaviors of society. or the first tise, aazketing te considered relevant to national ecosoate and social plans te many Statlarly, 1© hae removed tne taboo elated with marketing as a comercial profit making activity tn sexy her conservation, religion and politics, Of nonaconcate Debaviors euch as population control, energy At the sone tine, micronarketing has also crested the crtste of Adentity. By broadening tts horizone through the concepts’ of exchange ‘of value and taking broader soctetal perspectives, marketing 1a be sinning to blur tes toundartes wich other disciplines such as business policy and poblic policy. Te ts our strong hope that nacronsrket ing will ateenpt to deliait its sphere and are precteely define its boundaries in the vory near future before the crisis of Adenticy thegatane the exis ce of marketing (eset, The consunerien school of thought has had f4r more tapact on the ‘sarketing practice rather chan on the marketing theory. Perhaps the single most important contribution can be attributed to Peter Druker (0978) ho has labeled the existence of consumerism as a shane of narketing, Tt hae aloo brought out the Laportance of market aati fection as a far more iapoctant beronater of aacketing success than slther marker share oF profits. We believe that the concept of aarket7 satiefaction will becone 2 major construct in the developaent of serketing theory. Uaforcunacely, consunerian has ganerated wore dtstraction from developaent of marketing theory. By concentratiag on ad hoc and Advoctey oriented issues, 1 has diverted attentt ‘aray fron the sore fundanentel and typical principles of marketing and tovard the wore styptcal and isolated aspects of marketing practice. ‘Te contribution of the « eens approach tovard marketing theory 1s Aargley aethodological. It hes enabled scholars to thiak of quanesti- cation of marketing processes for simulation or optiatzation purpeees. 1a the proces + aarketing has becoue more rigorous and more of @ selences flow mich of this ts tilusionary and how mich s real is yet to Ye determined. A second sajor contstbution of che systems approsch has been to provide 4 balance between the supply and the denand functtona. Te has clearly brought out che need to incorporate the mutual tnterde~ pendence inherent in any econcaic exchange. Finally, this school of hough hae enabled scholers to retain the identity of marketing despite Ancorporating higher levels of complexity in marketing theory. Valea the microsarketing school, i€ has setther triad to broaden the horizons of marketing to noneconomtc areas of behavior nor has Lf questioned the egitinacy of nore tradition corporate objectives of profitability and Ierket share, PLaally, the systems appronch has successfully integrated buyer behavior principles which are inherently at a sore alcro and behavdoral level with the marketing princtples which are isherently sore lascro and aggregate in scope.4m contrast, the tuyer behavior school of thought hae generated wore alienation and Aiviaton. In fact, 1 has acquired a separate identity ‘of its om an maniteated by a separate orgentsati (Ack) and a separate Anterdtsetplinary Journal (JER). There 4s oo question that understand ing the peychology of the buyer te Mghly relevent to the developacat of 4 good marketiog theory. Uafortunetely, buyer behavior theory has been Perceived as sonehow more sctentifie and rigorous than marketing theory. Therefore, many scholars working in the buyer behavior area have consciously avoided any assoctatton with marketing practice Indeed, 4 40 a shane that go much knovledge generated tn buyer behavior ts 80 Little used tn marketing practice except pechaps in induserial tng. Te ts our beltef that che disassociation between the ew disciplines as well a existence of a separate organtzation and a journal are very Likely to generate 2 divorce between marketing and buyer behavior, AE the sane thee, tho marketing dlactpline oves ach co buyer Ddehavior theory. Pirot of all, 1 has brought a more scientific beat to marketing theory and practice through the process of borrowing both wctally aoctat theory and research methodology from peychology, and e Pewphology, Second, te has attracted bright young scholars to the arketing discipline because tr hat consciously avoided betag practice driven, Finally, i has generated a aunber of significant constructs which are Likely to becone good building blocks ta the davelopsent of sarketing practice, These include (a) redefinition of che marketing atx from the Four Pe to the dichotoay of significant and eyabol{e comunt cation (Howard and sheth 1969), (b) rules of inforeation proceastag, Cc) peyshologteal market segnentation, (4) rational vs. eaptional needs, and- (e) reference group influences as tshtbitore or enhancers of marketing Anfluencee The behavioral organization school of thought has the potential to contribute tue 45 has aot so far attataed ite potential. The prinary explanation probably Lee to ite disassoctation with the traditional ‘marketing objectives of profitability and market share (Frazter and Sheth 1982), It has generated « significant amount of de crspesve Fesearch on interdependence anong organtsstions but at che sane tine tt hes Eatlod to show how to utilise thie knowledge te aarketing practice. We are, however, confident that tn due cour Ancerorganization aspects elated with thts school of thought wil have strong influence 1 reshaping macketing theory from the’ traditional instituttonal and functional perspectives. Finally, the contribution of the strategic planing school of thought te highly vistble. First of all, 4 has claarly shifted attention froe warketing tactics and activities to more strategic asuea. Second, tt has generated « nore adoptive posture for airketing programs. Third, i thas euphasized che concept of relative as opposed to the absolute power of marketing resources, Hovever, che biggest inact of strategic Planning school on aarkating theory is likely to be the integration of ‘sacket research at part of marketing practice, The interface of market esearch and aarketing plans is Likely to reshape aacketing theory from 4 unilaterel to » bilateral approach of marketing activities and Progra,0 ‘cowcuuszox ‘wo fundamental changes have generated at least aii new schools of eROUEAE ance Bartele’ classic sevlew of story of marketing thought up fare (a) replacenent of aconosic exchange concept with the concept of exchange value, and (b) energence of balance to early stztten, Tet of power between the marketer and the custouer as the Snittator of ‘marketing prograne and activities,eT aerranices Aaker, Davéd A. and George 5. Day (1971), Consunerten: Search for the Consumer Interest, New York: The Free Pre Alderson, Wroe and Reavis Cox (1948), “Towards 4 Th Jourbal of Markating, 13 (October), 139. Moxander, Ralph, P.M. Surface, R. F. Elder and lroe Alderson (1940), Marketing, Boetont Gian Publishing. anotute, Arnold Z, (1967), Computer Simulation of Competteive Market Response, Ceabridge: Wat-ts Press: £7 of Markettag, Andrensen, Alan 2. (1977), "A Taxonomy of Conouner Sattefactton/ Dissattataction Measures,” Journal of Consumer Affaire, 12 (tater), ize, Bagons{, Richard P. (1975), “Marketing as Exchange,” Journal of Mackating, 39 (October), 22-29, Begosst, Blchard Fs (1977), “Marketing at the Societal Level: Theoreti- in vacro Marketing: Distributive Processes frou a gocketat Pacspective, Gheriay C- Slater; adtcor, Boulder! University of Coloraies Fi University of Colorado, Si. Bartels, Robert (1944), “Marketing Principles,” Journal of Marketing, 9 (eeaber), 51. Bartels, Robert (1962), The Developuent of Marketing Thought, Homewood: ‘Richard D. Ievin, fuer Barcels, Robert (1965), “Development of Marketing Thought: A Brief Matory," in Sctence ia Marketing, Coorge Schuatte, editor, Hew York oun Wiley and Seuss T7=08, Bereele, Robert (1982), “The Physica and Metaphysica of Marketing,” ta Proceedings of che’ Eleventh Paul De Converse Uarketing Syuposion, Dovid W, Gardner and Frederick Winter, editore, Chicago? aerican Marketing Aasociation. Saver, Raynond A. (1967), “Consuner Sahavior as Risk Taking," in Risk Taking and Information eadling 10 Consumer Behavior, Donald Fs ox, editor, Bostont Divicloa of Reseatch, Harvard Sastocse Sehool Becker, George (1965), “A Thoory of che ALlocation of Tine,” Eeouoate ‘dournal, 15, 493-317. Btggadtke, ©. Ratph (1981), “The Contctoutions of Marketing to Stee ‘egies Minagonent,” Acadeny of Management: Bertey, 6 621-832.aan » Perry (1963), Marketing and the Behaviors) Sciences, Rockletgh, West Allyn and Become Breyer, Ralph P. (1934), The Marketing Tastteutton, New York: NeGraw min. Brite, Steuart Henderson (1966), Consumer Behavior ‘Sctences, Hew Yorks John Wiley and Soma the nehaviorat Corman, Jones M. (1980), “Paradigas for Marketing The 17 fade He Shech (od.), Research tn Marketing, Vol, 3, JAr Pre cars Constantin, Janes A., Rodney E, Evang and Malcola Le Morris (1976), Marketing Strategy and Wanagenest, Dallas; Busizess Publicatons, ines Ctavens, David We (1982), Strategie Marketing, Homewood: Richard Ds ‘Tevin, Tes Gyert, Richard M, and Janes 6. March (1963), A Behevioral Theory of the Fira, Englewood Cliste: Freatiee tally tnee Davia, Harry L. (1971), "Weasurenené of Rusband-Wife Influence £0 Gonguser Decision Vaking," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (Gguae) 305-212, Dey, By and M Bodur (1977), “A Comprehensive Study of Consumer Sattstaction with Services,” in Consuner Satisfaction, Dissatiafac {on and Couplaining Behavior, Ry Lr Days editor, Sisatages Depaztaeat of Harketing, School of usintas, Indiana University, oinra, Dichter, Ernest (1964), Handbook of Consumer Yottvations, New York Weczawitit. Druker, Peter A. (1974), Managenont: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, New tore: Harper "tin Duday, BA. and Ds Ay Revzan (1947), Marketing, An Instituttonel Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill Engel, Janes F., David T. Koliat, and Roger D. Blackwell (1968), Geesumer Behavior, New York:' Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ace Begas, Michael (1976), “Taree Models of Distributtve Change,” in Cc. Ce slater (ed.), Macto-varketing? Distributive Processes from 4 Societal Perspactive, boulder, Colotader Bastswst Waseaseee Division, SStlse Etgaz, Michael (1978), “The Hourahold as a Production Ute," 42 J. Me Sheth (ed.), Reseteeh tn Natatiags Vote Is JAL Pxenote Heriot, Bs (1961), A comparative Analyeis of Organizations, Glencoe, TIL: The Free Pre Fish, George (1967), Merketéng Systems: An Introductory Analysts, New Yorks Harper and Bow, PUbLiaheras on seoee Analrets Forrester, Jey W. (1959) Dysanica,” Harvard “Advertising: 4 Problem in Industrial siness Review, 59 (HarchoAprtl), 100-110, Frasier, Caty 1, and Jagdish M. Sheth (1982), “Iapact of Goal Conflicts Intertima Interactions, seneinents and Conpetibtliey," Faculty Working Paper, University’ of Tiitnots. Frasier, Gary L. (1980), "A Conceptusl Model of the Interfire Power Influence Process Within a Marketing Channel," in Je Ke Sheen Cede), Research in Marketing, JAI Pres (4a press). French, J. Re Pe and Be Raven (1960), “Me Basis of Social Power,” ia D. carewetgic and A. Zander Cede), rou cst Research and Theory, Hew Yorks arper & Row, 6O7=615y Greener, Es 1. (1949), "A Theoretteal Approach to the Analyste of Mavketing,” in Theory in Warketing, Reavis Cox and Wroe AldeTaos, editora, Chicago: chard D. nwa, 113. Grether, B, T. and Robert J. Hollovay (1967), “Iapact of Goverazent Upon the Marketing Systen,” Journal of Marketing, 31 (April). 2, ee Hofer, Charles W, and Don Schendal (1978), Strategy Formulation: ‘ABalytical Concepts, SE. Paul! est Publishies Company: Holloway, Robert J. and Robert $. Hancock (1964), The Eavironsent of Markcetng Behavior, Mew York! John Wiley and Sosa, Tacs Wollovay, Robert J. and Robert §. Hancock (1968), Markettag tn a Ghanging Environment, New York: John Wiley ad’ Sones tice Novard, Jotn A. (1957), Marketing Management: Analysts and Decision, ‘onewood: "Richard Dy Tein Howard, John A. (19693), Marketing: Executive and buyer Behavtor, New Golenbia University Pree Novas, John A. (1963), Marketing Management: Analysts and Planning, Wotevood, Renard Dy Tevine Tae Howard, John A. and Jagdish M. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer elavior, ew Yorks John Wiley ughes, G. David (1978), Marketing Managenent: A Planning Approach, Reading, Yass.: addssoneWasiay Pobtiating Companyothe une, H, Keteh (1977), “Consuser Settefactoa/Dts ‘nd Future Research Directions," in Dent of Concumer Satisfaction and D Saieor, Cembelage Teith fants Warketing Science Taseituce, 455-408~ etn, Subhash C. (1982), warketing Planning and Strategy, Ciactnnatt? South-Western Publishing Company Katons, George (1960), The Poverful Consumer: _Paychological studtes of ehe dnerican Econoay, New Yorks ook Coupes Kats, Danted and Robert L. Kahn (1966), The Social Paychology of Srganteations, Nov York! Joka Wiley § Soose Ties Karta, Roger A, and Robart A. Peterson (1980), Perspectives on strategic Marketing Management, Boston: Allyn end decseetner Kotler, Philip and Stdaey Levy (1969), “Broadening the Concept of Matketing,” Journal of Warksting, "32 Cemoaty), 10-130 Kotler, Philip (1972), “A canerte Marketing, 36 (Apcsi), s6eS4e Kotler, Phil{p (1975), Marketing for Nonprotie Organizations, Englewood Cliffe, (det Prentiewatly tae Concept of Marketing,” Journal of Kotler, Philip (1980), Markectag Managenent: Analysis, Plenateg and Goxtrol, Sth edition, mglewsod Clifter Prentieetalt ee Kuch, Alfred A. and Norris J. danbueger (1963), ‘for Locating Warehouses,” Managensne_Seleses, Lancaster, Kelvin (1971), Consuaer Demand: A Ney Approach, Kew York: Columbia University fr “A Meurtette Progras, 9 Culy), 643-668. ‘ato, lector and Arnold Corbin (1961), Manageneat tn Marketing, New stork: MeGrawill. Lewy, Sidney J. (1963), “Syabolion and Life Style," ia 8. A. Greyser fede)» Toward Seienestie Marketing, Chicage:” American Harkeviag Association, 160-150, Levy, Sidney (1966), “Soctal class ane Knowing che Consumers Wiley aad sone. Conouner Behavior,” in on Joseph Wy Newnan, editor, New York: John ew, Sidney and Corald 2atcaan (1875), Englewood Clifte, Md Marketing, Soctaty and Conflict, Prentice-tali~ Mtetie, John Dy Gy (1966), “A Model of Adaptive Control of Prosotional Spending? Operations ‘esearch, 1é (love-Dess)s 175-197.a Wick, David J. and 0. C. Ferrell (1975), Marketing Strategy and Plans, Englewood Cliffe: Prentice-isll, Ince March, Janes G. and Herbert Staon (1958), Organizations, Sew York: Witey and Sone. Martineau, Pierre (1958), “Soctal Classes and Spending Behavior,” ‘Journal of Marketing, 23 (October), 121-130" Mayer, Martin (1958), Madteon Avenue, U.SsAe, Hew To McAlister, Lefgh (1982), Consumer Chotce Theory Hodels, Greeavtch, Goons aL Frees Cia presse Mekkcterick, J.B. (1957), "What ts the Markating Management Concept, ‘Se The Frontiere of Marketing Thought and Sctence, Chicagor Fee lean Warketiag Ausociation. Nicoata, Francesco W. (1966), Consumer Decision Processes: Market and Advertising Inplications, Englewood OLiftet Prentioeiatie maior, Edgar A. (1982), Product Management: Strategy and Organt~ 100 2nd eitcton, teu York? Joba Wiley © Sons Marper & Rov. Petter, Js and G. R. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Orgintzations, new York: sarper aud tows Porter, Michael E. (1980), Coaperteive Strategy, Yew York: The Free Ratchford, Bryan T, (1975), “The Mey Heonoase Theory of Consuner Be~ Reviot: An Interpretive Essay,” Journal of Consumer Res 2 (Septenber), 65°75. Rogers, Everett (1965), Diffusion of Zasovations, Glencoe: The Free Setht, S, Prakash (1971), Up Against the Corporate Wall, Eaglewod clttie: Prencicetalts ines Sheth, Jegdésh N. (1973), “A Neder of Induatetal Baying Behavior," ‘Seural of Marketing, 37 (October) 50-36¢ Sheth, Jagdish M. (1974), "A Theory of Family Buying Decistons,” tn Je Re Shoth (ed.), Hodels of Buyer Behavior, New York: darper and Row, 17-35. Sheehy J. Me (0977), “Recent Developments 1a Organizational Buyer Behavior,” in Voodside, sheth and Hannett. (ede.), Consuner and Industrial Buying Behavior, Hew York: Noreh-totisnds Wi¥e6 Sheth, Jo Me (1982), “Dlscuaston,” ia A. Mktcheld (e Dy Advances to asuaet Behavice, Yol. 8 (tn press)e ‘Stnon, Herbert A, (2957), Models of Man, New York: John Wiley and Starch, Daniel and Seaft (1958), Male ve, Feoale: Infivence oa the Boichase of Selected Products, Greemvichy Conic? Fascetee Stern, Louis Ws eds), (1969), Distrtbutton channels: Behavioral Dinenstons, Boston: Houghton MIERLine ore Storm, Lots ¥, and Adel El-Ansary (1977), Marketing Channels, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-tati. Thsbaut, J. We and Wf. Kelley (1959), The Social Paychology of Groupe, New York: Joha Wtley and So ‘Thoupton, Janes D, (1967), Organtzations ia Aetion, Nev York! MeGraw mil: Torelit, Hans B. (1977), Strategy + structure = Performance, loons Indiana Datveretoy Pow Webecer, Frederick &. and Yoram Wind (1972), Organtzattonal baying Behavior, Englovocd Cliffe, Neds: Prencieedatis esting, Job H, (1967), “Some Thoughts on the Nature of Ethice ia Naruse se Ghunging Marketing Systema, Chicsgot Anerican Masketing dasoclation, TOES Wilkie, Willian L, (1975), How Conguners Use Product Information, Washington: Rational’ Science Foundations eee Wind, Y. (1978), “Zeouas and Advances in Seguentation Research, Journal of Harkating Research, 13 (dugest), 317-337. Wind, Yoram J. (1982), Produce Policy: Concepte, Nathods and strategy, Heading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley PiUliahiog Coapasye ea 2196