Is it time to discard the marketing concept?

Sachs, William S.; Benson, George S.

doi:10.1016/0007-6813(78)90117-9

Cited by 35 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discussion and research have been directed toward the meaning of the term by Barksdale and Darden (1971), Houston (1986) and Webster (1988), and on market orientation as the implementation of the marketing concept by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990). Others such as Sachs and Benson (1978) have gone so far as to argue for discarding the concept altogether, however this has not occurred.…”

Section: Marketing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The internal‐external marketing orientation of a political party: social implications of political party marketing orientation

O’Cass

2001

Journal of Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to examine and de®ne marketing's role and signi®cance in the political arena and understand the social implications of political marketing more appropriately. A case study was undertaken to examine a major Australian political party's marketing orientation using key facets of the Kotler and Andreasen (1991) typology of internal versus external orientation and the Kohli and Jaworski (1990) market orientation perspective. An examination of this nature has previously not been undertaken in the area of political marketing to explore the social marketing issues from the marketer's perspective. The ®ndings indicate signi®cant issues for parties and marketing researchers to consider in relation to marketing and market orientation of political parties.

show abstract

Section: Marketing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The internal‐external marketing orientation of a political party: social implications of political party marketing orientation

O’Cass

2001

Journal of Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept, as a management philosophy, has not met with widespread adoption. Practitioners remain wary (Hise, 1965;Hooley et al, 1990;McNamara, 1972;Webster, 1981) and academics continue to highlight codification or theoretical limits (Dickson et al, 1986;Sachs and Benson, 1978). The concept has proved to be non-universal which has provoked attempts at broadening and modernization (Bell and Emory, 1971;Hirschman, 1983;Kotler and Levy, 1969;Webster, 1988;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural obstacles to market orientation

Harris

1996

Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on jargonAs with any academic discipline, marketing theory has a tendency to define narrowly concepts which practitioners would often see as merely synonymous. Such is the case with market orientation. Shapiro (1988) recognized that the expressions "market driven", "marketing oriented", "market oriented" and "close to the customer" are so similar that "few important distinctions between these terms exist" (see Ruekert (1992), referring to Shapiro (1988)). Indeed, many practitioners use different terms to mean "market oriented" but rarely consider the precise ramifications of the phrase itself (an issue noted as early as Lear, 1963). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argue that market orientation should be used in preference to other phrases because of its emphasis on holistic coordination and co-operation, its avoidance of political charge and its focus on the broader market. Therefore, in keeping with the work of other authors, this paper will utilize the terms market oriented and market orientation as generic phrases for the sake of simplicity and ease of comprehension.

show abstract

“…Recent years have seen a plethora of literature reviewing the content and components of the marketing concept. There have been calls for the broadening of the concept (Kotler and Levy, 1969), the narrowing of the concept (Sachs and Benson, 1978) and the operationalisation of the concept (Barksdale and Darden, 1971). This coincides with claims that the marketing concept is the cause of the rise of consumerism (Bell and Emory, 1971), of the decrease in competitiveness (Kaldor, 1971), and of an increase in long-term perspectives (Reisz, 1980).…”

Section: The Stratification Of Marketing Culture Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural domination: the key to market‐oriented culture?

Harris

1998

European Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key to a market-oriented culture? 355Given such goals the audience of this paper is marketing academics and executives as well as those researchers who are interested in the interface between organizational behaviour and marketing.So, what is organizational culture? Cultural theorists propose and develop multiple perspectives of organizational culture, the diversity derived from discrepancies in the assumptions which researchers make about both "organization" and "culture" (Martin, 1992;Smircich, 1983). Smircich (1983, pp. 343; 347) examines the intersection of organizational culture and organizational theory and contends that researchers in the area can be divided along two dimensions; those which view culture as a "root metaphor" and those which emphasise culture as a "variable" of analysis. Briefly, researchers who view culture as a variable either present culture as an independent variable which is imported into the organization or as an internal variable which is created and maintained by the organization. Culture viewed as a root metaphor, presents organizational culture as either generated by cognitions, constituted of symbols or as an expression of unconscious processes (respectively being cognitive, symbolic and psychodynamic perspectives of organizational culture). The framework developed by Smircich (1983) is applied to research in marketing in the seminal paper of Deshpande and Webster (1989). Utilising the fivefold classification of Smircich (1983), for each perspective, Deshpande and Webster (1989) develop implications for marketing research and methodology.This paper is a response to the suggestions of Deshpande and Webster's (1989, p. 13) that marketing researchers first, "delve into the rapidly developing literature on organizational culture" and second, "develop theoretical structures" to gain greater understanding of marketing phenomena. Overall, Deshpande and Webster (1989) echo the conclusion of Smircich (1983) that researchers use different themes and perspectives for, contrasting reasons, the theme being dependent on the particular needs of the researchers. Consequently, for the purposes of this paper, organizational culture is defined as a dynamic set of assumptions, values and artefacts whose shared meaning can be acquired by members of the organization. This definition is synthesised from the definitions of Schein (1985) which focuses on the components of culture, DiBella (1993) which concentrates on shared meaning, and Hatch (1993) which emphasises the processual dynamics between components of organizational culture. Hence, the presented definition illustrates three major ramifications of contemporary organizational culture theory -that culture is composed of distinguishable components (assumptions, values and artefacts), that components are dynamic (that is linked by two-way processes) and that culture is not a unitary concept. These implications are discussed in turn below. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 32,3/4 356The components of culture Schein (1985) presents a view of culture o...

show abstract

Is it time to discard the marketing concept?

Cited by 35 publications

References 16 publications

The internal‐external marketing orientation of a political party: social implications of political party marketing orientation

The internal‐external marketing orientation of a political party: social implications of political party marketing orientation

Cultural obstacles to market orientation

Cultural domination: the key to market‐oriented culture?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About