rrls Marketing a Science?'' Revisited WELDON J, TAYLOR The term "marli:eting con­ cept" probably stimulates more interest today than "marketing principles." Does this less definitive approach impair the hopes of those who aspire to have marketing accepted as a sci­ ence? Or ls it conceivable that the term "science" itself should be viewed i n a new perspective? This article favors the lat­ ter thesis. And this view should encourage ma rketin9 men to employ more scien­ tific resources in quest of more eff ective marketing management. Je•"'•l o/ M•l'l11ti•1. Vol. ft (July, J966l , pp, •Ml. 'f HE SCIENCE of the postmodern world will put the "ls Mar­ ketin g ft Scicnco 7" debate in a new perspective. The change should relleve son1e of the tension of the "sch i zophrenia" resulting Crom the two oppo$ing views. Tomorro\v'g science will maximize the advantage or the market­ ing concept as an approach tc the study of marketing. It will forsake Cor the moment the hope that the univee ean be described intc predictable pattern.s. It will embrace the reality or a dynamk world which can be explained in term• of science only provisionally. H istory of ''Is MarketillJ( a Science?" J n 1948 Lyndon 0. Rro1"11, in support of the emphasis g-iven for many years by the American Marketing Association, published an article enti tled 'Toward a Profession of Mark cting."1 He made no cl aims for marketing as a science; but he urged tl1e accu mulat ion of a body of knowledge, the development of an analytical nppronch, and the sharpe11ing of research as a bnsic Looi for management. Nonetheless, his paper I gnited the embers of the "Is Marketing n Science 7" debate.' PrC)bably the best report on the contemporary score is by Robert D. Buizell.' However . in measur ing the achievements in marketing against the standards of a science, he fi nd• much Lo be desired. One or the contributions in Buiieli's article is a succinct and accurate phrasing of the standards of a &eience :4 a clauifted and systematized body or knowledre. organized around one or more central theories and a num­ ber or general principles. usually ex·pressed in quantitative terms, knowledge which permits the prediction and, under some circu mstances, the control of future events. 1 Lyndon O. Brown, 11Toward a Pr-ofession of M11.rketing,'' JO•IR.NA.L OF MARK 8TI NC , Vol. l:l (J11ly, 1948) , pp. 27-31. 2 A rti cl es which appeared as a chain reaction to Brown's "'ore \\1roe Aldcreon and RA.lu\'ifl Cox. "TO\\•ards a Theory of Mo rketlng,"IOUR1''AL ( October, 1948) , pp. 137-151 : Ro1and S. Vaile, OF l\f ARh':l'!Tr NG, \'ol. 13 "Towords a 'l'heory of Afarketing-a Comment.'' JOURNj\ L Of' MARKP.T­ INO, Vol. 13 ( A pril. 1949) . pp. 520-522 : Neal E. Miller, "Social Sci­ ence and the Art ot Advertising;• JOURNAL OP MARKL'TING, Vol . 1 4 (Janua.ry, 1950) , pp. 579-584 ; Robert T. Bartels, ••can l\.1nrketlng Be a Sclente!'' JOUR!llAL or a.IARKJ?TJN C, Vol. l5 (Janu•r)-. 1951) , pp. 31 328; Kenneth 0. Hutchinson , · 1arkt>ting A.1 a Science: An Apprats.al." JOURNAL OF MARX'P.T1XC, \;ol. 16 (Jaouar)". 1 952), pp. 2.86-293; S. F. 01..teson. editor, !llor/uting : CHn Nt ProblertU ol!UI TUori• ( l:llCIOmlngton: Unive.nity of Indiana, 1952), pp. 11-18. a Robt.rL 0. Bu&ull, "Is Ptif arketing a Science!" l/o;-vard Butt.ea• Rr­ icN7, Vol. 41 (January-February, 1963), pp, 32-3(i , 36, 40, 166, 168, and 170. "Same rclel'f!nce a& footnote 3, at 'P·32. 49