Download EGPA_2011_PSG_XVI_Vazquez_Alves_Cervera[1]

HISTORICAL STAGES IN THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC SECTOR
MARKETING: CURRENT SITUATION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Authors:
José Luis Vázquez, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences - University of León,
Campus de Vegazana s/n 24071-León (Spain)
Helena Alves, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences - University of Beira Interior,
Estrada do Sineiro s/n 6201-209 Covilhã (Portugal)
Amparo Cervera, Faculty of Economics - University of Valencia, Avda. Tarongers s/n
46022-Valencia (Spain)
Contact author:
Prof. Dr. José Luis Vázquez
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales - Universidad de León
Campus de Vegazana s/n 24071-León (Spain)
Phone: +34 987 291751
Fax: +34 987 291454
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract:
On the basis of the general agreement in academia when dating the origins of Marketing
discipline at the very beginning of the XXth century linked to goods and transactions in
the business sphere a number of researchers have focused their efforts on the
delimitation and analysis of the stages in the historical development of the discipline as
well as on the analysis of the content of successive definitions.
Likewise, similar approaches could be used regarding different branches or subdisciplines, specifically in case of those not so closely linked to the profit field and in
this case starting on precedents and early discussions around the middle of last century
on the possibility of broadening the concept and/or field for marketing application
beyond business.
In this paper, and from the review of relevant literature, a chronological scheme about
the stages in the historical evolution of public dimensions of marketing is suggested,
considering four main stages as well as two transitional periods. Prevailing paradigms
and key issues at any time are analyzed, as well as the different approaches when
intending a "formal" definition of public sector marketing.
Finally, some reflections on current developments as well as on future prospects are
also considered.
Keywords:
Marketing historical evolution; public sector marketing concept; public sector
marketing historical evolution.
1. Introduction: efforts to define stages in the historical evolution of Marketing
A number of researchers have focused their efforts on the delimitation and analysis of
the stages in the historical evolution of Marketing. In this sense, Bartels’ proposal
(1988) related to a structure in decades along the last century could be underlined, not
only as one of more widespread approaches, but also due to its influence as setting the
basis for later and so well-known contributions.
Alternative schemes are also suggestive, as the one by Kerin on the occasion of the 60th
anniversary of the publication of the Journal of Marketing in 1996. He also referred to
decades, but now on the basis of the recount and systematic analysis of the articles
published in the journal from the first issue in 1936 up, highlighting those dominant
topics at every time. In his view only by mid-forties we could properly start talking on
specific and autonomous developments and theories in the Marketing arena (its
antecedents being highly influenced by Applied Economy); then, and up to mideighties, marketing was to be successively considered as a management activity, a
quantitative science, a behavioural science and a science on decision making, current
situation being that of a science contemplating an integrative perspective.
Later on, Wilkie and Moore (2003) suggest considering a pre-marketing period together
to four great evolutionary stages or “eras”, related to the actions of founding and
formalizing the field, changing in paradigm, and intensification, the last one still in
force up to date (Wilkie and Moore, 2011). Table 1 shows the parallelism among the
three mentioned proposals.
Such schemes have revealed as acceptable by academics which have focused their
efforts in most recent years on developing new attempts of Marketing definitions (2004
and 2007), introducing some relevant changes to reflect the reality of a non-business
field for the discipline (Vázquez, Stepanova and Alves, 2011)1.
Table 1: Some examples on proposals related to stages in the historical evolution and
conceptual development of Marketing discipline
Stage
Bartels (1988)
Up to 1900
Antecedents
1900-1910
Discovery
1911-1920
Conceptualization
1921-1930
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1981-1985
1986-1990
1990-1995
Since 1995
Integration
Kerin (1996)
Wilkie & Moore (2003, 2011)
Pre-marketing
Search
Antecedents
Development
Formalization
Principles and concept
Revaluation
Concepts reviewing
Differentiation
Socialization
Strategy and current
concept
Future tendencies
Functions and
productivity
Assessment of
marketing-mix impact
Customer and
organizational process
Design of market
strategy
Identification and
contingencies
Future tendencies
Change in paradigm
Intensification of change
Source: Adapted from Vázquez (2004, p. 11), on the basis of Bartels (1988), Kerin (1996), and Wilkie
and Moore (2003, 2011).
1
A reference to such changes can be found in a further section of this paper.
2. Proposals to define stages in the historical evolution of public and social
dimensions of Marketing
Stages could also be considered related to marketing branches or sub-disciplines. In
case of public and social dimensions of marketing (we could say nowadays public and
social marketing), Wilkie and Moore provided in 2003 an immediate precedent, as they
not only stated their generic proposal on Marketing evolution, but also determined the
main characteristics for every stage and assessed the way in which social issues or the
social dimension were considered at any time.
However, and even when an interesting and pioneer contribution, a little weakness
could be pointed up, as the intended purpose was limited to the adaptation or
particularization of the generic evolution of Marketing to the concrete case of social
marketing (i.e., “re-visit” the general evolution of the discipline under a social view). In
other words, Wilkie and Moore did not go deeper or even considered the possibility of
properly determining and analyzing specific stages (either similar or parallel to those at
general level) in the development of social or any other nonprofit marketing branch.
On this precedent, a chronological scheme was suggested by Vázquez (2004) aiming to
throw some light on the particular evolution in the consideration of public and nonprofit
issues in the Marketing field. Four main stages as well as two transitional periods were
considered at this purpose and concrete names were updated when revisiting this
scheme in 2011 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: A proposal on a methodological scheme regarding stages in the historical
evolution and conceptual development of public and non-profit marketing
Source: Adapted from Vázquez (2004, p. 12), according to Vázquez, Stepanova and Alves (2011).
3. Stages in the historical evolution of public and social dimensions of Marketing
Following the above basis, not also key issues but also different paradigms could be
determined regarding any of above suggested stages. Some of them will be highlighted
in following pages2.
3.1. Precedents (until 1940)
There is not a generalized agreement on dating first commercial activities or their
location in a country/territory. As considering exchange their core axis, some authors
suggest that marketing activities are as old as human race or, at the least they go back to
the moment when exchange and trade appeared on earth.
Going further, social and public dimensions could also be considered as inherent to any
exchange or trade procedure: the one when talking on benefits and consequences not
only for the concrete individuals performing, but also to the extent of their families or
reference social groups; the later, as hierarchies and ranks exist in every tribal or social
group, thus facilitating somebody’s prevalent position regarding the materialization of
exchange processes (e.g. charging monetary or in kind taxes, reserving in exclusiveness
performance of trade activities or legitimizing their actors, etc.) as well as turning into a
de facto precedent of economic activity of public sector or its control over private
initiative (Vázquez, 2010).
Friedman (1984), Kaufman (1987) or Stern (1988) reinforce such position when
referring to marketing practices in the Israel of Talmudic times (some 1500 years ago),
the dynasties of ancient China (specifically the Han Dynasty, between 206 b.C. and 220
a.C.) or medieval fair markets. Named precedents could also be found in manuscripts on
exchange by Greek classic philosophers Plato and Aristotle, or dissertations at Medium
Ages on “fair price” and interest rate by Saint Thomas Aquinas or John Duns Scotus
that were later reflected in contributions as, for example, those by the Spanish School of
Salamanca in the XVI century, when analyzing the essence and recognizing the
“fairness” of traders’ activities as well as their contribution to social welfare by
achieving the material goals of society.
More specific precedents can be found in former great treatises on Economy published
from XVIII century up. Authors as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx
repeatedly reflected on consumption and the usefulness of trade and exchange as well as
on some other practices that today as considered as being part of marketing.
2
A further development on the developments at these stages can be found in Vázquez (2010).
Aspects related to public issues and their role in the Economy were present in
economists' documents at this stage, the development of public and social policy being
long ago one of main points focusing efforts. Once other previous issues were
overcome, the “major” question of laissez-faire vs. public authorities’ tutelage on
business became increasingly significant as social and economic topic. Public
performance was in question and a legal corpus was established, thus setting the basis
for government regulation on business. Social, non-profit or issues on sustainability
were usually relegated from business field and linked to different activities, mostly with
a religious or humanitarian background.
Marketing became widely accepted by academics and practitioners, gradually turning
into an independent research field showing its own personality in markets characterized
by offer shortage, inefficient distribution and absence of logistic resources. Discussions
among scholars showing an interest in the new discipline were successively focused on
a number of questions –not only related to production– that influenced and were
influenced by public performance, as distribution of agricultural products, raise of
demand, market analysis, sales, intermediation, publicity or price policies.
A short of innate link between marketing and society was also proposed in terms of
applying a Marketing Aggregate System conceived as an operative complex serving
needs and requirements of the society in which they are located (Wilkie and Moore,
1999). Three primary groups of agents were consumers, producers (marketers) and
governmental entities. Public decisions were supposed to be made in order to facilitate
the operability of the whole system in benefit of the other two groups.
Thus, a social dimension was implicit as a topic in an economic and commercial
thought worried on finding efficient production and distribution procedures. The stress
on economic efficiency stimulated exploring roles and relations among producers and
government, what was not a central core in literature. The role of public sector was
considered not so regulator but more as a facilitator for marketing activities by, e.g.,
establishing levels and standards.
In this period, in absence of an elaborated theory, data or a structure, some authors
aimed providing non-empirical –but relatively objective– responses to questions that
were related to those social issues arising simultaneously to the development of a
conceptual body for marketing. Specifically, Cherington (1920) contributed an
interesting basis for reflection when wondering if materialization of marketing activities
could allow the achievement of social welfare by focusing on its underlying functions.
3.2. Early discussions (1941-1950)
A sound academic infrastructure (reflected in contents of curricular programs, courses
and seminars, formal organizations, etc.) gradually turned the emerging body of
marketing knowledge into a flourishing discipline. It was structured and systematized in
manuals and periodicals, a virtually needed and enough condition to promote intense
discussions on the issues attracting the interest of researchers and specialists.
The different topics under analysis faithfully reflecting the thought of every moment,
Kerin (1996) highlights that in the former years of the Journal of Marketing topics
dealing with public and social issues were under consideration in a number of published
papers and 15% of former 500 contributions came from authors with responsibility level
in USA Public Administration. The high point in the increasing interest on public and
social questions was achieved in the years of the second big military conflict, when
some 55% of the total articles were related to the one and/or another dimension.
Even more, by mid 40s the most intensive discussion in the history of Marketing up to
the date started, referred to its consideration as a science or as an art (which has
extended for decades, nearly up to current days). The nature and content of marketing
was one of main controversial aspects (Sheth and Garrett, 1986).
Efforts aiming an adequate answer resulted into two of main pillars of traditional
thought when determining product trade as the core element of marketing and private
business as field of application. However, the robustness of such traditional approach
was nearly simultaneously questioned, as the possibility of broadening either the
concept or the field of application of commercial activities was quickly suggested.
Relevant contributions (e.g. Converse, 1945; Alderson and Cox, 1948) supported
considering marketing as a scientific discipline as well as broadening its field of
application by adapting the core concepts to a better understanding and analysis of
problems characterizing any kind of contexts and situations outside the business sphere.
Main notes characterizing arguments at these former stages of the discussion could be
summarized as follows (Kotler, 1972):
a) On one side, champions of the traditional stand supported restricting the field of
marketing application as considering it one more of entrepreneurial activities. The
approach was reflected in definitions, marketing activities being considered essentially
as business, meanwhile their core nucleus was identified as commercial trade or market
transactions where the property of a concrete good and/or the right to use it is
transferred in exchange for a kind of payment.
b) On the other side, some authors were favourable to overcome a conception merely
restricted to business by removing the requirement about the presence of a payment (a
circumstance that they considered as simply incidental). Such approach would also be
reflected in alternative definitions of the marketing discipline, either in this stage or
immediately following years, as for example, the one by the Ohio University in 1965.
According to this position, marketing activities would appear as significant at any
situation where “organizations”, “products” and “customers” could be identified in a
broad sense ( not necessarily as synonyms for “business”, “goods” and “consumers”)
and exchanges are the core nucleus (and not necessarily economic transactions –trade–).
3.3. First transition (1951-1960)
The post-war period re-located the focus of marketing thought on recovery, restoration
and economic prosperity and a new emphasis was made on the enterprise and business
facet. The necessity of developing an integrative theory was advocated when looking
for a suitable model to understand and assess the problems at that time. Transformations
and progresses in the theoretical infrastructure of marketing in these ten years were so
remarkable and conditioned future developments up to the extent that authors as Marion
(1988) stated that the 50s performed as the transition of marketing from its “prehistory”
to “world history”. Marketing should not be considered any more as a mere activity
assuring transference of goods from producers to consumers, but as a sort of “macrofunction” with a proper and clear objective in discovering and satisfying users’ needs in
a frame of predetermined objectives.
The “universalizing” tendency was consistent to the necessity of avoiding risks of
“marketing myopia” (Levitt, 1960), even when it could appear as counterproductive in
case of assessing results under the focus of discussions on the possibility of broadening
the field of application in the non-profit areas, as diversification of marketing activities
(in the business sphere) should be prevalent on diversifying their field of application.
Thus, manuals and articles in early 50s pointed to inertia in relevant issues linked to the
impact of marketing in society and related public performance coming from the
previous stage. However, in a pendulum-like motion, the proportion of articles on such
dimensions in the Journal of Marketing and other reference publications significantly
declined as a faithful reflection of the “hard” return of research interest to management
and theoretical issues. The result was a period characterized as a transitional stage in the
historical evolution and conceptual development of public and non-profit marketing,
just as in case of other non-business branches of the discipline.
3.4. Consolidation (1961-1980)
In 60s there was a definite crisis in the prevailing double axiom in marketing thought
(Sheth and Gardner, 1982): economic exchange was relegated by exchange of values,
and the assumption on the necessity of a marketer at the starting point of commercial
programs was questioned when suggesting similar or more importance of costumer, as
well as the possibility of external issues influencing on marketing decisions.
Postulates breaking down with traditional approaches on the field for marketing
application can be found in well-known contributions by Philip Kotler and different coauthors (Kotler and Levy, 1969a, 1969b; Kotler and Zaltman, 1971), specifically
suggesting that marketing activities should not be restricted to relations between
organizations and clients, but they should also include any other relation with any other
organization and/or people either outside or inside the entity (suppliers, employees, etc.)
no matter if strictly consumers or not. The essence of marketing was thus identified in
transactions (exchange of values among two or more parts), and its activities were
understood as human actions which adequate definition requires of differentiation from
other categories as, for example, voting, loving, fighting, etc. (Kotler, 1972).
This broadening process implied the chance to apply marketing not only in business but
also in case of non-for-profit organizations; then in exchanges not involving monetary
counterpart; and finally, not only related to customers, consumers and users, but also
meaning a significant role on substantiating any kind of exchange aiming any possible
goals for individuals, organizations or entities. However, the consolidation of the new
approach supposed a hard discussion between supporters and detractors.
3.4.1. The supporters of broadening the marketing field
Simultaneously or subsequently to above contributions other academics supported the
broadening of marketing field in early 70s. Especially significant was the institutional
support provided by AMA, which in the previous decade started a division on public
policy and established committees focused on considering the possibility of applying
marketing techniques in concrete situations outside the profit field, as in case of cities
and minorities (Wilkie and Moore, 2003).
Individual supports can be found in contributions by Ferber (1970), Lavidge (1970),
Dawson (1971), Kelley (1971), Moyer (1972), Spence and Moinpour (1972), Sweeney
(1972), Shapiro (1973), Wills (1974), and Bagozzi (1974a, 1974b, 1975a, 1975b).
Specifically, Bagozzi (1974a) suggested the character of marketing as general function
of universal applicability and highlighted that even when marketing had been restricted
in past to exchanges based on transactions of tangible objects between two parts, the
moment was adequate for a broader perspective accordingly to the new determining
factors characterizing the “marketing man” (as opposite to the more restricted concept
of “economic man”), thus resulting into a broader concept of exchange as well as
settling basis for a non-profit marketing (Bagozzi, 1975b).
3.4.2. The detractors of broadening the marketing field
Some other academics were against the possibility of broadening the field for marketing
application (as Luck, 1969, 1974; Carman, 1973; Bartels, 1974; Tucker, 1974; Arndt,
1978a, 1978b; Laczniack and Michie, 1979).
These points of view were a minority, but clearly radical and categorical as well. As an
example, Luck (one of bitter enemies of the broadening tendency) referred to favourable
arguments as “seductive” and “imaginative”, but based on premises that could induce
confusion on the essential nature of marketing, then coming into a loss of identity and
blurring the limits of the discipline (1969). Summarily, his alternative approach
(essentially the same than in case of other detractors) consisted of four following points:
i) marketing should be circumscribed to business activities; ii) in case of accepting a
broadening concept, marketing would lose its identity; iii) focusing on commercial
transactions related to bulling-selling goods and services is hard work enough to
provide content for marketing discipline; and iv) aiming a broader field for marketing
application could be due to the feeling of guilt that in some cases derives from the
lucrative aim, just in case that obtaining it results socially non-beneficial.
3.4.3. Consolidation of the broader field for marketing application
As far as the discussion was evolving, all evidences pointed up to the success of the
supporters of broadening the field for marketing application as a mere question of time.
In mid 70s most marketing academics seemed positioned as favourable (Nickels, 1974).
The consolidation of the new approach got a definitive support when Hunt (1976)
systematized pre-existent contributions in his famous “Three Dichotomies Model”. His
contribution was so significant and has such a repercussion that another relevant author
–and detractor of the broadening movement–, Arndt (1981) referred to it as one of most
“provocative” and “influential” marketing articles ever written. Three were supposed to
be the main questions in the core nucleus of marketing definition: a) those phenomena,
problems and questions that should be included in the scope of marketing; b) those
other phenomena, problems and questions that should be excluded; and c) the way to
define marketing, aiming a concept covering all phenomena, problems and questions
that should be included and excluding all those that should be excluded.
Following this reasoning line, Hunt suggested that an adequate response should require
a new conceptual model on marketing content and scope. After defeating existing
alternatives (specifically the prevailing McCarthy’s model on four “Ps”), he made an
own proposal, stating that all marketing phenomena, issues and problems can be
covered by the three dichotomous categories of profit / non-for-profit sectors, micro /
macro levels, and positive / normative characters. According to the author, it is an
“inclusive”, “analytically useful”, “significantly pedagogic” and “conceptually robust”
model (Hunt, 1983). The dichotomy distinguishing between marketing application in
profit and non-profit sectors would be the most relevant one in order to ratify the
broadening of the field for marketing application (Vázquez and Placer, 2002).
As a result from these and similar contributions, the line in thought linking marketing to
society kept a significant development in 70s. Meanwhile significant changes on
paradigms were experienced, the broader application field was consolidated and the
central issue was located on exchange. Simultaneously, discussions on implications for
business management of Government activities (e.g. when defending free competition
or consumers' rights in markets) as well as on the possibility and legitimacy to carry on
marketing activities to achieve its own (public) interests turned into a real number of
articles encouraging controversy as pretty different opinions were shown. As an
example of the protracted literary activity in the period, Bartels (1988) highlighted the
fact that more than 20 specialized manuals focused on issues related to the public and/or
social dimension of marketing were published in USA between 1966 and 1974.
Nevertheless, the relevance of the stage related to 60s and 70s was not only due to the
huge amount of publications, but also to the fact that three great divisions or
“fragmentations” were operated in traditional approaches, thus giving consecutively
chance to different marketing branches as follows (Wilkie and Moore, 2003):
- First fragmentation: the emphasis on the behaviour of the marketing system originated
macromarketing.
- Second fragmentation: as a consequence of the broadening of the field for marketing
application social marketing appeared (focused on the work by not-for-profit
organizations and government agencies with a positive intervention in social causes).
- Third fragmentation: the interest on public issues gave rise to the study of public
policy area (an immediate antecedent of public marketing or public sector marketing).
3.5. Second transition (1981-1990)
In 80s a new transitional period in consideration of public and social dimensions of
marketing activities was experienced, similar to the previous one in 50s when the
consolidation of the scientific character of marketing focused authors’ interest much
more on “general” questions than on sector or specific issues –in some way, an apparent
paradox–. Now a similar situation was perceived, when the materialization of a plurality
of "generic" sub-areas of specialization turned public and social questions secondary.
These main sub-areas included issues related to (Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003): i) the
central or core nucleus of marketing knowledge; ii) consumer behaviour; iii) marketing
management; iv) marketing applications; and v) training activities in marketing.
Thus, public and social dimensions of marketing were classified as some more of
possible marketing “applications” and so were considered in the content of papers at the
time. However, their relative importance decreased if comparing to the significance of
global developments in the discipline. Wilkie and Moore (2003) referred to this stage as
the one that brought the most significant decline in the comparative importance of these
issues in the whole history (already almost a century) of marketing thought.
Nevertheless, and also in Wilkie and Moore’s opinion, the paradoxical character of this
period is stressed when taking in mind that, at that time, the “reduced sphere” of
“marketing and society” appeared to be flourishing, specifically due to the development
of a required infrastructure from basis settled in previous stage as well as to the personal
effort of a group of authors that devoted all their enthusiasm and energy3. Regarding the
scientific infrastructure, it is remarkable that a number of specialized journals started to
be published. Chronologically: the Journal of Macromarketing (1981); the Public
Money and Management (1981); the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (1982); the
Health Marketing Quarterly (1983); the Journal of Professional Services Marketing
(1982); and the International Journal of Public Sector Marketing (1988).
Some of individual efforts in the 80s were again by Kotler, either alone or as co-author,
in the line of argument previously initiated. One of these significant contributions was
the article by Fox and Kotler (1980) published in the Journal of Marketing and
synthesizing the advances occurred in social marketing during 70s. Manuals compiling
cases and lectures on non-profit marketing (e.g. the one by Kotler, Ferrell and Lamb in
3
Furthermore, this evidence has determined that authors as Moliner (1995) prefer considering the 80s not
as a transitional period, but a consolidation stage in case of social marketing, just opposite to a previous
period of confusion (at the 70s) and a subsequent one of sectorialization (at the 90s).
1980), focusing on strategies for higher education institutions (as Kotler and Fox, 1985)
or defining social marketing from a broad and generic perspective (Kotler and Roberto,
1989) were also published, thus establishing fundamentals for subsequent contributions.
As a rule, contents in these and similar references show a clear advance regarding the
triple fragmentation experienced in the previous stage, now applying for the existence
of a non-business marketing as a specialized field with own personality and consisting
of four sub-branches or sub-categories: non-profit marketing, public marketing, social
marketing, and political and election marketing.
These approaches were reflected when aiming a systemic taxonomy in the content of
main reference manuals or their updates, as well as in other publications during this
period or in immediate years (Vázquez and Placer, 2000). The same literature advanced
the risk of overlaps among categories, or even misunderstandings in contents, thus
suggesting the convenience of delimiting respective scopes (Martín, 1993).
Finally, and even when the agreement on considering a broader field for marketing
application was generalized at the time, some residual authors remained defending
postulates that were typical of previous years, as Morris (1982), who criticized the
scope of social marketing as considering it not as a rational extension of the discipline,
but an unknown and remote territory that could cause undetermined consequences. This
statement was justified arguing that consumer has not enough judgement criteria to
assess the real value of “social products”, just opposite to the situation regarding the
market of private goods and services, where prices are well known. In a similar sense,
some years later a real minority of authors, as Kurzbard and Soldow (1987) continued
supporting this kind of “anachronistic” –or even “reactionary”– restrictive approaches.
3.6. Expansion and specialization (since 1991)
Once last discrepant voices were silenced, the exit of supporters of considering a
broaden marketing concept and application field was accepted as categorical and
virtually non-debatable question since the very beginning of 90s up to the date, then
starting a period of expansion and specialization that continues today (Vázquez, 2004).
In this sense, the building of the required scientific infrastructure to develop new fields
of specialization has been progressively reinforced when some new specific
publications appeared, as (chronologically): the Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing (1993); the Social Marketing Quarterly (1995); the International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing (1996); and the International Review on
Public and Nonprofit Marketing (2004).
Simultaneously, an increasing number of universities, research centres and scientific
associations promote teaching programmes (as official studies or professional training)
and scientific meetings related to the public and social fields of marketing. Among the
multiplicity of events, we could refer, for example, to:
- The “Annual Marketing and Public Policy Conference” promoted by the American
Marketing Association and derived from the symposium that was held at the University
of Notre Dame in 1989. As a consequence of this event, some years later a research
group on Marketing and Society was established in AMA’s structure.
- The “International Colloquium on Nonprofit, Social and Arts Marketing”, an annual
meeting linked to the above mentioned International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing. The first edition was held in 2001.
- The “International Meeting in Public and Nonprofit Marketing”, an annual event
starting in 2002 and root cause of, firstly, the pioneer worldwide scientific association
specifically focused on the field –the International Association on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing–, and later the International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. In
2005 this event turned its name into “International Congress on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing”.
- The “Annual Conference for Nonprofit Marketers”, also starting in 2002 and promoted
by the American Marketing Association.
- The former “Australasian Nonprofit Marketing Conference”, starting in 2004 and renamed in 2007 as “International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference”.
- The bi-annual “Social Marketing Advances in Research and Theory Conference”
promoted by the Center for Socially Responsible Marketing at the University of
Lethbridge and also starting in 2004. In 2008 it joined other co-organizers in order to
promote a first experience on “World Social Marketing Conference”, achieving its
second edition this 2011 together with the promotion of an "UK Social Marketing
Conference".
In this same sense, and directly resulting from the development of this scientific
infrastructure, more and more papers are included in “general” marketing events and
articles in either ordinary or special issues in marketing publications not specifically
focused on non-business fields. And this is also the case when other publications or
events devoted to social or public sector issues specifically consider marketing topics or
tracks (one of most relevant being the inclusion of the new EGPA Permanent Study
Group on "Public and Nonprofit Marketing" this 33rd Conference in Bucharest).
A second direct consequence from the development of the scientific infrastructure as
well as the proliferation of research studies is an increasing tendency to specialization
and delimitation of new sub-branches or sub-categories related to public and/or social
dimensions of marketing discipline, some of them highly and/or increasingly reputed
and all attracting the interest of either academics or practitioners (see Figure 2).
In this sense, and extrapolating what Chías (1995) specifically stated for public
marketing, it is possible to hold up that the diversity of contents in the public and social
offers as well as the peculiarities of involved products are reasons enough to postulate
and justify a kind of marketing specifically devoted. Moreover, when searching for
justifying arguments it is also possible to relate to product classifications (an argument
also used in justifying other specific or sector marketing sub-disciplines, as services or
industrial marketing), and more specifically to service taxonomies, as they predominate
in the public and social offer. Thus, taking in mind the concrete categories of goods or
services, adaptive ways to design and put into practice strategies and marketing-mix
combinations could be considered, according to requisites and peculiarities of markets,
clients/citizens, etc. However, we should not forget on the risk of hyper-specialization.
Figure 2: Specialization of research fields related to public and social dimensions of
marketing
Source: Adapted from Vázquez (2004, p. 28).
4. Relevant changes in current definition of Marketing
Regarding the definition of marketing, and whatever particular approaches by different
authors, those definitions which were formally recognized by the American Marketing
Association have performed as a clear referent for academia. The first formal AMA
definition was settled in 1935 and was in force for 50 years, i.e. until 1985 when being
reconsidered. Then it was modified in 2004 and again in 2007. According to these two
last definitions, marketing was/is considered as:
- “an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and
delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that
benefit the organization and its stakeholders” (2004);
- “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” (2007).
If considered from a non-business view, some concrete changes should be highlighted
(Gundlach and Wilkie, 2009; Vázquez, Stepanova and Alves, 2011). To be precise, the
idea on “ideas, goods and services” from previous definition in 1985 was replaced by
"value creation" in 2004, an essential change in the approach to marketing and also a
clear reason for a better suit of marketing definition for organizations in the public and
nonprofit field.
However, voices in academia claimed glaring limitations in the 2004 definition, as
(Wilkie and Moore 2007): i) not showing an evident interest in appraising Marketing’s
impacts on the world; ii) failing at recognizing the competitive nature of the marketing
system; iii) failing at considering and address major societal and public policy issues;
iv) overlooking the marketing system’s interaction with clients; v) understating the
scope and importance of Marketing; and vi) supporting a suppressive effect on scholarly
inquiry in Marketing and Society.
These limitations seem to have been solved in the 2007 new proposal. Again from a
non-business view, it is remarkable not only the maintenance of the concept on “value
creation”, but also the clarification on market offerings not only benefit the organization
(as consequence of the exchange process, omitted in the 2007 definition) but
specifically (can) have value for “customers, clients, partners and society at large”.
Additionally, and according to Gundlach and Wilkie (2009) the 2007 definition relates
to “institutions” that help facilitate and govern activities (in a clear reference to
governmental and legislative institutions as well as to social norms and values). There is
an evident shift here from an organizational to a normative view, coming into a more
sociological perspective and then suggesting meaning to deal as much (or even more)
with changes in societal values (reflected in norms) as with changes in organizational
performance, a pretty different approach when analyzing and understanding the realities
and environment formation as well as expecting for the source of changes.
By adding “clients”, the 2007 definition also acknowledges that public and nonprofit
institutions engage in marketing (as such organizations do not consider themselves as
having “customers”, but “clients” –either “citizens” or “beneficiaries”–). In a similar
sense, by adding “marketers”, the new definition acknowledges that those organizations
and individuals doing marketing (either in the profit, public or social field) benefit from
the marketing offers (that are created, communicated, delivered and exchanged).
Finally, by adding “society at large”, the last definition incorporates the previous
concept of “stakeholders” from 2004, and acknowledges the aggregate nature of
marketing in a way that the practice and activity of marketing benefits society. In other
words, roles, impacts and responsibilities of marketing towards stakeholders and society
as a whole are specifically recognized in the new concept, thus settling the basis for a
proper consideration of Marketing as the “science on exchange”, no matter the concrete
business, public or social context (Vázquez, Stepanova and Alves, 2011).
5. Discussion and conclusions
Public sector marketing has and still is increasing its importance as specific research
field and has become a key component in either strategic planning or operative
performance of public organizations, not just to assess citizens’ attitudes, but to define
and meet them. Moreover, marketing in public organizations is also important to secure
financial and political support to public activities. According to Kelly (2005, p. 81), by
properly assembling the pieces, a public manager could: i) decide which aspects of
performance to focus and measure; ii) shape citizen preferences so that attaining these
performance goals constitutes success; and then iii) market the program’s success to an
external audience based on its record of citizen and customer satisfaction.
Different conclusions arise from literature review in previous pages. To be precise:
1. Public and social dimensions of trade exchanges have been more or less under
consideration at any moment in all marketing approaches and previously in the history
of economic thought, the only changes being experienced on consciousness and relative
intensity of this interest. This evolution has been especially intense in last sixty/seventy
years and the treatment received by public and social dimensions of marketing has
evolved in time similarly to the commercial science as a whole body of knowledge.
2. Periods could be established regarding this evolution and different paradigms could
be associated to any of stages (see Table 2). Thus, during the stage of precedents, the
prevalent paradigm could be associated to the notion on externality (public and social
issues considered as consequences outside trade exchanges); at early discussions the
new paradigm was characterized as related to subsidiarity (marketing application
restricted to profit activities and only punctual or secondarily considering public or
social issues); in the first transitional period the paradigm was on lack of importance
(research focus on central questions of marketing as a whole discipline, thus displacing
interest from sector or specific issues); at the time of consolidation the paradigm was
enlargement (due to the acceptance of the idea on broadening the application field of
marketing); in the second transitional period the paradigm was on non-business (public
and social dimensions of marketing being incorporated as non-business marketing
applications); and during the final stage of expansion and specialization the prevalent
paradigm seems to be related to plurality (there is an expansion of specialization subareas in the study of public and social dimensions of marketing).
3. As a result of the progressive expansion and specialization process, nowadays we can
talk on different sub-categories in the field with own characteristics and personality (as
shown in Figure 2). In case of public sector, we can talk on public sector marketing,
institutional marketing, political marketing or election marketing.
However (and taking also in mind Figure 2), it seems quite clear that lists of marketing
sub-branches are not based on a strict delimitation but overlaps are relatively frequent
and perceptible. In other words, we should question if when establishing all such
categories the real objective is not so much “exhausting” a classification with mutually
excluding taxonomies as introducing a proper terminology to identify and specifically
refer to marketing activities performed in concrete environments and/or situations.
4. In a similar sense, and as a result of the more and more increasing list of subcategories, some authors are warning on the risk of an excessive fragmentation or
hyper-specialization. This is the case of Chías (1995), or Wilkie and Moore (2003)
when alluding to the risk of an excessive focus of researchers’ efforts in developing
specific marketing methodologies and tools for any of multiple categories of marketing
–even when it could be very suggestive for them– as a “powerful” and perhaps
“irresistible” force, but dispersing the central body of knowledge of the discipline. In
their opinion, even when peculiarities of exchanges in which public sector is involved
are clear –and public sector marketing should take them in mind–. Really, in most
occasions it is no so necessary to achieve such hyper-specific developments as an
adequate application or adaptation of general fundamentals of marketing according to
the peculiarities at any situation and/or environment in particular.
5. At any case, the establishment and progressive consolidation of a significant and
specific scientific infrastructure (including journals, reviews and events –either specific
or including specific sections in generic publications or events–, scientific associations,
studies and researches, etc.) are reasons enough to predict a promising future for these
study fields. There is a real potential for researchers, due to the number of possible
questions for discussion or the number of developments and studies still to be done.
Table 2: Stages and key issues in the historical development of public and social
dimensions of Marketing
Stage
Paradigm
Key issues
 Importance of what is public and its role in Economy
Precedents
(until 1940)
Externality
 Public sector is expected to regulate and facilitate exchanges aiming social
benefit
 Prevalence of “traditional” approaches favourable to restrict marketing to
profit and business field
Early discussions
(1941-1950)
 Public and social dimensions of marketing are considered as part of public
and social policies
Subsidiarity
 Public and social aspects are pushed into the background
 Pioneer supporters of broadening the application field
First transition
(1951-1960)
Consolidation
(1961-1980)
Lack of
importance
Enlargement
 Consolidation of the core nucleus of marketing knowledge
 The importance of sectorial or specific questions decreases in relative terms
 Discussion between supporters and detractors of broadening the application
field of marketing, progressively favourable to supporters
 Three main divisions or fragmentations in traditional approaches:
macromarketing, social marketing and public marketing appear
 A general specialization in marketing study as a whole discipline
 Relative importance of public and non-profit issues decreases
Second transition
(1981-1990)
Non-business
 The existence of a “non-business” marketing is accepted, consisting of
social, non-profit, public and political and election marketing categories
 Initial setting-up of a specialized scientific infrastructure: former
specialized journals and increasing in number of significant contributions
Expansion and
specialization
(since 1991)
Plurality
 Consolidation of the specialized scientific infrastructure: specialized
journals, meetings and specific events increasing; proliferation of
significant contributions, establishment of specialized associations
 Expansion and specialization in public and non-profit research fields
Source: Adapted from Vázquez (2004, p. 29) and Vázquez, Stepanova and Alves (2011, p. 4).
Bibliographical references:
Alderson, W. and Cox, R., ‘Towards a formal theory of Marketing’, 1948, Journal of
Marketing, 13 (4), pp. 137-152.
Arndt, J., ‘How broad should the Marketing concept be?’, 1978a, Journal of Marketing,
42 (1), pp. 101-103.
Arndt, J., ‘The proper scope and content of Marketing’, 1978b , Management Decision,
16 (6), pp. 306-320.
Arndt, J., ‘The conceptual domain of Marketing: an evaluation of Shelby Hunt’s Three
Dichotomies Model’, 1981, European Journal of Marketing, 16 (Fall), pp. 27-35.
Bagozzi, R. P., ‘Marketing as organized behavioural system of exchange’, 1974a,
Journal of Marketing, 38 (4), pp. 77-81.
Bagozzi, R. P., ‘What is a marketing relationship?’, 1974b, Direct Marketing, 51, pp.
64-69.
Bagozzi, R. P., ‘Marketing as a exchange’, 1975a, Journal of Marketing, 39 (4), pp. 3239.
Bagozzi, R. P., ‘Social exchange in Marketing’, 1975b, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 3 (Fall), pp. 314-327.
Bartels, R., ‘The identity crisis in Marketing’, 1974, Journal of Marketing, 38 (4), pp.
73-76.
Bartels, R., The History of Marketing Thought, 3rd ed., Columbus: Publishing Horizons,
1988.
Baumgartner, H. and Pieters, R., ‘The structural influence of Marketing journals: a
citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time’, 2003, Journal of
Marketing, 67 (2), pp. 123-139.
Carman, J. M., ‘On the identity of Marketing’, 1973, Contemporary Business, 2 (Fall),
pp. 1-16.
Cherington, P. T., The Elements of Marketing, New York: MacMillan, 1920.
Chías, J., Marketing Público. Por un Gobierno y una Administración al Servicio del
Público, Madrid: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Converse, P. D., ‘The development of the science of Marketing: an exploratory survey’,
1945, Journal of Marketing, 10 (3), pp. 14-23.
Dawson, L. M., ‘Marketing science in the Age of Aquarius’, 1971, Journal of
Marketing, 35 (3), pp. 66-72.
Ferber, R., ‘The explaining role of Marketing in the 1970’, 1970, Journal of Marketing,
43 (1), pp. 29-30.
Fox, K. F. A. and Kotler, P., ‘The marketing of social causes: The first 10 years’, 1980,
Journal of Marketing, 44 (4), pp. 24-33.
Friedman, H. H., ‘Ancient marketing practices: the view from Talmudic times’, 1984,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 3 (2), pp. 194-204.
Gundlach, G. T. and Wilkie, W. L., ‘The American Marketing Association’s new
definition on Marketing: perspective and commentary on the 2007 revision’. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 2009, 28(2): pp. 259-264.
Hunt, S. D., ‘The nature and scope of Marketing’, 1976, Journal of Marketing, 40 (3),
pp. 17-28.
Hunt, S. D., ‘General theories and the fundamental explananda of Marketing’, 1983,
Journal of Marketing, 47 (4), pp. 9-17.
Kaufman, C. J., ‘The evaluation of Marketing in a society: the Han Dynasty of Ancient
China’, 1987, Journal of Macromarketing, 7 (2), pp. 52-64.
Kelley, E. J., ‘Marketing’s changing social environmental role’, 1971, Journal of
Marketing, 35 (3), pp. 1-2.
Kelly, J. M., ‘The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of Public
Administration’, 2005, Public Administration Review, 65 (1): pp. 76-84.
Kerin, R. A., ‘In pursuit of an ideal: the editorial and literary history of the Journal of
Marketing’, 1996, Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), pp. 1-13.
Kotler, P., ‘A generic concept of Marketing’, 1972, Journal of Marketing, 36 (2), pp.
46-54.
Kotler, P., Ferrell, O. C. and Lamb, C.. W. Jr. (eds.), Cases and Readings for Marketing
for Nonprofit Organizations, Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K. F. A., Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions,
Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S., ‘Broadening the concept of Marketing’, 1969a, Journal of
Marketing, 33 (1), pp. 10-15.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S., ‘A new form of marketing myopia: rejoinder to Professor
Luck’, 1969b, Journal of Marketing, 33 (3), pp. 55-57.
Kotler, P. and Roberto, E. L., Social Marketing Strategies for Changing Public
Behaviour. New York: The Free Press, 1989.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G., ‘Social marketing: an approach to planned social change’,
1971, Journal of Marketing, 35 (3), pp. 3-12.
Kurzbard, G. and Soldow, G. F., ‘Towards a parametric definition of Marketing’, 1987,
European Journal of Marketing, 21 (1), pp. 37-47.
Laczniak, G. R. and Michie, D. A., ‘The social disorder of the broadened concept of
Marketing’, 1979, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7 (Summer), pp. 214231.
Lavidge, R. J., ‘The growing responsibilities of Marketing’, 1970, Journal of Marketing,
34 (1), pp. 24-28.
Levitt, T., ‘Marketing myopia’, 1960, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 4556.
Luck, D. J., ‘Broadening the concept of Marketing too far’, 1969, Journal of Marketing,
33 (3), pp. 53-55.
Luck, D. J., ‘Social marketing: confusion compounded’, 1974, Journal of Marketing, 38
(4), pp. 70-72.
Marion, G., ‘Contre le provincialisme du Marketing traditional’, 1988, Revue Française
de Gestion, 68, pp. 119-121.
Martín, E., Marketing, Barcelona: Ariel, 1993.
Moliner, M. A., ‘La evolución del marketing social’, in Guarnizo, J. V. (ed.), IX
Congreso Nacional y V Congreso Hispano-Francés de AEDEM, Albacete: AEDEM,
1995, pp. 2275-2283.
Morris, M. H., ‘The problem of economic valuation in social marketing’, in Walker, B.
et al. (eds.), An Assessment of Marketing Thought & Practice, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 1982, pp. 350-354.
Moyer, R., Macro-Marketing: A Social Perspective, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1972.
Nickels, W. G., ‘Conceptual conflicts in Marketing’, 1974, Journal of Economics and
Business, 27 (Winter), pp. 140-143.
Shapiro, B. P., ‘Marketing for nonprofit organizations’, 1973, Harvard Business
Review, 51 (September-October), pp. 123-132.
Sheth, J. N. and Gardner, D. M., ‘History of Marketing thought: an update’, in Bush, R.
F. and Hunt, S. D. (eds.), Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives,
Chicago: American Marketing Association (Proceeding Series), 1982, pp. 52-58.
Sheth, J. N. and Garrett, D. E. (eds.), Marketing Theory. Classic and Contemporary
Readings, 1986, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co.
Spence, H. E. and Moinpour, R., ‘Fear appeals in Marketing: a social perspective’,
1972, Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), pp. 39-43.
Stern, B. B., ‘Medieval allegory: roots of advertising strategy for the mass marketing’,
1988, Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), pp. 84-94.
Sweeney, D. J., ‘Marketing: management technology or social process?’, 1972, Journal
of Marketing, 36 (4), pp. 3-10.
Tucker, W. T., ‘Future directions in Marketing theory’, 1974, Journal of Marketing, 38
(2), pp. 30-35.
Vázquez, J. L., ‘Pasado, presente y futuro de las dimensiones pública y social en el
desarrollo conceptual del Marketing’, 2004, Revista Internacional de Marketing Público
y No Lucrativo, 1 (1), pp. 9-34.
Vázquez, J. L., ‘Reporting on past, present and future of marketing’s public and social
frontiers: a time for sustainability’, in Leko-Šimić, M. (ed.), Marketing i Održivi
Razvitak (Marketing and Sustainable Development), University J.J. Strossmayer Osijek
- Faculty of Economics Osijek: Osijek (Croatia), 2010, pp. 34-54.
Vázquez, J. L. and Placer, J. L., Cinco Temas de Introducción al Marketing Público.
León: J.L. Vázquez and J.L. Placer (eds.), 2000.
Vázquez, J. L. and Placer, J. L., ‘Delimitación desde un punto de vista conceptual del
marketing público, el marketing no lucrativo y otras ramas del Marketing directamente
relacionadas’, in Vázquez, J. L. Placer, J.L. (eds.), I Jornadas Internacionales de
Marketing Público y No Lucrativo, León: Universidad de León, 2002, pp. 19-44.
Vázquez, J. L., Stepanova, A., Alves, H.: ‘Stages in the historical evolution and the
concept of public sector marketing. Reflections on developments’, in Pereira, I. (ed.)
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the International Association on
Public and Nonprofit Marketing (IAPNM 2011). The Role of Public and Nonprofit
Marketing on the New Sustainable Development Model, Oporto: Instituto Superior de
Contabilidade e Administração do Porto, 2011, pp. 1-12.
Wilkie, W. L. and Moore, E. S., ‘Marketing’s contributions to society’, 1999, Journal of
Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), pp. 198-218.
Wilkie, W. L. and Moore, E. S., ‘Scholarly research in Marketing: exploring the ‘4 eras’
of thought development’, 2003, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22 (2), pp. 116146.
Wilkie, W. L. and Moore, E. S., ‘What does the definition of Marketing tell us about
ourselves?’, 2007, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 26 (2): pp. 269-276.
Wilkie, W. L. and Moore, E. S., ‘Advancing the study of Marketing’s impacts on
society: JPP&M as a keystone of the academic infrastructure’, 2011, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, forthcoming. Available via American Marketing Association
website [http://www.marketingpower.com/]. Accessed 22 Feb 2011
Wills, G., ‘Marketing’s social dilemma’, 1974, European Journal of Marketing, 8 (1),
pp. 4-14.