* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download EGPA_2011_PSG_XVI_Vazquez_Alves_Cervera[1]
Market segmentation wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Internal communications wikipedia , lookup
Social commerce wikipedia , lookup
Sales process engineering wikipedia , lookup
Social media and television wikipedia , lookup
Bayesian inference in marketing wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Social media marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Affiliate marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Sports marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Marketing strategy wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Ambush marketing wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Sensory branding wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Viral marketing wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
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.