This article traces the emergence and subsequent decline of motivation research. It argues that contrary to recent opinion that interpretive consumer research emerged in the mid-1980s, an embryonic form of interpretive research can actually be found in the 1930s in the form of motivation research. It demonstrates that there are clear and distinct parallels regarding the ontology, axiology, epistemology, methodology and view of human nature between motivation research, interpretive research and, to a limited extent, critical theory. Not only is motivation research presented as an early form of interpretive consumer research, but in addition, Holbrook's and Hirschman's experiential analysis is shown to be a possible take-off point to make the case that motivation research represents an early root of Consumer Culture Theory. This genealogical exercise resituates the emergence of the CCT discourse by 80 years and interpretive research by 60 years.

In this paper, I outline a history of critical marketing studies. The argument put forward that marketing lacks any substantive critical edge is questioned. In surveying our history and finding extensive engagement with a variety of critical perspectives, I connect these with appropriate literature from non-marketing sources to flesh out an account of our critical marketing heritage.

Following Peter and Olson’s seminal contribution to the marketing of ideas literature, this article explores the marketing of theory. It is argued that marketing discourse should be viewed as an ordering attempt, not as an order. From this perspective it becomes important that we explore how marketing theory comes to be ordered in the way it presently is, and the manner in which certain ideas develop or face extinction, in order to better understand what can or cannot be said in marketing theory. In response, this article argues that a much needed turn in the paradigm debate should be toward the exploration of the institutionalization of marketing theory. It examines the social, economic and institutional logic underpinning theory production in marketing and demonstrates the influence of McCarthyism and the Cold War climate on marketing theory.

Compensatory consumption has been an increasingly researched yet widely debated area of consumer behaviour over the last 20 years. Extant research formulates the term as overwhelmingly negative, largely due to the simplistic and fragmented conceptualisations assumed in prior work. The purpose of the current paper is to present a comprehensive review of the umbrella term of compensatory consumption, incorporating a continuum of behaviours and accounting for the pre-and post-consumption periods including both positive and negative viewpoints. In addition, expanding upon the theory of need satisfaction, the current paper introduces a novel conceptual distinction between compensation and compromise. Finally, a proposed theoretical framework is presented that differentiates between compensatory and compromisory consumption based on the extent of consumer consciousness, rationality and rationalisation. Future research directions are offered.

This paper examines the treatment of paradigm incommensurability in marketing theory. It is not the first to tackle the issue, although I will argue that existing attempts to negotiate the incommensurability thesis fail on their misunderstanding of Kuhn's work. I then highlight Kuhn's own shifting position regarding the incommensurability thesis. Despite Kuhn's proposal that incommensurability can be overcome, such a strategy would be risky in an environment where cognitive bias indicates a continued subscription to logical empiricism and behavioural scientific modes of inquiry.

In this article, the history of relationship marketing (RM) is challenged. Similar to discussions of the marketing concept, the debates surrounding RM are largely ahistorical. This is despite numerous scholars indicating that RM has a far longer history than is currently appreciated. In contrast to received wisdom that RM emerged in the late 1970s, it is demonstrated that RM themes have been present in the marketing literature for longer than is recognized by the contemporary scholars

In order to understand the connection between development, marketing and transformative consumer research (TCR), with its attendant interest in promoting human well-being, this article begins by charting the links between US 'exceptionalism', 'Manifest Destiny' and modernisation theory, demonstrating the confluence of US perspectives and experiences in articulations and understandings of the contributions of marketing practice and consumer research to society. Our narrative subsequently engages with the rise of social marketing (1960s-) and finally TCR (2006-). We move beyond calls for an appreciation of paradigm plurality to encourage TCR scholars to adopt a multiple paradigmatic approach as part of a three-pronged strategy that encompasses an initial 'provisional moral agnosticism'. As part of this stance, we argue that scholars should value the insights provided by multiple paradigms, turning each paradigmatic lens sequentially on to the issue of the relationship between marketing, development and consumer well-being. After having scrutinised these issues using multiple perspectives, scholars can then decide whether to pursue TCR-led activism. The final strategy that we identify is termed 'critical intolerance'.

According to recent statements by prominent Critical Marketing scholars, there remains a problem of how to clarify this ambiguous label for interested colleagues. Beyond the usual gestures to paradigmatic pluralism, epistemological reflexivity and ontological denaturalization (Fournier and Grey, 2000; Tadajewski and Brownlie, 2008; Whittle and Spicer, 2008), I argue that Critical Marketing Studies possesses similar characteristics to the vein of thought promoted by the founding members of the Vienna Circle. Critical Marketing and logical empiricism, I suggest, are not the diametrical opposites that we might otherwise suppose. Subsequently I claim that Critical Marketing Studies needs to engage with marketing actors and this requires a different relationship between Critical scholars and practitioners than may have been the case previously. Finally, I provide an alternative way of thinking about theory production in marketing.