Dating the history of marketing, as an academic discipline, is just as problematic as the history of marketing practice. Marketing historians cannot agree on how to date the beginnings of marketing thought. Eric Shaw, for instance, suggests that a period of pre-academic marketing thought can be identified prior to 1900. Other historians suggest that the theory of marketing only emerged in the 20th century when the discipline began to offer courses at universities. Nevertheless, the birth of marketing as a discipline is usually designated to the first decade of the twentieth century when "marketing courses" appeared in universities. In 1902, the University of Michigan offered what many believe to be the very first course in marketing. The University of Illinois also started offering coursework in marketing in 1902. In the academic year, 1904–1905, the
University of Pennsylvania commenced teaching marketing. Other universities soon followed, including the Harvard Business School. In 1914 Harvard's required course "Economic Resources of the United States" was renamed "Marketing." Prior to the emergence of marketing courses, marketing was not recognised as a discipline in its own right; rather it was treated as a branch of economics and was often called
applied economics. Subjects, which today might be recognised as marketing-related, were embedded in economics courses. Early marketing theories were described as modifications or adaptations of economic theories. The impetus for the separation of marketing and economics was due, at least in part, to economic's focus on production as the creator of economic value and general failure to investigate distribution. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, as markets became more globalised, distribution began to assume increasing importance. Some economics professors began to run courses examining various aspects of the marketing system, including "distributive and regulative systems." Other courses, such as the "marketing of products" and the "marketing of farm-products" followed. As the first decades of the 20th century progressed, books and articles concerning marketing topics began to emerge. In 1936, the publication of the new
Journal of Marketing gave marketing academics a forum for exchanging ideas and research methods and also gave the discipline a real sense of its own distinct identity as a maturing academic discipline.
A periodisation approach Several scholars have attempted to describe the evolution of marketing thought chronologically and to connect it with broader intellectual and academic trends. Bartels (1965) provided a brief account of marketing's formative periods, and Shah and Gardner (1982) briefly considered the development of the six dominant schools in contemporary marketing. However, these initial attempts have been criticised as overly descriptive. One of the first theorists to consider the stages in the development of marketing thought was Robert Bartels, who in
The History of Marketing Thought, (1965) used a periodisation approach. He categorised the development of marketing theory decade by decade from the beginning of the 20th century: • 1900s: discovery of basic concepts and their exploration • 1910s: conceptualisation, classification and definition of terms • 1920s: integration on the basis of principles • 1930s: development of specialisation and variation in theory • 1940s: reappraisal in the light of new demands and a more scientific approach • 1950s: reconceptualisation in the light of
managerialism, social development and quantitative approaches • 1960s: differentiation on bases such as managerialism,
holism,
environmentalism,
systems, and
internationalism • 1970s: socialisation; the adaptation of marketing to social change Bartels was the first historian to provide a "long view of marketing’s past and wide sweep of its subdisciplines" and in so doing, he nurtured an interest in the history of marketing thought.
A 'schools of thought' approach Other marketing historians have eschewed the periodisation approach, and instead considered whether distinct schools within marketing reflect different facets of common theory and whether a more unifying intellectual structure has emerged. These approaches tend to identify distinct schools of thought. A
school of thought refers to an intellectual tradition or a group of scholars who share a common philosophy or set of ideas. Marketing historians, Shaw and Jones, define a school of thought as one that has "a substantial body of knowledge; developed by a number of scholars; and describing at least one aspect of the what, how, who, why, when and where of performing marketing activities." To a certain extent, there is some agreement that in early marketing thought, three so-called traditional schools, namely the commodity school, the functional school and the institutional school co-existed. Marketing historians such as Eric Shaw and Barton A. Weitz point to the publication of
Wroe Alderson's book,
Marketing Behavior and Executive Action (1957), as a break-point in the history of marketing thought, moving from the macro functions-institutions-commodities approach to a
micromarketing management paradigm. Following on from Alderson, marketing began to incorporate other fields of knowledge besides economics, notably
behavioral science and psychology, becoming a multi-disciplinary field. For many scholars, Alderson's book marks the beginning of the
Marketing Management Era. Of those historians who identify schools, there is no real agreement about which schools were dominant at different stages in marketing's development. Although the distinctive features of these schools can be identified and described, many of the early text-books included elements drawn from two or more schools of thought- for example, in a series of chapters devoted to commodities followed by a series of chapters devoted to the institutional and functional schools. In the following section, a brief overview of the contributions of key thinkers will be outlined with respect to the prevailing schools that have dominated marketing thought.
Hunt and Goolsby, identified four schools of thought that have dominated marketing, namely; the commodity school, the institutional school, the functional school and the managerial school. •
The Commodity School: A focus on different types of goods in the marketplace and how they are marketed. •
The Institutional School: Emphasised the functions of middlemen (or intermediaries); similar to the functional school, but with a focus on channel flows. •
The Functional School: A focus on the characteristics of marketing, identifying the functions and systems of marketing; adopts a systems approach. Some marketing historians like
Jagdish Sheth have identified the modern "marketing schools" as: •
The Managerial school emerged during the late 1950s and became arguably the predominant and most influential school of thought in the field •
The Consumer/buyer behavior school, which dominated the academic field in the second half of the twentieth century (apart from the Managerial school), features theories emerging from behavioral science •
The Social exchange school, which focuses on exchange as the fundamental concept of marketing Yet other commentators identify a broader range of schools. O'Malley and Lichrou, for example, document the schools as: •
Functional: What activities does marketing perform? Focus on intermediaries and value adding. •
Commodities: How are goods classified? Focus on classification of goods; trade flows •
Marketing Institutions: Who performs marketing functions on commodities? Focus on retailers, wholesalers, intermediaries, distribution channels •
Marketing Management: How should marketers and managers market products and services to consumers? Business firm as seller/ supplier •
Marketing Systems: What is a marketing system and how does it work? Channels of distribution and aggregate systems, •
Consumer behaviour: How and why do consumers buy? organisational buyer and consumer buyer •
Macro-marketing: How do marketing systems impact on society? Industries, channels, consumer movement, environmentalism •
Exchange: What are the forms of exchange? Who are the parties to the exchange process? Aggregations of buyers and sellers •
Marketing history: When did marketing practice and ideas emerge and evolve? Marketing thought and marketing practice
Brief description of the dominant schools of thought By the 1920s, the marketing discipline was organised into three schools of thought: the commodity school, the institutional school and the functional school. The following sections briefly outlines the schools of thought as conceptualised by key thinkers in the discipline. Although these can be treated as separate schools of thought, considerable overlap between them is evident. The three schools that preceded marketing management exhibited a highly descriptive approach and collectively these are often called the
classical schools. These schools borrowed heavily from economics and were largely concerned with
aggregate demand and lacked a focus on the individual firm. By the 1960s, all previous schools of thought had been eclipsed by the managerial school because it offered a problem-solving approach and presented marketers with potential solutions to marketing problems that were frequently encountered.
The commodity school The commodity school is thought to have originated with an article by C.C. Parlin (1916) with a focus on the
objects of exchange and was primarily concerned with classifying commodities. A different article published by Copeland, and published in the
Harvard Business Review (1923) proposed the convenience-shopping-specialty goods classification which is still in use today. Other theorists developed a plethora of methods for classifying goods.
The institutional school The institutional school focused its attention on the
agents of market transactions, specifically those organisations active in the intermediary channel system, such as wholesalers and retailers. It was primarily concerned with documenting the channels of distribution, the functions performed by channel members and the value-adding services they provided. In short, the institutional school was fundamentally concerned with the activities required to achieve efficiency within distribution systems. The institutional school was heavily influenced by economics, but in the 1970s, began to take on ideas from behavioural science. A key work in the institutional school tradition is Weld's
The Marketing of Farm Products, (1916) while other important contributors included: Butler's
Marketing and Merchandising, (1923); Breyer's
Commodity and Marketing (1931); Converse's
Marketing: Methods and Policies (1921) and Duddy & Revzan's
Marketing: An Institutional Approach (1947).
The functional school The functional school was thought to have originated with the publication of Shaw's article,
Some Problems in Market Distribution, (1912) The functional school was primarily concerned with documenting the
functions of marketing. In other words, it attempted to address the question, What work does marketing do? Different theorists within the functional school produced long lists of marketing's functions. Although there was little agreement about what should be included in the list, much of it revolved around the value added by marketing intermediaries. In those early years, advertising and promotion was rarely seen as a marketing function. In addition to Shaw, key thinkers in the functional school included Weld, Vanderblue and Ryan.
Marketing management Wroe Alderson changed marketing thought with the publication of his work,
Marketing Behaviour and Executive Action (1957) in which he was primarily concerned with the problems and challenges faced by marketers and the types of solutions that had been found to be successful. This shifted the emphasis away from the functions of marketing and towards a more problem-solving approach, thereby paving the way for a more managerial approach within the discipline. Some historians have claimed that Alderson's article signalled a
paradigm shift in thinking, towards a new
macromarketing approach. The marketing management school emerged as the dominant school in the 1960s following the publication of
Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, written by
E. Jerome McCarthy and replaced the so-called functional school which had been the dominant school for the first part of the twentieth century. In the words of Hunt and Goolsby, the publication of McCarthy's text, sounded the "beginning of the end for the functional school." However, Hunt and Goolsby note that the 1960s was a transitional period in which both the functional school and the managerial school co-existed. Shaw and Jones have described the emergence of the managerial school in the mid-twentieth century as a "paradigm shift." While the management school continued to borrow from economics, it also introduced ideas from the new and emerging fields of sociology and psychology, which offered useful insights for explaining aspects of consumer behaviour such as the influence of culture and social class. Key works in the marketing management tradition include Wroe Alderson's
Marketing Behavior and Executive Action, (1957), Howard's
Marketing Management (1957), Lazer's
Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, (1957) and McCarthy's
Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach (1960). The salient features of the managerial approach to marketing are: • "an overt marketing-as-management orientation, and • an overt reliance on the behavioral and quantitative sciences as means of knowing." ==Key innovations that influenced marketing practice ==