Criticisms of the marketing definitions from 1935-2017 PDF

Preview

Summary

This document critics the various definitions by the American marketing association....

Description

CRITICIZE THE DEFINITION OF MARKETING BY AMA FROM 1935 TO 2013

MARKETING MANAGEMENT BUS 841

LECTURER: PROF. DIXON-OGBECHI

GROUP MEMBERS UGOCHUKWU CHISOM CYNTHIA

130206079

AMAGWULA MARILYN IJEOMA

199023100

DAMILOLA ODELE

140203532

CLEMENT ONWUKA OGWU

199023336

BAYODE OLUWATOMILOLA ELIZABETH

120319012

AWOMAILO LANKE BENEDICT

911002065

AKINLOTAN OLUWAKEMI VICTORIA

199023318

OVBA MUDIAGA JOSEPH

199023315

OJODUN BUKOLA MUYIBAT

199023279

BANKOLE TOSIN DAVID

199023235

OKEKE CHUKWUDUBEM PETRUS

199023313

OGUNSOLA STEPHEN MIRACLE

199023143

ETUK JONES IDONGESIT

199023097

OSULA DAVID OTASOWIE

199023078

OLUMIDE AYODEJI SUCCESS

199023320

UKHUELEIGBE NOSEH O. ALAGBE LUQMAN AYOBAMI

199032015

CALLISTUS EKPENGA

940401036

AJOMOTOKIN OLUGBENGA A.

199023016

JACOB CHRISTIANA O.

199023077

ONIFADE OYINLOLA M.

199023232

ISHAQ ABDULMALIK A.

199023233

CHIKWENDU EVELYN NGOZI

151002871

OLANREWAJU OLALEKAN ALADE

199023369

AYOKANMI ADEBUNMI TITILAYO

199032037

BRUNO CHISOM ANAEKE

199023122

AGBADAMASHI OLUWAKEMI ELIZABETH

199023365

OLUFUNKE ESTHER ADEMUWAGUN ABIODUN ESTHER OLUBUNMI

199023241

OSHO OLALEKAN S.

199023304

OLAJOLUMO TOLULOPE JOHNSON

199023136

AYANBADE TEMITOPE SAMUEL

050902030

AJOGBASILE OLAOLUWA

199023286

A SEMINAR PRESENTATION BY GROUP 2 IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF M.sc DEGREE IN UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

Introduction Marketing is defined and practice from many distinct points of view with very means and towards different ends (baker et al, 2001). Consequently, there is no single definition of marketing that is agreeable to the professionals and tutors across board. Individual authors groups and institutional bodies have come up with different definitions of marketing based on their outlook and interests. Among such institution bodies is the chartered institute of management(CIM), American Marketing Association (AMA) etc. The definition of marketing by American Marketing Association (AMA) has come to be accepted as the formal definition of the marketing concept. AMA formed in 1937 has been leading and fostering thought leadership in the domain of marketing. The marketing concept defined by AMA in 1935 has undergone slight revision in 1937, 1948 and 1960 as well as a full re-conceptualization in 1985, 2004 and 2007 of which the last 2007 was readopted in 2013 and is still being readopted as at 2017. The conceptualization and the domain of marketing has been a contentious issue among academicians and practitioners in the field of marketing. This has led to different perspective on the definition of marketing. As a discipline that has span over a century, it is important and imperative to develop an acceptable definition that encompasses all aspects of marketing and also to effectively de-limit the domain so as to allow focused understanding and growth of knowledge in the discipline. However, what exists today is identity crisis. The reasons for the changes in the very definition of Marketing especially over the last four decades are analysed in this study. The changes in marketing ideology in different stages of the development of the marketing discipline, has led to the changes in the definition of the marketing concept. The revised definition brings common understanding among practitioners, academia and the public. This also facilitates critical thinking and knowledge creation in the discipline. Thus, this paper aims at criticising the different definitions from 1935-2013.

Purpose of the Paper The purpose of this paper is to critic the various definitions by scholars from 1935- 2013. An examination of the various perspectives and domain of marketing since inception to 2013 will be done and pitfalls identified. Criticisms of the marketing definitions THE 1935 AND 1937 DEFINITION As early as 1935, the National Association of Marketing Teachers has conceived the initial definition of marketing as; “Marketing is the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers”. They adopted the first official unified definition of marketing. 1935 Definition “Those business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from production to consumption” 1937 Definition The 1935 definition was adopted by AMA after formation as its first official definition of marketing in 1937. “Those business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from production to consumption” This original definition stood for 50 years, until it was revised in 1985. The definition was consistent with the positive definition of text book writers of those times till nineteen sixties with distribution of goods as the key focus. Criticisms This definition is right when it stated that marketing is a business activity however the business activities that must take place before the movement of goods and services were not highlighted. The phrase the flow of goods and services limits marketing to distribution. That is the movement of goods from the producer to the consumer. This definition restricted marketing to consumables

and services with no mention of ideas or course of action which can also be marketed. In essence the definition was vague. The definition focuses on the distribution part of marketing and excluded the rest of the four P’s. The term "distribution" is sometimes used to designate the activities involved in the movement and handling of goods from the point of production to the point of consumption or use. In general, however, “distribution" is used as a synonym of "marketing" i.e. it was limited to taking goods to the market for sale. Further it takes predominantly the firm point of view of directing the manufactured products or delivering services to the consumers. There was no consideration for individuals and organisations and there was no emphasis on the managerial aspect. Marketing is deeper in scope than to confine it to just the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer, it cuts across many horizon, it ensures consumers are satisfied by creating the Utility of place, time and possession as well as making of profit to the producer. Therefore, the marketing definition, is not exhaustive of the business organic function (marketing in focus) marketing is broader than just the performance of business activities directed toward, and incident to, the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer or user”.

THE 1948 AND 1960 DEFINITION 1948 Definition The 1937 definition of marketing was slightly revised as follows: “Marketing is the performance of business activities directed towards, and incident to the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers or users”. 1960 Definition The 1948 definition was slightly revised to become “Marketing is the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers or users”. The first definition though slightly revised stood for over 50 years until it was revised in 1985.

“Marketing consists of those business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption.” Since marketing – the distribution of goods – creates the utilities of time, place, possession, and information (an elementary utility), A study of marketing involves a consideration of all the business activities which take place in getting goods and services to the consumer, excluding only such activities that involve a significant change in form. It should be noticed at the outset that this is a broad field of study beginning with the primary raw material, which must be placed in the hands of the manufacturer, and then taking the product as it leaves the manufacturer and tracing it to the point where it enters the hands of the ultimate consumer (Phillips, 1938, p. 3). Marketing is often referred to as "distribution." The term "physical distribution" is sometimes used to designate the activities involved in the movement and handling of goods from the point of production to the point of consumption or use. In general, however, “distribution" is used as a synonym of "marketing" Criticisms This definition though revised has a lot of missing ingredients. It starts off well with saying that marketing is a performance of business activities but still less encompassing because it does not highlight the set of activities that must take place before moving the goods to where they are needed. Business activities include any activity a business engages in for the primary purpose of making a profit. An organization with a goal of profit making only is doomed to fail. If marketing solely looks at making profit, other objectives of marketing like value creation, customer’s satisfaction and loyalty would not be achieved. It also made an error of restricting marketing to only one aspect of commerce which is distribution. This makes the definition incomplete as marketing involves more than just distribution of goods from the producer to the manufacturer.

The definition failed to cover the aspect of segmentation and target market. It is important to know that in a business, your target market is not every one; how do you identify your target market? Was a research conducted to know consumers purchasing behavior and your market? When potential buyers are not satisfied, the exchange falters and the goals of an organization cannot be met. It is important for a business or organization to grasp how consumers go about making purchase decisions, thus research on consumer behavior is advised. While the definition is not a clear definition of the role of marketing, it blends the functional and institutional approaches. It emphasizes Marketing as business activities rather than as social or economic function performed by markets and anonymous institutions.

THE 1985 DEFNITION 1985 Definition In 1985, the association revisited the above 1960 definition of marketing and reviewed it as: “Marketing is the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals” The 1985 revision by AMA takes a normative approach - includes the notion of exchange, adds a process element considers individuals and organizations and emphasize the managerial aspect by including the elements of marketing mix. This definition was more encompassing than the 1937 definition as it made mention of functional business activities like planning, pricing, etc. However, there are some short falling in this definition. Criticisms The definition fails to recognize the needs of the consumers as this would help in the conceptualization of a satisfying product. Marketing is not all about creating an exchange it can be initiated for the purpose of causing an action. It also does not mention the essence of marketing to the society at large.

This definition was not quite inclusive, did not define marketing in aggregate, from multiple perspectives but defined marketing management – i.e. marketing from the manager’s point of view. The view of customers or of the society was not an important consideration in defining marketing during this period. The 1985 definition clearly gave importance to the manager’s conception of marketing and more so the action he had to execute at an offering level and not so much at as an organization. Marketing personnel in organizations came to be known more as implementers of “4P’s”. These concepts were already captured in the definition of marketing in this period. Kotler’s 2003 has captured concepts of value and relationships in their definition-"Marketing management [is] the art and science of choosing target markets and getting, keeping, and growing customers through creating, delivering, and communicating superior customer value". These developments around the idea of relationships, value to stakeholders than just customers resulted in changes in how marketing was practiced which was quite in contrast to how marketing was conceptualized, primarily in marketing mix (or 4p’s) terms. These developments made AMA revisit the existing conceptualisation of marketing in 2004.

THE 2004 DEFNITION 2004 Definition “Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communication and delivering value to consumers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders”. The 2004 American marketing association AMA definition of marketing provoked warranted criticisms of the informal and sporadic AMA definition making process and has served as a catalyst for vigorous discuss on the proper conceptual domain and impact of marketing. Thus, the 2004 AMA definition of marketing has stimulated an important healthy debate and has motivated reform of the AMA definition making process. “The revised definition has (a) departed from the marketing mix paradigm and brought customer value and customer relationships as the key focus of marketing (b) conceptualized marketing as a

processes for managing customer value and relationships and not as a list of activities (4p’s) to be done and (c) indicated the need of marketing to benefit the organization and also its stakeholders. The revised definition considers “value in use” and not just the value embedded in the offer which is exchanged for a price as it was the case in the previous conceptualization. In spite of these improvisations over the AMA 1985 definition there was strong critique from the academicians that the revised definition did not capture the different perspectives of marketing other than the managerial one and that the extent of importance of different stakeholders was not emphasized adequately. Criticisms Although the 2004 definition was an improvement on the 1985 definition, but it has its own pitfalls and has been criticized on the following bases: 1. AMA 2004 defined marketing as an “organization function”; this characterization of marketing was criticised as overly narrow in its domain and perspective (Gundlach and Wilkie 2009). Many AMA members including academicians and practitioners were of the view that marketing involves many actors including society and culture at large.

Hence,

there was demand for a more aggregate view of marketing, considering multiple perspectives rather than the firm’s perspective alone. 2. Further, although attention to stakeholders was given in the revised definition the criticism was that they were merely treated as beneficiaries than stakeholders or actors themselves. The definition generated intense academic discourse in the discipline and this culminated in a special section of the fall 2007 issue of Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (JPP&M) titled “The American Marketing Association’s 2004 Definition of Marketing: Perspectives on Its Implications for Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Marketing in Society,” invited by Editor Ron Hill. AMA based on these and other inputs revisited the AMA 2004 definition in a few years after careful analysis and thought conducted in a democratic manner and this resulted in the current conceptualisation of marketing thought. 3. The 2004 definition failed to describe the key essential qualities of the organizational benefits as well as stakeholders, thereby leaving readers with the impression that benefits

may be limited to profit maximization to the firm and her stakeholders, primarily equity owners. However, the benefits of marketing today are not just about immediate profits, but includes brand and product positioning, market share, share of customers’ wallet, customer engagement and loyalty. In terms of stakeholders from the perspective of marketing function today, this includes institutions (as captured in the 2007 definition). Such stakeholders include all participants in the exchange process including buyers, sellers, all means of exchange of value include tangible and intangible values etc. Stakeholder institutions include the organizations and bodies that shape and promote marketing thought and practices, such as advertisers’ practitioners, Marketing Academia, professional bodies etc. 4. The phrase “marketing is an organizational function” in the 2004 definition was seen to be too strongly associating marketing with a departmental activity, hence it is limiting. 5. The phrase “a set of processes,” is ambiguous as to who is engaged in the processes. 6. The definition included “creating, communicating, and

delivering,” but not

“exchanging.” Exchange was a central construct of the 1985 definition and an essential part of marketing. 7. The concept “value” as used in the definition is ambiguous. It could be argued that organizations do not create values at all but focus on market offering (goods, services, ideas, etc.) that has value to someone 8. No Evident Interest in Appraising Marketing's Impacts on the World: The greatest risk of equating the field of marketing solely with the managerial decisions being made inside organizations is that the goals and conduct of those organizations are also being adopted by marketing thinkers but without any external appraisal. This leads to something akin to a blanket approval regarding the reality of what the marketing world in total is. In addition, when we identify ourselves with all organizations, exactly whose perceived interests are being served, and does this matter to marketing? A brief consideration of egregious examples found in political campaigning, lobbying, fraudulent schemes prey-ing on the weak, bid rigging, energy gouging, channel stuff• ing, and so forth, calls attention to the notion that many organizations are imperfect entities with a highly mixed set of motivations. Furthermore, in most organizations,

people other than marketers are setting priorities. In short, organizational marketing is important, but it does not represent the entire field for marketing thought. 9. Failure to Recognize the Competitive Nature of the Marketing System: Although we do not doubt that the 2004 definition implicitly acknowledges the competitive nature of markets, its sole focus on a single organization

does not presume any more

aggregated assessment of marketing across firms. This is a serious shortcoming, in that it also leaves us without strong concepts to assess simultaneous marketing activity in product markets, which is actually the norm. When 8 or 12 firms compete in a market, is it not appropriate to assess the "marketing" that is occurring on all fronts? Such multiform competition impels innovation, product, and service improvements; lower prices for consumers; and provides

continuous pressures for increases in

efficiency. However, at the same time, certain inefficiencies would appear to be natural in such settings because of duplication in marketing programs

expenses

when

are aimed at the same set of customers. In other words, marketing

thinkers will never recognize these issues if they are restricted to the managerial purview of a single firm. Furthermore, with respect to public policy, the entire field of antitrust law and regulation is based on the study of marketplace competition. Is this narrow conception of marketing the reason the field has not made more of an impact on antitrust theory and enforcement (Gundlach, Phillips, and Desrochers 2002). 10. Fail...