- Email: [email protected]
Marketing's metamorphosis: From marketing's chrysalis to marketing's butterfly effect
Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j
Commentary
Marketing’s metamorphosis: From marketing’s chrysalis to marketing’s butterfly effect Rouxelle de Villiers * University of Waikato, New Zealand
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Available online 23 November 2016
Chaos in science, recognizes that everything connects with everything. In weather, for example, this translates into what is only half-jokingly known as, the Butterfly Effect – the notion that a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York. (Gleick, 1987, p. 8)
1. The metamorphosis of marketing as social science This paper follows the critical framework of Alvesson and Deetz (2000, pp. 16–20) that involves three key concepts, namely: insight, critique, and transformative redefinition. “Insight” signifies the process of examining varied ways in which the examined knowledge is created and sustained. “Critique” counteracts the dominant goals, ideas and discourses that imprint on management and organization phenomena, whilst “transformative redefinition” (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000) develops critical, relevant knowledge and practical understanding that permits change and enables competency development for new methods and operational procedures. After studying marketing for three decades, I conclude that marketing is in chrysalis stage, as offspring of social science (e.g. psychology, neurology, biology, and physiology), and needs to grow from its current dependence on other well-established sciences for its theories, to a state of inter-dependence (rather than the advocated independence), co-creating theoretical and practical value. As inter-dependent socially constructed science, marketing can add value to a vast array of disciplines and constituents. I conclude that marketing scholars and practitioners (as combined term: “marketers”) will use limited resources most effectually, by focussing on creating value and contributing to the economic, social, physical and psychological well-being of all constituents, rather than to expend
A few words of gratitude to Roger Marshall, for including me in this dialogue, to Arch G. Woodside for his advice and suggestions early in this piece, and of course to Roger Layton for his many contributions to the body of marketing knowledge. * Corresponding author. Fax: +64 7 838 4352. E-mail address: [email protected].
energy on arguing its credentials. Further, a global iterative process focus, involving a wide range of business disciplines, will widen the scope and remove blind spots from marketers’ myopia. A web of integrated, collaborative progression (see gyroid later) will be more effective and beneficial to all, in contrast to a battle for solitary, independent survival. Furthermore, marketers stand accused of using various tricks, including falsehoods, half-truths and pseudoscientific claims to manipulate consumer decisions and exploit customer vulnerabilities in line with organizations’ profit motives and businesses’ interests (Dahl & Yeung, 2015; Heath & Chatzidakis, 2012). Thus, marketers will do well to follow the advice of wellversed marketing scholars (Armstrong, 2003, 2005; Armstrong and Green, 2007; Woodside, 2010, 2013; Woodside et al., 2012) to enhance the rigour of their studies and build theories isomorphic with social, cultural, political, ecological and legal realities – with high, stable predictive value and fit – “Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory to algorithms” (Woodside, 2013, p. 1).
2. Insight and critique 2.1. Science 2.1.1. Contribution to scientific knowledge “Science refers to a systematic and organized body of knowledge in any area of inquiry that is acquired using ‘the scientific method’” Bhattacherjee (2012, p. 1) This definition directs to two questions: Is marketing a systematic, organized area of inquiry? And, Do marketers use “the scientific method”? Most readers will all agree that marketing is an area of inquiry. Marketers ask, inquire, observe, study, investigate, compare, contrast, analyse, synthesize, create, … and all the other methods of inquiry available to scientists. Is it a body of knowledge? An investment of five seconds on a Google-search or Google Scholar will result in the realization that the marketing body of knowledge is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.11.003 1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
310
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
vast and well developed. Thus, what remains to be seen is, is the knowledge acquired using “the scientific method”? According to Bhattacherjee (2012, p. 1), “Scientific method refers to a standardized set of techniques for building scientific knowledge, such as how to make valid observations, interpret results and how to generalize those results. The scientific method must satisfy four characteristics: (i) replicability; (ii) precision; (iii) falsifiability; and (iv) parsimony.” Herein lies our first problem. Similar to law, theology, arts and music, marketers find it hard to replicate studies and theories must be specified in precise terms and independent, objective outsiders must be unable to falsify the theories. Consumers, suppliers, markets, channels, interests and brands change so fast that we can hardly keep pace. So how can marketers replicate studies involving multiple macro and micro variables, with specific reference to human attributes and characteristics and replicate findings? Difficult to answer, but is this phenomenon not true for any field involving humans, e.g. economics, politics, psychology or sociology? What makes marketing so different that it must be excluded from this elite group of “sciences”? Is it that parsimony is not achieved? Simply refer to complexity theory to know that economics, neuroscience and other social sciences suffer from the same difficulty in finding parsimonious theories and heuristics in the complexity of the world. So is marketing a science? Armstrong (2003) reports on the lack of importance and impact of posited theories in marketing. Armstrong (2003, p. 79), critical of the lack of replication, validity and usefulness, concludes, saying, “The number of important findings in marketing seems modest. Few researchers produce findings that meet the criteria of being replicated, valid and useful. Of those that do, few have surprising findings.” Woodside (2010) bemoans poor business and marketing research due to current empirical research’s low levels of combined accuracy, generalizability and complexity. Hence the larva stays in its cocoon, unable to mature and spread its large wings. 2.1.2. Adjacency to sciences Would we argue that architecture is a science, or should we argue that building principles are based on scientific principles – gleaned from physics, mathematics and ecological science? Similar to the struggle of architects to have a distinct identity from engineers and builders, marketers also struggle to distinguish themselves from social psychologists, manufacturers, inventors, entrepreneurs, creatives and executive strategists. Within the recorded history of architectural practice, architects sought to “make architects themselves into mirror images of the science their buildings sometimes contain” (Galison, 1999, p. 2). As architects depended on science to fashion their identity and develop their credentials, so do marketers. At present marketers appropriate scientific knowledge and scientific principles from areas such as social and cognitive psychology, neurology, biology, and physiology (Peter and Olson, 1983; Sheth and Gardner, 1982), but does this re-engineered application of principles and rules make it a science? Reconfiguring theories from other fields to apply in a marketing context clearly has some value. However, marketing will not advance rapidly or progress far en route to acknowledgement, as long as the discipline depends on other scientists to create theories marketers borrow or adapt for use. What would the gain or loss of scientific identity bring or take from the discipline of marketing? Are the adjacency and manifestations of marketers in advertising, promotions, and merchandising to science and the methods not sufficient? What does marketing gain by distinguishing its practices and output from various other technical scientific practices such as engineering (for product design)? In addition, rather than starting research with a borrowed theory or construct, it may be more useful to begin with a marketing phenomenon or problem in which we are interested, and then attempt to develop our own unique, accurate, generalizable, parsimonious theories that portray the complexity of the
marketspace/marketplace. While insights from other fields may aid in investigating the phenomenon, marketers should guard against letting those fields dominate any ideas we have on our own. Further, we should not constrain our search for additional insights to traditional areas of borrowing, such as economics, social and cognitive psychology, and statistics. Many disciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, and clinical psychology have useful ideas to offer. What does marketing lose by identifying itself as an applied science, integrating, evoking and applying scientific principles to innovate, modernize and possibly set the pace for a new, enterprising world? For example, the union of technology and marketing may reshape what it means to communicate and the channels to persuade customers, but the joining will also reshape the science of technology to ensure “modernized human experiences” and to consider the ethics and moral obligations of the technological advancement progress.
2.2. Social In contrast to natural sciences (studies of earth, life and physics), social science is defined as the study of people or collections of people, such as groups, firms, societies, or economies, and their individual or collective behaviours (Bush and Hunt, 2011; Krathwohl, 1993). Social sciences are classifiable into disciplines such as psychology (the science of human behaviours), sociology (the science of social groups), and economics (the science of firms, markets, and economies). The list of disciplines does not include marketing. What can marketers gain by inclusion in the list? Do marketing “scientists” add to the body of knowledge by studying people or collections of people? Indubitably. Do marketing scientists study the individual or collective behaviours of firms (branded organizations, profit/non-profit firms), brand societies or brand equity and market share – to name but one example from each? Indisputably. So, why then is there any hesitation in naming marketing a social science? Herein lies the crux of the problem: Marketers’ inability to allow other marketers and scientists to integrate within shared territories with other disciplines. Is marketing part of psychology? “Sure it is”, scholars in Consumer behaviour and buyer psychology will say. “No, it’s much less fuzzy and more precise!” marketing research analysts will reply. “Think about marketing analytics – those are pure facts and statistics, not psycho mumbojumbo. So, let’s keep marketing separate and distinct.” Is marketing part of sociology? “Sure it is”, niche marketing experts will say. “No, it’s much more! We don’t just study social groups, we also study virtual behaviour of individuals in anti-brand societies, so it’s much more than the science of social groups”. And so marketers have argued to widen the scope until marketing involves communication (PR, sales, advertising), entrepreneurship (innovation, product design, international exports), human resource management (cultural sensitivity, internal marketing, global B2B alliances, networking), statistics and information systems (analytics, metrics, sales forecasts) and so forth, involving and borrowing from these disciplines, but arguing to keep it as a separate, cocooned (separate, well protected and in rest) field of study. Although these arguments are entertaining to watch, the social science debate is unproductive. Moreover the wasted arguments misappropriate finite resources which could be more productively invested in the metamorphosis of the credibility and value of marketing. Is the very struggle for inclusion not a sign of marketing’s infancy as science? Is it not true, as well established in the Erikson (1963) paradigm of identity development (Nelson and Barry, 2005; Rothbaum and Trommsdorff, 2007), and confirmed in leadership theory (Palus, 2010; Rooke and Torbert, 2005) that the immature struggle against its dependence to become independent, but only to arrive at true maturity and wisdom when she recognizes her
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
311
Inter-dependent (Collaborator)
Independent (Achiever)
Dependent (Conformer)
Fig. 1. Stages of wisdom and maturity.
inter-dependence and co-responsibility for the well-being of others (Fig. 1) (Covey, 2007). 3. Transformative redefinition Several definitions of marketing are available (Sheth and Uslay, 2007). The current, formal definition of marketing, as recorded by the American Association of Marketers (AMA, 2016), is as follows, “Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large”. The very definition prompts the marketing fraternity to the metacognitive question: “Is the more important focus than naming the domain of marketers not on how to create value and for whom they create this value”? While the term value is most often associated with the interest of shareholders and financiers, there are many other stakeholder groups who are not particularly interested in this denotation of value creation. In some parts of their work, marketers focus keenly on target audiences, niche markets, segmentation and brand communities. Are these groups not sometimes more interested in the enjoyment derived from the utilitarian value and hedonic pleasures brought by the product, than the financial value of the brand (Fiore et al., 2005; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Zheithalm, 1988)? In addition, the very definition of marketing is criticized, like its incumbents, for not considering social, ethical and sociocultural dilemmas. Therefore, the value needs of scholars, scientists and other stakeholders differ, both in terms of their focus on different aspects of marketing strategies and tactics, and on different types of value created by marketers for markets. I suggest that marketing needs a new definition that reflects the new era and new frontiers, amongst others experiential marketing, digital marketing, social marketing, causal marketing, and co-creation of value (not just between manufacturers, marketers and customers, but for all constituents and stakeholders). Further, marketing professionals and scholars should move towards integration and inter-dependence, and seek a place in the rich gyroid of innovative capabilities – the 3D-web of interrelated enablers, catalysts, scientists and audiences surrounding consumers’ needs (and desired solutions) (Fig. 2). Consider the following new process model for marketing. Position marketing as a valuable contributor, even as intermediator
between different functions and, similar to Layton’s (2016) conviction, “Now is the time for a reawakening of macro-marketing as we enter a new world of economic, social and environmental change” to the business and social sciences – thus expanding on the more meaningful, valid and rigorous contributions to the economic, social and ecological well-being of humans, away from some critics’ (some may say ill-informed observers’) view of marketing as “the 4Ps, pretty pictures for posters, parties for PR, and peddling products”. The 5-stage Marketing Process (Fig. 3) illustrates the positioning as a process model. The five-stage model follows an iterative process of: understanding the virtual marketspace and global marketplace (combined into
Fig. 2. Gyroid web of interdependency. (Adapted from the study on butterflies, by Dolan et al., 2015.)
312
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
Fig. 3. The 5-Stage Process Model of the marketspace/marketplace role of marketing.
the term “environment” in Fig. 3); influencing the environment and persuading partners and stakeholders; co-creating value for all stakeholders and constituents; transacting and inter-acting; innovating and re-thinking/redesigning to ensure a better marketing process. I invite marketing practitioners and scholars to take action to grow in their abundance mentality and inter-dependency; thus as first step I invite critique of the two models in this paper (Gyroid Web of Interdependency Model and the 5-Stage Role of Marketing Model), so that a robust debate can improve the thinking about marketing as a marketspace/marketplace process, affecting all other social sciences and being affected by all other social sciences – thus truly interdependent – but with the ability to stirring and affecting everything and everyone. Not dependent. Not independent. A fully functional, mature, inter-dependent member of science. A special case of the butterfly effect. As second suggestion for future research, perhaps a further stage in marketing’s metamorphosis is not rebranding it as social science, but re-thinking the role of marketing. Thus, I suggest
Fig. 4. Multi-plane, 3D-gyroid web of interconnectivity. (Grossman, B. Art of Gyroid. https://www.bathsheba.com/math/gyroid/.)
robust, structured literature reviews with the 5-Stage Process Model as basis for this re-examination of marketing. A third suggestion for future research is to use the structures and models here as thought structures for renewed efforts to build marketing theories that meet the quality criteria set out earlier. What will contribute value with clearly differential benefits and distinguishable competencies (knowledge, skills, attributes) to marketing’s various constituents? Can we marketers accept that marketing is co-dependent and nurture these complex webs of interdependent partners (see the gyroid web of scales of butterfly wings; Azimuth, 2016; Dolan et al., 2015; Grossman, 2016)? Can marketers accept and embrace inter-dependency between all sciences and take our place as (important) link in the larger stages of evolution (human metamorphosis) and progression of human endeavour and industry (Fig. 4)? Perhaps with a more intense focus on the value of its contribution and a lesser focus on the nature of the contribution, the contribution will be heralded and commended for its role in the progress of and prosperity for all humans. With apologies to Cramer (1988), “Everything is marketing, and marketing is [integrated into] everything.”
References Alvesson, M., Deetz, S., 2000. Doing Critical Management Research. Sage, London. AMA, 2016. https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx. Armstrong, J.S., 2003. Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: evidence and proposals. J. Bus. Res. 56 (1), 69–84. Armstrong, J.S., 2005. The forecasting canon: nine generalizations to improve forecast accuracy. Int. J. Appl. Forecasting 1 (1), 29–35. Armstrong, J.S., Green, K.C., 2007. Competitor-oriented objectives: myth of market share. Int. J. Bus. 12 (1), 116–136. Azimuth, 2016. The physics of butterfly wings. https://johncarlosbaez .wordpress.com/2015/08/11/the-physics-of-butterfly-wings/. (Accessed 8 October 2016). Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices. USF Tampa Library Scholar Common, Florida. Bush, R.F., Hunt, S.D., 2011. Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. Marketing Classics Press, Chicago. Covey, S.R., 2007. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon & Schuster, Sydney, Australia. Cramer, R.L., 1988. Marketing is everything and everything in marketing. Dahl, S., Yeung, F., 2015. Contrasting perspectives on marketing. Marketing Ethics & Society 55. Dolan, J.A., Wilts, B.D., Vignolini, S., Baumberg, J.J., Steiner, U., Wilkinson, T.D., 2015. Optical properties of gyroid structured materials: from photonic crystals to metamaterials. Adv. Opt. Mater. 3 (1), 12–32. Erikson, E.H., 1963. Childhood and Society, second ed. Norton, New York. https:// www.verywell.com/eriksons-psychosocial-stages-summary-chart-2795742. (Accessed 18 October 2016). Fiore, A.M., Jin, H.J., Kim, J., 2005. For fun and profit: hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychol. Market. 22 (8), 669–694. Galison, P., 1999. The Architecture of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gleick, J., 1987. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. Viking Press, New York. Grossman, B., 2016. Bathsheba sculpture gyroid. https://www.bathsheba.com/math/ gyroid/. (Accessed 18 October 2016). Heath, T.P., Chatzidakis, A., 2012. The transformative potential of marketing from the consumers’ point of view. J. Consum. Behav. 11 (4), 283–291. Layton, R., 2016. There could be more to marketing than you might have thought! An invited paper by Roger Layton. Aust. J. Market 24 (1), 2–7. www.researchgate.net. Online first, (Accessed 23 October 2016). Nelson, L.J., Barry, C.M., 2005. Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: the role of self-classification as an adult. J. Adolesc. Res. 20 (2), 242–262. Palus, C., 2010. A declaration of interdependence. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/06/a-declaration-of-interdependen.html. Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 1983. Is science marketing? J. Mark. Fall, 111–125. Rooke, D., Torbert, W., 2005. Seven transformations of leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev. April, 66–77. Rothbaum, F., Trommsdorff, G., 2007. Do roots and wings complement or oppose one another? The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M., 1982. History of marketing thought: an update. College of Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sheth, J.N., Uslay, C., 2007. Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to value creation. J. Public Policy Market. 26 (2), 302–307.
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 (2), 203–220. Woodside, A.G., 2010. Bridging the chasm between survey and case study research: research methods for achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity. Ind. Market. Manage. 39 (1), 64–75. Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling of adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking
313
in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 10, 463–472. doi:10.1016/ j.jbusres.2012.12.02. Woodside, A.G., Ko, E., Huan, T.C., 2012. The new logic in building isomorphic theory of management decision realities. Manage. Decis. 50 (5), 765–777. doi:10.1108/ 00251741211227429. Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j
Commentary
Marketing’s metamorphosis: From marketing’s chrysalis to marketing’s butterfly effect Rouxelle de Villiers * University of Waikato, New Zealand
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Available online 23 November 2016
Chaos in science, recognizes that everything connects with everything. In weather, for example, this translates into what is only half-jokingly known as, the Butterfly Effect – the notion that a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York. (Gleick, 1987, p. 8)
1. The metamorphosis of marketing as social science This paper follows the critical framework of Alvesson and Deetz (2000, pp. 16–20) that involves three key concepts, namely: insight, critique, and transformative redefinition. “Insight” signifies the process of examining varied ways in which the examined knowledge is created and sustained. “Critique” counteracts the dominant goals, ideas and discourses that imprint on management and organization phenomena, whilst “transformative redefinition” (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000) develops critical, relevant knowledge and practical understanding that permits change and enables competency development for new methods and operational procedures. After studying marketing for three decades, I conclude that marketing is in chrysalis stage, as offspring of social science (e.g. psychology, neurology, biology, and physiology), and needs to grow from its current dependence on other well-established sciences for its theories, to a state of inter-dependence (rather than the advocated independence), co-creating theoretical and practical value. As inter-dependent socially constructed science, marketing can add value to a vast array of disciplines and constituents. I conclude that marketing scholars and practitioners (as combined term: “marketers”) will use limited resources most effectually, by focussing on creating value and contributing to the economic, social, physical and psychological well-being of all constituents, rather than to expend
A few words of gratitude to Roger Marshall, for including me in this dialogue, to Arch G. Woodside for his advice and suggestions early in this piece, and of course to Roger Layton for his many contributions to the body of marketing knowledge. * Corresponding author. Fax: +64 7 838 4352. E-mail address: [email protected].
energy on arguing its credentials. Further, a global iterative process focus, involving a wide range of business disciplines, will widen the scope and remove blind spots from marketers’ myopia. A web of integrated, collaborative progression (see gyroid later) will be more effective and beneficial to all, in contrast to a battle for solitary, independent survival. Furthermore, marketers stand accused of using various tricks, including falsehoods, half-truths and pseudoscientific claims to manipulate consumer decisions and exploit customer vulnerabilities in line with organizations’ profit motives and businesses’ interests (Dahl & Yeung, 2015; Heath & Chatzidakis, 2012). Thus, marketers will do well to follow the advice of wellversed marketing scholars (Armstrong, 2003, 2005; Armstrong and Green, 2007; Woodside, 2010, 2013; Woodside et al., 2012) to enhance the rigour of their studies and build theories isomorphic with social, cultural, political, ecological and legal realities – with high, stable predictive value and fit – “Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory to algorithms” (Woodside, 2013, p. 1).
2. Insight and critique 2.1. Science 2.1.1. Contribution to scientific knowledge “Science refers to a systematic and organized body of knowledge in any area of inquiry that is acquired using ‘the scientific method’” Bhattacherjee (2012, p. 1) This definition directs to two questions: Is marketing a systematic, organized area of inquiry? And, Do marketers use “the scientific method”? Most readers will all agree that marketing is an area of inquiry. Marketers ask, inquire, observe, study, investigate, compare, contrast, analyse, synthesize, create, … and all the other methods of inquiry available to scientists. Is it a body of knowledge? An investment of five seconds on a Google-search or Google Scholar will result in the realization that the marketing body of knowledge is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.11.003 1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
310
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
vast and well developed. Thus, what remains to be seen is, is the knowledge acquired using “the scientific method”? According to Bhattacherjee (2012, p. 1), “Scientific method refers to a standardized set of techniques for building scientific knowledge, such as how to make valid observations, interpret results and how to generalize those results. The scientific method must satisfy four characteristics: (i) replicability; (ii) precision; (iii) falsifiability; and (iv) parsimony.” Herein lies our first problem. Similar to law, theology, arts and music, marketers find it hard to replicate studies and theories must be specified in precise terms and independent, objective outsiders must be unable to falsify the theories. Consumers, suppliers, markets, channels, interests and brands change so fast that we can hardly keep pace. So how can marketers replicate studies involving multiple macro and micro variables, with specific reference to human attributes and characteristics and replicate findings? Difficult to answer, but is this phenomenon not true for any field involving humans, e.g. economics, politics, psychology or sociology? What makes marketing so different that it must be excluded from this elite group of “sciences”? Is it that parsimony is not achieved? Simply refer to complexity theory to know that economics, neuroscience and other social sciences suffer from the same difficulty in finding parsimonious theories and heuristics in the complexity of the world. So is marketing a science? Armstrong (2003) reports on the lack of importance and impact of posited theories in marketing. Armstrong (2003, p. 79), critical of the lack of replication, validity and usefulness, concludes, saying, “The number of important findings in marketing seems modest. Few researchers produce findings that meet the criteria of being replicated, valid and useful. Of those that do, few have surprising findings.” Woodside (2010) bemoans poor business and marketing research due to current empirical research’s low levels of combined accuracy, generalizability and complexity. Hence the larva stays in its cocoon, unable to mature and spread its large wings. 2.1.2. Adjacency to sciences Would we argue that architecture is a science, or should we argue that building principles are based on scientific principles – gleaned from physics, mathematics and ecological science? Similar to the struggle of architects to have a distinct identity from engineers and builders, marketers also struggle to distinguish themselves from social psychologists, manufacturers, inventors, entrepreneurs, creatives and executive strategists. Within the recorded history of architectural practice, architects sought to “make architects themselves into mirror images of the science their buildings sometimes contain” (Galison, 1999, p. 2). As architects depended on science to fashion their identity and develop their credentials, so do marketers. At present marketers appropriate scientific knowledge and scientific principles from areas such as social and cognitive psychology, neurology, biology, and physiology (Peter and Olson, 1983; Sheth and Gardner, 1982), but does this re-engineered application of principles and rules make it a science? Reconfiguring theories from other fields to apply in a marketing context clearly has some value. However, marketing will not advance rapidly or progress far en route to acknowledgement, as long as the discipline depends on other scientists to create theories marketers borrow or adapt for use. What would the gain or loss of scientific identity bring or take from the discipline of marketing? Are the adjacency and manifestations of marketers in advertising, promotions, and merchandising to science and the methods not sufficient? What does marketing gain by distinguishing its practices and output from various other technical scientific practices such as engineering (for product design)? In addition, rather than starting research with a borrowed theory or construct, it may be more useful to begin with a marketing phenomenon or problem in which we are interested, and then attempt to develop our own unique, accurate, generalizable, parsimonious theories that portray the complexity of the
marketspace/marketplace. While insights from other fields may aid in investigating the phenomenon, marketers should guard against letting those fields dominate any ideas we have on our own. Further, we should not constrain our search for additional insights to traditional areas of borrowing, such as economics, social and cognitive psychology, and statistics. Many disciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, and clinical psychology have useful ideas to offer. What does marketing lose by identifying itself as an applied science, integrating, evoking and applying scientific principles to innovate, modernize and possibly set the pace for a new, enterprising world? For example, the union of technology and marketing may reshape what it means to communicate and the channels to persuade customers, but the joining will also reshape the science of technology to ensure “modernized human experiences” and to consider the ethics and moral obligations of the technological advancement progress.
2.2. Social In contrast to natural sciences (studies of earth, life and physics), social science is defined as the study of people or collections of people, such as groups, firms, societies, or economies, and their individual or collective behaviours (Bush and Hunt, 2011; Krathwohl, 1993). Social sciences are classifiable into disciplines such as psychology (the science of human behaviours), sociology (the science of social groups), and economics (the science of firms, markets, and economies). The list of disciplines does not include marketing. What can marketers gain by inclusion in the list? Do marketing “scientists” add to the body of knowledge by studying people or collections of people? Indubitably. Do marketing scientists study the individual or collective behaviours of firms (branded organizations, profit/non-profit firms), brand societies or brand equity and market share – to name but one example from each? Indisputably. So, why then is there any hesitation in naming marketing a social science? Herein lies the crux of the problem: Marketers’ inability to allow other marketers and scientists to integrate within shared territories with other disciplines. Is marketing part of psychology? “Sure it is”, scholars in Consumer behaviour and buyer psychology will say. “No, it’s much less fuzzy and more precise!” marketing research analysts will reply. “Think about marketing analytics – those are pure facts and statistics, not psycho mumbojumbo. So, let’s keep marketing separate and distinct.” Is marketing part of sociology? “Sure it is”, niche marketing experts will say. “No, it’s much more! We don’t just study social groups, we also study virtual behaviour of individuals in anti-brand societies, so it’s much more than the science of social groups”. And so marketers have argued to widen the scope until marketing involves communication (PR, sales, advertising), entrepreneurship (innovation, product design, international exports), human resource management (cultural sensitivity, internal marketing, global B2B alliances, networking), statistics and information systems (analytics, metrics, sales forecasts) and so forth, involving and borrowing from these disciplines, but arguing to keep it as a separate, cocooned (separate, well protected and in rest) field of study. Although these arguments are entertaining to watch, the social science debate is unproductive. Moreover the wasted arguments misappropriate finite resources which could be more productively invested in the metamorphosis of the credibility and value of marketing. Is the very struggle for inclusion not a sign of marketing’s infancy as science? Is it not true, as well established in the Erikson (1963) paradigm of identity development (Nelson and Barry, 2005; Rothbaum and Trommsdorff, 2007), and confirmed in leadership theory (Palus, 2010; Rooke and Torbert, 2005) that the immature struggle against its dependence to become independent, but only to arrive at true maturity and wisdom when she recognizes her
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
311
Inter-dependent (Collaborator)
Independent (Achiever)
Dependent (Conformer)
Fig. 1. Stages of wisdom and maturity.
inter-dependence and co-responsibility for the well-being of others (Fig. 1) (Covey, 2007). 3. Transformative redefinition Several definitions of marketing are available (Sheth and Uslay, 2007). The current, formal definition of marketing, as recorded by the American Association of Marketers (AMA, 2016), is as follows, “Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large”. The very definition prompts the marketing fraternity to the metacognitive question: “Is the more important focus than naming the domain of marketers not on how to create value and for whom they create this value”? While the term value is most often associated with the interest of shareholders and financiers, there are many other stakeholder groups who are not particularly interested in this denotation of value creation. In some parts of their work, marketers focus keenly on target audiences, niche markets, segmentation and brand communities. Are these groups not sometimes more interested in the enjoyment derived from the utilitarian value and hedonic pleasures brought by the product, than the financial value of the brand (Fiore et al., 2005; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Zheithalm, 1988)? In addition, the very definition of marketing is criticized, like its incumbents, for not considering social, ethical and sociocultural dilemmas. Therefore, the value needs of scholars, scientists and other stakeholders differ, both in terms of their focus on different aspects of marketing strategies and tactics, and on different types of value created by marketers for markets. I suggest that marketing needs a new definition that reflects the new era and new frontiers, amongst others experiential marketing, digital marketing, social marketing, causal marketing, and co-creation of value (not just between manufacturers, marketers and customers, but for all constituents and stakeholders). Further, marketing professionals and scholars should move towards integration and inter-dependence, and seek a place in the rich gyroid of innovative capabilities – the 3D-web of interrelated enablers, catalysts, scientists and audiences surrounding consumers’ needs (and desired solutions) (Fig. 2). Consider the following new process model for marketing. Position marketing as a valuable contributor, even as intermediator
between different functions and, similar to Layton’s (2016) conviction, “Now is the time for a reawakening of macro-marketing as we enter a new world of economic, social and environmental change” to the business and social sciences – thus expanding on the more meaningful, valid and rigorous contributions to the economic, social and ecological well-being of humans, away from some critics’ (some may say ill-informed observers’) view of marketing as “the 4Ps, pretty pictures for posters, parties for PR, and peddling products”. The 5-stage Marketing Process (Fig. 3) illustrates the positioning as a process model. The five-stage model follows an iterative process of: understanding the virtual marketspace and global marketplace (combined into
Fig. 2. Gyroid web of interdependency. (Adapted from the study on butterflies, by Dolan et al., 2015.)
312
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
Fig. 3. The 5-Stage Process Model of the marketspace/marketplace role of marketing.
the term “environment” in Fig. 3); influencing the environment and persuading partners and stakeholders; co-creating value for all stakeholders and constituents; transacting and inter-acting; innovating and re-thinking/redesigning to ensure a better marketing process. I invite marketing practitioners and scholars to take action to grow in their abundance mentality and inter-dependency; thus as first step I invite critique of the two models in this paper (Gyroid Web of Interdependency Model and the 5-Stage Role of Marketing Model), so that a robust debate can improve the thinking about marketing as a marketspace/marketplace process, affecting all other social sciences and being affected by all other social sciences – thus truly interdependent – but with the ability to stirring and affecting everything and everyone. Not dependent. Not independent. A fully functional, mature, inter-dependent member of science. A special case of the butterfly effect. As second suggestion for future research, perhaps a further stage in marketing’s metamorphosis is not rebranding it as social science, but re-thinking the role of marketing. Thus, I suggest
Fig. 4. Multi-plane, 3D-gyroid web of interconnectivity. (Grossman, B. Art of Gyroid. https://www.bathsheba.com/math/gyroid/.)
robust, structured literature reviews with the 5-Stage Process Model as basis for this re-examination of marketing. A third suggestion for future research is to use the structures and models here as thought structures for renewed efforts to build marketing theories that meet the quality criteria set out earlier. What will contribute value with clearly differential benefits and distinguishable competencies (knowledge, skills, attributes) to marketing’s various constituents? Can we marketers accept that marketing is co-dependent and nurture these complex webs of interdependent partners (see the gyroid web of scales of butterfly wings; Azimuth, 2016; Dolan et al., 2015; Grossman, 2016)? Can marketers accept and embrace inter-dependency between all sciences and take our place as (important) link in the larger stages of evolution (human metamorphosis) and progression of human endeavour and industry (Fig. 4)? Perhaps with a more intense focus on the value of its contribution and a lesser focus on the nature of the contribution, the contribution will be heralded and commended for its role in the progress of and prosperity for all humans. With apologies to Cramer (1988), “Everything is marketing, and marketing is [integrated into] everything.”
References Alvesson, M., Deetz, S., 2000. Doing Critical Management Research. Sage, London. AMA, 2016. https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx. Armstrong, J.S., 2003. Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: evidence and proposals. J. Bus. Res. 56 (1), 69–84. Armstrong, J.S., 2005. The forecasting canon: nine generalizations to improve forecast accuracy. Int. J. Appl. Forecasting 1 (1), 29–35. Armstrong, J.S., Green, K.C., 2007. Competitor-oriented objectives: myth of market share. Int. J. Bus. 12 (1), 116–136. Azimuth, 2016. The physics of butterfly wings. https://johncarlosbaez .wordpress.com/2015/08/11/the-physics-of-butterfly-wings/. (Accessed 8 October 2016). Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices. USF Tampa Library Scholar Common, Florida. Bush, R.F., Hunt, S.D., 2011. Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. Marketing Classics Press, Chicago. Covey, S.R., 2007. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon & Schuster, Sydney, Australia. Cramer, R.L., 1988. Marketing is everything and everything in marketing. Dahl, S., Yeung, F., 2015. Contrasting perspectives on marketing. Marketing Ethics & Society 55. Dolan, J.A., Wilts, B.D., Vignolini, S., Baumberg, J.J., Steiner, U., Wilkinson, T.D., 2015. Optical properties of gyroid structured materials: from photonic crystals to metamaterials. Adv. Opt. Mater. 3 (1), 12–32. Erikson, E.H., 1963. Childhood and Society, second ed. Norton, New York. https:// www.verywell.com/eriksons-psychosocial-stages-summary-chart-2795742. (Accessed 18 October 2016). Fiore, A.M., Jin, H.J., Kim, J., 2005. For fun and profit: hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychol. Market. 22 (8), 669–694. Galison, P., 1999. The Architecture of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gleick, J., 1987. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. Viking Press, New York. Grossman, B., 2016. Bathsheba sculpture gyroid. https://www.bathsheba.com/math/ gyroid/. (Accessed 18 October 2016). Heath, T.P., Chatzidakis, A., 2012. The transformative potential of marketing from the consumers’ point of view. J. Consum. Behav. 11 (4), 283–291. Layton, R., 2016. There could be more to marketing than you might have thought! An invited paper by Roger Layton. Aust. J. Market 24 (1), 2–7. www.researchgate.net. Online first, (Accessed 23 October 2016). Nelson, L.J., Barry, C.M., 2005. Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: the role of self-classification as an adult. J. Adolesc. Res. 20 (2), 242–262. Palus, C., 2010. A declaration of interdependence. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/06/a-declaration-of-interdependen.html. Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 1983. Is science marketing? J. Mark. Fall, 111–125. Rooke, D., Torbert, W., 2005. Seven transformations of leadership. Harv. Bus. Rev. April, 66–77. Rothbaum, F., Trommsdorff, G., 2007. Do roots and wings complement or oppose one another? The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M., 1982. History of marketing thought: an update. College of Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sheth, J.N., Uslay, C., 2007. Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to value creation. J. Public Policy Market. 26 (2), 302–307.
R. de Villiers / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 309–313
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 (2), 203–220. Woodside, A.G., 2010. Bridging the chasm between survey and case study research: research methods for achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity. Ind. Market. Manage. 39 (1), 64–75. Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling of adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking
313
in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 10, 463–472. doi:10.1016/ j.jbusres.2012.12.02. Woodside, A.G., Ko, E., Huan, T.C., 2012. The new logic in building isomorphic theory of management decision realities. Manage. Decis. 50 (5), 765–777. doi:10.1108/ 00251741211227429. Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22.